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
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
with wicked men by his Providence but concurs with them as if they were Natural not as they are Moral Agents by sustaining and enabling their Natural Faculties to produce their Effects he never inclines their Minds nor influences their Wills to Evil but oftentimes over-rules their first Intentions and diverts their Will already determined and resolved upon Mischiefs to certain Objects that the Evil may most tend to his Glory and the good of Mankind in the Punishment of Sinners or in the Exercise of the Patience and other Vertues of Good Men. As to the distinction of Events P. 12. That some God only permits and some he orders and appoints it is grounded upon this That he orders and appoints all that are good and just and permits the contrary But then this appointment is known to us not by God's Providence but by his Law For Providence appoints us to do nothing but only concurs with Men and assists them in the performance of what God's Laws appoint or command The most that can be said is That Providence may sometimes be an Indication to us of God's Will and Command but that can be only in Events that are miraculous and supernatural when there is nothing repugnant in them to his Will already known and declared For even Miracles wrought to carry on wicked Designs are to be looked upon as false and the Impostures and Delusions only of the Devil 2. Of that particular Providence which watches over Kingdoms and orders the Government of them and the difference of it from that Providence which guides and influences private Affairs I have said enough already and have shewn That God with his own Hand immediately directs the Motions of the great Wheels of Providence but permits none to move as they please themselves For I take it to be a very wrong Notion of the Permission of God's Providence that he leaves things to move as they please themselves No he rules and restrains and limits what he only permits and puts a check and stop to it when he pleases And by God's more immediate direction I understand not that God ever acts at a distance or leaves any thing in the world to it self but that he sometimes acts in a way to us more visible and remarkable though the steddy and unobserved Influence of Providence has as much of God's immediate Prefence in it as have the most extraordinary and miraculous Events The other Propositions are but Consequences of these Three and therefore need not to be particularly examined and if these Three only were but well proved and not laid down as if they were so very plain to his purpose as to carry their own Evidence with them P. 16. I should readily agree to all the rest and indeed to the whole Book as far as it concerns this matter except some few Particulars less material to the merits of the Cause But I despair of seeing these Propositions so effectually proved as to induce me to think that by what way soever that can be thought of P. 13. a Prince is advanced to the Throne he is as truly placed in it by God as if he had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were Or that it is impossible there should be a wrong King P. 14. unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. I believe the Self-Evidence of these Propositions can work in few men so much assurance as this amounts to The Fundamental Mistake is That the Doctor confounds the Exercise of Power or Authority with the Right of it and supposes that every one who has the Administration of Power has a Right to the Administration of it which are plainly Two very different things For the Administration or Exercise of Power is a Natural Act and may be without that Moral Qualification which is implied in the Right of Power or Authority Thus in his first Proposition That all Civil Power and Authority is from God If he mean the Exercise of all Civil Power I deny it because it may be exercised by him who ought not to exercise it If he mean the Right to exercise Civil Power and Authority the Proposition is true but nothing to the purpose So that either his Proposition supposes the thing in Dispute and is false or if it be true it is to no purpose And the same Mistake runs through the rest of these Propositions For if by Civil Power and Authority he understand only the Exercise and Administration of it he supposes that which ought to be proved if he understand the Right it self though these Propositions were true yet still they would prove nothing But the Doctor makes an Objection to himself P. 15. which has great weight in it If this be so that no Obedience is due to the Rightful King when another is settled in the Throne what does a Legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects He answers It bars all other Humane Claims No other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right and Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince as far as they can That is against all Mankind but not against God's disposal of Crowns and therefore when God transfers the Kingdom he transfers our Allegiance which is due and annexed to his Authority whether this Authority be conveyed by a Legal Succession or by any other means But notwithstanding all this the Legal Right can signifie nothing unless it be in that Interval of Time between the Dispossession of one Prince and the Settlement of another For if the Legal Possessor be in the Throne his Legal Title can be of no advantage to him because his Divine Authority would secure him while he is in Possession as well without it and when an Usurper is once settled it can then no longer be of any account to him for though it be good against all Mankind yet not against God in his disposal of Crowns but when God has given away his Kingdom to another the Rightful King must submit unless he may plead his Humane Claim against God's Donation Before a Settlement indeed he that has the Legal Right has the Odds on his side But Men are so partial in their Judgments in all things wherein their own Interest is so nearly concerned that every one who were exposed to any great Danger from the Usurper would easily perswade himself that he might become his Subject and that the Legal King had no longer any Right to his Allegiance the Usurper being in his Opinion settled enough to become invested with God's Authority So that a Legal Title would upon these Grounds be little more than an empty Word or Notion and would either be of no use at all or of little benefit when there should be most need of it I shall not much trouble my self about the several Degrees of Settlement P. 17. and of the Proportionable Submission which they
the Terms of it And he may invest the King with his own Authority and make him as irresistible as if he had himself nominated him and not conferred upon him his Authority by any intervention of Subordinate Means I need not mention that in Ordination and in the Sacraments and in all the Dispensations of God's Grace and Authority under the Gospel Human Acts intervene from whence it is obvious to conclude That since in things of the highest and most Spiritual Nature God requires Human Acts and does by them confer his Grace and Power the irresistible Authority of Kings can be never the more doubtful or questionable because the People's Consent and Submission is ordinarily required to the conveiance of it in the first Erections of Kingdoms for God acts as powerfully and effectually by the Ministeries of Men as by an immediate Command or Designation 2. The Absurdities then which he would prove to arise from the asserting a Necessity of a Legal Right in them who are now invested with God's Authority are all upon a false Supposition 1. He argues If the Authority be wholly derived from the People who shall binder them from the taking it away when they see fit Vpon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can only choose for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had And what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years ago to choose a King for me These are the Absurdities he would bring all Men to who are not of his Opinion And upon the same wrong Supposition would afterwards prove that Passive Obedience is altogether inconsistent with any but his present Principles though he has effectually proved it upon other Principles in his Case of Resistance And if he will now suppose that by his former Principles nothing more can go to the making of a King whether he comes in by Conquest or Usurpation upon Defect of a better Claim by any other or by Compact or an Hereditary Right than the bare Choice and Consent of the People this is a little too much to be granted and yet if this be denyed all his Inferences fall of themselves to the Ground The thing to be proved is That Kings have not their Authority from God unless they be set up only by the Divine Providence without any respect to Human Law and Right which can never be proved unless it be shewn That God cannot or will not set up Kings in a way consistent with the Laws of Kingdoms and with the Consent and voluntary Submission of Subjects The Bond of Matrimony is never the sooner dissolved because Marriages are not made in Heaven as they say but Men and Women are at their Liberty and have a Power of choosing whether they will marry this or that Person or will not marry at all God may appoint the Persons and prevent or over-rule the Consent of the Parties and he has sometimes done it Gen. 24. He can appoint Kings and set aside the ordinary Forms and Laws of Government but this doth not prove That he will always do it nor that we are ever to expect it now much less may we conclude That he cannot or will not concur with Human Acts intervening and give them his own Sanction God certainly can and ordinarily does convey Power and Authority as effectually by concurring with Men and ratifying what they do as if he did it immediately himself unless we will say That God does nothing but Miracles and that subordinate Causes do every thing else without him But to use the Doctor 's own Words God not only places a single Person in the Throne P. 14. but entails it on his Family by Human Laws and makes the Throne a Legal Inheritance And after all the only difference between the Doctor and his Adversaries is That he says God's Providence makes Kings by Conquest or by Submission and long successive Continuance of Power or by Human Laws or against Human Laws because if Providence did not make Kings he could not prove that it unmakes them But those of the contrary Opinion deny neither the absolute Power of God nor the Effects of his Providence in setting up and putting down Kings but they suppose that unless it be when God declares that it is his Will to act by an Absolute Power without any regard to the Laws of Men he does not raise up and depose Kings in a way that is contrary to the Constitution of their Kingdoms so as to absolve Subjects from the Allegiance which the Laws of their Country require but so orders and disposes things that Kings shall as long remain invested with his Authority as they have a Legal Right 2. The Notion of a Legal Right he says P. 25. must ultimately resolve it self into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter For a legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People and if the People have such an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings be doubts they will challeng as much Authority to unmake them too That is as we were told before no Man is bound by his Ancestors Act and every Man too may undo what he has done himself when he thinks fit It has been already shewn that tho' the Prerogatives of Kings and the Constitutions of Kingdoms may be contrived and agreed upon by Men yet God gives Kings a Right to govern according to them and supreme and irresistible Authority to enable and secure them in the Administration of their Kingdoms P. 14. and entails the Thrones on their Families by Human Laws And though God may over-rule and alter the Rights of Princes yet his Providence is no sufficient Evidence that he intends to do it If we once knew it were his Will all Human Laws must forthwith give Place to it but since his Providence is not a Declaration of his Will in this Matter we must keep to the Observation of Human Laws and of our Oaths grounded upon them But to suppose the most and the worst that can be said If the People did set up Kings by Consent and Compact this is no Argument that they may depose them For a People who consent to the setting a King over them must consent to set one over them with Supreme Authority and the Supreme Authority is that which hath no Superiour and therefore cannot be resisted For if the Supreme Authority may be resisted then to be sure all Inferiour Authority may be resisted too and so all Government must be dissolved for want of any sufficient Authority to manage it It follows then That there must be a Supreme Authority somewhere in all Governments and in a Kingdom this Supreme Authority must be in the King and a People who upon this Supposition should make a King must choose one in whom they place the Supreme Authority that is who is irresistible at least unless they reserve
worst King can be But the present Doctrin which the Doctor maintains brings Mischiefs upon both King and People which the contrary to it would prevent and so is worse than that in its Effects and Consequences There is no Doctrin that can secure Kingdoms from all Dangers and Calamities but Passive Obedience is as effectual to that end as the State of Human Affairs will admit and the Divine Providence takes care of all extraordinary Cases And when it is proved that a Doctrin is delivered in the Scriptures and has been taught by the Catholick Church from the Apostles Times and is the best and most beneficial to Societies that can be taught no good Man will dispute the Truth of it though great Inconveniences may sometimes happen which neither that nor any other Doctrin can prevent But if the Doctrin of Passive Obedience should expose Subjects to never so many and great Inconveniences the Doctor 's Notion must expose Men to the same and much greater For Passive Obedience teaches only That Kings may not be resisted by their Subjects But the Doctor goes further and must say That if Kings can once get fully possessed of the Properties of their Subjects and throughly setled in their Encroachments upon their Rights and Liberties they have from thenceforth a Divine Right to them and their Authority over their Subjects is increased and extended with their Power and Usurpations for all is the Gift of God by his Providence after a through Settlement Again he objects P. 34. But have not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown which he seizes by a manifest Force and Violence Does not the Providence of God order and dispose all these Events And are we not bound then as much to submit to Pyrates as to Vsurpers To which he answers That the dispute is not about Human and Legal Right in either Case but about Authority But neither is the Objection concerning Human and Legal Right but Divine Right for the Conveyance of Authority by God's Providence supposes a Right to enjoy and exercise it and that Objection is That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Right to their Booty as an Usurper's Right and Title can be to his Crown and that the Divine Providence may as well be said to dispose of the Properties of Subjects as of the authority of Kings For though an Indictment may be brought against Robbers in Human Courts yet by being in full Possession they may by the same Reason be said to have a Divine Right to the Goods they have taken and that they are not obliged in Conscience to make Restitution by which Usurpers are said to have a Divine Right and Authority from God to Rule the Dominions in which they have unjustly setled themselves And this I think I have already proved or if I had not the Doctor himself has granted it Has he forgot that he told us before P. 12. That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of any Events but makes him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or Publick Societies What then can his Distinction between Human and Legal Right and Authority signifie I cannot but think notwithstanding this Distinction that a Purse may rather be transferred by Providence than a Kingdom for a Purse may be lost and found as a Kingdom can hardly be Yet if a Man should find a Purse of Gold I suppose it would be no Excuse for him to say that Providence had given it him if he should refuse to restore it to the right owner though in this Case he came by it without any Fault of his without any Expectation or Fore-sight it was his good Luck or Fortune or in other Words it was the pure Act of Providence and if Providence dispose of any Rights it must be in such Cases where only Providence without any Human Act or Endeavour takes away from one and gives to another But if the Right to a thing can remain after it is lost it must surely remain after a Man is by Fraud or Violence deprived of it unless it be not the Possession but the Sin in acquiring it which transfers the Right That which he observes of Athaliah that she was not killed nor deposed before Joash was proclaimed King and placed in the Throne is only a Circumstance of Time not at all material I shall not enquire Whether Joash had the whole Power of the Kingdom in his Hands or whether he could on the sudden be throughly setled in his Government when Athaliah yet appeared as Queen and cryed out Treason not apprehending herself totally divested of all Power as the Argument supposes But if it be lawful to dispossess an Usurper it must be lawful to pay Allegiance to the Rightful Prince before the Dispossession of the Usurper for it is lawful to dispossess the Usurper for the sake of the Rightful King and the very Act of Dispossession is the most considerable Act of Allegiance And for this Reason the Doctor maintains That in all other Kingdoms it is unlawful for the Subjects who live under the Usurper to dispossess him in behalf of the Rightful King because there is no Allegiance due to him till he gets into Possession But in the Case of Joash he acknowledges it was otherwise and the Convocation justifie the whole Process of that Action So that by the Doctor 's own Principles in that Peculiar Case where God himself had entailed the Kingdom they might as well have deposed and slain her first and then have set up Joash if it had been as convenient and easie to be done But when the Right Heir had been six Years concealed it could not be Safe for them to depose the Usurper till be had been proclaimed and shewn to the People to give them full Satisfaction that he was yet alive and this way was taken as the most Safe and Easie not that it was upon any other Account of the least Consequence which was done first What he says besides in answer to this Objection and of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah has been spoken to already There is nothing till we come to his Sixth Argument which has not been considered in answer to the foregoing Parts of his Discourse For if God does not confer Sovereign Authority upon Usurpers if he does not remove Kings and set up Kings against Human Laws if he limits his own Providence so as not to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance during their Rightful King's Life then it is in vain to say That those who refuse to comply p. 37. must renounce the only Principle whereon Passive Obedience is reasonably grounded and consequently renounce the Doctrin it self That those are bold Men who will venture to say in plain Contradiction to Scripture That God cannot remove or set up Kings and that this limits the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Innocent and Injured
not necessary to the constituting one of the Providential Kings Ib. P. 17. Afterwards the Doctor supposes that though the generality of the Nation submit to such a Prince and place him on the Throne and put the whole Power of the Kingdome into his hands yet it may be we cannot yet think the Providence of God has settled him in the Throne while the dispossessed Prince has also such a formidable Power as makes the event very doubtful But in the same Page he says he is indeed King while he administers the legal Right Power though we may not think him so well settled in his Government as to all intents and purposes to own him for our King So that Submission may make a King even before a Thorough Settlement though not perhaps to all intents and purposes Again I cannot see when to fix the foundation of Government Ib. P. 24. but in the Providence of God who either by the Choice of the major or stronger part of the People or by Conquest or by Submission and the long successive continuance of Power or by humane Laws gives a Prince and his Family Possession of the Throne c. In this place he joyns Submission and Continuance of Government together but makes Conquest as well as any of the rest to be alone sufficient and the Providence of God makes Kings by the choice of the stronger though they be not the major part of the People In the next Page Ib. P. 25. if the sole Authority of Government be from God and God gives this Authority only by placing a Prince in the Throne then by whatsoever means he does it is the same thing and therefore if he does it without the Submission or Consent of the People In the case of Antiochus Epiphanes the Doctor determines Ib. P. 48. that a long Continuance is required to settle a Government when there is no National Submission P. 51. And when there is nothing but mere Force it may admit some Dispute when the Government is settled By this it seems that though it may perhaps admit of some dispute whether Cromwels Government was settled or no yet a Government may sometimes be settled by mere Force and Continuance may be sufficient without a National Consent But in the Vindication the general Submission of the People is necessary to a thorough Settlement of such new Governments Vind. P. 32. Ib. P. 22. and the principal part of it is this viz. when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Ib. P. 67. though once more either Submission or Continuance will suffice But it must not be omitted that the Doctor now says that the Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was originally no more but Force into a Civil and Legal Authority Ib. P. 16. by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince this if Submission be necessary to a thorough Settlement takes away the subject of the question which is whether a thorough Settlement without any Civil or Legal Authority be of it self sufficient to entitle an Usurper to the Allegiance of the Subjects by virtue of Gods Authority notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which the dispossessed Prince can challenge to his Country Kingdome or Empire And besides this raises a new and a very nice dispute Whether the legal Kings civil and legal Right or the Usurpers civil and legal Authority make the better Claim and ought to have the preference 4. A National Submission and Consent is not necessary to a thorough Settlement by the Doctor 's Principles By his Principles the thorough Settlement is made by God himself and the People are not necessarily supposed to have any thing to do in it but only are obliged in conscience to submit when it is once brought about by the Divine Providence For if God be the Author of all events if all Kings be equally rightful with respect to God by whatsoever way that can be thought of they are advanced to the Throne and settled in it then a National Submission and Consent cannot be necessary to a thorough Settlement because a Prince may by Foreign Force or by an Army of his own Subjects attain to a thorough Settlement against the Consent of the People and without any but a forced Submission at most and this the Doctor will not allow to be sufficient For he cannot deny but that in the late times Men who were forced Case P. 47. submitted by Force and his only exception is that the Nation did not by any National Act own those Usurpations And this is all that what he has now added in his Vindication can amount to So that Cromwell was throughly that is fully settled because the whole Nation was forced to submit to him and could never rescue themselves from that Force till his Death he was not settled by any National Submission and Consent but he was settled by a forced Submission which is one way whereby a thorough Settlement may be attained and a National Act of Submission and Consent is another but by whatever way the thorough Settlement be obtained God must certainly be the Author of it if he be the Author of all Events and whatever kind of thorough Settlement Cromwell had 't is certain he had the Supream Power fully in his own hands and therefore by the Doctors Principles could not fail of having Gods Authority Case P. 15. For since Power will govern God so orders it by his Providence as never to entrust Sovereign Power in any mans hand to whom he does not give the Sovereign Authority Power does not give Right and Authority to govern but is a certain sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power be has given the Authority Now no man can say that God never places and settles Power without the Peoples Submission and Consent or that Cromwells Power was not settled for five years together as much as it could be without a National Consent and consequently he must have had Gods Authority by the Doctors Principles though the Nation did not by any National Act ever own him And it is the same thing as to the extent of Power for God cannot be confined to give just such a Measure of Power as shall suit with the Model of this or that particular Government Who will say that God cannot turn a Civil into a Despotick Government or can deny by the Doctors Principles that he has constituted him an Arbitrary Monarch whom he has entrusted with Arbitrary Power The Question is not whether God cannot make Kings by his Providence who yet may be limited in the Administration of their Government by humane Laws But whether God does not invest them with an unlimited Sovereign Authority who can by any means attain to a settled Possession of it or even but to the Exercise of it For I shall shew that by the Doctors Principles the Exercise of Power is sufficient without
and that if this distinction between Usurpers and Rightful Kings be unknown to Scripture yet if it be not unknown to Reason that is sufficient to interpret this Text of St. Paul to be meant only of lawful Powers for the Scriptures always suppose and require that Men should bring their Reason along with them when they read and explain them or else they will make no more difference between Kings authorised by God and those not authorised by him than between Legal Kings and Illegal 4. But I cannot think that the distinction between Rightful Kings and Kings by Usurpation is unknown to Scripture but rather that St. Peter has expresly declared that it is to Rightful Kings obedience is due when he says submit your selves to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as supreme 1 Pet. 2.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He commands them to submit themselves to every humane Ordinance or Constitution of Government under which they lived Or as the Convocation quote this Text according to the old Translation to submit themselves unto all manner of ordinance of Man Pag. 144. I know there are different Interpretations of this Text but this seems the most probable for the King is here called the Ordinance of Man not because he is made King by Men but because the Constitution according to which he becomes King is an humane Constitution or Ordinance and not Divine as was that of the Jews St. Peter admonishes the Christians that they ought not to overvalue themselves upon the account of their Christian Liberty so as to imagine themselves exempted from those Duties which are incumbent upon the rest of mankind as Subjects to their Sovereigns or as Servants to their Masters but to behave themselves as free and not using their Liberty for a cloak of maliciousness verse 16. He had told them verse 9. that they were a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People which was the Character given of the Jews Exod. 19.5 6. and now applied by the Apostle to the Jewish converts and lest they should have too high a conceit of themselves and vainly think as the Jews did that because they were Gods peculiar People they were bound to submit to no Government but what was of God's own immediate appointment and this was the Opinion the Gentiles had of them they spoke against them as evil-doers v. 12. and accused them of disobedience to Caesar and of Preaching another King one Jesus Act. 17.7 St. Peter therefore acquaints the Christians that so was the will of God that by subjection to all in Authority they should with well-doing put to silence the ignorance of foolish men verse 15. in as much as tho' the Frame of all Governments is not of God's appointment yet the Anthority in every Government is from him and therefore whoever is King according to the Legal Constitution of each Government Obedience becomes due to him for the Lora's sake because God makes him King and concurs with the Humane Act in ratifying what is done according to the Ordinance or Constitution of Man So that St. Peter calls particular Governments Man's Ordinance because they are of Humane Contrivance and Institution and he says they are to be submitted to for the Lord's sake because whoever is impowered to administer the Government according to the Constitution of it has God's Authority and in St. Paul's words is God's Ordinance St. Peter therefore speaking of Legal Powers and St. Paul only mentioning the higher Powers in general terms and both saying Obedience is due to them for the Lord's sake both must be understood of Legal Powers and St. Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans after this of St. Peter his words could need no distinction to be understood with that limitation which St. Peter here uses of every Ordinance of Man or of those Powers which are Just and Right by the Laws of Men. For as Bishop Sanderson has accurately expressed it Ad Magistratum Serm. 1. p. 94. Edit ult the truth is the Substance of the Power of every Magistrate is the Ordinance of God and that is St. Paul 's Meaning but the Specification of the Circumstances thereto belonging as in regard of Places Persons Titles Continuance Jurisdiction Sub-ordination and the rest is as St. Peter termeth it an Humane Ordinance introduced by Custom or Positive Law 5. But further we find this Distinction in express words in the Old Testament for according to the Doctor 's Interpretation it is impossible there should be any King who is not Ordained of God for he explains it of all the Powers that at any time be of all that are possessed of Supreme Power however they came by it Whereas besides what has been said of Abimilech and Ishbasheth and Athaliah God says expresly of the People of Israel They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not that is did not approve of it Hos 8.4 To this the Doctor answers Three things which I shall consider 1. This is not true P. 35. as to all the Kings of Israel after their Separation from the Tribe of Judah for some of the Kings were set up by God's own appointment as Jeroboam and Jehu and their Posterity So that this can be true only of those Kings who reigned over Israel between the Posterity of Jeroboam and Jehu and after the Kingdom was taken from the Line of Jehu 2. One of these Kings was Baasha 1 King 15.27.16.2 who slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express Nomination and Appointment and yet God tells him I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel and all the other Kings who were not nominated by God nor anointed by any Prophet no more than Baasha was were yet set up by God as he was 3. The true Answer then is this Israel was originally a Theocracy as well as Judah and though God allowed them at their request to have Kings yet he reserved the appointment of them to himself and therefore as in the Kingdom of Judah he entailed the Crown on David 's Posterity so he appointed Jeroboam to be the first King in Israel and they ought when that Line was cut off to have consulted God and received his Nomination by his Prophets of a New King but instead of that they submitted to any who could set themselves over them which was a great Fault in a People who were under the immediate Government of God For hereby they fell out of the State of Theocracy into the common condition of the rest of the World where Kings are set up by the Providence of God c. 1. To this I reply 1. It is not pretended that the words of the Prophet can be meant of all the Kings of Israel nor of all neither who reigned either from Nadab the Son of Jeroboam to Jehu or after
to themselves a Liberty of Resistance in certain Cases by express Agreement which has been the Custom in Kingdoms where Resistance is allowed Or however let us suppose That the People declare their King irresistible upon their Choice of him and establish that as the Fundamental Law of their Government suppose they oblige all in any Office Military or Civil to swear That it is unlawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against him and oblige all the Clergy solemnly and frequently to declare it would it be lawful for the People to recal this Power because they gave it Or is it not rather of the very Essence of this Power that it can never be recalled because never resisted Are other Contracts revocable by either of the Parties at pleasure because they are entred into by Consent Might Marriage be dissolved when either Party pleased if no more were required to it than the Consent of both Parties Or is there any greater Reason why he that has consented to be governed by an irresistible power may recal his own Act and resist when he thinks fit I do not dispute whether it be possible for the People to convey a Power of Life and Death and to establish a Sovereign Power among them nay I grant it is impossible for any Rightful Government to be erected by mere Consent and Compact without God's Establishment and Confirmation of it I only shew That though this were true yet the Conclusion would be false and though the People might make Kings by mutual Agreement and Contract yet they could not unmake them But tho' the same Persons might not play fast and loose as they please yet what obligation could their Childrenly under to obey that Race of Kings which they had set up For what Rights says the Dr. had my Ancestors three or four hundred years ago to choose a King for me I answer they had a Paternal Right in vertue of which Children are obliged by all the lawful Acts of their Fathers in their behalf or by the Acts of others which are for their advantage when they act as Parents for them Thus Children promise by their Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism and when they come to Age would be guilty of Apostacy and of the breach of the most solemn Vow and Promise made in their name if they should renounce their Baptism In the Covenants which God has made with mankind the Children were always obliged by their Fathers Act thus it was in his Covenant with Adam with Noah with Abraham and with Moses and the Children of Israel There is nothing more plain in Scripture than that the Children had an Interest in the Covenant made with their Fathers and were obliged to perform the Conditions of it And there is no difference between a Covenant made with God and one made with Man in this respect for it is essential to a Covenant that there should be the Consent of the Parties that enter into it and tho' God has a Right over his Creatures to require what Acts of Duty and Obedience he pleases from them yet when he is pleased to deal with them by way of Covenant it is necessary they should consent to the Terms of it either by themselves or by others that represent them and have Power to act for them otherwise what were breach of a voluntary Covenant as well as of natural Duty in the Parents would be only breach of Duty in the Children And no distance of time can make any alteration in this obligation which Parents lay upon their Children as it appears by those Covenants which God has entred into with Mankind But if this could make any difference every Father renews his obligation to the Government for himself and his Children For if the Person immediately consenting to the setting up a King oblige his Sons to pay Allegiance to him then for the same reason they by their Consent and Submission in living under his Government oblige their Children and so on for four hundred Years or as long as the Government continues There is no need further to mention the Obligation all men are under to their Country for their Protection and Education from their Infancy and for the many Benefits they receive from the Government it is manifest that the Act of their Parents is obligation enough if there were no other and they must be obliged by their Parents Choice as well as by their own and are not left at liberty to deny their own Consent if they think their Ancestors have made an ill Bargain But when we add to this God's Authority which is conferred upon all that are duly advanced to Sovereignty we have the surest grounds for the Doctrin of Passive Obedience tho' God do not give his Authority in such a manner as to null or frustrate Legal Rights and Claims He next proceeds to consider the Objections that may be made against his Assertion The first is that the dispossessed Prince ought not to attempt the Recovery of his Throne nor any other Prince to assist him in it which is to oppose God and to challenge that p. 25. which he has no longer any Right to He answers By no means The Providence of God removes Kings and sets up Kings but alters no Legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them to recover their Rights when they can While such a Prince is in the Throne it is a Declaration of God's Will that he shall reign for some time longer or shorter as God pleases and that is an obligation to Subjects to submit and obey for Submission is owing only to God's Authority But that one Prince is at present placed in the Throne and the other removed out of it does not prove that it is God's Will it should always be so and therefore does not devest the dispossest Prince of his Legal Right and Claim nor forbid him to endeavour to reeover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligation to the Prince in Possession to assist the dispossest Prince to recover his Legal Right This Answer seems to suppose that tho' the Prince in Possession have the Exercise of the Supreme Power and do administer God's Authority for a time or rather tho' God governs by him as his Instrument while he is in Possession yet he has no Authority inherent in himself but acts as wickedly all along in withholding from the Rightful Prince his due as he did at first in depriving him of it and therefore may be thrust out by the Legal Prince himself or by any others who have made no Submission to him But this is so directly contrary to all the rest of his Discourse that it cannot be the Dr's meaning in this place For he that is set up by God P. 13. that is made King by him that is invested with his Authority and receives his Authority from him he to whom God gives the Throne and does not only permit him to take
the plain Truth is no Man ever pretended to an Infallible Remedy to prevent all the Mischiefs of any kind the Quack in Physick and of the Church of Rome itself never pretend that their Directions will work infallible Cures unless they be followed as well as known This Principle would go very far towards the hindring of all Revolutions but such as God by his Appointment and Command would have submitted to if it were practised and as things are now it is the best Remedy against them 3. But if the bare Knowledg of this Principle will not prevent Revolutions or if Revolutions cannot be prevented at all it does not from thence follow That such an immoveable and unalterable Allegiance as is due only to a Legal Right and Title will dissolve Human Societies when such Revolutions happen Our present Experience teaches the contrary for the Distinction between the Divine Authority and the Legal Right of Kings in Opposition to each other is news to almost the whole Nation some acting upon one Principle and some upon another but all generally supposing God's Authority and the Legal Right to be in the same Person Besides the Government must be at least in some Measure setled before the Doctor 's Principle can take Place or be of any use and if the Government may be setled without it I see no Reason why it may not continue without it For how comes that to be necessary to the being of Human Society which is not necessary to the establishment of Government but exerts itself by several Steps and Degrees in Proportion to the Degrees of its Settlement and never is of full Force and Efficacy till a thorough Settlement But our Principle exposes the most Innocent and Conscientious Men to Sufferings without serving any good End by them It must be confessed That those Men must be exposed to Sufferings who can neither be satisfied that the Legal Right is transferred nor be persuaded that they may subject themselves to the Possessor of the Crown unless he had a Legal Right But then this is not without serving any good End for they serve the Ends of Justice and Fidelity to the Rightful King and act upon such Principles as are the support and preservation of Human Society tho the Practice of them may sometimes bring Accidental Inconveniences upon particular Persons and Governments which can never fall out but in extraordinary Cases that no Principles can effectually provide against And God can support Men under their Sufferings or deliver them out of them without their Infringement of Legal Rights or acting against the Nature and Order of Society in General to serve some particular occasions and Exigencies The Doctor 's Argument from the Nature of Human Society p. 45. by which he would prove That the Safety and Preservation of a Nation is to be preferred before the King 's Right is grounded upon the Supposition above mentioned That any thing is lawful which is necessary for the Preservation of particular Societies which proving a false Principle his Argument can be of no Force For that Allegiance is due to all Rightful Kings is a Maxim which concerns Society in general without which no Government can long subsist and therefore if the Good of Society in General be to be preferred before the Good of any particular Government tho this should be preferable to the King 's Right the Consequence would fail because the necessary Relation and Connection between Allegiance and Sovereignty is founded in the Nature of Sovereignty itself not in the Being or Constitution of any particular Kingdom and the Obedience of Subjects must be fixed and permanent not variable with the Changes and Interests in the State of Affairs which could make all Government uncertain and precarious and would leave every Subject at Liberty to pay or with-hold his Allegiance when he thought fit if the Interest of the Government and not the Laws of it were to be the Rule of his Obedience And where should we stop Or whither would not this Argument carry us For if we may withdraw our Allegiance from the King because his Right is not of equal Value with the Safety of all his Subjects then for the same Reason we may rebel against him or we may kill him whenever we will suppose That this single Life and Fortunes come into competition with those of the whole Nation But this Argument has been often brought against the Doctrin of Non-Resistance and as often consuted And if it were true it would not prove that Usurpers are set up by God but by the People For if God sets them up Obedience is due to them for the Sake of his Authority not upon these Considerations which can only serve for Motives to the People to set them up and are no Proof that God has done it For we may suppose the Usurper in possession of the Throne to be so cruel and tyrannical that the People have no way to provide for their own Safety but by deposing him which if God have given him his Authority it is sinful for them to do but if this Argument be true it is a Duty So that this Argument if it prove any thing must prove either that Kings are not God's Ordinance or that God's Ordinance may be resisted for the Publick Good but Evil is never to be done tho the greatest Good may come by it and Obedience is due not to Conveniency but to Law and the Laws of God and Nature have respect not to any Society in particular but to Society in General and to particular Societies only so far as their Preservation may be consistent with the Welfare of Society in general The Objection which he makes against his own Doctrin is much more to the purpose and deserves to be considered â—… 45. He objects to himself That This will equally serve all Revolutions of Government whatever they be and upon these Principles we might submit and swear to a Rump Parliament or to another Protector or to a Committes of Safety or whatever else you please The Doctor is pleased to say That this is a great Prejudice but no Argument but it is very strange that a Man who has built his whole Doctrin upon the Authority of a Convocation and durst never have asserted it if it had not been for that Venerable Authority should now reject the Practice of the whole Church of England at that time and the Judgment of it both then and ever since as no Argument no Objection but only a great Prejudice I must take Leave to say as the Doctor does of the Sense of the Convocation â—… 9. that this is a good Argument from Authority and as good Authority as can be urged to the Members of the Church of England for if so many Years Suffering and the great Veneration all Good Men have for so excellent Examples to this very Day cannot declare the Judgment of the Church of England I know not whence we shall learn
true and lawful Possessor being always Gods Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of these that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly settled to be reverenced and obeyed From whence the Dr. P. 8. argues that it is plain it is not a legal Authority by the Death or Cession of the Rightful King for we are to obey it as Gods Authority though it be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor and though the present Possessor should have no other visible Title to it but such unjust Force But why may not the Authority be said to be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor when he is forced to resign his Right or quit his Claim May not Consent be extorted and Oaths extorted and may not a Prince be reduced to that condition as at last to resolve for ever to relinquish his Right when he has no hopes left of recovering it and does not History furnish us with such examples However that which is wrung from a lawful Possessor by Death is to be sure wrung by Force from him and the words do not import that the Possessor is supposed to be living after this injustice and violence And by these ways Authority may be said to be unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor though the Authority it self properly and strictly speaking cannot be so obtained For in the Doctor 's opinion it is conferred by God upon a Thorough Settlement and in the opinion of others it is conferred by him upon the Death or Cession of the Person in whom it before was but whensoever it is transferred it is certainly given by God and cannot be torn or forced from the true and lawful Possessor but the external Power and Exercise of Authority may and when it is thus gotten it may afterwards be an accidental means of attaining to the Authority it self And this is that the Convocation speakes of that men by wicked Arts and Practices may arrive at Power and at last when there is no better Pretence or Claim may become invested with the Authority it self as well as exercise the outward Acts of it This the Instances subjoined of the Authority of the Egyptian and Babylonian Kings over the Jews shew to be the meaning of the Convocation for it would be absurd to take their words in such a sense as all the examples immediately added for the explication of them doe not explain but rather confute and contradict and if the literal Sense and Grammatical Construction as the Doctor urges seem to import this we must certainly reject it or else we shall make the Convocation argue as wise and learned men never did and then it will be to little purpose to enquire after their meaning be it what it will But indeed no Grammar nor Logick I think can prove from their words that the true and lawful Possessor is supposed to be alive and to assert his Right The Doctor 's observation concerning the mention of a King de Facto in the Convocation Book I cannot think will prove of any service to him and I believe he thought so himself too when he wrote his Case of Allegiance or else he would never have omitted it though now he makes great use of it But the plain meaning of a King de Facto there is no more than any Rightful King under whom a man lives whether he be his natural Sovereign or any Foreign Prince to whom he is become Subject justly and lawfully but not with prejudice to the Right of his own Sovereign For as the Doctor observes this is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon to whom the Israelites had been in Subjection eighteen years without any Competition of another Prince to their Allegiance Now Ahud was not their natural Prince but only the King under whom they then lived and who had then a Right to their Obedience so that if here is not the least intimation that a King de Facto is opposed to a King de Jure but the King de Facto under whom he lived is no more than the King under whom he de Facto lived that is whose Subject he actually was whether he were his Natural Sovereign or a Foreign Prince But it must be observed that this is not spoken only with respect to Ahud's killing Eglon but with respect likewise to Adonijah's Usurpation in the Reign of David his Father Can. 27. For they say that though a Subject should make never so specious and solemn pretences that God had called him to murder the King de Facto under whom he lived and should have first procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did yet this would not justify him nor his Adherents if he should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master which is just the same thing that was before expressed in other words by Murthering the King de Facto under whom he lived So that a King de Facto in this place cannot be opposed to a King de Jure unless David himself were only a King de Facto The Doctor moves a Dispute P. 17. what kind of Submission of the Rightful King may be sufficient to transfer his Right and whether a King does not submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince or whether nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a Formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power To this I answer that it is of the Nature of Right that it cannot be transferred without the consent of the Person whose Right it is unless it be by some person who has a superior Right to the thing disposed of for what is a mans own cannot be given away from him against his will but by one who has a Superiour and better Right to it than that which he holds it by And it is sufficient if any Submission or Consent of the Rightful King be necessary to transfer Allegiance and if it cannot be proved that God the Supream Lord and Proprietor of all things is pleased to dispose of the Right to Kingdoms otherwise than he does of the Right which private men have to their Estates it must be nenessary that such Acts intervene as are required among men to convey a Right which can be no other than such as imply a Consent But what kind of Consent is necessary and how it ought to be expressed is quite another question which depends upon particular Cases and Circumstances and it is sufficient in the present case to say that a forced Submission is a forced Consent and that is some sort of Consent and not an involuntary Act though not so voluntary as if there had been no Force The Doctor cannot but acknowledge that such a Submission of men with respect to themselves P. 13. gives a Right for it is a voluntary Consent though extorted by