it conveys the unjust Possession of an Estate but when it conveys a Crown to an unjust Usurper it is an uncontrollable Evidence of his positive Will and Authority this Distinction cannot be deduc'd from Providence itself for in both Cases the Concurrence is the same he must go to something else to prove it either Reason or Scripture and all his Arguments from both I have examined already 2. The same difference that is assigned in the Reply between a Crown and an Estate may be applied to other Cases I will instance in a Bishop's Right to his Temporalty and to spiritual Jurisdiction to the former nothing is required besides a mere humane Right but to enjoy the later he must have God's Authority suppose now that both are usurped by an illegal and schismatical Intruder who is certainly in some sense Episcopus divina Providentia The Dr. will confess that Providence has given him no Right to the Temporalties the Question then is whether â—â— has a Right to the Spiritual Jurisdiction which is God's Authority It may be urged that there is indeed an ordinary lawful way whereby Bishops are invested with that Authority but God's Authority is not inseparably annexed to that ordinary Vocation he can make a Bishop without it and when he does so a mere lawfull Vocation is not a sufficient Reason to adhere to a Bishop deposed by God nor can the want of it â—ustisie the disowning of a Bishop whom God has advanced The plain Resolution of such a Case is this God can make a Bishop without an ordinary Vocation but this he never does and he that pretends to an extraordinary Call is bound to prove it by indubitable Evidence if he cannot we must reject the extraordinary and adhere to the ordinary Bishop and they that do otherwise are schismatical Dividers of Catholick Communion And thus it is in the Case of Kingdoms God can depose a lawful King and set up an Usurper without antecedent Right but before we can transfer our Allegiance we must be sure that God has done this The pretender to an extraordinary Commission must produce extraordinary Evidence but the ordinary Events of Providence are not sufficient to prove it for the Thief and the schismatical Bishop are in Possession by Providence as well as the Usurper and many things do happen under the Direction of Providence which God himself does condemn and punish which Men are bound by God to resist to the utmost of their Power 3. There is no such great Disparity as is pretended between Right to a Crown and Right to an Estate Right in general is a moral Quality whereby we may possess or doe any thing justly it extends to Government of Persons as well as possession of Things and when it is applied to the former it is called Authority the Rule and measure of Right is Law and the Obligation of all Law does proceed onely from the Authority of God A Right to an Estate is a moral Power of possessing and enjoying it justly a Right to the Government of a Family or Kingdom is a moral Power to command those Societies and where there is no Right to command there can be no Obligation to obey these Rights may be acquired by the positive Laws of God the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Civil Societies which are onely so many several ways of God's revealing his Will to Mankind and therefore all Right either to Government or Estates must be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God the only Lawgiver concerning the Right to govern there is no Question and as to Estates and other private Possessions it seems evident that no humane Law considered as merely humane can create any Right to any thing for humane Law is nothing but the Will of Men and the Act of one Man conveying a Possession to another cannot oblige a third Person to abstain from it and therefore cannot appropriate it as the Right of the other the Obligation must proceed from some Authority superiour to both which does bind the one by the Act of the other and that can be no other but God's Authority In short Right is the Effect of Law and Law hath its Obligation from God and hence it follows that as God's Authority is necessary to make a King so is it necessary likewise to create a Right to an Estate and therefore in this respect there is no difference between the one Right and the other for both are ultimately founded on God's Authority God by his Sovereign Dominion can dispose of Estates as well as Crowns against Law but humane Laws cannot dispose of either without God's Authority but the Power of God to doe a thing is no Proof that he does it and Providential Possession is still as good Evidence of God's Authority to an Estate as of his Authority to govern There remains yet another Reply to the Objection which must also be considered it is this That all private Injuries are reserv'd by God himself to the redress of Civil Government and Courts of Judicature and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights But the nature of the Thing proves that when such Disputes arise which are too big for humane Judicature which God hath reserved to his own Judgment as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring of Kingdoms here the final Determinations of Providence in settling Princes on their Thrones does draw the Allegiance of Subjects after it This contains the force of his Evasion and the first Answer to the former may sustice to this that though this difference be admitted between private Robbery and the Usurpation of a Crown yet there is no difference between them as to the concurrence of Providence for Robbery is a providential Event and if every Event is God's Will and Appointment the Robbery is confirmed by God's Will and if the Civil Magistrate does redress it he fights against God by contradicting his Order and Appointment But 2. There is often no such Difference between Robbery and Usurpation there is none when the Banditi are so strong and powerfull that the Civil Powers are not able to subdue them for then their Injuries are too big for legal Redress there is none in a state of Nature when there is no Civil Government there is none when Anarchy is introduced by Civil War and the Administration of Justice is obstructed by Rebellion and lastly there is none when the injurious Possession of an Estate cannot possibly be cleared by legal Evidence In all these Cases it is impossible that Oppressions Thefts and Robberies should be redressed by humane Judicature it is God alone that can redress them and therefore according to the Doctour's way of arguing the final Determination of Providence does in such Cases create a Right and the unjust Possessour is not bound to Restitution But faith the Doctor to make the Cases parallel he who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly settled in it
Opinion notwithstanding his customary Complements of Nonsense and Trifling But it is more material to observe that the Doctour seems by this Account to have been more busie against the Oaths while he refused them than he is willing to acknowledge He disclaims being ever engaged in any Faction against taking the Oaths or making it his business to dissuade Men from it or seeking out Men to make Proselites but confesses only that he declared his Thoughts against them when he was asked But it seems to be a little more for a Man to be a Party to the Printing of a Book tending to dissuade Men from taking the Oaths and to make Proselites against it for him to wish it were actually printed to urge the printing it as soon as possible and to direct whither a Copy should be sent If this be more than what the Reverend Doctour would seem to own he may have forgot that he was so far engaged in one Overt-Act for the making Proselites against the Oaths and it would be more charitable for him to distrust his own Memory than to cast a Slander upon the Inventions of his Neighbours I would beg your leave to add one thing more with regard to the Doctor 's Raillery against the Notion of Presumptive Consent He says it is a very pretty Notion and serves a great many good turns iâ— makes Laws makes Treason and gives Authority to the inauthoritative Acts of a King de facto It serves a great many good turns so that the Dr. looks upon it as a Notion fit for no purpose but to serve a turn and one would think then that he above all Men should not ever have made use of it to serve his turn upon occasion And yet if we look back into his former Writings we shall find that no other Authour has served himself of this Notion in a more peculiar manner than the Reverend Dr. In his Vindication of his Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet he asserts the Validity of the Ordinations by meâ—r Presâ—yters in the foreign Reformed Churches which have no Bishops And upon what does he ground the validity of their Orders Why truly upon the Force and Authority which the Presumptive Allowance of the Church has in Cases of Necessity He takes some pains to prove that the Church's Consent may be presumed to these Ordinations from the Reasonableness of the Thing and from the Practice of the Church in parallel Cases but makes no Difficulty in the least to conclude that the Church's presumed Consent has sufficient Force and Authority to make these Ordinations by mere Presbyters and the Administration of the Sacraments by Persons ordained by them valid and effectual His wordâ— are If the Church may be presumed in Cases of Necessity to allow Persons to perform such religious Offices and Ministâ—ries as otherwise 〈…〉 are not qualified to perform then this very Allowance supplies the Incapacity of the Personâ— and does virtually confer that Authority upon him which in other Cases he had not And 〈…〉 consider his farther prosecution of this Argument it will appear that the Doctour would make as little difficulty to assert that the Administration of the Sacraments by mere â—aymen in a Church where they have no Bishops or Presâ—yters to administer them is mad 〈…〉 valid and effectual by 〈…〉 of the same Presumptive Allowance of the Church No 〈…〉 will the Dr. be pleased to look back upon his way of arguing in that Treatise and see ho 〈…〉 all his present Râ—â—llâ—â—y â—â— directly levelled against it The Presumptive Allowance oâ— the Church is a very pretâ—y Noâ—ion and serves a great many good turns it makes 〈…〉 and it makes Prieâ—â—â— it makes Orders conferred by simple Presbyters true Orders and it makes the Sacraments administred by Persons who have not Episcopal Ordination nay even by mere Laymen true Sacraments and it makes a Church without Bishops nay without Bishops or Presbyters a true Church it gives Authority to the inauthoritative Acts of Ordaining in mere Presbyters and to the inauthoritative Acts of Administring the Sacraments in Persons ordained by Presbyters nay eveâ— in Laymen where they have no Bishops or Presbyters Does now the Dr. take this Raillery for a sufficient Confutation of his own pretty Notion of the Church's Presumptive Allowance If he does not why must we take it for an Argument against Bp. Sanderson's Notion of the Presumed Consent of the King de Juâ—e Can the Church's Presumed Consent do all this and must the King 's Presumed Consent do nothing And whence is it that the Dr. asscribes so great Force and Authority to the Church's Presumed Consent He grounds it upon the Church's Power to dispense with positive Institutions in case of Necessity and by her own Approbation and Authority to supply the Defects and Irregularities of such Administrations But why must the Church have such a Power Why Because otherwise the Power of the Church is more defective than of any other Society of Men. Then other Societies of Men i. e Civil Societies have such a Power by the same reason as the Church has it and if this Power in the Church implies so great Force and Authority in the Church's Presumed Allowance then the same Power in the State implies as great Force and Authority in the Civil Magistrate's presumed Consent I do not look upon it as so very strange that the learned Dr. should contraâ—ict himself thus at the distance of 7 Years because in that time a man may become another Person and his very Principle of Vnity i. e. his Self-consciousness may be changed But it looks â—ery odly that others should be lashed with the Dr's Raillery and run down with his Confidence for no other Reason but that the Dr. is not at leisure to review his Writings 7 Years backward and so forgets and contradictâ— his old Notions He is very free to say he hath renounced no Principle buâ— one that ever he taught but ever is a very long time and within a little more than 7 Years we find the learned Dr. tripping and renouncing one more pretty Notion besides that Principle He declares now that for his part he lays no stress upon a Presumed Consent but then he was pleased to lay the greatest stress upon it to make it the ground of the Validity of the Orders and Sacraments in the foreigâ— Reformed Churches which have no Bishops and consequently the ground of the very Being of those Churches Now he is pleased to expose the Notion which then did him such 〈…〉 Service as a Notion good for nothing but to serve a turn And is not this very pretty 〈…〉 after all the Dr. himself seems to be the onely Pâ—rson who hath made use of this Notion to serve a turn for he â—aid the greatest stress upon it once when it was for 〈…〉 but declares he lays no stress upon it nay thinks sit to ridioule and explodâ— it â—ow that it is not for his turn
Power that it may be exercised but if wicked Men obstruct the exercise of it the Gift is not forfeited though the End is accidentally defeated In a Rebellion which is the Parent of Anarchy the Sovereign cannot exercise his Authority But does he then cease to be th 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is God's Ordinance Or arâ—â— the Rebels then Licensed to resist him The same is the case of Usurpation the Usurper obstructs the exercise of God's Authority and his own Wickedness can give him no Right to continue it The exercise of God's Authority is often hindred by the Wickedness of Men as for instance his Authority in a Father when his Children are Rebellious in a Husband when his Wife in a Master when his Servants are Disobedient and in a Bishop or Pastor in the Cases of Schism Usurpation and Persecution and yet still the one remainâ— a Father the other a Husband the other a Master and the other a Bishop though those are names which relate to the exercise of Authority as well as Rulers Kings and Governours 3. He insists much upon the silence of Scripture as to the distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers he affirms there is no such distinction to be found any where in Scripture and thence he argues That if St. Paul had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express Words or else no body could have reasonably understood him to intend this precept of Subjection only to legal Powers To this Objection the Doctor himself hath given a sufficient Answer What he has observed of our Savlour in his Case of Resistance is as true of his Apostle We have no Reason to suspect that Christ would alter the Rights of Sovereignty This was no part of his Commission to change the external Forms and Polities of Civil Governments He who would not undertake to divide an Inheritance between two contending Brethren Luke 12. 13 14. Can we think he would attempt any thing of that vast Consequence as the alterations of Civil Power which would have unsettled the Foundamental Constitutions of all the Governments of the World Again What Rights he found Sovereign Princes possessed of he leaves them in the quiet Possession of for had he intended to make any change in this Matter he would not have given such a general Rule to render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar ' s without specifying what those Things are And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesar ' s Right whatever is essential to the notion of Sovereign Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar ' s Right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this Matter Now say I if our Saviour or his Apostles had enjoyn'd Subjects to adhere to Usurpers against their legal Sovereigns They had altered the Rights of Soveverignty and unsettled the Fundamental Constitutions of all Governments But on the contrary they leave all Princes in the Possession of their Rights they have given 〈…〉 this general Rule that we should render them their dues and what those are they have left to the Laws of Nations to determine and whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be a Prince's Right that the Subjects must render to him for the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter And if this be good Reasoning then the point is whether Allegiance were due to Usurpers before the Gospel for if it were not the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter nor made that to be a due which before was none But the Examples of Scripture the Law and Consent of Nations which have always allowed the Resistence of Usurpers do put that out of Question and therefore supposing the Gospel has given us no distinction between rightful Princes and Usurpers that silence can be no Argument against it for the Gospel has left the Rights of Princes as it found them it requires Subjects to render them those Rights and if by the Laws of Nations Allegiance is the right of lawful Princes it is their Right also by the Gospel Where may we find in Scripture any Distinction between a true and a false Father a lawfull Husband or Master and such as usurp those Characters Yet Subjection is required to Fathers Husbands and Masters as well as to Sovereign Princes but there was no need that the Scriptures should declare that it was due only to real Fathers and to lawful Husbands and Masters or that it should give Rules to distinguish them from the Usurpers of those Authorities common sense is sufficient to inform us that such a Distinction is necessary to be made and in ordinary cases it is easie to distinguish them The Scripture requires Obedience to Parents but tells us not who they are nor distinguishes real Parents from pretended and yet no one thinks that final Obedience is due to the Usurpers of that Authority Suppose it to be in the Case of Subjection to Civil Powers the Scripture requires it but distinguishes not between lawfull Powers and Usurpers Must we therefore conclude that it requires Subjection to Usurpers And why may we not conclude alike for the Usurpers of paternal Authority Is it because Sense and Reason do agree that Usurpers must be distinguished in the one Case but not in the other But Reason tells me plainly that Obedience is not due to the Usurpers of Civil Power for he who has no Right to Power has no Right to Obedience The Foundations of Paternal and Civil Authority may be different but in both the Duty of Obedience must be founded on a Right to Obedience nothing can be due to him who has no Right as an Usurper of paternal Power has no Right so neither has the Usurper of Civil Power he has neither a legal nor natural Right and as for the Right of Providence both the Usurpers may lay an equal Claim to it for they are both advanced by the same way of Providence There is no more Reason therefore to pay Obedience to a Civil Usurper than to the Usurpers of the Power of Fathers Husbands or Masters and where there is a plain necessity of making a distinction the silence of Scripture is no Argument against it There is no express Distinction in Scripture between the legal and illegal Possessor of an Estate there are onely general prohibitions of Injury and Injustice and general Precepts of rendring every Man his Due but what Estates or Properties are due to every Man is left to the Civil Laws of Nations to determine and yet the Silence of Scripture in these points is no Argument against the Distinction of Right in private Possessions and how can it hold good against the same Distinction in respect of Sovereignty There is the like Reason and Necessity for admitting it in the one case as there is in the other if there be any difference it is on