Vsurpers the same p. 117. No difference between an Human and a Divine Intail as to the Firmness of the Settlement p. 125. The Object from Hosea 8.4 defended with some Remarks upon the Iewish Theocracy p. 130. His Doctrin not founded upon the same Principle with the Doctrin of Passive Obedience p. 133. His Objection That the disowning Illegal Powers limits the Providence of God in Governing Kings c. answered p. 134. His Argument drawn from the Necessity of Government considered and Counter-Principles set up against him p. 136 c. The Relation between Government and Allegiance examined p. 144. The Dr's Objections against an immoveable Allegiance unsatisfactory p. 145. The Vsurpation under the Rump and Cromwel and had Divine Authority by the Dr's Principles p. 148. Absolom a providential Monarch p. 155. The Insufficiency of the Dr's Plea from a National Submission and the consent of the Estates p. 157. ERRATA PAGE 4 Line 28 after nullum dele in p. 8. l. 23. after the add Dr's p. 9. l. 5. after were add a p. 10. l. 26. aft own'd add p. 11. l. 36. for these r. those p. 14. l. 9. for fall r. fell p. 17. l. 7. del by p. 17. Marg. for Heb. 12 r. Heb. 11. p. 28. l. 40. aft Canon add p. 31. l. 27. for uncouttly r. uncourtly p. 37. l. 32. for there r. here p. 42. l. 24. for any r. an p. 46. l. 27. after disallow add it p. 50. l. 14. for these r. there p. 51. l. 28. for of r. and p. 53. l. 36. Marg. for Sept. r. Lept Ibid. l. 37. for Aritogiton r. Aristogiton p. 54. l. 17. for Valena r. Valeria p. 59. l. 36. aft answer dele Ibid. add after which p. 61. l. 20. for has r. was p. 62. l. 35. after State add p. 68. l. 15. for imploys r. implies p. 69. l. 11. aft Dr. add may p. 71. l. 29. for King r. Kings p. 73. l. 12. aft we add can p. 83. l. 15. for the see r. see the p. 88. l. 4. for Crowned r. owned ibid. l. 32. aft and add the p. 93. l. 26. aft would deâ— p. 99. l. 24. for asserting r. assisting ibid. l. 25. for Possession r. Profession p. 101. l. 28. del other p. 104. l. 31. for from r. for p. 114 l. 35. aft seek add it p. 115. l. 4. for them r. him p. 118. l. 19. for Disputet r. Disputes ibid. l. 28. for remains r. remain p. 119. l. 17. for draws r. draw ibid. l. 18. for translates r. translate p 121. l. 28. for returning r. recurring p. 124. l. 30. aft Laws del and p. 125. l. 2. for them r. him p. 151. l. 4. for of r. and p. 153. l. 16. for Countries r. Counties p. 156. l. 3. for Goth r. Gath. Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE Considered c. THat we may not be surprized with the Doctors Novelties he very frankly at first acquaints us what we are to expect from him He makes no Scruple to aver That the intermixing the Dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience or making the Legal Right of Princes the only Foundation of Allegiance is that which has perplexed the Controversy His Reason is because Allegiance can only be paid to Government he means Force and therefore it can be due to no other Title From whence it 's plain That Illegal Violence is preferable to Legal Right i. e. a Man ought not to pay his Debts to his Creditor but to atturn to the next Highway-Man he meets I wonder the Doctor who seems so much concerned for Good Manners should set the Constitution aside with so little Ceremony For if Legal Right must always give place to Unjust Power the Priviledges of Law signifie nothing except they could make a Man invincible which I fear is a Task somewhat difficult If you enquire why the Author has such a mean Opinion of Right he 'll tell you Because all Arguments from this Ground serve only to confound the Cause and the Conscience and to lead Men into dark Labyrinths of Law and History First As for History in an Hereditary Kingdom it 's no doubt a difficult Point to find out the Royal Family To distinguish a King's Son from his Daughter and the Next in Blood from Iack Cade or Wat Tyler And at this rate except matters of Fact clear up if we pretend but to know our Right hand from our Left we may be carried into a Labyrinth And Secondly As for the Laws they are as dark it seems as if the Parliaments met only to propound Riddles and proclaim unintelligible Jargon to the Nation And if the Case stands thus those Gentlemen who have endeavoured to justifie the Legality of the present Establishment were certainly out in the management of the Dispute For if Right and Wrong are not distinguishable if Good and Evil are of the same Colour if it 's unsafe to make any Enquiries into such Niceties as these for fear of wildring our Understandings then I confess all Revolutions are alike to us and ought to be complied with However the Doctor might have been a little kinder to his own Party who no doubt did their best and not have told the World that they engaged in an unnecessary Argument which it was both unfit to dispute and impossible to manage to satisfaction and that their Performances how well soever meant have served only to confound the Cause I perceive if the Doctor had not gone in to their Relief all had been lost and therefore he is resolved to make them sensible of his Assistance and not to allow them the least share in the glorious Defence of the Revolution But if they are contented with this Character I have no more to say To return to the Laws which the Doctor avoids as so many Rocks and Shelves in Dispute fit only to wrack Conscience upon Now this Character as it s far from a Complement to the English Constitution so it s somewhat surprizing to one who remembers that this Gentleman has formerly been of another mind In his Case of Resistance he does not complain that the Laws which settle the Rights of the Crown were so mysterious and hard to be understood and yet this is not that one Principle which he says he has only renounced in that Book There he asserts the Prerogative and maintains Non-resistance from the Constitution as well as from any other Topick I wonder he should lose his Law after almost seven Years improvement of Study and Conversation After all the Doctor owns that the Laws setting aside their Obscurity are good things and were they easily understood he would willingly cast the Cause upon this Issue If we could readily find where the Seat of Government is fixed who is our King and what are the great Lines of Prerogative and Subjection If we could attain to this perfect Skills in the Government he plainly intimates That the Law would then be a clear and safe Rule 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
of his Cause and tells his Soldiers they were ingaged in a Holy War and that his Design was to revenge the Injuries done to Religion by Darius and Xerxes Kings of Persia who made a barbarous Descent upon Greece and violated all Laws Humane and Divine And in his Letter to Darius he sets forth by way of Declaration how the Grecian Colonies in Ionia and about the Hellespont had been oppressed and harassed by his Predecessors How Greece was over-run with Fire and Sword And besides other terrible Articles of Accusation he tells him That his Father Philip was assassinated by some Persian's Instigation And at last appeals to the Gods with a great deal of Assurance Now I don't find Darius ever offered to purge himself and therefore the Charge might be all true for ought appears to the contrary And if so I hope the Doctor will be kinder to Alexander's Title and not Censure such a Religious Expedition especially where Liberty and Property were so much concerned And if this won't do there are several other considerable Circumstances after Darius his Death to alledge in behalf of Alexander's Legal Right 1. We don't find Darius his Son who was taken with his Mother at the Battel of Issus outlived his Childhood and therefore it may be taken for granted he never put in his Claim 2. Alexander married Statyra Darius his Eldest Daughter which made him at the lowest a Matrimonial King And no doubt this Lady would not contest the Administration of Affairs with him at that time And for fear the Doctor should find out a Salick Law in Persia it may be observed in the Third place That Oxatres Darius's Brother submitted to Alexander and rid in his Guards And now for ought I see his Title is clear on all sides But the Doctor attempts to prove from the Authority of the Convocation that the Iews were bound to submit to Alexander when he summoned Iaddus the High Priest and the rest of them to surrender though it cannot be denied that Darius was then living In Answer to this I shall prove First That this Assertion is a manifest Misconstruction of the Convocation Secondly That considering the Condition Darius was then in such a Submission as the Doctor contends for must be unlawful by his own Principles First The Doctor misrepresents the Convocation 'T is true the Convocation asserts The Iews were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was settled among them But then they plainly suppose that Alexander's Authority was not settled while Darius lived For 1. They inform us That Iaddus sent Alexander word that he could not lawfully violate his Oath of Allegiance to Darius whil'st that Prince lived Now in reporting this Answer of Iaddus they don't add the least mark of Censure or Disapprobation Whereas it 's their Custom throughout their whole Book when they relate any unwarrantable Passages of History to shew their dislike and to condemn the Fact This Method as it was necessary to declare their Opinion and make their Narrative instructive So there never was a more important occasion to pursue it than in the place before us For if they were of the Doctor 's mind they must have thought Iaddus was wonderfully to blame for giving Alexander such a categorical peremptory Denial And therefore they ought to have censured and exposed such a dangerous Mistake for fear of the malignity of the Precedent Not submit to Alexander while Darius lived What a mortal Obstinacy was this No less in the Doctor 's Divinity than a direct standing out against Providence and opposing a Divine Right And would the Convocation who are wont to take notice of lesser Failings suffer an Error of such a pernicious Consequence to pass without the least stroke of Correction This if the Doctor 's Sentiments and theirs had been the same would have been an unpardonable Omission A Negligence that common Honesty and Discretion could never have been guilty of But to shew they were of a different Opinion we find Iaddus's Behaviour justified by the Authority of their Canon where we have these remarkable Words If any shall affirm that Iaddus having sworn Allegiance to King Darius might lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have solicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto he doth greatly Err. They tell us in the foregoing Chapter out of which this Canon is drawn that Alexander desired Iaddus to assist him in his Wars against the Persians and in the Canon which is nothing but the Historical Part formed into Doctrines and practical Truths They assert that it 's a great Error to say that Iaddus might have born Arms against Darius i. e. that it was unlawful for Iaddus to have assisted Alexander and by consequence that his refusing this Prince was a commendable Instance of Loyalty And yet after all this Evidence the Doctor is pleased to say That the Convocation in their Canon takes no Notice that Jaddus could not submit to any other Prince while Darius lived No Notice Do they not say it was unlawful for Iaddus to have born Arms or to have solicited any others to a Revolt Which is as plain a Justification of his Incompliance with Alexander's Demands and as full an evidence that Success does not transfer Allegiance as is possible And is all this nothing But the words whil'st Darius lived are not transcribed from the History into the Canon it 's granted However this Omission upon which the Doctor founds himself is not at all material For 1. The Sense of the Canon concerning the unlawfulness of Iaddus's taking Arms against Darius is indefinitely expressed and by the Rules of reasoning ought to be understood without any limitation of time unless the subject matter requires it which it 's far from doing to the Doctor 's purpose in the Case before us For the Canons being but an Abridgment of the History of the Chapters drawn into practical Propositions They ought to be taken in the same Sense and understood in the same comprehensive Latitude with the History unless there is a plain Exception to the contrary For unless the Chapters and Canons are to be understood alike to what purpose is the History premised in the one and repeated in the other Since the Chapters are the Body from whence the Canons are extracted they ought to regulate their Meaning and explain their Ambiguities if there should happen to be any Besides it 's the Custom of Conclusions of this Nature to be contracted into a lesser Compass than the Principles from which they are inferred All unnecessary lengths of Expression being industriously avoided upon such occasions What wonder is it then to find the Canons less wordy than the Historical Chapters 2. Unless the Canon holds out the full meaning of the Chapter the Sense must be uncertain and uninstructive They tell us it was unlawful for Iaddus to have taken up Arms against Darius But how long was this Allegiance to last Why according
it They ordered Aristides to attend him Themistocles tells him That the Lacedemonian Fleet which was laid up at Gytheum might be burnt provided the matter was managed with Secrecy which Loss must of necessity ruine the Lacedemonians Upon the hearing of this Aristides comes into the Assembly and makes his Report in general terms That Themistocles's Proposal was indeed useful but by no means fair and equitable The Athenians understanding this and not believing that any thing which was dishonest could be really serviceable damned the whole Project upon Aristides's Authority without so much as hearing it In this Discourse he likewise observes That the Stoicks had such an Esteem for Justice and Generosity that they positively pronounced That nothing which was mean and dishonest could be really profitable The Peripateticks another famous and numerous Sect of Philosophers though they held That Honesty and Interest might sometimes be separated yet they owned at the same time That the first was always to be preferr'd to the latter I wish these Heathens don't rise up another day and condemn some Generations of Christians who with all their Advantages of Revelation fall so unfortunately short of Natural Religion and Pagan Virtue who startle at the meer Idea of Justice and can't bear the Confinements of Honesty so much as in the Theory whose Principles and Practices tend to no other point but to debauch and debase Mens Spirits to make them mean and mercenary and indifferent to Right or Wrong In short Government had better be dissolved than upheld by unlawful means God never intended Society should be made a Sanctuary for Vice and serve only to promote the Ends of Injustice People had better live singly and dispersed than incorporate for Mischief and be tyed together with the Bands of Iniquity If Men can't be honest in Company let them break up and retire into Solitude There is a necessity for a Man to keep his Faith unbroken and his Honour untarnished but it 's not necessary to live either in Towns or Villages or indeed any where else when Life must be bought at the expence of Virtue and Conscience If Ease and the regaling our Senses are to be preferr'd to Truth and Justice it 's time to resign up the Privileges of Human Nature instead of pretending to these things we ought rather to go down upon all four and resemble the Shape and Posture as well as the Qualities of Irrational Creatures Is it not much more eligible to be dissolved into Mob than to range our selves in order for the support of Injustice and to play Tricks in Mood and Figure Let us rather chuse to wander in Desarts and Mountains in Dens and Caves of the Earth than combine like the Men of Sodom for Lewdness and Violence for the Pretence of a Community is no good Plea for Immoral Actions nor any Shelter against Fire and Brimstone Fiat justitia ruat mundus Better no World than no Honesty But 2. There is no Reason to apprehend the Strictness of the Old Principle should dissolve a Nation into Mob for the Usurper's Interest will be sure to keep up the Face of a Government there seldom wants Complyers in such cases to supply the Courts of Justice and to take care of publick Administrations A Lawful Prince is never dispossessed without a powerful Faction who will be sufficiently vigilant to nurse up their New Settlement and to throw their Irregularities into the usual form And therefore as we have no warrant so neither have we any necessity to own a Pretended Authority or to engage in the Business of Government for there is no fear but that there will be Ambition Covetousness Cowardice and other ill Principles enough to fill up the vacant places and to manage the Concerns of this nature But 3. Supposing this Event the Dr. is so careful to provide against should happen by disowning the Usurpation it would produce very good Effects For 1. Such a general Disorder would disappoint the Revolters of the Advantage they designed Now if their Expectations were always baulked this would be a mighty Check to Faction and Ambition and we should seldom see any Wickedness of this nature attempted If Men had no Prospect of building up another Government in the room of that which they pull down nor any hopes of thriving by their Rebellion the World would not be plagued with Incendiaries and Traytors so often as it is If Confusion and a kind of Civil Chaos was the necessary Consequence of a Defection and there was no likelihood an Usurpation should ever settle into any Order and Consistency there would seldom be Madmen enough in a Nation to overturn the Constitution for the worst of People don't love Danger for Danger 's sake 'T is true they have no regard to Conscience but they have a tender sense of every thing which is offensive to their Ease and prejudicial to their Temporal Concerns and will no more do an ill Action than a good one when it looks so frightfully upon them and is apparently against their Interest 2 dly When an Usurpation is actually on foot the best Expedient to re-establish the dispossessed Prince is to let the State fall into Disorder for if the Illegal Powers were generally disowned if their Commissions were refused their pretended Courts neglected and the places of Government unsupplied if all things were thus disjointed and out of frame it would introduce an Happy Change and Justice would soon recover her Jurisdiction The making a Lawful Government essential to the Peace and Being of Society will mightily refresh the Allegiance of the People recommend the Doctrines of Loyalty and encline the Subjects to return immediately to their Duty If for no other reason yet because they see they cannot live tolerably without it And when the Majority of a Nation agree in a Desire they are seldom long before they are Masters of their Wishes In short whatever Maxims render an Illegal Possessor unacceptable whatever shocks the general Security and throws the State into Convulsions must by consequence promote the Recovery of the Lawful Prince whereas a Principle of Latitude which contrives an Usurpation regular and easie is the way to fix it and to make the Subject acquiesce and grow indifferent whether the Title is good or bad for many People are too much governed by Secular Regards and don 't love their Concerns should be ruffled and their Pleasures interrupted for the best Cause whatever 3 dly A general Disorder would effectually discover the Wickedness and Danger of an Usurpation and create a proportionable Aversion Such Confusions would make men abhor the Thoughts of Disloyalty and start from it as from an Apparition They would go with the same Forwardness and Concern to suppress a Rebellion as they would to put out a Fire or stop a Sea-Breach A Rebel then would be looked on as a Monster of Mankind and hooted from Conversation and Day Now such Apprehensions as these must contribute very much