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
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
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
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
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
that business But what if the Subject has a passionate Affection for Justice as well as for his Prince and can't draw his Sword against the Laws with any manner of satisfaction What if he is afflicted to see a brave a generous and good-natur'd Prince so deeply injured What if he has an aversion to Violence and hates to strengthen the Workers of Iniquity If he has not command enough of his Conscience to conquer all these Scruples what Relief can the Dr. give him Very little that I know of And as for his calling it a Difficulty in Providence he must either mean That it 's a Difficulty to God Almighty or else That it is to human Understandings an incomprehensible way of proceeding for Providence to bar a good Prince of his Right only for having treacherous Subjects and bad Neighbours And if this be his meaning I agree with him unless we had a particular Revelation to clear the point But then I must add That the Dr's Scheme bearing thus hard upon the Attributes of God is but a bad Argument to conclude the reasonableness of it He says No man could have foreseen how Ch. the Second should have returned who had a powerful Army against him or J. the Second be driven out of his Kingdom at the Head of a powerful Army without shedding of Blood Now the reason why the latter instance of this Mystery was so difficult to penetrate is given by the Prophet Because the Heart is deceitful and desperately wicked who can know it However according to the Dr's Application Providence was as much concerned in the one as in the other as much engaged to incline Men to desert and betray their Prince as to return to their duty to him He goes on to inform us That all the Plots and Conspiracies of the Loyal Party were vain and had no other effect but to bring some worthy and gallant men to an unhappy End All the Plots c. That is the Loyal Party plotted to restore the Government and conspired against Rebellion This is somewhat oddly expressed but new Language and new Notions do well together I perceive the Dr. is resolved to furnish out Cloth and Trimming too for one bout But after all these fine words if his Doctrine holds true these Gallant Worthy Men were no better than Men Worthy and Traytors to God and the Common-Wealth Some People will likewise wonder since he had bestowed such Commendations upon the Royallists why he should tarnish their Character by saying they came to an Vnhappy End If he means it with respect to their Friends it might be so If in relation to themselves it 's utterly deny'd For is it in earnest a Misfortune to sign our Loyalty with our Blood and to dye in defence of the Laws Is it an Unhappiness to value our Honour and Integrity above our Lives and to expire in Constancy and Greatness If the Case be thus the Martyrs came to an Vnhappy End But I shall dismiss this Argument The Dr. is at last apprehensive lest this Doctrine should prove inconvenient and dangerous to Princes and answers the Objection by saying The contrary Doctrin is much more dangerous to Subjects Whose Interest it seems must be preferr'd though their Behaviour be never so monstrous and irregular I shall afterwards endeavour to shew That the Security of the Subject is better provided for upon the old Principles than by this new Scheme But why is the contrary Doctrin so dangerous to the Subject Because it 's a Folly to believe any Princes will endure those who are obliged by Principles of Conscience to oppose and disown their Government Is it Folly to think any Prince will endure such things Then it 's Folly it seems for him to endure them Here the Dr. has given us a Cast of his good Nature and shewn what a kind Advocate he is for his Brethren the Non-Swearers But why will he not endure them Does the Dr. think no Prince will endure a Man that has any Principles of Conscience Not when they are turned against him Why not if there is no Malice in the Opposition Why should any Power persecute People to the death meerly because they are willing to go Heaven and are afraid of being damned An intruding Prince if he has any Spark of Honour or Generosity in him if his Temper be not as ill as his Title won't sacrifice such Persons to Rage and Resentment Not only because such sort of Revenges look uncreditably and mean but because he knows his Interest is not declined out of Humour or Animosity but upon the score of Principles and Duty The Dr. undertakes another Objection which lies against his Doctrin of Providence viz. That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Title to his Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown What he has brought in answer to this in his Case of Allegiance I have already considered But he has since endeavoured to support himself upon some new Reasons in his Vindication and therefore these must be likewise examined Before I enter upon this matter it may not be improper to take notice That the Dr. was forced to make use of such extensive Principles in his first Book that like a large Town they are much the weaker for their Compass Which makes the defence of them at all Quarters utterly impracticable I am mistaken if that which I have formerly alledged together with the obvious Consequences which result from it does not contain an Answer to what the Dr. has lately produced For if as he maintains all Power whether Legal or Illegal is from God and a certain sign of his Authority if Providence orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private men as well as publick Societies if there is no difference between the Divine Permissions and Approbations no Evil in the City which the Lord has not barely permitted but done If all this be true I confess I cannot understand why a Robber's Title is worse than a Usurper's However since the Dr. continues of another mind the Grounds of his Dissent shall be considered Now he endeavours to shew That private Robberies and Vsurpations have not the same Effect and Confirmation from Providence Because all private Injuries are reserved by God himself to the redress of publick Government therefore his Providence has no Effect at all upon such Personal Rights But such Disputet 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 such as the correction of Kings and the transferring of Kingdoms And here the final determination of Providence in settling Princes upon their Thrones draws the Allegiance of the Subjects after it 'T is granted That Government is appointed by God for the redressing private Injuries but it 's likewise as true That all Injuries of this kind are not actually redressed There are very many
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