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
Scheme of Government with such Divinity as this 2. To suppose no Distinction between what God permits and what he does with respect to Events destroys the Notion of his Patience For Patience supports Aversion or Dislike to Things or Persons But no omnipotent Being can be said to suffer or be displeased with those Events which he promotes and brings to Maturity and Effect It 's unintelligible Sense to say God bears with his own Decrees and suffers those Things which he determines and over-rules 3. This Opinion makes God though not the first Contriver yet the Abetter and Maintainer of Sin as will appear if we consider the plain English of directing determining and over-ruling an Event To direct an Event is to put it into the road of Success And he that does so is an Accessary to it and a Party to the Quality of the Action To determine an Event must be nothing less even in the Author's Sense than a Divine Decree that such Things shall come to pass by the help of fixed and particular Means and Circumstances And therefore the Commendation or Blame of the Action must belong to him by whom they are appointed Lastly By over-ruling an Event the Doctor must mean a Change either in the Circumstances or Success of the Action by which it is diversified from what it would have been had it been left to the Conduct of inferior Agents And then by consequence if the Event is accomplished by ill Means the Over-ruler is accountable For his Interposal has distinguished the Kind of the Event and given Life and Form and Complexion to it God indeed does sometimes over-rule Events i. e. he restrains the Wickedness of Men and hinders them from doing so much Mischief as they would do otherwise But to affirm That he prompts them to the Violation of his own Laws and inspires them with Courage and Conduct to be successful in Disloyal and Treasonable Enterprizes is very singular Doctrine and has been seldom thought proper to explain any part of the unsearchable Wisdom of Providence till the Disturbances under King Charles the I. and Cromwel's Usurpation I confess in those Times this Doctrine of Providence was very much in Vogue And that the Doctor may not seem to argue without Precedent I shall quote some of the Learned in Rebellion for his Opinion 1. The Prentices and Porters as Palmer has it were stimulated and stirred up by God's Providence to Petition the rebellious Parliament for speedy Relief Cockain in his Sermon to the Commons discoursing concerning the King of Syria's coming against Israel and being taken Prisoner makes this Inference viz. That the Mind of God was which he discovered only by that present Providence that Justice should have been executed upon him This passage he applies to encourage them to the Murther of the King who was then in their Hands Some Persons says the Sufferers Catechism may be stirred up to do some Things which are not in themselves so just and seemingly Warrantable at least in all Circumstances which yet the Over-ruling hand of God may be in as in Moses killing the Egyptian The next Testimony is Dr. Owen's which to give its due is very moving and had without doubt a considerable Effect upon the Army Saints Where is the God of Marston-Moor and the God of Naseby was an acceptable Expostulation in a Gloomy day O what a Catalogue of Mercies has this Nation to plead by in a Time of Trouble God came from Naseby and the Holy One from the West Selah Ienkins in his Petition is no less full to the Doctor 's purpose For without mincing the matter he does not stick to affirm That a Refusal to be subject to this Authority i. e. to the Rump and Cromwel under the pretence of upholding the Title of any one upon Earth is a Refusal to acquiesce in the wise and righteous pleasure of God The same Doctrine you may find in his Conscientious Queries Milton in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking in Justification of the King's Murther tells us That God has testified by all propitious and evident Signs that is by over-ruling Events whereby in these latter Times instead of Oracles Prophets or express significations of his Will he is wont to testifie what pleases him that such a solemn and formerly unexampled Act of due Punishment was no mockery of Justice but a most grateful and well-pleasing Sacrifice Let Ienkins speak once more for the Cause He delivers himself thus God's Providence that is his permission of Events and Success are antecedent Declarations of his good Will and Approbation Which comfortable Doctrine he applies to the Commonwealth To conclude Saunders is admirable in his Descant upon Rom. 13.1 where within the compass of one single Question he determines the great Dispute on the Doctor 's side There is no Power but of God Is not says he the late King with his Heirs and Successors dispossessed by God Besides he has several other choice Observations For he founds Authority in providential Power He answers the Objection concerning Athaliah the Doctor 's way He quotes his Texts of Scripture to the same purpose And presses Obedience to the Common-wealth from their having the Administration and Force of the Kingdom in their hands Thus I have given a small Catalogue of the Doctor 's Worthies These are the Chariots of his Israel and the Horsemen thereof And were I not reasonably assured that the Doctor is both well inclined and furnished for this Argument I should suspect he had borrowed some of his Artillery from the Authors abovementioned their Thoughts and even their Expressions being so like his own What the Doctor urges upon this occasion in pursuit of his Point is as remarkable as any thing we have had yet viz. God permits Men to do wickedly but all Events which are for the good or evil of private Persons or publick Societies are ordered by him He permits Men to do wickedly c. Now one would think we had gained a distinction of the usual Latitude from the Doctor between what God does and what he permits For Permission signifies a liberty of Action And where there is such a Freedom it 's a Contradiction to say the Agent is determined by any Superior Power And if the Agent is free the Action or Event must be so too For an Event is nothing but an Execution and Train of Actions No The Doctor will tell you That Events notwithstanding are ordered and over-ruled by Providence That is though God permits them to do wickedly yet all Events i. e. every thing they do is over-ruled by him Which is in other words to affirm that Liberty and Force or Necessity are the same things If the Doctor meant nothing more by God's ordering Events then that by his Wisdom he draws Good out of Evil and makes the Wickedness of Men tend to the promoting his own Glory and the happiness of his Servants This
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
is not Hereditary or the Royal Line is extinct to the Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King From whence it follows that where there is a Regular Succession established and an undoubted Title there meer Possession of Power does not make a King If the Dr. can confute this Reasoning he may remember it is his own But in my opinion it is unanswerable and so I shall leave it and proceed to the 3 d. Which he calls the True Answer to this Text of Hosea by which Character we may understand what he thought of his two former In this Answer he affirms That Israel was originally a Theocracy he must mean after the Revolt of the Ten Tribes as well as Judah and though God at their request allowed them to have Kings yet He reserved the appointment of them to himself and appointed Jeroboam to be their first King Therefore the fault the Prophet taxes them with is their omitting to consult God for his Nomination after Jeroboam 's and Jehu 's Line were cut off for these were the only Kings named by God But by the Dr's Argument the Ten Tribes should have consulted God about a new King immediately after Ieroboam's death because his Line was cut off for the Crown was promised to his Posterity upon condition of his own good Behaviour which Condition was notoriously broken by him I might likewise observe that it 's very unlikely the Prophet Hosea who lived so many Generations after Ieroboam and Nadab his Son should charge the Children of Israel with an Omission at so great a distance of Time which no Mortal then living could possibly beguilty of But to come closer to the Dr. The Theocracy was determined when Baasha made himself King as the Learned Dr. Spencer has proved to satisfaction The Theocracy says he was mightily weakened and in a manner expiring under Saul and David but was quite as it were extinguished under Solomon When the Kingdom was made successive and the Ark fixed in the Temple and the Vrim supposed to be no longer Oracular Then it was plain God had given up the Government and resigned the political Supremacy to the Kings of Israel If the Reader is desirous to see this Argument managed at length he may consult the Author for to avoid tediousness I have cited him but briefly Indeed I need not make much search after Authorities for the Dr. in his Case of Resistance speaks as home as one would desire he there observes That after Saul was chosen King the Government ordinarily descended not by God's immediate choice but by the Right of Succession though now he is pleased to contradict it And having given an account how the Face and Motions of the Government were changed and that the Jewish Monarchs in their Councils in their State and Defence were conformable to their Neighbours He adds Therefore the Government of Israel by Kings was like other Human Government liable to all the defects and miscarriages which other Governments are whereas while the Government was immediately in God's Hands the Administration as He goes on was under a quite different management So that we see the Dr. has given up the Theocracy rather sooner than the Learned Author I quoted before Now if the Theocracy was determined before Israel and Iudah were parted into two Kingdoms we have farther Reasons to believe it had its period after their division especially in the Kingdom of Israel for in that Kingdom there was neither Tabernacle nor Temple nor Ark there was no regular authorized Priesthood no Vrim and Thummim no Symbols of God's Presence excepting the Calves at Dan and Bethel which were unacceptable to Him 'T is true they had Prophets sometimes sent them so had the Ninevites and other neighbouring Nations where they were very far from being under God's immediate Government And therefore though the Theocracy should have continued till this time in the Kingdom of Iudah we have no reason to believe the Ten Tribes in the same condition for they wanted the Signs of the Theocratical Superintendency the Organs of Inspiration and the Ministers by which God was wont to execute his Orders and direct the State Now what does the Dr. bring to confute himself and the Reverend Dean and the Inference I have drawn from them Why nothing but that Ieroboam and Iehu were made Kings by God's immediate Designation But this Remark does not come up to the point for Nebuchadnezzar had several Countries given him by God's express Designation and yet the Babylonian Monarchy was never taken for a Theocracy The Dr's next Essay is to prove That this Doctrin of Allegiance to the present Powers is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrin of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience and therefore both must be true or both false This Argument he knows some men will not like Which is no wonder for I am pretty sure it 's no good one as will appear by examining his Proof He tells us Passive-Obedience is founded on this Principle That God invests Kings with his Authority True God does invest them with his Authority when they are either appointed by his immediate Designation or claim their Soveraignty by the Constitution of the Country for God declares That the Higher Powers are his Ministers and commands us to submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for his sake and confirms Human Laws with his own Authority So that where the Laws make it Treason to resist the Prince there the Gospel makes it Damnation And upon this Bottom the Doctrin of Non-Resistance stands But it does not follow from hence that Illegal Powers are vested with God's Authority Yes says our Author this Principle equally proves that all Kings who have received a Soveraign Authority from God and are in the actual Administration of it must be obeyed and not resisted But here the Dr. takes the matter in dispute for granted he supposes a King and an Usurper to be Terms equivalent he confounds the Notion of Authority and Force and inferrs a Divine Right from the actual Administration of Power Now I have made it appear that King is the Name of Right not of meer Force that Authority and Power are things vastly different that Usurpers have no Authority from God neither soveraign nor unsoveraign and that their actual Administration of Government is no more an Evidence of a Commission from Heaven than any other Success of private Injustice Therefore unless he can disprove what I have urged upon these Heads there is no danger of his making Passive-Obedience dependent upon his new Scheme To the remainder of this Paragraph I have given an Answer already which needs not be repeated He complains the Old-Church-of England Principles limit the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Injured Subjects for it seems God has no way to do this but either to turn the Princes Hearts or to take them out of the World Very well And is not
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
Conscience From whence it follows That where the Laws speak out there is no need to recur to Events and Providence For where-ever the Constitution is plain it ought to carry it So that the Doctor 's Fundamental Principle of Divine Right or Power upon which his whole Scheme is erected falls to the ground For by his own Concession Providence is but a secundary Rule of Conscience and only to take place where the directions of Law are defective and unintelligible It will not be improper therefore to cite some of the Laws for possibly they are not so intricate and obscure as the Doctor represents them The 24 H 8. c. 12. Begins thus By sundry old and authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed without Labyrinths That this Realm of England is an Empire and hath been so accepted in the World governed by one Supreme Head and King unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People been bounden and owen a natural and humble Obedience he being instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferances of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire Power c. 5 El. c. 1. And be it further Enacted That every Person which shall hereafter be elected or appointed a Knight Citizen or Burgess c. for any Parliament or Parliaments hereafter to be holden shall from henceforth before he shall enter into the said Parliament House or have any Voice there openly receive and pronounce the said Oath the Oath of Supremacy before the Lord Steward for the time being And that he which shall enter into the Parliament House without taking the said Oath shall be deemed no Knight Citizen Burgess c. for that Parliament nor shall have any Voice In 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. there is this remarkable Paragraph And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That if any Person or Persons shall put in practice to absolve persuade or withdraw any of the Subjects of the King's Majesty or of his Heirs or Successors of this Realm of England from their natural Obedience to his Majesty his Heirs or Successors or move them or any of them to promise Obedience to any other Prince State or Potentate That then every such Person their Procurers Counsellors c. be to all Intents judged Traytors And being thereof lawfully Convicted shall have Iudgment suffer and forfeit as in Cases of High Treason The 7 th Iac. 1. c. 6. concerning the Oath of Allegiance Enacts That all and every Knights Citizens Burgesses c. of the Commons House of Parliament at any Parliament or Session of Parliament hereafter to be assembled before he or they shall be permitted to enter the said House shall make take and receive a Corporal Oath of Allegiance upon the Evangelists before the Lord Steward for the time being c. In 14 Car. 2. c. 3. it 's declared That within all his Majesty's Realms and Dominions the sole and supreme Power Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and Places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors Kings and Queens of England And that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs or lawful Successors To these may be added 13 Car. 2. c. 1. 12 Car. 2. c. 31. 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. not to mention any more Now I believe most People will conclude that the meaning of these Statutes is not very hard to come by And that a moderate Share of English and common Sense is sufficient to understand them I shall insert two or three Maxims relating the same Subject The First tells us The King never dyes The second The King can do no wrong The third affirms Nullum in tempus occurrit Regi that is No length of Usurpation can prejudice the King 's Right And least the Doctor should take these for no more than to many quaint Sentences he may please to observe from a very Authentick Authority That Maxims are one of the Grounds of the Law that they need no Proof but are sufficient Authority to themselves that they are Equivalent to a Statute and that all Inferences from them are of the same Force with the Principle from whence they are drawn Having shewn that the Laws with respect to Allegiance and Prerogative are not full of Mystery and Labyrinth as the Doctor would suppose but are plain easy and unperplexed in these great Points indeed were they otherwise it would be no ordinary Misfortune and Reproach to the Government I shall proceed to examine the Doctor 's Scheme which he owns may startle some Men at first because it looks Paradoxically and carrys the Face of Singularity However it 's so much for the ease and safety of Subjects c. that every one has Reason to wish it true How much his Principles are for the ease of Society will be disputed afterwards But allowing them this Advantage his Inference is by no means conclusive nor proper for his Character For if we are to wish every Thing true that makes for our Ease than we ought to wish the Christian Religion false because there is so much Mortification and Self-denial enjoyned by it Which made the Gnosticks from an inward Principle of Self-preservation abjure it in Times of Persecution Soul take thine Ease is so far from being good Divinity that a generous Heathen would scorn such Advice if he found it prejudicial to Justice and Honour But before I enquire more particularly into the Truth of the Doctor 's Scheme I shall briefly represent some of the Consequences which follow from the supposal of its being true By which we may be in some Measure able to guess how much the Doctor has obliged the World by his Discovery 1. If Power as he affirms Pag. 15. is a certain Sign of God's Authority if by what means soever a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God Almighty and the Advantages of Success are always to be interpreted the Gifts of Providence then the best Title may be defeated without either antecedent Injury Consent or an express Revelation from God And if so the Nature of Property is perfectly destroyed and all Dominion is resolved into Occupation and no one has any Right to any Thing any longer than he can keep it This Doctrin condemns a Man to Poverty for being ill used and makes a Prince forfeit for no other Reason but because his Subjects were disloyal If it s said that an unjust Seizure of a private Estate extinguishes no Title but for the Peace of Mankind God has so ordered it that whosoever possesses himself of a Government is immediately the proper Owner That it s not thus ordered I shall prove more large afterwards At present I
is true as it happens in some other Revolutions they did not all submit to a Man and I conceive the Doctor will not insist upon the Necessity of this Condition But those who stood out Antiochus was well able to crush and did it to a very severe purpose As for the Time of his Government it held no less than three Years which the Doctor must own is long enough in all Conscience to justify a Compliance These Arguments for Submission are as strong as the Doctor 's Principles can require And yet we see the Convocation dislike Antiochus his Settlement and allows of Mattathias his Resistance So that nothing is more plain than that these Reverend Divines did not believe that the Concurrence of the Majority of a debauched Nation A full and uncontrolable Possession of Power lengthened out to three Years of Government were Advantages sufficient to infer a Divine Authority and to change a bad Title into a good one I know the Doctor urges That Antiochus his Governmert was not owned by any publick National Submission which is both more than the Convocation says or the Doctor can prove For if by a National Submission he means a Recognition of his Title in a publick Meeting of Persons of Condition he might probably receive such an Acknowledgment It 's not unlikely that Iason and Menelaus who were so forward in making their Court being Persons of the first Quality might engage the Nobility to render their new Allegiance in a solemn and publick Manner However the Business of Form is not Material 'T is certain from Iosephus that the generality of the Jews complied and when a Nation submits one would think there was a National Submission Indeed why should they not submit Here was most certainly Power in a very large and irresistable Proportion which is a thing we are told will Govern and therefore God always seconds it with his Authority I hope the Doctor does not believe Antiochus could make himself King of Iudea whether God would or no And if not How could these Jews have the Liberty to stand out against Providence and oppose a Divine Right 3. To give a farther Instance that the Convocation did not agree with the Doctor in his Notion of Power and Settlement We are told That if any Man shall affirm that the Jews might have withstood any of their Kings who claimed by Succession without Sin and opposing themselves against God or that the Kingdom of Iudah by God's Ordinance going by Succession when one King was dead his Heir was not in Right their King however by some Athaliah he might be hindered from enjoying it or that the People were not bound to obey him as their Lawful King He does greatly Err. Now for an Assembly to affirm That where a Succession is established the People cannot withstand it without opposing themselves against God that a Person who is Heir Apparent is immediately upon the Death of his Predecessor their Lawful King and ought to be obeyed as such notwithstanding the Usurpation of some Athaliah I say for them to affirm all this and at the same time to make Force a certain Sign of Divine Authority and that we ought to obey it from what point soever it rises To put it in the Subjects power to break all the Links of Succession and to give away an Hereditary Prince's Right by a National Submission or Treason as often as they please these are such rank such staring Contradictions that they are beneath the Inadvertencies of common Sense much more the Judgment of that Venerable Assembly If the Doctor replies that the Canon is to be restrained to a Succession which was settled by God's Ordinance or express Appointment and consequently to be understood only with Relation to the Kings of Iudea which had their Grown entailed by a particular Revelations To this I answer 1. That to take the Canon in this Sense is to make it insignificant and foreign to their Design Whereas it is evident their Book the first especially was written to assert the Right of Princes and to state and fix the Duty of Subjects But if the Examples they alledge and the Doctrine they maintain are not to be drawn down to application and practice what are we the better for them If their Precedents and Conclusions hold only for the Kings of Iudah to what purpose are they brought If we are unconcerned in them why are they couched into Canons and Principles and reported with that particularity and exactness We are not now to expect any express Orders from Heaven for the regulating Successions and therefore if the Convocation is to be understood only of Entayles by Revelation they might have spared their Pains for we are not likely to be the wiser for their Determination as they might easily perceive 2. I answer That Succession founded upon Humane Right is of equal Force with that which is supported by Revelation and requires as strong an Authority to defeat it 'T is true God in reward to David's Piety enntayled the Crown upon his Posterity by special Designation And no doubt it was no small Satisfaction to Him to be assured that his Family should reign as long as it continued and not be set aside by God's express Order to make room for another Line as that of Saul's was for himself But if by by the Fundamentals of the State the Crown was before Hereditary I cannot conceive what additional Strength could accrue to the Title from an Entayl by Revelation Eventually stronger I grant it might make it by refreshing the Peoples Minds and conveying an awfull Impression by the Solemnity of the Declaration but their Obligation to preserve the Descent was the same before For all Humane Provisions stand upon a Divine Bottom for which Reason the Apostle commands us to submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake The Laws of a Kingdom when the Authority is competent and the Matter just are as much as to the Ground of the Obligation the Laws of God as those he gave upon Mount Sinai And Kings are his Representatives as well as Angels by whose Disposition that Law was given Therefore those who pretend a Divine Repeal ought to bring Miracles and Revelation in one case as well as in the other These are such obvious Truths that the Convocation could not possibly overlook them and therefore could not lay any of that stress upon a Scripture Entayl upon which the Doctor insists But must suppose Compliance with Athaliah would have been as unaccountable in any other Country not governed by Revelation as it was in Iudea provided her Title was illegal To urge this Argument a little farther upon the Doctor If that which he phraseth Providence and Settlement is sufficient to null the Constitution thô never so clear and unquestionable then a great part of the Ceremonial Law was abrogated under Antiochus Epiphanes and the Iews were bound in Conscience to eat Swines Flesh and forbear
an especial Dispensation from Heaven then when such irregular Measures are taken we must not affirm they have the Countenance of God Almighty and are brought about by the Conduct of his Providence To say this is by the Principles of the Convocation to make God the Author of Sin and to prompt Men to those Actions they will be damned for doing In a word If as these Gentlemen inform us those who disturb and overthrow Governments without an express Commission from God do that which is altogether unlawful then certainly they cannot plead God's Authority for what they did And if so Success and Revelation are not Principles equally warrantable unless that which is lawful and unlawful be the same And by Consequence it 's a great Mistake to say that Victorious Force is as clear an Evidence of a Divine Interposition as the most unquestionable Inspiration Or to use the Doctor 's Words That what God did by Prophets in Israel by express Nomination of the Person he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms So that to fasten such a meaning as this upon the Convocation is to interpret them contrary to the obvious Construction and Scope of the Passage and to make them inconsistent both with Truth and themselves To give an Instance in a lower Case There is no doubt but God can dispose of private Property as well as Crowns notwithstanding any Title to the contrary As we know he gave the Egyptians Gold and Jewels to the Israelites but now if any Man should run away with a Sum of Money he had borrowed of his Neighbors and plead Providence for his Knavery in all likelihood he would not have gotten a Verdict from the Convocation To go on the Doctor tells us That the Moabites and Aramites could never have a Legal Right to the Government of Israel and yet the Convocation asserts That it was not lawful for the Israelites to take up Arms against those Kings But why could those Princes never have a Legal Right over the Israelites The Convocation I 'm sure says no such thing The Doctor may please to observe that at this time there was no King in Israel There was no Royal Line established by Succession no Governors set up by Divine Appointment This Conquest of the Aramites c. hapned before the date of the Iewish Monarchy and in the Interval of the Judges And since the Israelites were under no Preingagements to a dispossessed Prince what should hinder them from ranging themselves under the Obedience of a Foreign Governor when they were in no condition to resist In this Case their Submission gives away no Man's Right nor does any Injury to a third Person And thus being at Liberty to make over their Subjection when they had once actually submitted The Kings to whom they gave up their Liberty had a Legal Right to govern them though they might acquire it by unjustifiable Methods But when People are under a former Obligation to a Prince who insists upon his Right and demands their Obedience there their Hands are tied up and they cannot acknowledge any new Master without breach of Duty to their old One Our Author proceeds with the Convocation to the Kings of of Egypt and Babylon where he says They teach that Submission was due to these Princes who never had a Legal Right to govern Israel And the like it seems they affirm of the four Monarchies which were all violent Usurpations But 1. The Doctor misreports the Convocation it 's hoped out of inadvertency For They neither affirm that the Kings of Egypt and Babylon had never any Legal or Natural Right to govern Israel nor any Thing like it Or that any of the Monarchies stood upon Usurpation when the Iews were bound to submit to their Authority As for the King of Egypt They make no Exception to his Title They only say He oppressed the People very Tyrannically which all Men know may be done by a Lawful Prince And that the Kings of Egypt were such to the Israelites will appear if we consider in what condition the Children of Israel were when they went into Egypt Now the Scripture informs us They were driven thither partly by Necessity and Famine They were but one single Family And being in these Circumstances we cannot imagine that Iacob set up for Monarchy in Egypt or indented with Pharaoh for Independency It 's very unlikely that Prince would suffer a few indigent Persons who came for Bread and Protection to set up a distinct Kingdom in the midst of his own Dominions Such Pretences and Proposals as these to one of the most powerful Monarchs in the World would have looked very extravagantly from a poor distressed Family And to take Things at the lowest we must acknowledge that the first Generation of the Israelites owed Pharaoh a Local Allegiance For thus much Sir Ed. Coke and others agree is due to those Princes into whose Country we travel notwithstanding our Subjection remains still uncancelled to our Natural Prince But Iacob as appears from the History of Scripture was not under the Jurisdiction of any of the Princes of Palestine and therefore it was in his Power to make himself and Family entirely Pharaoh's Subjects And that he did so needs not be disputed any farther For I suppose it will be granted of all hands that the Israelites were far enough from reigning in Egypt And since there was no Prince of Palestine that could claim any Right over the Israelites all those who were born in Egypt which were no less than three Generations were Pharaoh's Natural Subjects and he by consequence their Natural and Legal-Prince Of this Truth the Convocation seem very sensible as may be collected from their saying It may not be omitted when God himself sent Moses to deliver them from that servitude he would not suffer him to carry them thence till Pharaoh their King gave them Licence to depart This is a pregnant Proof what a mighty Regard the Convocation thought God Almighty had to the Legal Rights of Princes That he is so far from giving them away to Blind Events to Treachery and unjustifiable Force that Revelation and repeated Miracles are scarce thought sufficient to disengage Subjects from their Allegiance without the Consent of their Prince If any one Questions the reasoning of the Synod in this point I am not bound to make it good their Opinion is sufficient for my purpose I shall now proceed to the Kings of Babylon and prove against the Doctor that They likewise had a Legal Right to govern Israel both before and after the Captivity I suppose it will not be denied That when a Prince either submits himself or is expresly commanded by God to resign there his Sovereignty ceases and the Legal Right is transferred to the Resignee If the latter Case be questioned I desire to know whether God has not the Supreme Dominion of the World If he has he may extinguish any Man's Right and dispose of
it as he pleases And thence it follows that when he has given it away by express Grant the former Possessor has no longer any Right and if not any no Legal one Farther If a Legal Right should continue after God has expresly given it away this absurdity will follow That God cannot repeal a Humane Law and consequently has a lesser Authority than Men. I have already proved that Revelation and Success are quite different Principles and that we have no manner of reason to infer God's Approbation from the latter as from the former and therefore the Doctor can take no Advantage from this way of Reasoning To return to the Kings of Babylon whose Title may easily be made out from the Scripture For first Iehoiakim submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and became his Servant and was afterwards deposed by him for his Revolt After him Nebuchadnezzar being Sovereign Paramount sets up Iehoiachin Son to Iehoiakim who was afterwards carried away Captive and his Uncle Zedekiah made King by the Babylonian Monarch Thus we see the Kings of Iudah who only had the Right to govern that Nation became Vassals to the King of Babylon held their Crowns of him and were contented to reign durante Beneplacito And though Nebuchadnezzar might possibly oblige them by unjust Force to these Conditions yet after they had submitted their Act was valid and obliged to Performance This is sufficient to make Nebuchadnezzar a Legal Monarch But this is not all For Moab Ammon Tyre Sidon c. are expresly given to him by God himself and all those Princes together with Iehoiakim and Zedekiah are commanded to come under the Protection and to own the Authority of the King of Babylon And destruction is denounc'd against those who refused to comply That Nation and Kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon and that will not put their Neck under the Yoke of the King of Babylon that Nation will I punish saith the Lord with the Sword and with the Famine and with the Pestilence till I have consumed them by his hand Thus we see the Kings of Babylon reigned Dei Gratia with a Witness They had their Charter for Government signed and sealed in Heaven and delivered to Notice and publick View by Authentick and Unquestionable Hands This certainly is enough in all reason to make Nebuchadnezzar a Rightful Prince If the Doctor has any Thing of this Nature to justifie the present Revolution the Cause is his own Therefore if he knows of any Prophets he would do well to produce them Let them but shew their Credentials and prove their Mission and we have done But if he has none of this Evidence the places cited by the Convocation that God takes away Kings and sets up Kings are foreign to his purpose 'T is true when God speaks from Heaven all Humane Laws ought to give place and be silent But then we must consider that Revelation and the Doctor 's Notion of Providence are widely different the the one is an infallible Direction the other will lead us into all the Labyrinths of Confusion and Injustice And make us Abettors of all those unaccountable Practises which ungodly Power has the Permission to act If any Man will be of this Opinion he ought not to make the Convocation his Voucher Do they not say then that God removes and sets up Kings Not just in the Doctor 's Words They affirm That God has ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates in other Countries as well as in Iudea c. And may not all this be done without giving his Authority to Usurpers 'T is true they instance in Nebuchadnezzar But this Prince had both the Submission of the Kings of Iudah and the immediate Appointment of God either of which were sufficient to make his Title unquestionable And since his Authority was thus fortified it 's no wonder that the Convocation pronounces that the Iews were bound to obey him So that in their Sense God is said to take away Kings and set up Kings either 1. By express Nomination This way if there was no other the Babylonian and Persian Monarchies may be defended The former has been spoke to already And of the latter it was foretold by Isaiah long before the Birth of Cyrus That he should be a Conqueror that God had holden his right Hand or strengthened him to subdue Nations And that he should restore the Iews to their own Country which could not be done without the Destruction of the Babylonian Empire 2. God is said to take away and set up Kings when he suffers one King to conquer another and the right Heir is either destroyed or submits And since we are not to expect new Revelations we are to conclude God removes Kings no other way but this Which is no Limiting the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting injured Subjects as the Doctor supposes For God can when he sees it convenient either turn their Hearts or take them out of the World or incline them to Resign These are all easy and intelligible Expedients and don 't bring any of those Difficulties of Providence upon us as the Doctor has entangled himself with This keeps the ancient Boundaries of Right and Wrong unremoved and settles the Duty of a Subject upon a Legal Basis. Indeed where Revelation fails what is so reasonable a Direction to steer by as the Constitution which is confirmed by the Laws of Nature and the Authority of God Is not this a much more accountable Method than to resign up our Consciences to Violence and impetuous Accidents and to make Treason our Oracle Now setting aside the Scripture-right the Babylonian and Persian Monarchs had to their Empire it 's easy to conceive that these victorious Monarchs either destroyed those Kings they dispossessed or made them submit their Claim as Edgar Atheline did to William the Conqueror That this practice of dispatching them was usual to settle the new Conquests and prevent Competitors is very probable Upon this account it was that Nebuchadnezzar slew Zedekiah's Sons and all the Nobles of Iudah And at the fall of the Babylonian Empire Belshazzar was slain as we may learn from Daniel and Xenophon And how kindly the Romans used their Royal Captives may be guessed without other Examples by the Treatment of Perseus and his Family Now where the right Owner of the Government is destroyed though never so wickedly the Usurper becomes a Lawful Prince For Possession is a good Right where there is no better These Observations are sufficient to justify Submission to the four Monarchies without having recourse to the Doctor 's new Scheme I am now to attend the Doctor to Alexander the Great whom he gives a hard Character and thinks any Prince who gets the Throne may pretend as much Right as he Whether the Ground of Alexander's War was defensible or not is not material to the pointâ— However he insists very much upon the Justice
Prince with respect to the Israelites Their words are as follow Both these Examples of Ioram and Eglon do make it known to us that the Lord may overthrow any Kings c. notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms Now this Inference cannot be drawn from the premises unless Eglon had a good and unexceptionable Right to the Government of Israel For if Eglon's Title was defective in any point it could not be a ruled Case against those Princes who had a better But the Convocation affirm that from these Examples of Ioram and Eglon its evident that God can overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim Right Title c. which reasoning supposes that Eglon had all the Right and Claim Title c. which was requisite and by consequence was a Legal Prince From whence it appears that the Convocation does not mean a King de Facto in opposition to one de Iure for the Examples before them gave them no occasion for such a distinction but only a Prince in actual Administration of the Government without any reflection upon his Title 3. I have proved above that the Babylonian Monarchy was legally established over Iudea The Jews being expresly commanded by God himself to submit to the King of Babylon Now though the Jews were not allow'd out of their own voluntary motion to chuse a Foreign Prince especially when they had one of their own yet without question they might accept of one of God's chusing God doubtless has the liberty to dispense with or repeal his own positive Laws And as the Government of the Babylonians over Israel was unquestionable so likewise was that of the Persians who succeeded to the Right of the former Thus the Convocation affirm That the Kings of Persia continued a Supreme Authority over the Jews by God's appointment And that Nehemiah and Zorobabel were lawful Princes Which they could not have been unless the Kings of Persia were such because they acted by their Deputation 4. As to Alexander the Great the Convocation declares that the Jews were as much his Subjects as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia. And if they were as much his Subjects his Title to command them must be as good as that of the preceding Kings Besides I have already made it appear that the Jews submitted to him by God's particular direction Lastly The Convocation affirms That it was unlawful for Aristobulus the Father or either of his two Sons Alexander or Antigonus having all of them submitted themselves to rebel against the Romans This is a clear Argument that this Reverend Assembly believed the Right of the Crown of Iudea translated by the Submission of the Royal Line and that the Romans by consequence were their legal Governors And to make their Testimonies demonstrative they expresly pronounce that the Romans were the Jews lawful Magistrates And what Countrymen were the Romans Were they not Foreigners The Doctor sure does not think the Convocation took them for native Jews And if not they could not understand Deut. 17.15 in his Sense Farther To argue with the Doctor independently of the Convocation As this command in Deuteronomy was not given till after the Aegyptian Monarchy so the force of it expired under the Roman For after the coming of Shiloh the Scepter was to depart from Iudah Now the command of choosing a King of their own Nation could not extend to a Time in which it was foretold by Sacred Writ that their State should be dissolved and there was no more Kings of Iudah to be expected So that after the Messiah appeared it was Lawful for the Jews to submit to a Foreign Power notwithstanding the Text of Deuteronomy or else they were obliged to live in Hobs's State of Nature For if they might not submit to Foreign Princes they must break up Society and be independent of all Government For Iacob's Prophecy had barred them from having any Governors of their own Which latter supposition all Men will grant to be impracticable and absurd But if the Jews might Lawfully submit to a Foreign Power then those they submitted to were their Lawful Governors Besides at the Death of our Saviour all the Mosaick Law unless the Moral part of it was cancelled So that the Roman Emperors were as much the Natural Princes of the Jews as the Kings of Portugal and Spain are over their Posterity who now live in those Dominions From whence it follows that when St. Paul wrote the 13. to the Rom. upon which the Doctor so much insists He could not suppose the Roman Authority could receive the least blemish from Deut. 17.15 which I desire may be remembred against another Time In short the meaning of this last Text appears to be no more than this That the Jews were not permitted out of Levity to make a voluntary choice of a Foreign Prince But when they were under hard circumstances and injured none but themselves by their submission They were at Liberty to consult their advantage this as to the main is the Opinion of Grotius and has been the Doctor 's too Who seems to wonder the Pharisees could not distinguish upon the Prohibition but took it in too unlimited a sence So that its in vain for the Doctor to reply that if Force dissolves the Obligation of a positive Divine Law a meer human one cannot hold out against it For the command we see does not reach a case of Force but points at circumstances of Liberty and Inclination And what is farther very remarkable It does not follow that because the Israelites might submit to prevent hard usage when they were in their own Power When they were unengaged to any Prince of their own I say it does not follow from hence that they had any Authority to desert their Prince in his Distress and to give away his Right to save themselves harmless These two Cases are extreamly different In the first a Man resignes nothing but what belongs to him and is at his disposal But the other confounds the nature of property makes a Man forfeit without consent or provocation given And puts it in the Subjects power to translate their Allegiance without their Princes allowance and to depose them when they please I shall now proceed with his Book of Allegiance and before I take leave of the Chapter I was examining I shall just observe how inconsistent the Doctors Notion of Settlement is with it self and of what incoherent parts its compounded He tells us when the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crushed by Him when all this is done and I suppose not before he concludes the Settlement compleat By which definition he plainly makes Force and Consent Power and Law essential to a
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
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
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
all Cases of Possession Say you so Sir Then Athaliah ought to have been obeyed notwithstanding Ioash his Title if she could have kept the Mint and the Power in her Hands Now if this be not true as the Doctor must grant then our Saviour's Argument does not rely wholly on Possession but upon Right to Possession For that the Divine Entail of the Crown upon David's Family does not make the Case exempt and particular has been shown already 3. We are to observe That our Saviour left the Civil Rights of Society in the same State he found them He did not intend to alter the Laws of Common Justice to weaken the Titles of Princes and put them into a worse condition then private Men. So that if according to the Principles of Reason and the Laws of particular Kingdoms whoever has a Right to the Crown ought to have the Obedience of the Subject we cannot conclude our Saviour's Answer has made any alteration in the Case 4. If the Royal Image and Superscription always supposes Possession and infers Obedience His Majesty at St. Germains is still the Doctor 's Soveraign And he ought to have continued his Submission to him till his Money had been cryed down And which is more surprizing the Subject must be bound to two opposite and contrary Allegiances as long as the Coin of the two Contesting Princes is currant among us which the Doctor owns to be an impracticable Absurdity What he observes concerning the Prophesy of the Four Monarchies not being at an End is somewhat surprizing All People agree that the Roman Monarchy has the last of the Four and that has had its Period long since Now it 's a little strange that Events should be foretold concerning Things that are not And that the Prophesies concerning the Four Monarchies should extend to greater lengths of Time than the Monarchies themselves But what if the Four Monarchies were not at an End Must we comply with all successful Disorders under pretence of fulfilling Prophesies though we neither know their Meaning nor the Time of their Accomplishment Does God need the Wickedness of Men to bring his own Counsels to pass Doubtless he who has Omnipotence in his Hand can change Times and Seasons set up Kings and remove Kings as in his Wisdom he thinks fit without obliging the Subject to break the Laws of their Country and to fail in their Allegiance when it 's most needed God in whose Hand are the Hearts of Kings who has the disposal of Life and Death of the Passions and Tempers of Men may change his Representatives as often as he pleases without pitching upon such Methods which without a Revelation must of necessity in a great measure confound the Notions of Right and Wrong encourage Violence and weaken the good Correspondence and mutual Securities between King and People But the continuation of the Doctor 's Reason for Compliance is still more extraordinary viz. Under the Fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Antichrist is to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes And are we obliged to comply with every Revolution to swim down every Tide of State for fear the Kingdom of Antichrist should not increase fast enough Are we as much bound to support Violence and clap Justice under Hatches as the Iews were to obey the express Orders of the Prophet Jeremiah only because the Doctor fancies the Prophecy of the Four Monarchies is not at an End If this be not Enthusiasm which the Doctor denies pray God it be not something worse But to consider his Argument more fully I must go back to his 12th Page where he gives in his Reasons to prove That now God governs the World removes Kings and sets up Kings only by his Providence By which he means nothing but Force and Success let the means by which they are gained be never so unaccountable These Advantages though they come from Hell are always attended with Divine Authority and draw the Allegiance of the Subject along with them And because Soveraign and rampant Wickedness sounds but harshly and is very unlikely to have the Entail of all these Priviledges he gilds it over with the pompous Name of Providence This he says is God's Government of the World by an invisible Power whereby he directs determines and over-rules all Events in distinction from his more visible Government by Oracles Prophets c. So that now it seems neither Scripture nor Law nor Reason signifie any thing towards the stating the Right of Kings and the Obedience of Subjects No We must submit to the Infallibility of the Sword which is the only proper Judge to decide all Controversies of State and why not of Religion too We must conclude that all Civil Confusions all Publick Injustice though never so horrid is directed by God Almighty And all Events how impious soever they may be in their Causes and Consequences are determined and over-ruled by his Providence To fortifie this extraordinary Position he attempts to make God's Permissions and Approbations the same as to Events Though the Distinction between these two is both necessary and generally acknowledged But to make God as the Doctor does the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies is an untrue and dangerous Proposition For First It 's a Contradiction to plain Scripture Secondly It makes God the Abetter and Maintainer of Sin Thirdly It destroys the Notion of his Patience 1. It 's a Contradiction to plain Scripture For though the Doctor affirms That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of Events these following Citations not to mention any more will shew he is mistaken For don't we read that the Devils besought our Saviour that he would suffer them to enter into the Herd of Swine and he suffered them Now by the Doctor 's Principle our Saviour must either have forced the Devils into the Swine or at least have raised their Inclination to enter and concurred with it But the Scripture speaks no such Language It affirms no more than a bare Permission of the Devil's Malice Another Proof to confirm the Distinction between what God does and what he permits as to Events may be taken from Acts 13.18 where God is said to suffer the Manners of the Israelites forty Years in the Wilderness He did not as the Doctor 's Proposition supposes direct them in the making of the Golden Calf He did not determine their Idolatries nor over rule them into all their Murmurings and Disobedience Farther Was not the destroying Iob's Cattle and Servants and the afflicting his Person an Event And will our Author say That all this was brought to pass by the Influence and Direction of Providence And that the Devil would not have used Iob thus hardly if he had not been over ruled by God Almighty I am sorry the Doctor should support his new
Construction would be Orthodox and Intelligible but then it will do him no service This Sense will give no Divine Right to Rapine and Robbery Nor set Providence at the Head of every Usurpation This the Doctor knew very well and therefore enlarges his Principle accordingly But with what Reason and Consistency the Reader may judge As for the Text which he cites from Amos shall there be Evil in a City and the Lord has not done it This place is meant only of the Evil of Affliction and therefore is foreign to his point It does not make God the Patron of Injustice nor imply his over-ruling Men into wickedness If we had no Authority on our side common sence ought to make us avoid such an unaccountable interpretation For the Scriptures ought not to be so expounded as to contradict the natural and unquestionable Notions of the Divine perfections This is the Reason those expressions are counted Figurative which attribute Hands and Eyes and other Corporeal parts and Affections to God Almighty Now Men had better degrade him to the Littlenesses of Body than make him a party in unjust undertakings For natural Imperfections are a far less blemish to a rational being than those which are Moral And though the forementioned sence is sufficiently confirmed from the Reason of the Thing it may not be improper to produce the concurrence of some of the Antient and Modern Interpreters St. Hierom tells us That the Evil which the Lord does in the City is not contrary to Virtue but imports Affliction and Calamity in which sence we read sufficient for the day is the Evil thereof i. e. The Hardship and Tribulation Let us take an instance from the Prophet Ionah And Gâ—d saw their Works that they turned from their evil way and God repented him of the Evil that he said he would do unto them Whereby Evil is only meant the threatned destruction of Niniveh not any thing which carries an opposition to probity and virtue St. Cyrill of Alexandria Speaks to the same purpose By these words we are to understand some Evil in the City proceeding from God Almighty but not with any resemblance to wickedness God forbid No. The Phrase is to be expounded of Afflictions and the Judgments of God which he sends for the Reformation of Sinners To come nearer our own Times Drusius observes That Evil imploys the Evil of punishment as the School-men speak and signifies Vexation Trouble and Calamity in this sence God is said to create Evil. Calamity is in it self no Evil but is so called because it seems such to those who undergo it or because that which is against the Grain of a Man's Inclination may be called Evil. Episcopious agrees with Drustus his words are these As touching Physical Evils which are only misfortunes or inconveniencies to particular Persons these in strict speaking are no Evils And therefore they may without doubt be the objects of God's will so that he may either send them himself or suffer them to be inflicted by others And afterwards towards the close of the Argument he cites Amos 3.6 in Confirmation of what he had said If the Doctor Replys upon these Expositors that Afflictions are not only sent by the immediate hand of God but occasioned by wicked Men who often cut off Malice Covetousness or Ambition Defame Circumvent and oppress their Neighbours from whence it will follow that if God is the Authour of all the Evil of Affliction a great many immoral Actions must be over-ruled by him in the Doctor 's sence To this the Answer is plain Those Calamities which are inflicted by wicked Instruments Providence is no otherwise the Authour of than by permitting them He may be said in a Qualified Figurative Sense to do that which he does not hinder by his Omnipotence But to affirm more than this that he either excites ill Men to engage in unlawful Enterprizes or assists them in the Execution is to charge him with unrighteousness and makes him partaker of their Sins And if such Assistance is never given it 's neither true nor over Pious to say that all Events though begun and prosecuted by never somuch Villany are determined ordered and made successful by him Well! Though the Doctor have lost this Point he has another Reserve behind For says he If there were any such Distinction as this that some Events God permits only and some he orders and appoints yet we ought in Reason to ascribe the Advancement of Kings to God's Decree and Counsel because it 's a principal Act of Providence and if he decrees and orders any Events he peculiarly orders such Events as will do most good or most hurt in the World To this I answer 1. That God does not chain up the Liberty of Mankind with respect to any Sin but permits them to do wickedly one way as well as another And therefore it 's no wonder to see Rebellion succeed sometimes But then we must no more impute such wickedness as this to his Decree then private Murther or Adultery 2. Since Kings are God's Ministers as the Doctor observes and their Advancement is a principal Act of Providence we may conclude that God has not put them into worse Circumstances than other Men That he does not allow Violence to devest them of their Authority That he has secured their Royalty to them not only by the common Laws of Justice and Property but by the indispensible Tyes of Allegiance And not left them to the Courtesie of their Subjects to be set aside according to the Discretion and Conscience of Phrenzy Atheism and Ambition Such a Liberty as this would make the Doctor 's great Wheels of Providence jolt into disorder like those of Phaeton's Chariot and be ready to set the World on Fire at every motion As for his saying God must order those Events which will do most good or harm in the World I will only ask him What he thinks of the Rebellion in Heaven That was a very memorable Event and the occasion of as much good and harm in the World as any he can almost imagine Now did God raise a Commotion in his own Kingdom Did he order and decree the Revolt of those glorious Spirits and over-rule them into damnation However we can't but think God will exercise a particular Care in appointing his great Ministers Right But Usurpers are not his Ministers A bare Advancement to the Throne invests a Man with God's Authority no more than taking a Purse gives him a Right to the Money None can have God's Authority but by legal Claim immediate Designation or vacancy of Right And therefore God neither gives his Authority to Usurpers nor permits them to take it The Doctor goes all along upon a Mistake as if Force and Authority were the same He might as well have said there is no difference between Violence and Justice between Reason and a Whirlwind Does the Authority of a Father last
no longer than the Children are pleased to obey him And have they a Right to his House as soon as they can turn him out Is a Wife bound to entertain an Husband de Facto Now if the Priviledge of Fathers and Husbands holds in Case of Dispossession why not that of Kings Why should Publick Authority upon which the common Security depends have a less firm Establishment than that of single Families If private Disobedience can't challenge a Divine Right to govern upon Success why should a National Rebellion pretend to it He goes on to acquaint us That to give Authority to a Man does not signify to permit him to take it And that no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given By which it 's plain he means that no Person can be vested with God's Authority barely by his permissive Will but that Consent and Approbation is always implied But this Proposition is not only Foreign to his Point because Usurpers have no Authority from God either one way or other but is likewise untrue and dangerous For suppose an Eldest Son Murthers his Father privately in this Case it must be granted he has God's Authority to possess his Estate and to govern the Family For he who has a Legal Claim has by consequence a Divine one all Humane Laws being ultimately resolved into the Divine Warrant and Appointment But then I conceive the Doctor wont say this unnatural Murtherer has God's Authority in the Family any other ways than by bare Permission God indeed suffered him to Murther his Father as he suffers all other Wickedness And because the Murther was secretly committed the Villany turns to Advantage and the Party becomes Master of his Father's Fortune But to say that he had God's consenting Authority in this Matter would sound very harshly and amounts to no less than God's Approbation of Parricide For he who absolutely approves the End without any regard to the Lawfulness of the Means must consent to the Means though never so Unlawful And to apply this Remark An Usurper when the Royal Line is either Extinct or Surrenders comes by God's Authority the same way with the forementioned Murtherer The next rub the Doctor casts in the way is that unless we take our Governors as they rise without minding their Titles we shall not be able to distinguish those God permits only from those he appoints Now this Difficulty is easily removed For the Constitution of each particular Country will inform us who governs by Permission and who by Appointment from God Almighty The Laws of Succession c. were made for this purpose and to prevent Usurpation So that there is no need of the Doctor 's Expedient to teach us to distinguish between God's King and those who would be so of their own making We need not be at a loss whom we must obey out of Conscience and whom we must not obey for we have the Direction of Law ready to inform us The same Direction which there is in private Cases to know the right Owner from an Intruder He comes on with the Repetition of his former extraordinary Doctrine That by what means soever a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God as truly as if he had been nominated by him and anointed by a Prophet So that Cromwel was as much God's Vicegerent as David and if so our Laws are very much to blame for attainting him of Treason and exposing him to Ignominy after his Death However the Doctor is sure God never suffers a Prince to ascend the Throne but when he sees fit to make him King No! Does God suffer nothing but what he sees fit to be done Does he not suffer all the Wickedness which is committed for no Man can do an ill Thing whether God will or no And will the Doctor take the freedom to say that God sees it fit and convenient that men should be Unjust and Lewd and Atheistical that they should disturb the World and damn themselves Such Practises as these certainly can never gain the Approbation of the Divine Wisdom nor seem agreable to his Goodness His fourth Proposition gives us another admirable Piece of Politicks viz. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God Why so Because it 's impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God would or no. Nay then farewell all Property For by the help of this Logick I will prove there can be no such Thing as Cheating Stealing and Oppression in Nature The Argument lyes thus All Possession is rightful with respect to God for it 's impossible there should be a wrong Possessor unless a Man could make himself Master of his Neighbour's Goods whether God will or no. This is comfortable Doctrine for the Gentlemen of the High-way and were it admitted would serve to plead off their Indictment But if this Plea should fail which is not likely the Doctor can reinforce them with another For he has told us That all Events which are for the Good on Evil of private Persons are ordered by Providence Now is not the taking a Purse or stealing a Man's Cloaths an Event Doubtless it is and sometimes very much for the Evil of him who looses them Such Events as these have been very frequent since the Doctor 's Book came out But why he that stole these Goods should be bound to make Restitution except in point of Generosity is past my Skill to understand For if God orders a Man a Sum of Money it 's certainly Lawful for him to keep it His fifth Proposition affirms That God is not bound by Humane Laws True But if Men are it 's sufficient for our purpose For we are not disputing about God's Prerogative but the Duty of Subjects However may not God make whom he pleases King without regard to Legal Rights No doubt he may But then we are to observe that every Thing which is done is not of God's doing And the apparent Injustice of an Action is a very bad Argument to prove the Righteous God had a hand in it 'T is true God is the chief Proprietor of all Things but it does not follow from hence that whatever a Man can catch is his own If the Doctor has no supernatural Credentials to produce he must be contented to let the common Laws of Justice take place Unless he has a mind to cut the Sinews of all Property and in a great Measure to destroy the Nature of Right and Wrong His sixth Proposition says We have but one King at a Time which is a good Hearing were it not misapplied in his Seventh where he affirms That King is the Name of Power not of meer Right Which Assertion is not only contrary to the common Notion or Justice but to the Language of our own Laws In which the Lancastrian Princes who though for Kings de Facto had several peculiar Advantages such as a Formal Resignation
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
their own we have Liberty to come in at the Evening and sup with them and may wipe our mouths after all with the same good Conscience the Woman did in the Proverbs But truly I think those who won't venture to ride the Chace ought not to be admitted to the eating of the Venison However if we examine the matter critically it 's hard to tell which sort of Revolters the early or the later ought to be preferred They have each of them their peculiar Excellencies The one has more Courage the other more Caution and both the same Staunchness of Principles Ambition is predominant in the first Fear and Covetousness in the latter who is such a flexible apprehensive Creature that whoever can command his Interest may likewise command his Actions and fright him out or into any thing at their Pleasure I observe 2. That this Construction of the Doctor 's determines against K. Charles II. as fully as is possible For he was driven into Banishment before he could gain his Right And the Rump and Cromwel mounted the Seat of Government And the King his Father dyed dispossessed of the Crown So that by the Doctor 's Reasoning the People were not only disingaged from the Successionary part of the Oath but were bound to stand by the Commonwealth and oppose the Restauration If any one questions K. Charles I. his being dispossessed at his Death he may please to consider That this Prince was not only Defeated in the Field and made Prisoner by his Rebellious Subjects But there was a High Court of Justice erected to try him for Treason The Supream Power and Authority was declared to be in the Commons of England And Monday 29. Ian. 1648. the Day before his Majesties Martyrdom The Commons in the Name of the present Parliament enact That in all Courts of Law Justice c. And in all Writs Grants c. instead of the Name Style Test or Title of the King heretofore used that from thenceforth the Name Style c. of Custodes Libertatis Angliae shall be used and no other In short the King's Name was enacted to be struck out in all judicial Proceedings in the date of the Year of our Lord in Juries in Fines in Indictments for Trespass and Treason From these unquestionable Matters of Fact it 's manifest beyond contradiction That the King had not so much as the Shadow of Authority left him but was perfectly out of Possession before he lost his Life I shall draw one Advantage more from this Citation and so dismiss it The Inference is this That Treason lies against the King though out of Possession For the Regecides who were not comprehended in the Act of Indemnity were excepted for Sentencing to Death or Signing the Instrument of the horrid Murther or being Instrumental in taking away the Life of King Chales I. For this Reason They are left to be proceeded against as Traytors to his late Majesty according to the Laws of England If the Doctor desires another Instance that Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession he may receive Satisfaction from the first 12 Years Reign of King Charles the Second For in this Act of Indemnity it 's said That by occasion of great Wars and Troubles that have for many Years past been in this Kingdom divers of his Majesties Subjects are fallen into and be obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties And to the intent that no Crime committed against his Majesty or Royal Father shall hereafter rise in Judgment or be brought in Question against any of them to the least Endamagement of them either in Lives Liberties or Estates his Majesty is pleased that it may be Enacted That all Treasons Misprisions of Treasons acted or done since the 1. Ian. 1637. to the 24. of Iune 1660. shall be Pardoned Released c. From this Act we may observe 1. That though the King was newly restored at the making of this Act it 's said notwithstanding Divers of his Subjects not his Fathers had for many Years past been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties c. which is a plain Argument that as his Reign was dated from the Death of K. Ch. I. so they looked upon the People of England as his Subjects from that time and that his Authority to punish was entire during his Dispossession otherwise they could not have been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties for acting against him 2. The King pardoned all Crimes committed against Himself Which would have risen up in Judgment and Endamaged his Subjects in their Lives Liberties or Estates Some of which Crimes as they can amount to no less than Treason so they must relate to the time of the Usurpation because the King was but very lately entered upon the actual Administration of the Government Neither do we read of any Treasons committed against the King from the 29 th of May to the 24 th of Iune which was the utmost term to which the Pardon extended 3. All Treasons Misprision of Treason c. excepting those excepted are Pardoned from Ianuary 1. 1637. to Iune 24. 1660. Now if Treason did not lye against a King though out of Possession this Pardon should have reached no farther then 1648. because then K. Charles I. was Murthered and his then Majesty deprived of his Kingdoms till the Year 1660. The General Pardon I say ought to have stopped at 1648. unless we can imagine the King intended to rank those among Traytors who appeared for his own Interest and to pardon the Treasons committed against Cromwel and the Rump which is a Supposition sufficiently Romantick especially if we observe That the pretended Indictments of High Treason against any of the usurped Powers are considered by themselves in the next Chapter and pronounced null and void And the Styles of the Usurpation Keepers of the Liberties of England Protectors c. notwithstanding their plenary Possession are declared to be most Rebellious Wicked Trayterous and Abominable and Detested by this present Parliament And why all these hard Words Because these Names of Authority when misplaced Were opposite in the highest Degree to his Majesties most just and undoubted Right That the Doctor may not complain for want of Evidence in this Matter I shall cite him a Proclamation of both Houses for Proclaiming King Charles the Second Dated May 8. 1660. It begins thus Although it can be no way doubted but that his Majesties Right and Title to his Crowns and Kingdoms is and was every way COMPLEATED by the Death of his most Royal Father c. without the Ceremony or Solemnity of a Proclamation Yet since the Armed Violence of these many Years last past has hitherto deprived us of any such Opportunity wherein we might express our Loyalty and Allegiance to his Majesty We therefore c. Now if the King 's Right was every way Compleated at his Fathers Death and the Allegiance of the Subject was due to him before his Restauration than
Mental Evasion or Secret Reservation whatsoever But to swear with this private supplemental Sense That we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King provided the Majority of his Subjects will do so too if this is not a plain wresting of the common Sense and Understanding of the Words if this is not a Mental Reservation to purpose I despair of seeing any such in the Iesuits Morals Secondly This Construction of the Oath makes Government very uncertain and precarious The Dr. frequently flourishes with the Body of the Nation I hope he does not think the Nation is all Body By this great Body I suppose he must mean the Majority of the Kingdom Now if a Government lyes at the Discretion of the Multitude it must needs be admirably provided for If a King must go to the Poll for his Sovereignty and and we are obliged to tell Noses to know whether our Allegiance continues or not we are likely to enjoy the Blessings of Peace and Order at a great rate The generality of Mankind formerly don 't use to be over burthened either with Prudence or Conscience and I don't perceive that this Age has much mended the matter Which makes me wonder why the Dr. should give them such an unbounded Privilege to pull down and set up Kings to dispence with Oaths and other Commandments to repeal Laws to transferr Titles and turn the World topsy turvy at their pleasure But which way does the Great Body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths By Law No. They are not the Legislative Power The Parliament it self cannot pretend to this Privilege without the King This Great Body are Subjects like other People when they are separate and dispersed Whence then comes the sudden Alteration Can they rendezvouz themselves into Independency Can a Crowd give a man a Dispensation purely by the Magick of their numbers and the Disorder of their Meeting This makes the Composition work incredibly beyond the vertue of the simple Ingredients Who would live alone if Company can do all these Wonders Well! Possibly the Dr. means This Great Body can't absolve themselves from their Oath lawfully but when they have once done it their Act must stand Can they not do it Lawfully Then certainly not at all For in these cases id tantum possumus quod jure possumus Who ever heard that unlawful Absolving or a Dispensation against Authority and Right signified any thing However this is the Dr's meaning which makes him still more incomprehensible For 3 dly This Construction confirms the highest Breaches of Law and gives Force and Authority to the most irregular Proceedings It does not warrant the Deposing Act it 's true but when it 's over it gives it a Blessing and pronounces it valid The Pope sometimes pretends to depose Princes by a Privilege of Right But this Doctrine scorns to be beholden to a Colour of Justice but does the same thing by a Privilege of Wrong It sets Violence in the place of Law and gives Treason and Authority the same effect And how the difference between Good and Evil can consist with such a Latitude is somewhat difficult to understand But what can the minor part of the Subjects perhaps but a little handful do towards the restoring their King Why they can shew an exemplary Firmness and Resolution which may probably encrease their numbers and awaken the better-meaning part of the People into right Apprehensions of their Duty They can wait God Almighty's leisure retain their Integrity and save their Souls And is all this nothing The Dr. has a farther Reserve and that is An Oath to fight for the King does not oblige us to fight against our Country which is as unnatural as to fight against our King As unnatural then it 's unnatural to fight against our King which is worth the observing To go on and 1. As the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige us to fight against our Country so neither does it to sight against our King If it did it has been well kept Besides I would gladly see a reason why we ought to preferr the Country to the King Did we swear Allegiance to the Country or has it any Authority over us independent of the King If not why should we esteem Multitudes above Justice and side with the Subject against the Soveraign 2 dly We are to remember That the Dr. disputes upon a Supposition of Usurpation and therefore the Assistance of our Country does not belong to his Plea For those who appear for the Rightful Prince for the Laws and Establish'd Government of the Country they and no other are properly speaking the Friends of the Country If the Dr. takes the Country on any other notion he must make it a Wilderness of Disorder or a Den of Thieves And to carry on the Dr's Supposition To fight against Revolters is not to fight against our Country They have no Country to lose but have forfeited the Privileges of their Birth and Industry by their defection And though they may find Favour if they seek in time yet they can challenge none The Dr. was apprehensive that this Post was scarcely tenable and therefore after a little skirmishing retires to the main Fort his pretended Disposal of Providence And after all he grants That Subjects must have Regard to Legal Right And if they pull down a Rightful King and set up a King without Right they greatly sin in it Most certainly And therefore one would think when they have set up a pretended King without Right they ought to pull them down again and not persevere in the Breach of their Duty What the Dr. adds by way of Parenthesis That Subjects ought not to remove or set up Kings without Legal-Right unless the Constitution of the Government should in some cases allow it is somewhat unintelligible 'T is true some people would make us believe though without Reason That the Constitution does acknowledge an Illegal Prince after he is once set up and established But that it should allow the setting him up in any case I suppose was never heard of till now If the Constitution allows of its own Violation and the Laws grow lawless and give Men Authority to break them it 's time to look out for some other Government I can guess what the Dr. would have called such disputing as this is if he had catched an Author at such a disadvantage The Dr. proceeds to another Objection viz. This Doctrine of his makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right This is a severe Charge How does he purge himself Surprizingly enough He tells you It may be called a Difficulty in Providence if you please but it 's no Difficulty to the Subject unless a passionate Affection for the dispossessed Prince makes it a Difficulty Otherwise it will rub off easily enough For 't is but yielding to Necessity and leaving every thing else to Providence and there is an end of
Irregularities committed by the Subjects towards each other which remains uncensured and unrectified by the Courts of Justice and therefore why should not Providence interpose by way of Supplement and determine private Property by Events as well as the Dominions of Princes Subjects by their Immoralities and Mismanagement deserve oftentimes to be chastized and dispossessed of their Fortunes Why therefore should there not be a Court of Events set up to assert the Soveraignty of Providence and to supply the defects of Human Justice in one Case as well as in the other But Providence has no Effect upon such Personal Rights Is it because they are Personal Then it can have no Effect upon the Crown for that surely belongs to the King's Person The Dr. cannot deny that God is supreme Lord of private Estates as well as of Kingdoms and that He disposes them according to his pleasure And since He orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private Persons it follows by inevitable consequence that whatever any man can catch is God Almighty's Gift and then surely there is no reason to question the Title God in erecting Courts of Judicature did not intend to make the Subjects any more than the Prince independent of his own Jurisdiction or to exclude Himself from any part of the Government of the World And therefore if all publick Changes and Revolutions of Kingdoms are certain Signs of God's Approbation and fortified with his Authority we ought to conclude the same with respect to inferiour Concerns If the Successes of Violence always draws Allegiance after them and translates the Authority from the Rightful Prince to the Usurper I see no reason why they should not have the same consequence upon private Property for that Cause which can produce a greater Effect may no doubt produce a less of the same kind If Providential Events can unsettle the Crowns of Princes 't is strange they should not have an equal Jurisdiction over things of an inferiour value If this Principle is sufficient to overturn the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom and to transferr the Prerogatives and Royalties of Government I wonder how any petty private Rights can stand before it Have private Rights a firmer Establishment than the publick And is the Property of Crowns more precarious and slenderly guarded than that of a Cottage If Events can give an Island or a Continent to every Victorious Usurper why should a more modest Robber who makes himself Master of a small Sum of Money be denied the same Privilege of his Industry or Courage This is great Partiality and by the Dr's Reasoning a Confining Providence with a witness and fettering it with Courts of Human Justice So that God can't dispose of the Property of the Subject unless the Judges and Jury are pleased to consent to it The truth is the Dr. has made the Condition of Princes very lamentable As for Subjects when they are injured by Theft or Intrusion their Property remains entire and they have the Remedy of Law to relieve them But Princes must not pretend to these Securities when they are once disseized though never so unaccountably their Authority is out of doors and they must sit down by their Misfortune without Redress They are to Govern only durante bene placito no longer than the Sence and Conscience of the People will give them leave two Qualities which seldom fall to the share of the majority And which is an harder Consideration than all the rest it 's their Honourable Relation to God Almighty which puts them into these circumstances of disadvantage Had they not had a Commission from Him their Right had been fenced as well as those of other Men but their being His Ministers to Rule the World has cut them off from the common Privilege This must needs be a mortifying Consideration to Princes and make their Charge a very dangerous Undertaking Who that could live any other way would wear a Crown at this rate Who would change the Title of Private Property and throw himself out of the protection of the Law for such a glittering Uncertainty Who would quit a certain and solid Interest and expose himself to all the Humours and Accidents the Wickedness and Extravagance of Human Nature is capable of producing 'T is certainly much more eligible to have the Security of stated Justice than to stand to the Courtesie of Events and lye at the Mercy of Ambition and the Madness of People But Such Disputes which are too big for a Legal Decision for the decision of which God has erected no Vniversal Tribunal upon Earth He has reserved to his own Iudgment What sort of Dispute does the Dr. mean and between whom does it lye Is it between the Lawful Prince and the Usurper If so the very Names of the Parties are sufficient to end the Controversie For certainly there is no need of disputing whether Right is Right or Wrong is Wrong The Dr. I fear to perplex the Argument seems to perplex the Title and disputes as if it was equally doubtful on both sides and then I confess Events i. e. Possession might determine it But this cannot be supposed without altering the state of the Question For the Dr. has put the Case at the worst and reasoned upon the Supposition of Vsurpation and owns That his Principles oblige him to do so And would our Author have a Vniversal Tribunal erected to overthrow Universal Justice to dispossess and exterminate Lawful Princes and determine the Cause in Favour of Violence Well! Possibly the Dr. means this Dispute is between God and the Lawful Prince 'T is for the Correction of Princes and the Transferring of Kingdoms Touching the transferring of Kingdoms there are several ways as I have already observed of maintaining the Divine Soveraignty in this point without making any Difficulties in Providence and sapping the Foundations of Common Right And as for the Correcting of Princes God does not stand in need of Injustice and Rebellion for this purpose He can execute this Discipline without the necessary Wickedness of the Subject He can afflict Princes in their Families and in their Persons He may likewise suffer them to be over-run by Violence without giving any Approbation or Authority to the Oppression As he suffers the Devil to do a great deal of Mischief though He neither gives him a Commission nor ratifies his Acts. Besides there will be an Vniversal Tribunal erected at the last day where Princes must appear as well as meaner persons and where mighty Men if they have done amiss will be mightily tormented Thus we see Kingdoms may be transferred Princes punished and God's Prerogative asserted without returning to the Doctrine of Events These Expedients are plain and lye easie upon the Understanding and answer all the Difficulties objected by the Dr. without running us upon greater Thus Kings who are only less than God are left to his Sentence and Correction Whereas the Dr's Scheme puts them in the Power
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
Paragraph a little farther Now the Dr's Reason why a Divine Entail is stronger than a meer Human one is Because the first is founded upon express Revelation the later has nothing more than a providential Settlement of the Crown upon such a Family but Providence is not to be expounded against the express Revelation of God's Will To this I answer That an Human Entail has a great deal more to plead than the Dr's Notion of Providence It has a Legal Right to support it's Title which gives it an equal firmness with a Claim made from Divine Designation For we have plain Texts of Scripture to submit to the Constitution of our respective Countries and to look upon our Lawful Governours as God's Ministers And since a Legal Right is fortified with express Revelation it must have an equal privilege with a Divine Entail and carry it against all Providential Pretences by the Dr's own Argument He goes on and attempts to prove the difference between Divine and Human Laws as to their Force because in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God in the other Case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws To this it may be replied 1. That according to the Dr's description of a Divine Law there are few or none of this Character to be found either in the Old or New Testament for the Mosaick Law was given by the disposition of Angels and the Gospel was delivered by the Apostles 'T is true those Precepts given by our Saviour may be said to proceed from a Supreme and Soveraign Power But then we are to consider that his Humanity was the Organ of their Conveyance So that by our Author 's Reasoning these practical Manifestations of the Will of God are but Human or Angelical Laws at the highest For not being delivered by the Deity Himself the Authority of God must be conveyed at a distance and terminate on the Person of the Minister who represents Him and by consequence cannot immediately affect his Laws Now this Immediate Conveyance is the Dr's distinguishing Privilege which he makes essential to the Character of a Divine Law And therefore I would gladly know why an Entail grounded only upon a Prophetical or Angelical Law may not be over-rul'd by Providential Events as well as an Human Legal Settlement For Angels have no original Immediate Authority any more than Kings and Kings are called Elohim Gods as well as the other and have as ample and I may add a more standing Authority to Govern Mankind than any of the Heavenly Hierarchy Now if Providence understood in the Dr's sence ought to have the same effect upon those Laws which were given by Angels or Prophets as upon others which are meerly Human as by his Argument it must have then Ioash's Entail was cut off by Athaliah's Possession and Iehojada was guilty of Treason for deposing her 2 dly It 's not at all material as to the Dispute in hand Whether the Divine Authority affects the Laws of Princes immediately or mediately As long as we are certain of the thing the manner of its Conveyance is no abatement of the original Vertue The Dr. grants That Princes have God's Authority to make Laws Now God's Authority to make Laws implies a Right to make them And since as the Dr. observes there are no Degrees of Right there can for the same reason be none of Authority and therefore it must be full and perfect where-ever it is If the Divine Commission of an Human Law-giver is certain and unquestionable we need enquire no farther for God's Authority receives no prejudice by being delivered to His Representatives So that provided the truth of the thing is secured the way of its coming to us whether by Removes or not signifies nothing for in this Case the distance of the Conveyance does not in the least weaken the Force of the Operation What the Dr. adds concerning Divine Laws That they have 〈◊〉 Superior Authority to all Human Laws is true but foreign to his purpose for God can null his own Laws as well as those which are purely Human as He has actually done in the Mosaick Dispensation so that the possibility of a Divine Repeal does not make any difference between Human and Divine Laws they being both of them equally liable to such an alteration Besides we are to observe that though God can repeal the Laws made by Himself or his Representatives yet we are by no means to suppose that Events and Providence as the Dr. takes it are any Authentick Declarations of the Divine Will His Instance in the By Laws of a Corporation is likewise unserviceable for these private Laws within the Precincts of the respective Towns have the same Force with the more general Laws of the Kingdom provided their Charter is comprehensive and full and granted by those who have the entire Legislative Power which last Privilege cannot be denied to God Almighty and therefore his Authority must be as strong in the delegation as in its more immediate exercise The Dr. in his Case of Allegiance to which I am now returned endeavours to gain a Text in Hosea from the usual Interpretation and make it consistent with his Principles Here as the Dr. observes God expresly charges Israel with making Kings without him They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes but I knew it not To this the Dr. replies That this was not true as to all the Kings of Israel after their separation from the Tribe of Judah If it was true of some of them it 's sufficient to justifie the objected Exposition against him This Answer therefore being perfectly inoffensive I shall pass to his Second in which he argues That Baasha slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express nomination And yet God tells him I have exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel Now if there were any difficulty in this Text the Dr. has effectually removed it in his Case of Resistance the Passage is not only well managed but stands unrecanted And thus it is God having threatned to destroy Jeroboam ' s whole Family Baasha fulfills this Prophecy by the trayterous Murther of Nadab who succeeded his Father Jeroboam in the Kingdom and usurped the Government himself and slew all Jeroboam ' s House This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha for which God afterwards threatned to destroy his House as He had done the House of Jeroboam And yet he having usurped the Throne and got the Power into his hands and no Man having a better Title than his God is said to have exalted him out of the Dust and made him Prince over his people Israel All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession i. e. where the Kingdom
Cromwel if as the Dr. affirms neither the Laws of Religion nor of the Land declare it unlawful to submit to an Usurpation And therefore I think the Great Body of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy have reason to take it ill from the Dr. for making their Forefathers a Company of Mad-men who notwithstanding they had all imaginable Authority and Obligation from Human and Divine Laws to acquiesce and consult their own Safety yet out of a Romantick Notion of Loyalty chose rather to hazard their Souls and Bodies and Estates than submit to the Determinations of God Almighty who is always supposed to set up a Governour when by His Providence He puts the Soveraign Power into his Hands 2. By the Dr's Principles it was not only Lawful to submit to Cromwel's Usurpation but the People were directly obliged to it For 1. It 's well known that the Common-wealth of Cromwel were absolute Masters of the Three Kingdoms and entirely possessed of the Government Now the Dr. has solemnly told us That since Power will Govern God so orders it by his Providence as never to intrust Soveraign Power in any Man's Hands to whom he does not give the Soveraign Authority This Usurpation therefore having Soveraign Power in an high and irresistible degree could not be disowned without rejecting God's Authority which certainly no man can have any Privilege to dispute 2. The Dr. expresly averrs That the Preservation of Human Societies does of necessity force us to own the Authority even of Vsurped Powers And if we are under a necessity of owning their Authority one would think we could not have the liberty to refuse them 3. The Dr. observes That our Saviour's Argument for paying Tribute relies wholly on the possession of Power without any mention of Consent and inferrs from thence That if this be a good Reason it 's good in all other cases that we must submit to all Princes who are possessed of the Soveraign Power and are in full Administration of Government And can the Dr. deny these Advantages to the Usurpers upon K. Charles II No There was not so much as the least Garrison which held out against them And as for the Administring part all Affairs Civil Military and Ecclesiastical were managed solely by their direction 4. If we were unprovided of other Proofs a few Questions in the Dr's words would decide the Controversie I desire to know therefore Whether God Rules in a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne Particularly did God Govern in England Scotland c. from 1648 to 1660 If He did who was it He governed by Not by K. Charles II. for he was dispossessed It must therefore be by the Common-wealth and Cromwel to whom the Government was disposed by God's own Will and Counsel For to allow no more than a Divine Permission is in the Dr's Opinion a great Error For Will any man say That God Governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by His Authority and Ministers Does Providence and Government signifie only His Permission To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such a vast consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World Now if Cromwel c. did not Rule these Kingdoms barely by the Permission of Providence but had God's positive Authority and bore the Character of his Ministers then their Right was unquestionable and their Persons sacred and it was great Wickedness to resist or disobey them And since the Dr. has laid down such Notions as these concerning Providence and given such Prerogatives to Power it 's too late for him to recall his Liberality to the Rump and Cromwel he must not think of unsettling them again for want of a National Consent unless he has a mind to recant the Main of both his Books For if they had God's Authority on their side the People whether willing or not were bound in Conscience to obey them However I shall briefly consider what the Dr. offers to disprove the Settlement of the fore-mentioned Usurpation He tells us The Convocation allâ—dges two ways whereby a Government unjustly and wickedly begun may be throughly settled viz. By a general Submission or by Continuance I have proved above That the Convocation does not take Settlement in his Sence and that he has no reason to make use of their Authority for illegal Proceedings But granting his own Supposition I can't perceive what Service it can do him for if General Submission or Continuance without Legal Right are either of them sufficient to compleat the Notion of Settlement it will be difficult to find an Objection against the Rump's and Cromwel's Authority For 1. As for Continuance the Rump held the Government from 1648 to 1653 and Cromwel was the Supreme Power from 53 to 58 And if Five Years of Soveraign and Uncontested Power is not sufficient to make a Through Settlement I doubt the Dr. has been too quick in his late Complyance But 2 dly Though after a Continuance of this length the Rump and Cromwel by the Dr's Principles had no need of any National Consent and Submission to perfect their Settlement yet it does not appear that the Dr. has disproved their Title so much as in this point As for Submission it was generally paid them There was not so much as the Face of an Enemy in the Field Their Courts were frequented their Coin was current and their Authority undisputed in all Posts of Government but there was no National Consent because the greatest part of the Representatives were slung out of the House excepting a few Rumpers 1. How does the Dr. know but that the Rumpers had a National Consent for secluding these Members The Consent of Silence and Submission they certainly had for the Nation neither offer'd to restore these Members by Force nor shewed any publick Dislike of their being expelled 2 dly Does the Dr. think there can be no National Consent testified any other way than by the Peoples chusing a few Men from Towns and Countries to represent them If the matter stands thus the Four Monarchies had no National Consent nor any Through Settlement for there was no such things as Parliaments in those Times and Countries But before we take leave of these Rumpers the Dr. may remember that they were summoned by the King's Writs and had his Royal Assent to sit as long as they pleased If some People had such a Colour of Authority they would flourish with it at no ordinary rate 3 dly The Dr. objects against Cromwel's Parliaments That they had no National Consent c. because they were not chosen according to the Ancient Customs and Vsages of the Nation Some People will not be sorry to hear that a National Consent cannot be given by Representation unless the Representatives are legally chosen and the Ancient Customs of the Constitution observ'd I wonder how this Reason dropped from the Dr. for it overthrows the
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