SHERLOCK against SHERLOCK The Master of the TEMPLE's REASONS FOR His late taking the OATH to Their MAJESTIES ANSWERED BY THE Rector of St. George Botolph-Lane WITH MODEST REMARKS On the Doctors Celebrated NOTIONS OF ALLEGIANCE TO SOVERAIGN POWERS Quantum Mutatus ab illo Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit Ipsum Printed at London and Re-printed at Edinburgh and are to be Sold by Alexander Henderson Bookseller at the upper-end of the Locken-Booths 1691. THE PREFACE THE Church of Rome's Pretence to Infalibility has been decryed by not a few who at the same time have been as Dogmatical in every Punctilio or things wholly Extrinsick to the Christian Religion as if the singular Priviledge of the Church had been transplanted from Rome to a People that would bring forth better 〈◊〉 thereof Nor has this Imperious Principle confined it self to those things which seem more within it sphere which if done in Moderation would never have been 〈◊〉 by the Sober part of Mankind but has encroacht upon Politicians on a preteâ—â— of rectifying the Unchristian Principles they had infected the World with As if there was to be no manner of knowledge in the Universe but what should proceed from the Priests Lips And the 〈◊〉 and Thummim of these Holy Ones hath contributed not a little by rubbing off the Laodicean Tâ—â—per to inflame the World with a Blind Zeal and Virulent Hatred and to set a Man and his Friends a variance together And all this is propagated by means of a Follish belief in the more simple People of the Infallibility of those Persons from a Blind Reverence given to them on the account of this Function That this is no fiction will appear beyond all Contradiction if we but consider what hath been 〈◊〉 out of Pulpits and not long ago dropt from the Pens of not a few who have been accounted the great Proficients in Reason and meerly upon the foresaid account greedily swallowed up by the more 〈◊〉 considerate tho' the more knowing of that side espoused those Tenets from a more pernicious Principle that they might the easier like the great Fishes domineer over and devour others and he 〈◊〉 wholly abandoned his Reason to whatever their Caprice suggests who has the Face to deny it Among all others none has appeared a stouter Champion for those Tenets in General 〈…〉 Learned Doctor And for ought I know none has contributed more to encrease the number of Mal contents to their present Majesties from those Principles than He has And yet we see how 〈◊〉 a sudden He has been pleased to Act Diametrically contrary to them tho' at the same time 〈…〉 Vindication He seems still to own them which in the Eyes of all understanding Men is no 〈◊〉 than for a Person to inveigh loudly against all manner of Debauchery and yet at the same time 〈◊〉 guilty of some notorious Acts of it I am glad that this Learned Person has taken the Oaths whatever was his Motive in doing so as St. Paul was glad that Christ was Preached tho' some did it out of Envy and others from 〈◊〉 other sinister Principle But that the Doctor should Vindicate his taking the Oaths and yet 〈…〉 former Principles is I confess a Riddle beyond my Capacity to unfold I have therefore briefly proposed to publick Consideration what the Doctor has formerly proposed as Matters of highest â—â—â—â—tance which seem with a Witness to contradict some Passages in his Vindication tho' He at the same time suggests That he is the same Man as formerly that He may for the satisfaction 〈◊〉 great many Persons that are not a little concerned for it either please to reconcile those passages 〈◊〉 what He has formerly so industriously Preached and Written or formally retract his former Principles on this point as pernicious to All Mankind By doing whereof for ought I know he may more advantage the Publick than He has hitherto done by his Learned Writings I might mind him That in Vindicating himself He as his best Topick might have said something in Vindication of heir Majesties Government But my design being chiefly to shew Him 〈◊〉 He is at 〈◊〉 with Himself I wave it not doubting but this Case will by some other Hand be presented to this Learned Casuist SHERLOCK against SHERLOCK The Master of the TEMPLE In his Case of Allegiance Affirms THat all Soveraign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are placed there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obeyed by all Subjects as the Ministers of God wthout enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne Alleg pag. 10. That the Scripture has given us no Directions in this Case but to submit and pay all Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers It makes no distinction that ever I could find between Rightful Kings and Vsurpers between Kings we must and whom we must not obey but the General Rule is Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers for all Power is of God Ibid. p. 18. The English Monarchy is Hereditary and the Lineal Heir has the Legal Right to the Crown Grant this But still we must consider how far this is a Law to all private Subjects how far every Subject is bound in Conscience by this Constitution to give the Possession of the Crown to the Right Heir and not to suffer any one else to take it or it he do not to pay Allegiance to him or own him for his King What Law is there that says this And I think the reason of the thing doth not prove it The Law doth not refer the Cognizance of such Matters to private Subjects and therefore they are not bound by Law to take care of it and I know nothing but Law can Bind us to a legal Constitution Legal Rights must be determined by alegal Authority and there is no Authority can take Cognizance of the Titles and Claim of Princes and the disposal of the Crown but the Estates of the Realm They indeed are oblidged to take Notice of the legal Descent of the Crown and if through mistake or any other Cause they set the Crown upon a wrong Head they must answer for it but private Subjects who have no legal Cognizance of the matter are bound by no Law that I know of to disown a King whom the Estates have owned tho' they should think the Right is in the other If Authority may not over-rule private Subjects in these Cases even against their own private Opinions and justifie their Obedience to a King who is placed in the Throne Subjects are in a very ill Case who have no Authority to Judge and no Power to Resist There are numerous Cases wherein Subjects must acquiesce in the determinations of a legal Authority against what they think a legal Right The reason and necessities of Government require it and the Law which gives a Right will not allow us to vindicate our Right against a legal Authority And therefore it doth no
he had done the House of Jeroboam chap. 16. ver 7. Ela succeeded Baash who had no better Title than his Father and yet Zimri who Slew him is accused of Treason for it v. 20. ZimriVsurpt the Kingdom when he had Slain his Master but he was only a vain Pretender to it when he wanted Power for when the People who were Encamped against Gibbethon heard that Zimri had Killed the King they made Omri King and went immediately and Besieged Tizza where Zimri had naken Possession of the King's Palace who finding no way to Escape set Fire to it himself and died in the Flames of it And now Israel was divided between Omri and Tibri but those who followed Omri prevailed against those who followed Tibri and Tribri died and Omri Reigned ver 21.22 All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession to the Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King who cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the guilt of Treason But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Judah which GOD himself had entailed on David 's Family as appears from the Example of Joam who was concealed by his Aunt Jehosheba and hid in the House of the Lord for Six Years During this Time Athaliah Reigned and had the whole Power of Government in her hands but yet this did not make her a Soveraign and irresistable Prince the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive And therefore in the Seventh Year Jehojada the Priest set Joash upon the Throne and Slew Athaliah and guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so 2 Kings 11. which shews That no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a natural Prince Such Usurpers though they have the Possession of the Supreme Power yet they have no right to it and though GOD for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such Deposed and Banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision Dan. 4.26 The Tree is cut down but the Stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after that they shall know that the Heavens do Rule Case of Resistance of Supreme Powers Pages 127 128 129 130 131 132. Self-Defence was never allowed by GOD or Nature against publick Authority but only against Private Violence There was a Time when Fathers had the Power of Life and Death over their own Children Now I would only ask these Men if a Son at that time saw his Father coming to Kill him and that as he thought very unjustly he might Kill his Father to defend himself This never was allowed by the most Barbarous Nations in the World and yet it may be justified by this Principle of Self-Defence as it is urged by those Men which is a plain Argument that it is false It is an express Law That he that Smiteth his Father or his Mother shall be surely put to Death Exod. 21.15 and yet then the Power of Parents was restrained by Publick Laws And the Authority of a Prince is not less Sacred than of a Parent He 's God's Minister and Vicegerent and Subjects are expresly forbid to resist and it is a vain thing to pretend a natural Right against the express Law of God 2. For the Sole Power of the Sword is in the Kings hands and therefore no Private Man can take the Sword in his own Defence but by the Kings Authority and certainly he cannot be presumed to give any Man Authority to use the Sword against himself And therefore as Christ tells Peter He that takes the Sword shall Perish by the Sword He who draws the Sword against the lawfull Powers deserves to dye by it 3. We may consider also That it is an external Law That private Defence must give place 〈◊〉 publick Good Now he that takes Arms to defend his own Life and some few others involves a whole Nation in Blood and Confusion and occasions the Miserable Slaughter of more Men than a long Succession of Tyrants could destroy Such Men Sacrifice many Thousand Lives both of Friends and Enemies to a private Self-Defence and if this be the Law of Nature we may well 〈◊〉 Nature a Step-Mother that has Armed us to 〈◊〉 own Ruine and Confusion Case of Resistance pag. 203 204 205. Considerations and Reflections upon some of Doctor Sherlock's Celebrated Positions concerning Passive Obedience and Non Resistance WE shall now consider the Doctor 's Reasons why the King is Irresistible in all Cases which are these 1. That the King has a Personal Authority antecedent to all the Laws of the Land independent on them and superior to them Case of Resistance pag 196. Now This is not true for the King is King by Law and has his Authority from the Law Indeed our Authors says in the same Page That the great Lawyer Bracton by those very words of his Lex facit Regem was far enough from understanding that the King receives his Soveraign Power from the Law I confess I never was so well acquainted with Bracton as to know what secret Meanings he had contrary to the Sense of his Words and therefore cannot tell how far he was from understanding That the King receives his Soveraign Power from the Law but I am sure he was not far from saying so for he says it in the very next words Attribuat igitur Rex quod Lex attribuites videlicet Dommationem Potestatem He proves that the King is under the Law and ought to Govern by the Law because he is made King by the Law and receives his Power and Authority from the Law and then adds what the Doctor is pleased to cite Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur Voluntas non Lex He is no King who Governs by Arbitrary Will and not by Law that is no lawful English King Bracton must mean for still he may be a Good Outlandish and Assyrian King and Tyrant though his Arbitrary Will does all For the Doctor Case of Resist pag 41. quotes out of Dan. 5.18.19 That God gave Nebuchadnezzar such an Absolute Kingdom that vvhom he vvould he slevv and vvhom he vvould he made Alive and vvhom he vvould he set up and vvhom he vvould he pulled dovvn And I hope no Man Tyrannizes over his People who uses the Prerogative which God has given him therefore the Doctor rendring Lex facit Regem To Govern by Lavv makes a Soveraign Prince a King and distinguishes him from a Tyrant will pass with none but such ordinary Readers as he write his Book or and who never saw Bracton Chancellor For tescue likewise says That a limited Monarch receives his power a Populo estaxam which unriddles the Doctors Riddle in the same place Hovv the Law can make the King vvhen the King makes the Law But it is such a wonderful thing that there should be a Lavv to create a King and to enable him so far
in the making of Laws as to make his consent necessary to the being of all Future Laws was it not thus when the two houses were Erected and endowed with the like Power notwithstanding the Doctors says pag. 196. That the Law has no Authority nor can give any but what it receivs from the King For the Laws are made Authoritate Parliamenti which is by the Authority of the King Lords and Commons But to lay aside Bracton and Fortescue let us a little reason the Matter This Personal Authority of the King antecedent to all the Laws of the Land independent on them and superiour to them whence is it has be a Throne like God Is he of Himself and for Himself Or has he a Personal Authority from God antecedent to Laws to be a King Then shew a Revelation from God where he is named Or has he the Natural Authority of a Father to Govern his Children Then it must be proved That he has begotten his three Kingdoms and all the People in all other His Majesties Dominions Or has he a Personal Patriarchal Authority which is set up as a shadow of the Authority of a Father whereby the Eldest Son is his Father by Representation Then it must be proved That the King is the Eldest Son of the Eldest House of all the Families of the Earth Or were mankind made in the day of their Creation by Nations and Created Prince and People as they were Created Male and Female but if none of these things can be said then it remains That a Civil Authority that is a mutual Consent and Contract of the Parties first Founded this Civil Relation of King and Subject as we see it every day does of Master and Servant which is another Civil Relation and that the Consent of a Community or Society is a Law and the Foundation of all Civil Laws whatsoever is proved beyond all contradiction by Mr. Hooker Eccl Pol. Li 〈◊〉 1 chap. 10. Another Reason which the Doctor gives why the King is Irresistible in all Cases is Because he is Soveraign and it is essential to Soveraignty to be irresistible in all Cases Which is false For the King of Polland 〈◊〉 Soveraign he Coins Money with his own Image and Superscription upon it which according to the Doctor pag. 50 Is a certain Mark of Soveraignty and pag. 51. By the very Impression on their Money it is evident That he is their Soveraign Lord He stiles himself by the same Grace of God with any King in Christendom and wears the like Crown He Assembles Diets he disposes of all Offices he judges the Palatines themselves and is full of the Marks of Soveraignty And yet he that shall take a Polish Penny and make such work with it as the Doctor does with the Roman Tribute Money and out of it read Lectures either of Active or Passive Obedience in all Cases will read amiss For in case he breake his Coronation Oath they owe him no Obedience at all of any kind for this is one Clause in it Quod si Sacramentum meum violavero Incolae Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur So that in case he violate his Oath his Irresistibility departs from him and he becomes like other Men. I come now to the Doctor 's Second Case which is resolv'd under the covert and Countenance of the former That as well inferior Magistrats as others imployed by a Popish Tyrannical Prince in the most Illegal and Outragious Acts of Violence such as Cutting of Throats c. are as Irresistible as the Prince himself under pretence of having the Prince's Authority to do these Acts and must be submitted to under pain of Hell and Eternal Damnation Now to shew the Authority which we are bound to submit to not in Laws but in Persons who Act contrary to Law he has brought the following Argument which is the most laboured of any in his Book Nay it is very false and absurd to say That every Illegal Is an Vnauthoritative Act which carrie no Objection with it This is contrary to the practice of all Judicatures and the daily Experience of Men who suffer in their Lives Bodies and Estates by an unjust and Illegal Sentence For the most illegal Judgment is Valid till it be reversed by some Superior Court which most illegal but Authoritative Judgment derives its Authority not from the Law but the but the Person of him whose Judgment it is Case of Obed. Pag. 193.194.195 Now to use his own words this is very false and absurd all over For first Legal and Authorative are all one and Illegal Authority is in England unlawful lawful Power Secondly It is not true That an Illegal Judgment is valid till it be revers'd For the Judgment of a Man to Death in an Arbitrary way either contrary to the Verdict of his Jury or without a Jury is not Authorative or Valid at all no not for an hour But I suppose by illegal Judgments the Doctors means legal Judgments which have Error in them and if these should not be Valid and stand good till that Errour be found in some Higher Court there could not be legal nor Illegal nor any Judgments at all but all humane Judicatures must come to an end For if Judgment cannot be given till we have Judges who are not subject to Errour the Laws must ly by and rust and there can be no administration of Justice Thirdly The Authority of a Judgment which is Erroneous is not from the Judges Personal Authority above the Law nor from his Mistakes beside the Law but from that Jurisdiction and Authority which the Law has given to Courts and Judicial Proceedings which if they be in due course of Law are legal and are presumed to be every way right and as they should be and free from Errour till the contrary appears in some Higher Court. But if the Judges in Westminster-Hall should use a Personal Authority superior to Law in Judging Men to Death without a Jury or in condemning a Man when his Jury acquit him or the like the Law having given no Authority to any such proceedings these Judgments would be illegal and void and have no Authority at all Secondly Another Reason why we must submit to Illegal Violence is this Because though they have no legal Authority for it yet we have no legal Authority to defend our selves against it pag 192 But he himself has given as full an answer to this as can be desired in these words For no Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him that has no Authority to take it away pag. 59. Thirdly We must submit to Illegal Violence because the People cannot call inferiour Magistrates to an Account pag 191. But sure the People may defend themselves against the Murderous Attempts of inferiour Magistrates without pretending to call them to an account or sitting in Judgment upon them And when they themselves are called to an account for this Defence they may give
a very good account of it by the 28. H. 8. cap. 5. Fourthly We must not defend our selves when we are Persecuted to Death for our Religion contrary to the Laws of England because we must not defend our selves when we are thus persecuted contrary to the Laws of God and Nature which are as Sacred and inviolable as the Laws of our Country Case of Alleg p 200. Answer I grant that the Laws God and Nature are more sacred and Inviolable than the Laws of our Country but they give us no Civil Rights and Liberties as the Laws of England have done Every Leige Subject of England has a legal Property in his Life Liberty and Estate in the free Exercise of the Protestant Religion established amongst us and a legal Possession may be legally defended Now the Laws of England in Queen Mary's Time were against the Protestants and stript them of this unvaluable Blessing and therefore tho' they chose rather to observe the Laws of God and Nature than those of their Country which at that time violated both the other yet withal they submitted to the Laws of their Country which alone 〈◊〉 and take away all legal Rights and Titles and when all is said are 〈◊〉 only Measures of Civil Obedience Fifthly Men must not defend their Lives against a lawless 〈◊〉 Persecution when they are Condemned by no Law becauâ—â— the 〈◊〉 defend their Lives when they are Condemned by a Wicked Persecuting Popish Law For such lawless Persecution has as much Authority as such a Wicked Persecuting Law pag. 202. This is manifestly false For a lawless Popish Persecution has no Authority at all but has all the Authority of Heaven and Earth against it whereas a wicked Popish Persecuting Law tho' as it is wicked it cannot Command our Obedience yet as it is a Law it may dispose of our Civil Rights If Queen Mary's Laws were no Laws because they were wicked Persecuting Laws why were they Repealed why were they not declared to be null from the beginning Sixthly That Non Resistance of Illegal Violence is the best way to secure the publick Peace and Tranquility and the best way for every Man 's private Defence for self-defence may involve many others in Blood and besides exposes a Man's self pag. 205 206. That is to say when the publick Peace is violated in an high manner the best way to secure is quietly to suffer it still to be broken farther a Man's best defence is to Die patiently for fear of being Killed And when 〈◊〉 are broke loose the only way to prevent the effusion of more Christian Blood is to let them alone Now in opposition to this Doctrine I shall only remember the Doctor That if there had not been a Defence made against the Irish Cut-Throats in Forty One though they had the Impudence to pretend the King's Commission there had hardly been Protestant left but the Prestilent Northern Heresie had been throughâ—â— extirpated in that Kingdom Seventhly Another Reason is Because Non Resistance is certainly the best way to prevent the change of a Limited into an Absolute Monarchy pag. 212. Now this is so far from being true that on the other hand absolute Non Resistance even of the most illegal Violence 〈◊〉 actually change the Government and sets up an Absolute and Arbitrary Power in the shortest way and by the surer side For a Prince whom the Laws themselves have made Absolute has thereby no more than a Right and Title to an Absolute Subjection but Non Resistance puts him into the actual Possession of it The Doctor himself has made this 〈◊〉 beyond all contradiction for he says That Non-Resistance is as perfect Subjection as can be paid to Soveraign Princes pag. 44. and 11â— he calls it The only perfect and absolute Subjection we owe to Princes Now the most perfect and absolute Subjection that can be paid erects the most absolute Government that can be devised For these words are of Eternal Truth which we read in pag. 64. of this Book For Authority and Subjection are Correlates they have mutual respect to each other and therefore they must stand and fall together There is no Authority where there is no Subjection due and there is no Subjection due where there is no Authority And is not this as bright and as evident a Truth There is no absolute Authority where there is no absolute Subjection due and there can be no absolute Subjection due where there is no absolute Authority I shall now produce some Reasons to prove the Lawfulness of Defending our selves against Illegal Violence which is a Truth so obvious and so agreeable to the common sense of Mankind that even those Men who set themselves to oppose it do often times assert it unawares and gave unanswerable Reasons for it I shall therefore first set down those Concessions which the force of Truth hath Extorted from the Doctor and secondly add some other Arguments to them First No Man wants Authority to defend his Life against him who has no Authority to take it way pag. 69. But no Man whatsoever has any just and legal Authority that is any Authority at all to take it away contrary to Law pag. 191. And from these premises it is easie for any Man to infer the Conclusion Secondly He that Resists the Vsurpations of Men does not Resist the Ordinance of God which alone is forbidden to be Resisted But Acts of Arbitrary and Illegal Violence are the Vsurpations of Men. These again are the Doctors Doctrines the former pag. 128. the other pag 211 212. he acknowledges that the assuming of an Absolute and Arbitrary Power in this Kingdom would be Usurpation though he says at the same time That no Prince in this Kingdom ever Vsurped such a Power which is notoriously false for Richard the Second by Name did not to mention any other Thirdly The Doctor pag 126. has these words Every Man has the Right of Self-Preservation as intiâ—e under Civil Government as he had in a State of Nature Vnder what Government soever I live I may still kill another Man when I have no other way to preserve my life from unjust Violence by private Hands Now the Hands of Subordinate Magistrates Imploy'd in Acts of Illegal Violence are private Hands and Armed with no manner of Authority at all of which this is a most convincing Proof That they may be Hanged by Law for such Acts which no Man can or ought to Suffer for what he doth by Authority They are no Officers at all in such Acts for Illegal Violence is no part of their Office Now after the Doctor has answered his own Arguments I shall desire him to do as much for these which follow First No Man can Authorize himself But in Acts of Illegal Violence if a Subordinate Magistrate have any Authority at all he must Authorize himself For it is a contradiction to say The Law Authorize him to do an Illegal Act as the Doctor well observes pag. 195. And it is false to say That the King who can do no wrong can Authorize another to do it In the great Conference of the Lords and Commons 3 Caroli concerning the Contents of the Petition of Right the Law was held to be That if the King Command a Man to do Injury to another the Command is void and the Actor of it Author and the Actor becomes the Wrong doer that is he Acts of his own Head and Authorizes himself Secondly The Illegal Violence of Subordinate Magistrates cannot be more Irresistible only by being more Criminal than it is in other Men for that would be to make a Mans Crime to be his Protection 〈◊〉 Illegal Violence done by subordinate Magistrates is not only as inauthoritative as if it were committed by private Persons but likewise more Criminal as being done with a face and colour of Authority and under pretence of Law making that partaker of their Crime violatiâ—â— and blemshing the Law at once FINIS
follow meerly from the Law of Succession that Subjects are bound in Conscience to own no Kings who is not the rightful Heir Ibid. pag. 52. 53. The Queston is not Whether the Monarchy be Hereditary that is agreed but whether in an Hereditary Monarchy we must pay Allegiance to no Prince who is not the legal Heir tho' possessed of the Throne this the Lawyers deny and produce Law for it and if there be such Laws It is certain by Law we may pay Allegiance to a King in Possession notwithstanding the fundamental Constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy for the Law which makes one allows and commands the other and then it is an Hereditary Monarchy with this reserve of paying Allegiance to the King in Possession when the legal Heir cannot obtain his Right And this I take to be a very wise Constitution which secures the Kings Right as far as Law can do it but if the King should be deprived of his Right which the Experience of all Ages proves he may be doth not think fit that the Government should sink with him and therefore makes provision for the Security of the Government and of the Subjects under the Regnant Prince which the Reasons and Necessities of Government require and justifie tho' there had been no Law for it Now it is enough to prove that Allegiance is by Law due to a King de facto if Treason may be committed against him for no Treason can be committed where no Allegiance is due This is confessed that all such Acts as are Treason against a King de jure are Treason when comited against a King de facto but not say they because Allegiance is due to him but because they are against the order of Government and therefore are Treason by the presumed consent of the King de jure In Ans That such Acts are against the Order of Government and very destructive to it is the only reason why they are made Treason by Law and this is a good reason why the Law should make them Treason against a King de facto as a King de jure Ibid pag. 57 58. Yet one may reasonably presume that a King who forsakes his Kingdom to consult his own Safety will give his Subjects leave to consult theirs If this will justifie a King to save himself by leaving his Kingdom why will it not justifie Subjects when their King has left them to submit and comply with the prevailing Powers as far as is necessary to preserve themselves That is even by Oaths of Allegiance Self-preservation is as much a Law to Subjects as to the Prince and he is as much Sworn to Govern and Protect his Subjects as they are to Obey and Defend him and if the necessities of Self preservation Absolve him from his Oath of Governing and Protecting his People I desire to know why the same necessity will not absolve Subjects from their Oaths to their Prince A Prince may Govern by Law and Protect his Subjects and yet in Fact they deny their Allegiance to him Alleg. p. 42. It is true we must in all Cases be contented to suffer in doing our Duty for we must chuse rather to Suffer than to Sin and it is no Argument that anything ceases to be my Duty because it exposes me to Suffering But then we must be very sure that it is our Duty that it is expresly enjoyned us by the Laws of God and Nature before we venture to suffer for it But then we are to learn our Duty not from any express Law of God or Nature but from the Reason and Nature of things It is a sufficient Argument that it is not my Duty which will expose me to great sufferings without serving any Good end nay which exposes me to Sufferings for contradicting the natural end and intention of that Duty for which I pretend to Suffer But let us grant that this Principle is the best Security to the Rights of Princes is the Right of any Prince so Sacred as to stand in competition with the very being of Human Societies and the Safety and Preservation of all his Subjects and must we then defend a Princes Right with the Destruction of the Nation and the Ruin of all his Subjects Which is most necessary That the Nation should be or that such a Prince should Govern it p. 45. The Rector of Saint George Botolph-Lane In his Case of Resistance THere is another Objection a gainst what the Apostle affirms That there is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God For is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Vsurpers from God Did O C. receive his Power from God then it seems it was unlawful to Resist him too or to Conspire against him To this I answer That the most Prosperous Rebel is not the Higher while our Natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in Being And therefore tho' such Men may get the Power into their hand by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who Resists them does not Resist the Ordinance of GOD but the Usurpations of Men. In Hereditary Kingdoms which is England the King never Dies but the same minute that the natural Person of one King Dies the Crown descends upon the next Blood and therefore he who Rebelleth against the Father continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Father's Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Vsurper for there Possession of Power seems to give a Right Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were Possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance but sometimes by the Election of the Senate sometimes the Army which always draws a consent after it And therefore the Apostle does not direct the Christians to enquire by what Title the Emperors held their Crowns but Commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands for the Possession of Supreme and Soveraign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose aginst it There are Two Examples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said The first is in the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes had divided from the House of Judah and the Family of David GOD had not entailed the Kingdom upon any certain Family He had indeed by Abijah the Prophet promised after Solomon's Death Ten Tribes to Jeroboam the Son of Nebat 1 Kings 11.29 c. but had afterwards by the same Prophet threatned Jeroboam to destroy his whole Family Chap. 15.10 11. Baasha fulfils this Prophesie by the Traiterous Murther of Nadab who successed his Father Jeroboamin the Kingdom and Vsurpt the Government himself and slew all Jeroboam's House ver 28 29. This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha for which GOD afterwards threatened to destroy his House as