Opinion notwithstanding his customary Complements of Nonsense and Trifling But it is more material to observe that the Doctour seems by this Account to have been more busie against the Oaths while he refused them than he is willing to acknowledge He disclaims being ever engaged in any Faction against taking the Oaths or making it his business to dissuade Men from it or seeking out Men to make Proselites but confesses only that he declared his Thoughts against them when he was asked But it seems to be a little more for a Man to be a Party to the Printing of a Book tending to dissuade Men from taking the Oaths and to make Proselites against it for him to wish it were actually printed to urge the printing it as soon as possible and to direct whither a Copy should be sent If this be more than what the Reverend Doctour would seem to own he may have forgot that he was so far engaged in one Overt-Act for the making Proselites against the Oaths and it would be more charitable for him to distrust his own Memory than to cast a Slander upon the Inventions of his Neighbours I would beg your leave to add one thing more with regard to the Doctor 's Raillery against the Notion of Presumptive Consent He says it is a very pretty Notion and serves a great many good turns iâ— makes Laws makes Treason and gives Authority to the inauthoritative Acts of a King de facto It serves a great many good turns so that the Dr. looks upon it as a Notion fit for no purpose but to serve a turn and one would think then that he above all Men should not ever have made use of it to serve his turn upon occasion And yet if we look back into his former Writings we shall find that no other Authour has served himself of this Notion in a more peculiar manner than the Reverend Dr. In his Vindication of his Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet he asserts the Validity of the Ordinations by meâ—r Presâ—yters in the foreign Reformed Churches which have no Bishops And upon what does he ground the validity of their Orders Why truly upon the Force and Authority which the Presumptive Allowance of the Church has in Cases of Necessity He takes some pains to prove that the Church's Consent may be presumed to these Ordinations from the Reasonableness of the Thing and from the Practice of the Church in parallel Cases but makes no Difficulty in the least to conclude that the Church's presumed Consent has sufficient Force and Authority to make these Ordinations by mere Presbyters and the Administration of the Sacraments by Persons ordained by them valid and effectual His wordâ— are If the Church may be presumed in Cases of Necessity to allow Persons to perform such religious Offices and Ministâ—ries as otherwise 〈…〉 are not qualified to perform then this very Allowance supplies the Incapacity of the Personâ— and does virtually confer that Authority upon him which in other Cases he had not And 〈…〉 consider his farther prosecution of this Argument it will appear that the Doctour would make as little difficulty to assert that the Administration of the Sacraments by mere â—aymen in a Church where they have no Bishops or Presâ—yters to administer them is mad 〈…〉 valid and effectual by 〈…〉 of the same Presumptive Allowance of the Church No 〈…〉 will the Dr. be pleased to look back upon his way of arguing in that Treatise and see ho 〈…〉 all his present Râ—â—llâ—â—y â—â— directly levelled against it The Presumptive Allowance oâ— the Church is a very pretâ—y Noâ—ion and serves a great many good turns it makes 〈…〉 and it makes Prieâ—â—â— it makes Orders conferred by simple Presbyters true Orders and it makes the Sacraments administred by Persons who have not Episcopal Ordination nay even by mere Laymen true Sacraments and it makes a Church without Bishops nay without Bishops or Presbyters a true Church it gives Authority to the inauthoritative Acts of Ordaining in mere Presbyters and to the inauthoritative Acts of Administring the Sacraments in Persons ordained by Presbyters nay eveâ— in Laymen where they have no Bishops or Presbyters Does now the Dr. take this Raillery for a sufficient Confutation of his own pretty Notion of the Church's Presumptive Allowance If he does not why must we take it for an Argument against Bp. Sanderson's Notion of the Presumed Consent of the King de Juâ—e Can the Church's Presumed Consent do all this and must the King 's Presumed Consent do nothing And whence is it that the Dr. asscribes so great Force and Authority to the Church's Presumed Consent He grounds it upon the Church's Power to dispense with positive Institutions in case of Necessity and by her own Approbation and Authority to supply the Defects and Irregularities of such Administrations But why must the Church have such a Power Why Because otherwise the Power of the Church is more defective than of any other Society of Men. Then other Societies of Men i. e Civil Societies have such a Power by the same reason as the Church has it and if this Power in the Church implies so great Force and Authority in the Church's Presumed Allowance then the same Power in the State implies as great Force and Authority in the Civil Magistrate's presumed Consent I do not look upon it as so very strange that the learned Dr. should contraâ—ict himself thus at the distance of 7 Years because in that time a man may become another Person and his very Principle of Vnity i. e. his Self-consciousness may be changed But it looks â—ery odly that others should be lashed with the Dr's Raillery and run down with his Confidence for no other Reason but that the Dr. is not at leisure to review his Writings 7 Years backward and so forgets and contradictâ— his old Notions He is very free to say he hath renounced no Principle buâ— one that ever he taught but ever is a very long time and within a little more than 7 Years we find the learned Dr. tripping and renouncing one more pretty Notion besides that Principle He declares now that for his part he lays no stress upon a Presumed Consent but then he was pleased to lay the greatest stress upon it to make it the ground of the Validity of the Orders and Sacraments in the foreigâ— Reformed Churches which have no Bishops and consequently the ground of the very Being of those Churches Now he is pleased to expose the Notion which then did him such 〈…〉 Service as a Notion good for nothing but to serve a turn And is not this very pretty 〈…〉 after all the Dr. himself seems to be the onely Pâ—rson who hath made use of this Notion to serve a turn for he â—aid the greatest stress upon it once when it was for 〈…〉 but declares he lays no stress upon it nay thinks sit to ridioule and explodâ— it â—ow that it is not for his turn
relate to Civil Society As for God's Decrees they are unknown to us till they are fulfilled and when they are we can never know whether they are positive or permissive whether they require our Submission or Resistence but by the nature of the Events Usurpations are decreed by God and so are Robberies so is Antichrist and if there be no difference between these Decrees as there may be none and there can be none gathered out of Daniel or out of any other part of Scripture it follows necessarily that God's Decreeing of Usurpers infers not any Obligation of Subjection to them Thus I have done with his Argument from Dreams Decrees and Prophecies and I hope it appears that the Doctour's Commentary upon Daniel does by no means make good his Commentary upon the Apostle 8. He argues farther That this Distinction that only legal not usurped Powers are of God had made the Apostle's Direction signifie nothing for the great Question had still been undetermined what Powers are of God and what they must obey if some Powers be of God and some not The Apostle directed the Roman Christians to be subject to the Roman Powers then in being and if there was any Dispute whether they were lawfull Powers or Usurpers he plainly determines it by declaring they were God's Ordinance and that Subjection was therefore due to them he tells them the Powers then in being were ordained by God and that was enough to silence all Disputes about them The Doctour confesses That had the Apostle confin'd himself to the then present Powers it would have directed them at that time but says he it would have been no general Direction to Christians in other Ages to obey the present Powers it would have been very convenient for some Men if the Apostle had given such a Direction but what if he hath not Why then we have no Direction in Scripture what to do in such disputed Cases unless by a Parity of Reason Well suppose that we have not the Direction is sufficient if we will be content with what may be reasonably expected St. Paul required the Christians to pay Subjection to the Roman Emperours who were lawfull Powers and the Reason upon which he enjoins it extends the Obligation to Subjects in all Ages and Nations who are under the government of such lawful Powers But the Apostle has not directed us to distinguish what Powers are lawful neither have we any Directions to find out true Parents lawful Husbands Masters and Pastors and yet I think the Scripture is not to be charged with Imperfection The Scripture prescribes the Duties of these several Relations but gives no Rules to distinguish the Relatives the True and Lawful from the False and Counterfeit that depends upon the infinite variety of Fact of Customs and of Laws and therefore cannot be comprehended in general Rules so does the Distinction between lawful Powers and unlawful it depends upon the various Constitutions of Civil Politics and often upon Matters of Fact and therefore that Distinction could not be bounded and defined within Rules nor consequently be determined in Scripture In short it may be inferred by parity of Reason from the Apostle that the supreme Powers in every civil Government are God's Ordinance and irresillible But which are the supreme Powers he hath left to be determined by the Laws of every Government The Doctor himself hath told the World That whatever Power in any Nation according to the Fundamental Laws of its Government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme Power of that Nation the higher Powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And is there any Nation in the World which hath made an Usurper irresistible by a Fundamental Law The Doctor may recant this but he will pardon me if I am still of his Opinion But the Doctor is sure the only Direction in Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government And I am sure there is no such Direction there and which is more the Doctor himself is sure of it for he is sure that Usurpers who have the actual Administration of Government without the consent of the People have no Title to Subjection He seems to lay stress upon those Words of the Apostle At God's Ministers attending continually upon this very Thing the Emperors were then actually Administring the Government and that was their Business as God's Ministers But does the Apostle say that Sovereign Powers are not God's Ministers when they are hindred from their Business though they are still attending upon it and endeavour to remove the Impediment Do they cease to be God's Ministers because their Subjects are Rebels Obedience is required to Spiritual Rulers because they watch over Souls Heb. 13. 11. Are the People then discharged from their Duty if they will not suffer their Pastors to watch over them but separate from them And are the Pastors no longer God's Ministers because they can't exercise their Function But there is not the least notice given us of any kind of Duty to a Prince removed from the Administration of Government whatever his Right may be Neither say I is there any the least notice of paying any Duty to Usurpers no more is there of paying Obedience to a Father or a Master remov'd from the Government of their Families or to a Bishop removed from his Church by Persecution there is no more than this that the Scripture requires Obedience to them and neither Scripture nor Reason does teach us that when they are violently removed from the actual Administration of their respective Governments the Relation ceases and the Duty with it And thus much may be said for Sovereign Princes Subjection is required to them but neither Scripture nor Reason do inform us that the Relation is extinguished when they are violently deposed On the contrary we are expresly required to give Princes their dues and what those are we must learn from the Laws of Nature and Nations for the Scripture has not taught us But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to Vsurpers In the 2d of Samuel we have the People of the Jews submitting to Absalom in the 13th of Revel the People of all Nations to Anti-christ but in neither do we find that they are blamed for it But I wonder when he was heaping up these negative Arguments that he did not remember that if they are good for any thing they overthrow his own Hypothesis he maintains that Allegiance is not due to all Usurpers though all his Arguments from Providence and Scripture do prove it but only to those that are setled by a general consent and yet there is no Rule no Example not an Iota for this Distinction in Scripture But this was not convenient to be remember'd for then he had lost these pretty Arguments But in Scripture we have Examples of Subjects being condemn'd for refusing
into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter for a legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People and if the People have Authority to make Kings they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them A Legal Entail may be founded on the express consent of the People or upon a long continued Prescription which implies a full Consent and derives a good Title of Inheritance both before God and Man but though the Right be founded on Consent yet the Authority of Government is only from God The People have Power to consent and when they have consented Reason and Equity do dictate that they are bound to observe their own Pacts and Covenants But to speak properly this Obligation does not arise from Consent and Reason but from the Authority of God for Obligation is the effect of Law and nothing can be Law without the Sanction of superior Authority which in the Laws of Nature such as that is which requires that the People stand to their Pacts and to those Forms of Government which they have entred into can be God alone And thus as the Authority of Government proceeds from God so the Obligation of the People to adhere to that Entail which their Consent has made does proceed only from God's Sanction of that natural Law which makes their Consent irrevocable and for that Reason though they have some Power in making Kings they have none to unmake them But then if Consent be necessary to Right and God's Authority is not convey'd without Right Is not this to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People For if God cannot make a King without the People or against their Consent declared by their Laws the Authority must be derived from the People not from God or at least if it be God's Authority yet God cannot give it himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws And this says the Doctor is very absurd and what those Persons abhor the Thoughts of who insist so much upon a legal Right But where is this horrible Absurdity Is it that God cannot make a King without the People That indeed is an Absurdity but asserted by no one the Question is what God wills or does and not what he can doe He can make a King out of Stones he can make him without the People without any Instruments and without any antecedent Right but this he never does and what he can do is nothing to the purpose But does it not then follow that the Authority must be derived from the People not from God derived from the People onely as Instruments but then God cannot give it himself without the People which indeed is a self-evident Consequence for if God cannot make a King without the People it follows plainly that God cannot give Authority without the People He adds nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws He should have said as God himself has directed for the Direction or Obligation of Laws proceeds from God alone But where are we Is it not his own Doctrine that God does never make Kings without the Consent of the People No matter whether this Consent be Law or no it obliges the People and Providence never sets up a King without it and how then can he acquit himself of these imaginary Absurdities If he says the Consent of the People is the effect of God's Choice is his Instrument or the Sign of his Conveyance of Authority the same say I for a legal Entail and his own Distinctions will answer his own Arguments 3. To justifie the Doctrine of Allegiance to Usurpers he urges this Argument That it is founded on the same Principle as the Doctrine of Nonresistence and therefore both must be true and false for it is founded on this Principle that God makes Kings and invests them with his Authority which equally proves That all Kings who have received a Sovereign Authority from God and are actually in the Administration of it which is the only Evidence we have that they have received it from God must not be resisted This Reason depends upon his former Proofs and falls together with them it is finally resolved into this Assertion that they who are in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power have received Authority from God An Assertion which makes all Usurpers the Ordinance of God which divests Charles I. and II. of God's Authority and assigns it to the Rump and Cromwell which gives the Sanction of divine Right to the greatest Wickedness and Injustice which is contradicted by almost all Divines and Lawyers by the Voice of Nations and by the Doctour himself for he acknowledges that God's Authority is not always annexed to the actual Administration of Sovereign Power Here he asserts that it is the only Evidence we have of the receiving Authority from God yet when he comes to account for Cromwell he confesses it is no Evidence and makes the Consent of the People to be the onely evidence of it We grant that Non-resistence is founded on God's Authority communicated to Sovereigns but we say that it is always communicated with Right that all just Rights are established by God's Authority that actual Administration is onely matter of Fact which is different from Right and that Usurpers may have it by God's permissive Will which is no Conveyance of Authority But Non-resistence it seems is Nonsense unless it be founded on this new Principle if it must be so who can help it We must acknowledge that Dudley Diggs's Dr. Fern's Dr. Hammond's Bishop Sanderson's Archbishop Bramhall's Defences of Non-resistence are Nonsense for they defend it upon another Principle which is more that all the Church of England Writers for at least â—0 years together even Bishop Stillingfleet Doctor Sherlock and the other Worthies of the Age have erred in the Foundation of Non-resistance and have preached nonsensically and writ nonsensically for it and which is more yet that no one Writer of the Church of England before the late Revolution has defended the Doctrine of the Church upon that Principle which by a new Light is discovered to be the true Foundation of it I cannot believe this without Demonstration but for that I am sent to the Clouds and to the unsearchable Abyss of Providence What the Doctour urges about receiving Authority from the People is answered already the 13th of the Romanâ— is also considered and Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book is fully vindicated from his Glosses and I am not now at Leisure for Repetition 4. To say that when the Divine Providence has removed one King and set up another we must not pay the Duty of Subjects to him if he have no legal Right is to deny God's Authority to remove Kings or set up Kings against humane Laws This he propounds as a 4th Reason