him to the Episcopal Throne and puts the Spiritual Authority into his hands All Events are directed and determined and over-ruled by God So that it 's plain that all Elections of Schismatical and Heretical Bishops were over-ruled by Providential Appointment Besides if there was any distinction between God's Permissions and Appointments yet we ought in reason to ascribe the Advancement of Bishops to God's Decree and Councel because it 's one of the principal Acts of Providence and which has so great an Influence upon the Government of the Church and the Salvation of Mens Souls And if he decrees any Events certainly he peculiarly orders such Events as will do most good or most hurt to the Church From the Absurdity of this way of Reasoning it evidently follows that the Author to the Hebrews must be interpreted of Lawful Rulers though the distinction is not expressed And since the Scripture by undeniable Consequence teaches us not to submit to those who govern in the Church without Right we ought to conclude our Duty the same with relation to the State It 's in vain to urge that this Epistle was written after that to the Romans and therefore St. Paul could have no reference to it This Objection must vanish before those who own the New Testament written by the Holy Ghost For whatever is dictated by Inspiration must be coherent and uniform especially when Duties of a moral and unalterable Obligation are delivered So that unless the Doctor can show a disparity between Church and State such a one I mean as destroys all proportion of Reasoning from the one to the other he must grant that those Higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are to be understood only of those who are Lawfully such I now perceive by the Doctor 's Vindication which I did not before remember that the Author of the Postscript has touched upon this Argument And since I am somewhat concerned in the Vindicator's Answer I shall beg leave of the above-mentioned Author to make a short Reply For as the Doctor has ordered the Matter a few Words will serve He says the Cases mentioned Rom. 13.1 and Heb. 13.17 are by no means Paralel And that the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such Distinction which it was necessary for St. Paul to have done Rom. 13. if he intended to be understood only of Lawful Powers This he endeavours to prove from the Universality of the Expression Because St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the Higher Powers and generally affirms that all Power is from God To this I answer That the Text to the Hebrews is as comprehensive as that to the Romans Obey them that have the rule over you is an indefinite Proposition which he knows is equivalent to a Universal St. Paul it 's true affirms all Power is from God And does not the Author to the Hebrews say with relation to Spiritual Jurisdiction that no Man takes this Honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Besides if all Power is from God then all Spiritual Power is from him which makes way for Heretical Intruders and is a Contradiction to the 13th of the Hebrews by his own Concession But if the Words all Power are to be restrained to a particular Sense the Universality the Doctor contends for is gone If they must be confined to Temporal Powers why are they not capable of a farther Limitation Why should they not be understood only of Lawful Temporal Powers as well as the Rulers mentioned by the Author to the Hebrews though with the same extent of Expression are meant of none but those who are Lawfully ordained But the Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the Rule over them at that Time and that they were Lawful Ministers and had he added any such Distinction i. e. expresly commanded them to submit only to Lawful Rulers he might have made the Hebrews jealous about the Title of their Church Governors and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them In answer to this I observe First That this Inconvenience which the Doctor imagines might easily have been avoided without omitting this Distinction For the Apostle might have added a Clause that he did not question the Authority of their present Governors but only gave them a Caution not to be led away with every pretending Heretick for the future Secondly I observe that the Doctor grants that if the Apostle or the Hebrews had known that either Nullity or Forfeiture could have been truly objected against the Authority of their Spiritual Rulers there would neither have been Submission enjoyned by the one nor Obedience given by the other Thirdly I have already proved and shall do farther that the Roman Emperors at the writing of St. Paul's Epistle were Legal Princes and if so St. Paul or the Spirit he wrote by must know it And as for the Romans they had as good an Opportunity of being satisfied about their Temporal Governors as the Hebrews had about their Spiritual And therefore by the Doctor 's reason St. Paul might forbear adding the Word LAWFUL to Higher Powers because he knew the Emperor's Title to be good and for fear of making his Subjects jealous by such a Distinction But Fourthly Is the Doctor sure that the Apostle to the Hebrews knew that their Spiritual Rulers were all Lawfully constituted The Doctor concludes this Apostle to be St. Paul Now St. Paul complains that these was Schisms and Heresies in the Church in his Time yet there was false Apostles who transformed themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And is he certain the Hebrews were troubled with none of these He may please to remember that the Ebionites Gnosticks Nicolaitans and Cerinthians sprung up in the Age of the Apostles and most if not all of them in Palestine Fifthly Granting the Apostle knew the present Church of the Hebrews was free from unlawful Governors He likewise knew that other Churches were not and that even this would not be always in so good a Condition Now if the Apostle wrote for the Instruction of all Ages and Countrys and I hope the Doctor will not limit the Authority and Usefulness of the Scriptures to a particular Climate or Country he could not suppose the Church had always Lawful Pastors and by consequence the Doctor 's reason why he omitted the Distinction must necessary fail For when their Governors were unlawful they ought to think them so and not be barred up by any Scripture Expressions from a reasonable Enquiry Sixthly I would gladly know the Doctor 's reason why Title and Legality must always be expected in Sacred but not in Civil Authority Why God allows Usurpers to represent him in the State and denies this Privilege to those of the same Character in the Church And what Arguments he has to prove that the Jurisdiction of Kings ought to be more precarious and uncertain than that of Bishops 2. This
Apostle Commands us to submit to the King as Supream and unto Governors as unto them who are sent by him Now if we are bound to submit to Subordinate Governors by virtue of their Delegation because they are sent by the King or Supream Power It follows that when they are not sent by him but Challenge our submission upon the score of independent Right they are not to be obeyed Suppose then the Emperor's Procurator of Iudea had set up for himself in the Apostles Time and brought over the Sanedrim and the Majority of the Jews to his Party and possessed himself of the Civil and Military Power of that Nation were the Jews bound to submit to the Procurator or not By the Doctor 's rule undoubtedly they were For here is nothing less than his Through Settlement and by consequence Providence and Divine Authority to oblige them to acquiesce But on the contrary St. Peter's Doctrine teaches us to look upon this Procurator as a Treasonable Usurper and to have nothing to do with his Settlement For we cannot suppose him acting in his Masters Name when he Rebels against him unless we can imagine the Emperor would grant a Commission to fight and destroy himself If therefore the reason of our submission to inferior Magistrates is founded in their Subordination in their being sent by the Supream as is evident by the Apostles Argument Then certainly we are not to obey them how successful soever they may be when they act upon their own pretended Authority and against him that sent them I can't foresee what the Doctor can reply excepting that Iudea was but a small part of the Roman Empire and therefore a general Revolt in that Country alone could not plead God's Authority from their Success nor oblige the Noncomplying Subject to Obedience To this I answer That if we are to obey the Higher Powers i. e. those who can crush us without respect to the Legality of their Title If Soveraign Force and Soveraign Authority are the same then we ought to obey them as far as their Power reaches For so far their Divine Authority must extend If the Revolt be general and the Power undisputed the Largeness of Dominion is not at all material For as has been observed the Boundaries of Empire are of an inferior Consideration They depend only upon Pacts and Humane Laws and ought not to stand in competition against Providence and hinder the exercise of a Divine Right God without question can change the Limits as well as the Governors of a Kingdom and ought not to be confined in this respect no more than in the other And since Settlement and Success is a certain Sign of Divine Authority we ought according to the Doctor to submit to every Subdivision of Power though never so illegally Cantonized as long as they keep distinct and unsubordinate to each other 3. That the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture will be manifest from the consideration of Hebr. 13.17 There the inspired Author commands the Hebrews to obey those who have the Rule over them and submit themselves I grant the place is to be understood of Church-Governors but it 's as plain by universal Practice that this Submission is to be paid to none but Lawful Spiritual Powers For if any Bishop should offer to govern another's Diocese and Usurp his See such intrusions have been always condemned by the Church and the People obliged to adhere to their first Bishop And since this Scripture concerning Ecclesiastical Rulers has been always understood of those who are Lawfully and Canonically set up though these words are not expressly in the Text why the Higher Powers should not be restrained to Magistrates Legally Constituted is somewhat hard to imagine What reason have we to suppose God should Confirm an intrusion upon the State and disallow in the Church Why should he give his Authority to Temporal Usurpers and deny it to Spiritual Are not Bishops de Facto as good as Kings of that Denomination To put the Case more home and to draw it into a narrower Compass Let us suppose according to St. Cyprian's Principle every See independent of each other and that a lawful Bishop is deposed by his People and another chosen and consecrated by the Presbytery who are the Spiritual Estates and nothing of the usual Solemnity omitted Now I desire to know whether the New Man is a Bishop and has a Divine Right to govern the Diocese If the Doctor says Yes he contradicts the Universal Church and destroys the Episcopal Authority If he says No I would gladly hear his Reason The Person we are speaking of is generally submitted to and called Bishop and wears the Episcopal Habit and had all the Ceremonies performed at his Consecration and is disown'd by none but a few obstinate People and what would you have more If you say the Clergy were under Tyes of Canonical Obedience to their former Bishop that neither They nor the Laity have any Power to depose their Bishop or to ordain a new One that such Proceedings are contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Church-Government and subversive of its Monarchical Constitution This is all Truth I grant but am afraid it will disoblige the Doctor 's Argument For under Favor are not the States bound by natural and sworn Allegiance to their King What Right have the Members to depose the Head and Inferiors to displace their Supreme And what Law is there to chuse a Prince in an Hereditary Kingdom By what Authority do they these things And who gave them this Authority I put these Questions to the Doctor because I hope he will be so kind as to take them for no more than Enquiries Farther By the Doctor 's Assistance it may be urged That in the first Ages of Christianity Bishops were nominated by the Holy Ghost as Kings were in Israel and Elections apparently governed by Miracles and Inspiration as we may learn from Clemens Romanus And as it hapned afterwards in the Case of Fabian Bishop of Rome But now since Miracles are ceased God does that in the Church by his Providence which he did at first by express Nomination Therefore though one Layman should consecrate another his Episcopal Character ought to be acknowledged against the Canonical Bishop provided the great Body of the Diocese has submitted to him and the whole Administration of Ecclesiastical Government is in his hands and every thing is done in his Name and those who won't submit can be crushed by him And if any one objects against this Bishop de Facto I hope the Doctor 's parallel Reasons will satisfie him For first Here is as good a spiritual Settlement according to our Author's interpretation of that word as a Man would wish To go on No Man can make himself a Bishop any more than a King whether God will or no. God is then said to set up a Bishop when by his Providence he advances
Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSIDERED WITH SOME REMARKS UPON HIS Vindication LONDON Printed in the Year MDCXCI TO THE READER THERE has been lately as I am informed several considerable Treatises published against Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance and though I have perused none of these Answers excepting the Author of the Postscript yet from the general Reputation they have gained I have reason to conclude they are likely to give the Reader satisfaction and the Dr. Diversion enough if he intends a Reply So that had not the following Papers been almost finished before I understood there were so many Pens drawn upon him I think I had neither put my self nor any body else to any Trouble upon this Subject However since the Dr. has hung out the Flag of Defiance sent us a general Challenge and seems desirous to charge a whole Party he of all Men has no reason to be disobliged for being attacked from all Quarters Indeed this Circumstance besides its complyance with his Inclinations must do him a Kindness let things happen how they will For if he is obliged to quit the Field it affords him the Excuse of being Oppressed with Numbers If he succeeds the Forces of the Enemy must add to the Glory of his Triumph I shall apply my self to the Consideration of the Body of his Book without making any large Animadversions upon his Preface his Business in these preliminary Pages being not to argue upon the Controversie but only to report Matters of Fact with reference to his late Behaviour and to draw up an History of his Integrity Which Design of the Dr's how necessary soever it might be to undertake is in my Opinion but odly pursued For he has shewn an open Partiality in his Conduct before his Complyance and made large Steps towards the Revolution when he was convinced of its being the wrong side He calls it Faction to appear with Heartiness and Concern in Defence of the Old Oaths though we believe them to remain in full Force He prayed in the Royal Stile for the present Possessors as early one Week excepted as the most forward He gives hard Language to those of the Church of England who absent themselves from the publick Communion since the Late Alterations in the Service which in their Judgments are both sinful in the Matter and defective in the Authority He seems sollicitous lest the Rightful Government should Recover and declares his Inclinations were engaged against it 'T is true he prayed heartily to God that if he was in a Mistake he might discover it and comply But he doth not tell us he spent any of his Devotions the other way He does not say that he prayed for Constancy and Perseverance provided he was already in the right That he desired the Divine Assistance to stand firm against Interest and Noise and Numbers and be neither bribed nor frightned out of his Duty Now to act in this manner is a much more difficult Performance than the other and therefore the Preparatory Dispositions ought to be begg'd of God Almighty with the greater Earnestness A little praying is sufficient to incline a man to consult his Ease and preserve his Fortune but to hazard or part with them both is a Piece of Discipline very unacceptable to Flesh and Blood and requires a more than ordinary degree of Courage and Resignation to undergo it These things considered the Dr. had reason to call the Reader his Confessor for I am much mistaken if he has not frankly discovered his Failings to him However the Dr. assures us he has received that Satisfaction he desired Which is not unlikely but whether it was the Return of his Prayers or not will be best understood by examining his Principles I have nothing farther to add by way of Introduction but only to desire it may be observed That the Dr. all along supposes the Revolution unjust and illegal and argues upon a Case of Usurpation And therefore if the Reader meets with any unexpected Freedoms in this Discourse he may please to charge it upon the Nature of the Dispute and thank the Dr. for giving the Occasion THE CONTENTS THE Laws relating to the present Controversie vindicated from the Exception of Obscurity Pag. 3. Several Consequences drawn from the Dr's Principles by which the Danger and Vnreasonableness of them is made apparent p. 5. Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book no Favourer of the Dr's Opinion p. 11. This proved from the Convocation's maintaining several Propositions inconsistent with the Dr's Principles p. 12. His Citations from the Convocation-Book unserviceable to his purpose p. 18. The Authority of the Aramites Moabites and Aegyptians unexceptionable p. 21 22. The Four Monarchies all Legal Governments p. 23. The Case of Jaddus considered p. 27. A brief Account how the Romans came by their Government over Judea p. 35. The Dr's Notion of Settlement inconsistent with it self p. 41. The 13th of Rom. 1 2. concerns only Legal Powers proved from 1st the Doctrin of the Scriptures p. 44. 2dly From the Testimony of the Ancients p. 51. 3dly From the general Sentiments of Mankind at and before the Apostles times p. 53. The pretended Difficulties of this Interpretation removed p. 55. The Dr's Argument from Matth. 22.21 answered p. 59. His Doctrin concerning Providence and Events considered p. 62. The Abettors of his Opinion in this point produced p. 65. Amos 3.6 recovered from the Dr's Interpretation p 67. Hobbism proved upon the Dr. p. 73. The Insignificancy of Legal Right upon his Principles p. 82. His Doctrin concerning the different Degrees of Submission c. examined p. 85. Intruding Powers have no Right to a qualified Obedience nor to the Royal State p. 86. The Original of Government easily accounted for without the Assistance of the Dr's Scheme p. 90. The Objections raised by the Dr. defended against his Answers p. 94. The first Objection That his Doctrin makes a King lose his Light by being notoriously injured made good Ibid. The Injustice of deserting a Prince upon the score of Religion and the Sophistry of this pretence discovered p. 96. Allegiance bound unconditionally upon the Subject by the Laws of Nature and of the Land p. 97. All Subjects upon demand bound to hazard their persons in defence of their Prince proved from the Resolution of the Iudges c. p. 97 c. The Dr's Distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance ill founded and misapplyed p. 99. The King's Authority entire after dispossession p. 101. The Pretences for a King de facto confuted p. 102. To Maintain in the Oath of Allegiance implies an endeavour to Restore p. 103 c. Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession p. 107. The Dr's Assertion That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath c. untrue and dangerous p. 111. The Objection That his Doctrin makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right defended p. 115. The Case of private Robbers and
only desire to know Whether God loves Peace more than Justice Whether he delights to see Men Brethren in Iniquity and combine for the support of Violence Besides Is it for the Peace of Mankind that great Thieves should be rewarded and little Ones punished That a Man that steals a Horse must suffer as a Felon but he that steals a Kingdom and flies at nobler Quarry must be worshipped and obeyed though the right Owner is still claiming contesting and in view What is this but to encourage universal Violence to animate ill Men to more towring Flights of Ambition and to make them enlarge their Projects of Wickedness A Man need little skill in Inferences to see what an admirable Expedient this is likely to prove for the Quiet of the World The Doctor was sensible of this Inconvenience and endeavours to avoid it by saying That ambitious Spirits without a great dose of Enthusiasm can't make this Construction of his Doctrin For unless they can flatter themselves that God has ordained them to be Kings their Attempts according to his Principle will be checked And why should they not believe God has ordained them to be Kings if they find apparent Symptoms of Weakness and Decay in a Government If they perceive the Inclinations of the People for them If they can form a strong Party and have a probable Prospect of Success A moderate share of Enthusiasm with some Principles would be apt to make ambitions Men to interpret such Accidents and Advantages to be broad Intimations of the Favour of Heaven That God was designing some great Revolution and calling them to Crowns and Scepters And as for Enthusiasm it s no wonder to find the World overdosed with that especially at a time when Men pretend to understand Prophesies almost as well as those who wrote them when they can expound St. Iohn's Visions upon Piedmont and Savoy and point out the Time and Geography of a Mystery 2. This Doctrine supposes there is no such Thing as Usurpation after Possession which is not only contrary to the Language of our Laws 1 E. 4. c. 1 c. but to the common Sense of Mankind it being generally agreed by those who have any Notion of common Justice and Morality That what is unlawful to take away its unlawful to keep Which must be allowed to be true unless Violence and ill Usage are valuable Consideration for the conveying of Property Whereas by these Principles let a Man come into his Power never so unjustly Let there be never so fair a Claim continued against him yet if bare Possession gives him a Divine Right it 's as much his Property as if he had the clearest and most uncontested Title in the World The Doctor endeavors to get clear of this consequence by coining a distinction between Legal and Divine Right But this will do no execution upon the difficulty For if Possession always conveys a Divine Right all legal Claim must immediately determine I suppose the Doctor will not deny that God can repeal a Human Constitution Now when God transfers any Property from one Person to another it 's certain he must null the first Title For to explain this Matter Providence either conveys the Right with the Thing or it does not If not then the Right remains where it was and the Thing is wrongfully transferred which I believe no one will be so hardy as to affirm If Providence does transfer the Right with the Thing then the Legal Claim must be extinguished otherwise this Absurdity will follow viz. There will be a Human and Divine Law contradictory to each other in Force at the same time And since Human Laws when duly circumstantiated are confirmed by Heaven God's Authority must be engaged on both Sides and by consequence opposed to it self 3. This Principle destroys the Nature of Repentance by which it's generally understood that every one is bound to restore that which he has unjustly taken away But if we pursue the Doctor 's Reasoning to its just Consequences this Doctrin will not hold For if Possession though never so unjustly gained has always God's Authority to confirm it one would think there should be no obligation to Restitution For why should a Man restore that which he is vested in by a Divine Right And yet I doubt not but the Doctor will grant that Injustice cannot be forgiven without Repentance nor Repentance practised without Restitution so that by this Gentleman's Scheme a Man is both allowed and forbidden the same Thing and has a Divine Right to keep that for which he will be damned if he does not restore it which certainly is something more than ordinary 4. The Doctor 's Principle puts it in the Subjects Power to depose their Prince when they please I don't say it makes it Lawful for them to undertake it that would be to misrepresent him but when it 's once done his Notion of Power and Settlement confirms their Injustice and ratifies their Treason and by consequence makes a standing Army necessary 5. It cantonizes Kingdoms and removes the Boundaries of Dominion For if Power be a certain Sign of God's Authority then we ought to submit to every one who challengeth the Name of a King though for never so small a Precinct if he has but force to back his Pretensions And by consequence every Parish may set up for an Independent Government and we may be obliged to swear Allegiance to a Constable 'T is to no purpose to say That the Kingdom has not agreed to such a Division For the Limits of Kingdoms are founded upon nothing but Legal Right and Human Constitutions and therefore they ought not to oppose God's Authority which is always visible in Power Seas and Rivers and Mountains the usual Barrieres of Empire and Jurisdiction ought not to hinder Divine Right from taking place nor shut Providence out of the World 6. This Doctrin gives Thieves and Robbers a good Title to whatever they can steal and plunder The Doctor was sensible of this Inconvenience and endeavours to remove it but without success He offers to shew a disparity between common Thieves and Usurpers That the Scripture tells us Kingdoms are disposed by God and that all Power is of God but no Man pretends that Thieves have God's Authority 'T is not pretended but if the Principles hold it will be very difficult to disprove it For if Power is a certain Sign of God's Authority it follows That he who is strong enough to take a Purse must have a Divine Right to keep it If Providence orders and disposes all Events and there be no Evil in the City which the Lord has not barely permitted but done then why this Divinity should not hold upon Salisbury Plain or Newmarket Heath as well as upon any other occasion will be no easy Question to resolve The Scriptures which he alledges that Kingdoms are disposed by God do not come up to his point For we are likewise told That private Estates
this is one of the Crowns Prerogatives The Royal Style is for very good Reasons an incommunicable indivisible Right and cannot be given to another without taking it from the true Owner And if Stealing is Breeding it 's time to have done This puts me in mind of what my Lord Bacon observes concerning the giving wrong Names to Things which he terms Idola Fori which he tells us is one of the principal Causes that Sciences are so often disturbed and the Understandings of Men so much perplexed And doubtless where the Matter relates to Conscience and Morality the dressing up an uncreditable Character in the Habit of Reverence and Dignity is very apt to draw a false Idea upon the Mind and disorder the Practise of the Generality And if the Doctor pleases to look into the Statute Book and Parliament Rolls he will find our own Legislators of the same Mind For there the Three Henrys of Lancaster though they had considerable Advantages above other de Facto Men are called pretensed Kings and their Reigns Usurpations and Henry the Fourth is Styled Earl of Derby The same cautiousness of Expression we shall find in the Case of Richard the Third and Lady Iane Grey who notwithstanding their Possession of the Crown are attainted of High-Treason and mentioned in the Style of Subjects And if we consult the Scripture we shall find the Royal Style never given to Usurpers For though Asa's Mother and Ester are called Queens notwithstanding the first was but Dowager and the other had no more than a Matrimonial Royalty Yet Athaliah with her Six years Mis-rule is never allowed this Title either in holy Writ or by Iosephus I grant Hushai in his Salutation of Absalom was a very mannerly Person and cryed God save the King God save the King And told him moreover That he was a Providential Monarch and chosen by the Lord and all the People of Israel But then we are to observe That Hushai acted the part of a Deserter all this while and spoke the Language of Rebellion But in all other places where the History speaks the Words of the inspired Writer Absalom is never called King though David is mentioned as such when his Fortunes were at the lowest Ebb. If it 's Objected That Absalom was not sufficiently raised for this Title I shall prove afterwards which at present I desire the Reader would take for granted that Absalom had more Advantages than the present Dispute requires That he did not only Administer the regal Power but was likewise Settled upon the Doctor 's Principles and ought to have been entirely obeyed If it 's said That Abimeleck is called King I answer That there was at that time no lawful Prince Dispossessed and Claiming against him And therefore though he unjustly seized the Government yet since there was no rightful Competitor Possession gave him a Title both to the Name and Thing But to support an Usurper in his Majesty the Doctor says He is King indeed while he administers the Regal Power How can that be when it 's supposed in the Dispute That he has neither Legal nor Divine Authority Fourthly We must Pray for an Unsettled Prince that is an Usurper in his own Sense under the Name and Title of King Why so Because the Doctor has lead the the way I wish that is not the main Reason However he gives Two others 1. Because we are bound to pray for all in Authority which is more than an Usurper especially in this Condition can pretend to For to give him legal Right is a contradiction in Terms And as for Divine Authority the Doctor can allow him none of that till he is thoroughly Settled His 2. Reason why we should pray for him as King is because he has Power to do a great deal of Good or a great deal of Harm Now upon this Score we might pray for many more Kings than Iulius Cesar found in Kent There is a certain Person that shall be nameless for whom I hope the Doctor does not pray under the Title of King who has it in his Power to do a great deal of Good and in his Will a great deal of Harm as the Indians are very sensible and order their Devotions accordingly As for his Direction That we must take care to do it in such Terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed Prince it is contradictious and impracticable For First This dividing our Prayers between Two contesting Princes is to split our Duty into halfs and obliges us to Two opposite Allegiances which he condemns For certainly Prayers for the King are one part of the Subjects Duty especially of those of the Doctors Function Secondly His Advice is impracticable For the Proclaming him King to the People is a great injury to the Dispossessed Prince And as the Doctor well observes His very Possession of the Throne and every Act of Authority he does is against the Interest of the King de Iure And therefore such a Prayer cannot be Justified unless we pray to be rid of him Thus I have considered his main Principles The remainder of his Book being most of it consequences from these intermixed with Repetitions and naked Affirmations will go off with less trouble He observes That the taking away the Distinction between Rightful and Usurped Powers gives the most intelligible account of the Original of Government This he attempts by Induction and endeavours to prove that Government take it which way you will is not to be Explained upon a Foundation of legal Right He begins with Paternal or Patriarchal Authority And says That no Man had Authority either to give it away or usurp it I easily agree with the Doctor That no Man had Authority to usurp Paternal Power or any other But why it might not be fairly parted with is not altogether so plain The Doctor knows Emancipation was frequently practised among the Romans and allowed by their Laws This was no other than a Resignation of Fatherly Authority into the hands of the Child Indeed to chain a Man thus inseparably to his Right is in effect to take away the Advantage of it For it bars him the Liberty of disposing of his own and makes him a Slave to that of which he should be Master But suppose a Father can't give away his Authority I hope the Doctor will permit him to leave it behind him when he dyes Now this is sufficient for the Patriarchal Scheme For by this Hypothesis Adam and the other Patriarchs who had Sovereign Dominion from God left their Jurisdiction to go by Descent to their Heirs who were Lords not only of their immediate Brethren but of all the remoter Branches of the younger Families So that here is no need of the Resignation of Paternal Power For the successive Conveyance of Original Authority to the Heirs or reputed Heirs of the first Head is as much as this Hypothesis requires This is the
upon any Persons to obey him The Laws of Nature enjoyn us Obedience to our Kings But they don't tell us That every powerful Pretender ought to be acknowledged as such But refer us to the Constitution for Satisfaction For Authority and Iurisdiction is as much a Property as Land and therefore the Measure of it ought only to be taken from the Laws of each respective Countrey which brings me to the Doctor 's Application of legal Allegiance which he affirms is Sworn only to a King in Possession And by his reasoning he lets us plainly understand that this Allegiance is due no longer than the Possession continues To this I conceive the Doctor 's Arguments will afford a sufficient ground for a Reply For he explains Legal Allegiance by Maintenance or Defence and says it signifies no more than to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne as having a legal Right to it If it signifies thus much its sufficient For if we are sworn to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne because he has a Legal Right to it we ought to defend him as long as this Legal Right continues For as long as the Grounds of Allegiance remain in full Force the Consequent Duties ought to be performed Now the Doctor grants a Prince's Legal Right remains after his Dispossession and that he may insist upon his Claim when he finds his opportunity He argues farther That we can legally take this Oath only to a King in Possession because it must be Administred by his Authority To this I Answer First That from hence it follows that whenever a lawful Prince has been possessed of the Government those who Swore to him during his Possession are bound to perform the Contents of their Oath for then by the Doctor 's Argument it was lawfully Administred Secondly To put the Matter beyond Dispute we are to observe That the King's Authority continues after Dispossession This waving other Authorities I shall prove from the Two other famous Cases of the Post nati above mentioned reported by Sir Francis Moore and Sir Edward Coke in both which we have the Resolution and Concurrence of all the Judges In the First among other Things it 's affirmed as unquestionable Law That Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King not the Politick For Instance Si le Roy soit expulse per Force auter Usurpe uncore le Allegiance nest toll comment que le Ley soit toll That is If the King is by Force driven out of his Kingdom and another Usurps notwithstanding this the Allegiance of the Subject does not cease though the Law does Secondly Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is sometimes beyond the circuit of the Laws For every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this being a Thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects without respect to the extent of the Laws of that Nation where they were born whereby it manifestly appears that Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King From this Resolution of the Reverend Judges these Inferences necessarily follow 1. Since Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King it must be due to him as long as his natural Person is in being i. e. as long as he lives So that Possession or Dispossession does not alter the Case 'T is true they make a change in the King's Fortune but the Allegiance of the Subject remains the same 2. When the Prince is ejected by force the Laws are said to cease or expire From whence it follows that the Usurper has no Authority to execute Justice or administer any part of the Government which overthrows all the Pretences for a K. de Facto 3. Allegiance extends as far as Defence and does not as the Judges observe depend upon the Formalities of Law but is founded in natural Subjection And as a King may command his Subjects of one Kingdom to defend him elsewhere though they are obliged by no express Provisions to travel with or transport their Allegiance into another Country so by Parity of Reason all Subjects in vertue of their general Allegiance are bound to defend their Prince in their own Country thô there should be no particular Laws assigned to bring them upon Duty which is more than the Doctor will allow 4. If Allegiance reaches as far as Defence then without question it ought to be paid to the King when dispossessed for then it is he has the greatest need of his Subjects Assistance 5. If Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King and is due to him out of Possession then it cannot be due to an Usurper in Possession For this would oblige us to two opposite Allegiances which as the Doctor observes is absurd and impossible 6. If Allegiance follows the King's natural Person his Royal Authority must do so too For an Obligation to obey always supposes a Right to command and if the Sovereign Authority always attends upon the Person of the King then a Commission granted by a King out of Possession must be a valid Commission And thus the Doctor 's great Question which he was not Lawyer enough to decide is answered against him Calvin's Case is full to the same purpose which because I have already mentioned I shall cite the less of it now In this solemn and deliberate Determination it 's resolved by the Reverend Judges First That Allegiance and Faith are due to a King by the Law of Nature They must mean a Rightful King For the Law of Nature does not encourage Injustice and Usurpation Secondly they affirm That the Law of Nature is part of the Law of England and cite Bracton Fortescue c. for this point And Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable From whence I infer That if Allegiance is due to a Rightful King by the Law of Nature if this Law is incorporated into our English Constitution and of an immutable Obligation from hence it necessarily follows That as long as we have a Rightful Prince our Allegiance is part of his Right and ought to be exerted for his Service Secondly they observe That in the Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers Father and Son to cover the Treason hatched in their Hearts invented this damnable and damned Opinion That Homage and the Oath of Ligeance was more by reason of the King's Crown that is his Politick Capacity than by reason of the Person of the King Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That the King might be removed for Maleadministration 2. That he might be reformed per Aspertee 3. That his Lieges were bound to govern in aid of him and in default of him Now if it is such an impious and unreasonable Assertion to maintain that Homage and Ligeance is tyed to the King 's Politick Capacity Then it must follow his Natural Person which makes the Resolution of this Case the same
of the People and gives a Rebellion when it 's grown General a Privilege to cancel the Regal Authority and to absolve the People from their Allegiance Now for Subjects to sit Judges upon their Prince and Inferiours upon their Undisputed Supream is the greatest Affront both to Decency and Duty imaginable The Dr's Remark That the final Determination of Providence in settling Princes i. e. Usurpers draws the Allegiance of the Subject after it is worth considering For what sort of Determinations are these They are against Law and Human Right When do they commence and what Signs have we to distinguish them by Why when Wickedness is in its Exaltation and Rebellion is grown Invincible then it is that Providence determines the point for Usurpation and gives it a Divine Authority then God it seems discharges the People from their former Engagements and gives them leave either to Chuse or Submit to a new Power The Dr. thought to clench the business by the word Final but as ill Luck would have it it has spoiled all For the Dr. in his Case of Allegiance has observed That the Usurpers being placed in the Throne at present and the Lawful Prince removed does not prove that it is God's Will it should alwaies be so And upon this Argument he founds the Ejected Prince his Legal Right Now if this Determination is of an uncertain continuance it cannot be termed Final for Providence may reverse it in a short time for ought we know to the contrary Farther Either this Determination is final or not if it is then God cannot restore the Rightful Prince nor dispossess the Intruder And is not this to confine Him to Events i. e. to Human Actions and to hinder him from the free disposal of Kingdoms If this Determination is not final then it signifies nothing for by Implication from the Dr's Argument it draws no Allegiance after it Besides the Reader may please to take notice that I have proved above That Events are no Declarations of the Will of God nor any good Grounds for Practice especially when they are neither agreeable to the Rules of Justice nor warranted by express Revelation The Dr's next Argument for a Disparity between Usurpers and Robbers runs thus Kings must be throughly settled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them Therefore to make the Case parallel he who seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly settled in it before it becomes Vnlawful to dispossess him But that no private man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the Possession of his Estate given him by Law Under favour I conceive the Case is exactly parallel For instance If a Man picks my Pocket and runs away with the Money it must by the Dr's Principles be his own for the Event is clearly on his side He has Possession as well as an Usurper and the same Countenance of Law for keeping it He has moreover the Consent of the Great Body of Pick-pockets who all submit to his Success and acknowledg the Justice of his Title and Who can now deny his being throughly settled in the Money If the Dr. replies he may be punished and obliged to refund provided he can be seized I answer So doubtless may an Usurper be served if the Lawful Prince can catch him But then it follows that so long as he remains undiscover'd he is I can't say a Legal but a Providential Proprietor and therefore not bound to Restitution However to give the Dr. entire satisfaction I shall not insist upon his Concealment but bring him into open view which may be done without disturbing his Settlement for it often happent that Thieves with a Guard of their own Perswasion retire into Boggs and Mountains where though the true Owners know their Retreat there is no coming at them Now as long as they remain in these impregnable Circumstances together with the Advantages I just now mentioned I can't see the least Colour of Reason from the Dr's Principles why they should not have a Divine Right to all their Booty Lastly The Dr. to prove these two Cases unparallel apprehends a great difference between a Legal Right to the Crown and the Legal Rights of Subjects to their Estates In settling Estates there is nothing more required but a meer Human Right But to make a Legal King besides an Human Right to the Crown he must have God's Authority for a meer Human Right cannot make a King This the Dr. urges to obviate an Objection That it is as wicked and unjust for Subjects whatever their Circumstances are to own any other Prince but the Lâ—gal Heir as it would be for Tenants to pay their Rent to any but their true Legal Lord. But his Answer is by no means satisfactory For 1. I have proved That an Usurper has neither Human nor Divine Right and therefore I desire the Dr. would not bring him in for his Share of Privilege among Legal Landlords and Legal Kings till those Arguments are answered for certainly he that has no Right or Authority ought not to have the same Treatment and Duties paid those with those that have 2 ly If a private Landlord who it seems has no more than a meer Human Right to his Estate does not forfeit his Title by being unjustly disseized Why should a Prince be in a worse condition who Claims under greater Advantages and has the Laws of man and the Authority of God to secure him If a single Legal Right is able to hold out against Force and Intrusion one would think it should improve by being doubled and not grow weaker by having Divine Authority superadded to it Now the Dr. grants That every Legal Prince is fortified with Divine Authority and therefore if Violence cannot extinguish a private Right it must be if possible less prepared to do any execution upon a Crown 3 ly To take away the difference the Dr. apprehended between private and publick Property I answer That if he means by meer Human Right an Authority from Men only as Men without any higher original then there is more required for the settling an Estate than a meer Human Right For Men abstracting from the Commission they receive from God and the Subordination He has placed in the World are all equal and have no Authority to make Laws and and bind Property they have no superiority of Nature over each other they have no Prerogative from Creation from Preservation from Omniscience and Omnipotence they have neither Heaven nor Hell at their Command and therefore have no reason to claim a Jurisdiction over their Fellow-Creatures in their own Right If their Laws had not their Sanction from a Superiour Authority it would be no Sin to break them for every one might take his Measures as Humour or Interest should direct them Therefore to keep the World in order God has confirmed Human Laws with his own Authority and threatned to punish the Violations of
them with no less than Damnation From whence it follows That whoever has an Human Right to an Estate has likewise a Divine Authority to secure it for we are commanded to obey the Ordinances of Man by God himself and Property is of his appointment So that as long as the Human Right to an Estate continues the owner enjoys it by God Almighty's Order and Appointment unless he declares expresly to the contrary which doubtless carry his Authority along with them 'T is true private Proprietors have not a Divine Authority for the same great purpose with Princes they have it not to Govern and make Laws to represent the Majesty and Soveraignty of God but they have it to fix the Bounds of Meum and Tuum no less than Princes have to assure their Government Farther If Kings as the Dr. grants are made by a Divine Authority their publick Acts particularly their Laws must have the same privilege For those Acts which are but Executions of the Royal Office and for which the Office it self was intended must have the same Authority with the Office and if the Laws of Kings have a Divine Authority the Estates which are settled by those Laws must partake of the same Advantage and have more than a meer Human Right for their Security Thus I have considered what the Dr. has urged for a Disparity between Usurpers and private Robbers and unless he has something farther to say in his defence the Consequence I have drawn upon this Head must stand in full force against him The next Objection which the Dr. endeavours to remove is the Instance concerning Ioash and Athaliah which he says was a peculiar Case because God had entailed the Kingdom of Judah on the Posterity of David I have made it appear above that there is no difference between an Human and a Divine Entail as to the Strength and Firmness of the Settlement because they are both founded upon God's Authority But since the Dr. has endeavoured to reinforce his Answer in his Vindication I shall briefly consider what he has there alledged First The Dr. grants that Princes have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God But yet we are to think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than meer Human Laws 'T is confessed That Divine Laws are to be preferred to Human upon several accounts but this difference does not in the least affect the Obligation of the Subject and therefore is nothing to the Dr's purpose However it may not be improper to point out the Circumstances of Advantage By the way we may remember That we are not now disputing about Moral Laws but only those which are positive and political Now the preference which Divine Laws of this nature ought to have above those which are meerly Human depends upon these following Reasons 1. Because of the Solemnity of their Publication they are deliver'd in a more majestick manner proclaimed by miraculous and extraordinary appearances of Nature These Advantages of Promulgation exhibit the Authority of God as it were visibly to the Senses of the People and make a more reverential and lasting Impression upon their Minds than any Human Grandeur and Magnificence can do 2. Divine Laws oblige the Conscience by a direct and immediate Authority for God is that one Law-giver who has an original and independent Authority over us As for the Ordinances of Men they do not bind in vertue of their own Right but only upon the account of a delegated Power because God has commanded us to submit to them for his sake because they are made by those who are his Ministers and act in his Name 3. Divine Laws are preferrable in regard of the Excellence of their Matter they are the Results of Infinite Wisdom and Goodness and exactly proportioned to the Circumstances and Convenience of those for whom they are made There is nothing of Over-sight Passion or private Design in them to which Imperfections Human Laws are liable Upon these three accounts the Laws which are of God's own making ought to be more highly esteemed than those published by Human Governours But then these Advantages have no relation to the Sanction nor hinder the Obligation to obey from being the same in both for where the reason of Obedience is the same the Duty must be so too Now Human Laws being confirmed by God's Authority which is the Ground of our Obedience as much as those which are called Divine our Consciences must be equally engaged to both 'T is true the Divine Authority is somewhat more remotely conveyed in Human Laws than in the other but this distance does not make the Obligation less obligatory nor give the Subject any Liberty to dispute for as the Orders of a Prince are to be obeyed tho' delivered by inferiour Magistrates so God expects our Submission and Complyance as much when he commands by his Representatives as when He does it more immediately by himself And therefore what the Dr. observes concerning Divine Political Laws that they are more universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws is not always true and when it is so it does not proceed from the Kind of the Law but the Privilege of the Legislator I say it is not alwaies true for the Mosaick Ceremonies were Divine Laws but these Laws were in force only in Palestine and among the Nation of the Jews and therefore the Obligation to obey them could not reach so great an extent by far as an Edict of the Babylonian or Persian Monarchs whose Empire was much larger 'T is true a Divine Political Law may be more universally obligatory than a meer Human one because God is universal Lord and has a Right to govern all Mankind which it 's likely no one Prince will ever have But this Disparity if it should happen does not proceed from the unequal Authority of the Laws but from the different Jurisdiction of the Law-Makers The one it 's granted may Command farther but the other within its proper Precints is equally valid The Dr. affirms That the Dispute between Divine and Human Laws and a Divine and Human Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature But here he makes a distinction without a difference for are not all Entails grounded upon Law Divine upon Divine and Human upon Human Laws Therefore in disputing the Entails above mentioned we must debate the Nature of Human and Divine Laws because these are the Basis upon which the respective Settlements are supposed to stand From whence it will follow that if the Authority of Divine and Human Laws is the same the Entails depending upon either of them must have an equal firmness This Consequence it 's likely the Dr. foresaw which made him run out into a Mystical Discourse about Providence which Principle I have already undertaken and proved That Providence as the Dr. understands it is no Rule of Practice However I shall consider the Remainder of this
Interpretation of Rom. 13.1 which I am contending for is supported by the Authority of the Fathers I shall produce some Testimonies from them St. Chrysostom upon the place puts the Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is every Governor chosen and set up by God Almighty To this he Answers in the Apostles Name I affirm no such thing For I am not now Discoursing of every particular Prince but of Government it self The Constitution of Magistracy does indeed proceed from the Divine Wisdom to prevent Confusion and Disorder Therefore the Apostle does not say that there is no Prince of God But that those Powers that be are ordained of God Therefore where the wise Man tells us that it's God who joyns a Woman to a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means no more then that God instituted Matrimony Not that every one who lives with a Woman is joyned to her by God For we see many cohabit sinfully and not according to the Laws of Marriage Which is by no means to be attributed to God Almighties doing This Comparison without the rest of this Father's Testimony is sufficient to show that he was far from believing that Power and God's Authority always went together For as a Man and a Woman can't be joyned together by God though they receive each other with never so much Freedom unless the Essentials of Matrimony are premised especially when either of them are preingaged So an Usurper though he may debauch the Subjects with presents of Flattery from their former Obligations yet the whole commerce is no better then civil Adultery and therefore must not pretend to be Authorized from Heaven The next Testimony shall be taken from Theodoret who affirms That the Power of unjust Men as all Usurpers are does not proceed from God's Choice but only the Dispensation of Government in General Now if unjust Powers or Usurpers are not chosen or delegated by God then they can have none of God's Authority For no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given Bare permission to Govern as the Doctor goes on will not do And yet this is all Theodoret allows to such unqualified Persons Occumenius and Theophylact express themselves to the same purpose with St. Chrysostom Only they add That all kinds of Power whatsoever are Orderly as Theophylact has it Ordained by God Whether it be that of a Father over his Children or a Husband over his Wife c. Now these two Jurisdictions of Father and Husband are on all hands granted to be unexceptionable and founded in the Laws of Nature and Revelation And since these Fathers have made their instance only in Powers confessedly Lawful We have Reason to believe they understood the Apostles Higher Powers in this sense had they given us no other Argument which it's evident they have These Testimonies of the Fathers not to mention others together with the concurrent Sense of our own Divines the Doctor is pleased to call a Common Evasion And tells us he knows not what they mean by Civil Authority unless it be that God intended that Mankind should live under Government And is not this a sufficient meaning No. This does not prove that all Power is from God unless those who exercise this Power which he must mean by Authority receive it from God Right And is the Doctor offended at this Is he angry because they don't contradict themselves which they must have done if they had asserted Successful Violence had a Divine Commission to act by Their maintaining Civil Authority to be of Divine Institution with an Exception to particular Persons proves that all Legal Power is from God and that they took Power not for meer Force as the Doctor does but under the Notion of Right and Authority If the Doctor is resolved to stick so very close to the Letter I am afraid it will carry him to a Construction he will not approve What does he think of the Kingdom of Satan is not that called the Power of Darkness Will the Doctor say these Powers are ordained by God I hope he is not so much straitned for Government as to make the Devil a Magistrate 3. The interpreting the Text in dispute only of Lawful Powers is agreeable to the Sentiments the generality of Mankind had of Usurpation at and before the Apostles time I shall give some Instances out of the most famous Governments in the World by which it will appear that Mankind has always had a very unkind Opinion of Usurpers And notwithstanding their Success they have not thought them so much the Favourites of Providence nor their Calling so Divine as we are lately made to believe To begin Astartus Contemporary with Rehoboam recovered the Kingdom of Tyre after it had been held twelve Years by Usurpers as Sir Walter Ralegh informs us It seems these Tyrians knew nothing of the Divine Right of Possession from whence I conclude it 's no innate Principle The same Author observes that the ten Tribes did never forbear to revenge the death of their Kings when it lay in their Power of which he gives some Instances nor approved the good Success of Treason unless Fear compel'd them So that it 's plain when they did comply it was Interest not Duty which engaged them From whence it follows that they were as much unenlightned as to this Point as the Heathenish Tyrians To continue the Argument the counterfeit Smerdis was in possession of the Empire of Persia for some Months who after he was understood to be an Impostor the Princes of the Blood immediately removed him which practice of theirs is mentioned by Iustin with Commendation And the just odium which Usurpation lay under was probably the Reason why this Usurper's Government is pretermitted and not reckoned by itself in the Chronological Accounts but added to the Reign of Cambyses as the Misrule of Cromwel was to that of King Charles II. From Persia let us travel homewards into Greece and to the most polite part of it Athens where we shall find the Memories of Harmodius and Aritogiton honoured and their Families exempted from paying Taxes for delivering their Country from the Tyranny of Hippias who broke in upon their Government and was expelled by the Athenians after several years Usurpation The learned Bodin gives us the Sense both of the Greeks and Romans in this matter as fully as can be desired 1. He defines a Tyrant or Usurper to be one who unlawfully seizes upon the Government And then adds Such a Person the Laws and Writings of the Antients command to be slain and propound the highest Rewards to those who can dispatch him Neither in such a Case are the Qualities of the Person considered or any distinction made between a kind and a cruel Usurper Let this therefore be laid down as an undoubted truth That whosoever in a Monarchy shall wrest the Government from the Lawful King or shall set himself
up for a Prince where the Supream Power is by the Constitution in the People may be lawfully killed by all or any Person of the Community And for this Conclusion he Quotes the Lex Valena among the Romans And Solon's Law at Athens which was not much different from the other And that this Doctrine concerning Tyrants might not be prejudicial to Rightful Governors under pretence of Maladministration He takes care to subjoyn That Lawful Princes where they are Supream in their Government Such as they are in France Spain England c. Are not to suffer in their Dignities Fortunes or Lives whether by Force or Formality of Iustice though they are never so flagitious and oppressive These passages I have cited from the Greeks Romans c. not that I approve of their expedient of Assassination but to show what an Aversion they had to Usurpation Alas They were perfectly to seek in the modern Doctrine of Possession They never dreamed that Violence and Right were words of the same signification Or that the continuation of an injury could give an Improvement of Title and supply the defect of the first Injustice They believed that the property of Crowns and Scepters was at least as well fixed as that of private Persons and that it was not in the Power of Violence and Treason to take it away These Observations are sufficient to prove that unless we will make St. Paul clash with St. Peter and contradict other plainâ— Texts and Inferences from Scripture Unless we will Expound the Text contrary to the Fathers run counter to the Sentiments of Mankind in general and debase Christianity below the Justice and generosity of Heathenism we must understand St. Paul's all Power of all Legal Power And therefore I think there was as little Reason as Decency in the Doctor 's making so bold with the Apostle as to say That he ought i. e. God ought to have made an express distinction between Legal and Illegal Powers otherwise no body could reasonably have understood him that he meant only the first As to the difficulties which he imagines will follow from this Interpretation viz. It will be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to be well skilled in the History and Laws of a Nation I Answer 1. That all these Inconveniences as the Doctor reckons them the Iews were liable to under the Family of David Upon which he owns the Crown was so firmly entailed that it could not be defeated by Usurpation This Entail was made by God's Appointment And does God put his own People upon all these intolerable Inconveniencies Did his infinite Wisdom fix the Government upon the most incomprehensible Basis Does God use to oblige Men to determine Disputes above their Capacity to lead them into Labyrinths of History and Perplexities of Conscience I suppose the Doctor does not imagine the Iews were all inspired with the knowledge of David's Family and of the elder Branches of it and yet we don't read they were ever at a loss about it but found the right way to their Sovereign easily enough And so doubtless they may do in other Countries without the Doctor 's Assistance It requires no great reach of Understanding to resolve all the Questions incident to this matter A Man needs not be any great Lawyer to tell whether he lives under a Monarchy or a Commonwealth It 's no difficult matter to distinguish the King from a Subject especially in a Country where the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are almost universally taken There are very few People with us so ignorant as not to know that it's Treason to take up Arms against the King And as for the Right Heir to the Crown he is generally as easily known as the Louvre or Whitehall One would have thought that since God by immediate Designation has given the Royal Authority to a particular Family and tied the Obedience of the Subject to Legal Right the Doctor would have concluded that an Adherence to Legal Right was most for the Advantage of Society And not have given us Reasonings which reflect upon the Divine Model and which suppose the Seat of Authority much more unaccountably fixed in the Iewish Government than in those of meer humane Contrivance But the Legality of Princes Titles is a great Dispute among Learned Men and how then should Unlearned Men understand them 1. He may remember that himself and the generality of the Learned in this Kingdom had not long since very different Thoughts of the present Controversy from what they now have and whether their Improvements in Learning or some other Reasons have altered their Opinion is a great Question 2. Can Unlearned Men understand nothing about which the Learned differ Then without doubt they are not bound to understand the Creed For there are and always have been a great many Learned Jews and Heathens and Hereticks who dispute about these Things Nay why should they believe any Religion at all since there are several Learned Atheists who deny it What he adds concerning the Title of the Roman Emperors which for many Ages together were either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful is of the same Complexion with the rest For 1. The Emperors Titles when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans which is the time pointed at by the Doctor and the Controversy could not be stark nought for many Ages together because at the time of the Apostle's writing the Empire itself was little more than One hundred Years standing 2. What Authority does the Doctor bring to shew the Emperor's Titles defective Why none but his own Indeed he had no other for if we consult the Historians who treat of this Argument we shall find the matter quite otherwise than our Author represents it The Reader may be satisfied from Tacitus that Augustus and Tiberius were chosen by the Consent of the People and Senate The Consuls Senate Army and People swore an Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius If part of this Author's Works had not been lost we might no doubt have received the same Testimonies from him concerning the Titles of Caligula and Claudius For Dion Cassius an Historian of unquestionable Credit speaks home to all four He tells us That the whole Senate pressed Augustus by earnest Entreaties to take the Soveraign Authority of the Empire to himself Tiberius was likewise made Emperor by the Importunity of the Senate and Consent of the People Caligula and Claudius had the same Charter for their Authority For as the same Author informs us They received the Empire by the Choice of the Senate and Army I might cite Suetonius who is full to the same purpose were not what is already alledged sufficient for the Point in hand However there is one thing in Cassius very remarkable which shews how comprehensive and absolute the Emperor's Power was For all other great Branches of Authority which lay
before dispersed in several Offices of State were annexed to the Imperial Dignity The Emperors used to be Consuls Tribunes of the People High-Priests Censors and out of the Iurisdiction of the City they are called Proconsuls and are Legibus Soluti i. e. above the Punishment of the Laws Now if the Senate and People who had the Right to dispose of the Roman Government resigned themselves and their Authority into the Emperor's hands what should hinder the Title of these Princes from being unquestionable Nothing can be plainer than that as Bodin affirms The People may give away all their Right to govern if they please And adds agreeably to the foregoing Testimonies that the Lex Regia was understood in this Sense This is so evident that the Doctor himself is forced to confess it though in lame imperfect Language The Emperors he grants did gain some kind of Consent from the Senate And if their Consent was once gained it 's to no purpose to Object the indirect Methods of obtaining it for allowing it was extorted by Fear or Flattery or other Arts this is not sufficient to null the translated Authority That when once resigned is past recall It being than too late to plead that a Man was wheedled or frighted out of his Consent This the Doctor very well understood and therefore tells us that the Romans themselves were great Usurpers and therefore I suppose had no Right to translate But this Objection I have already answered in the Dispute concerning the Convocation-Book And since the then present Powers were Legal Powers the Apostles Direction was very significant to Christians of other Ages from which they ought by parity of Reason to conclude it was their Duty to submit to none but Lawful Governors What he urges from Scripture of the Jews being bound to submit to the four Monarchys has been considered in the foregoing Section As for his saying they were Manifest Usurpations and yet set up by the Council and Decree of God and foretold by a Prophetick Spirit This comes short of the Case unless he has any Prophesies to produce in behalf of the Revolution Besides his Argument proves too much which is a sign it 's of kin to the Emperor's Titles stark nought For our Blessed Saviour's Passion was decreed by the Counsel of God and foretold by Prophecy and yet I conceive the Doctor is not so hardy as to affirm the Iews and Romans had a Divine Right to crucify him But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submiting to the present Powers whatever the Usurpations were To this it may be Answered 1. There are a great many Actions in the History of the Scriptures unquestionably unlawful which notwithstanding are mentioned without any Censure upon them Thus neither Noah nor Lot are blamed for their Intemperance nor Rebeckah for teaching Iacob to gain his Father's Blessing by Deceit And to come nearer the point Absalom is not directly blamed for Rebelling against David and will the Doctor conclude from hence that lie did well in it The Reason why the Scripture does not condemn every irregular practice is because it supposes Men endowed with Principles of Natural Religion and Morality which teach them to distinguish between Good and Evil and that they are to take their Measures of Virtue and Vice from the Rules of Reason and Revelation not from Precedent and Example 2. We may Observe that in the Usurpation's upon the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes it was the Custom of the Usurpers to destroy the Family of their Predecessor And when there is no Competition from a Legal Claim Possession is a good Title And therefore it 's no wonder the Israelites were not blamed for submitting to the present Powers for in that Case they were Legally Established And as for the House of David it was never set aside by Usurpation till the Time of Athaliah Now after Iehoiada had discovered that their Legal Soveraign Ioash was living I desire to know of the Doctor whether the Iews were bound to submit to Athaliahs Government or not If he says yes He not only condemns Iehoiada for Deposing Athaliah but makes the Divine Entail upon Davids Family upon which he lays so much stress signify nothing If he says no he gives up the Argument For then we have undoubted Principles of Scripture which condemn a Submission to Usurpation which are much safer Rules than Examples for Conscience to rely upon The Doctor proceeds to prove that Obedience is due to Usurpers when they are seized of the Administration of the Government from our Saviours Answer to the Pharisees and Herodians concerning Tribute Mony Render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar's Before I give a distinct Reply to this Objection it will not be improper to consider the occasion of the Text Now we are to observe that the Pharisees and Herodians enquired of the Lawfulness of paying Tribute to Caesar not out of a desire of Instruction from our Saviour but to entrap him They proposed an ensnaring Question concerning Tribute a plain Catagorical Answer to which they knew must of necessity provoke either the Roman or the Pharisees Party against him This our Blessed Saviour calls an Hypocritical tempting of him And since the Time of his Passion was not yet come we may conclude he intended to avoid the danger of the Question not by declining it but by giving an Answer of an Obscure and uncertain Sense Upon which no Charge could be grounded because of its Ambiguity This the Proposers well understood They knew they could not fix any determinate meaning upon our Saviour's Words which made them Marvel at the prudence of his Answer and leave him Whereas had he plainly resolved the Question either way they had gained their intended advantage upon him And since there was a designed obscurity in our Savior's Answer as being most proper to secure himself and to discourage the Malice of those who came to entangle him it 's unreasonable to draw any Conclusions about Government from thence especially such which not only contradict other plain places of Scripture but are repugnant to the Notions of common Justice and the sense of Mankind Having premised this I Answer 1. That the Doctor by this Argument of Tribute should have come in to the Revolution when the new Money was first Coyned as he has been told already 2. Caesar as I have proved was the Lawful Prince of Iudea and the right Owners of the Soveraignty as well as the Jewish Nation had submitted to him And since he was not only possessed of the Government but of the Title to Govern the Right of Coinage belonged to him and when this Prerogative of Royalty was produced by the Pharisees it 's no wonder to find his Right to Tribute inferred from thence The Doctor urges That our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the Possession of Power And if this be a good Reason it 's good in