ought to conclude on the other side that since the Apostle gives no intimation that he uses the word in an improper and unusual sense therefore we are to understand it only of those who have legal Titles and the rest are excepted against plainly enough because they are not mentioned nor is the least intimation given of them when in the other places of Scripture it is manifest at first sight that the word is applied to a different sense than that which it commonly has in Scripture or in any other Book 2. If the Sriptures make no distinction between Kings who have a Right Title and those that are Usurpers who have only the Name and Title of Kings it is because there needs no other distinction than the Reason of the thing which sufficiently declares the difference The Scripture had never declared any distinction of Husbands yet the Woman of Samaria well enough understood that there must be one and therefore replied that she had no Husband though she had one who was called so and our Saviour answers her Thou hast well said I have no husband for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband in that thou saidst truly John 4.17 18. And if it should now be asked any Man who is not prepossessed with the Notion of a thorough Settlement whether St. Paul by the higher Powers ordained of God meant Rightful Kings only or Usurpers likewise he would scarce be able for some time to imagine what reason there could be to doubt whether Rightful Kings only were meant by those expressions or to conceive what interest Usurpers could have in that Text. And this Dr. Sherlock seems to own Pref. when he says That the Apprehensions of novelty and singularity had cramped his freedom and liberty of thinking Pag. 3. and that his Scheme of Government may startle some Men at first before they have well consider'd it So that it is evident that this Interpretation is a Novelty and Singularity which will startle most Men and that this Text in its most plain and obvious sense is to be understood of Rightful Kings and if others are to be comprehended in it this must be proved not from the words themselves but from other Reasons for the words do not naturally include them the utmost that can be said is that they may possibly comprehend them because they are not always used in a strict sense but that they are not so used here is the thing to be proved if usurped Powers are ordained of God the Text plainly commands subjection to them but if they be not ordained of him it as plainly commands subjection to Rightful Kings in opposition to them And it cannot be concluded from the different sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon different occasions that Usurpers are ordained of God but it must be first proved that they are ordained of him and then and not before it must be allowed that the signification of that word i◠to be so extended in the Text as to be understood of them as well as of other Kings 3. Besides if this Argument from the Scriptures making no distinction between Kings who have a Legal Title and those who have none prove any thing it must prove too much to make at all to this purpose For the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings who have both a Legal and a Divine Right and those who have neither but are Usurpers both against God and Man Thus Abimelech is stiled King Judg 9. without any manner distinction or explication though he was set up not only by the most wicked and bloody means but in opposition to the Authority of God himself who then governed the People of Israel by raising them up Judges to Deliver and to Rule over them and for this Reason when they would have made Gideon King he rejected it as a thing which would be agreat offence against God and a notorious contempt of him Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon rule thou over us both thou and thy son and thy sons son also for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian And Gideon said unto them I will not rule over you the Lord shall rule over you Judg. 8.22 23. And since that God was afterwards so displeased with the Children of Israel for desiring a King and said that in asking a King they had rejected him that he should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8.7 The People of Shechem in setting up a King of their own chusing without leave from God or asking counsel of him must be guilty of a much greater affront against God for they rejected him in a more insolent and provoking manner not contenting themselves with those whom God used to raise up for them and not regarding his choice Convoc Ch. 13. Can. 1 or expecting his pleasure in it they presumed to chuse them a Prince of their own Abimelech therefore could be King by no Authority from God but by his Permission only and yet the Scripture gives the Title of King to him as well as to Saul and David because he was in full Power and exercised all outward Acts of Supreme Authority though he had really no Authority but by Force only and fuccess in his wickedness assumed to himself the name of King Isbbosheth likewise was set up by Abner against David whom God had nominated and caused to be anointed King to reign over all Sauls Dominions after his death yet the Scripture says in the same words in which it speaks of all other Kings that Ishbosheth was made King over all Israel and that he reigned two years 2 Sam. 2.9 10. And Athaliah is said to have reigned over the Land six years 2 Kings 11.1 tho she had no manner of Right either from God or Man as the Doctor himself confesses and maintains because Joash was alive on whom God had entailed the Crown as being descended from David She is notwithstanding said to have reigned over the land in the same terms that are used in Scripture concerning the most Rightful Kings nominated and appointed by God himself The examples then of Abimelech Ishbosheth and Athaliah abundantly shew that Usurpers tho' they exercise the Supreme Authority and are in full Possession of it are not therefore the ordinance of God and that it is not impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no for Abimelech and Ishbosheth were Kings and Athaliah was Queen without any Authority at all and yet not whether God would or no but by his Permission And from hence it is evident that the word King or Queen doth not always signifie in Scripture a Person invested with God's Authority though it be used without distinction and that the sense of the same words in particular places of Scripture must be known not always from any distinction annexed to them but from the Circumstances and Reasons of things
the foregoing Chapters was not retained but other Forms set up in its room For as the rebellious Humours of the People declining from their Obedience did in many Countries alter that temperate and fatherly Government which Noah had prescribed unto his Off-spring and which God himself established afterwards among his own People So did the ambitious and insatiable Dispositions of sundry no less elsewhere impeach the same as by the Beginning and Progress of the Four Monarchies it is most apparent And therefore they now declare what is to be thought of all these Aberrations from the said mild and temperate Government before specified And they determine That Almighty God who for the sins of any Nation or Country altereth their Governments and Governors transferreth setteth up and besloweth Kingdoms as it seemeth best to his Heavenly Wisdom having in his Wisdom suffered wicked men to introduce and establish these new Forms we are to look upon them as his Ordinance and therefore to pay them all that Obedience which is due to the Paternal Government of his own Institution Secondly we may learn what is meant by a Thorough Settlement from the particular instances here mentioned and these are the Assyrian Monarchy the Roman Commonwealth the Kingdom of Egypt and all the Four Monarchies When therefore any degenerate Forms of Government or Aberrations from the mild and temperate Government before specified are so setled as these were we must in Conscience yield all Obedience to them and not think that they have no sufficient Authority because they deviate from the first Pattern of Government prescribed by God himself and preserved amongst his own People It is indeed said that the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor is God's Authority and therefore receives no Impeachment from the wickedness of those that have it Which seems to suppose that the true and Lawful Possessor may be still living and may still claim the Allegiance of his Subjects and that the Invader or Usurper keeps Possession as wickedly that is as much against all Human Law and Right as the first got into it But if we observe the instances immediately added it will appear that no such thing can be concluded from this Passage For they instance in the Kings of Egypt who oppressed the Israelites after Joseph's Death and in the Kings of Babylon when they had brought the Jews into Subjection and had carried away the whole Nation into Captivity But the Kings of Egypt after Joseph's Death had undoubtedly as good a Right as they had before it and the Kings of Babylon had such a Right to the Allegiance of the Jews as no other Princes could pretend to when the whole Jewish Nation were brought under Subjection to them and their Kings themselves had made a Covenant with them and taken an Oath to them Ezek. 17.16 and were strictly commanded by God himself to serve the King of Babylon Jer. 27. Yet these are the only Instances brought to shew that God's Authority receiveth no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it that is as no wicked means in the acquiring of Power can hinder but that after a long and uninterrupted continuance as in the Four Monarchies these Forms of Government are confirmed by God's Authority so neither can the abuse of this Authority by Oppression and Tyranny when any such Alterations are throughly setled invalidate the Authority itself but it is always God's Authority and is still to be reverenced and obeyed as such And therefore all the Severities and intolerable Burthens which the Jews endured in Egypt and in Babylon could not warrant their taking up Arms against those Kings so that the Jews themselves when brought under these new Forms of Government were obliged to submit to them and not by any Insurrections or Violence endeavour to restore themselves to that Primary Institution of Government which God had appointed these having his Authority as much as that itself when they are throughly setled and when there is no other Objection to be made to them but that they are irregular and corrupt in their Constitution or had an ill beginning or are oppressive and Tyrannical in their Management and Administration If all who had any Right or Interest in the former Government have submitted to the new one and are under the Obligation of Engagements and Oaths to it which was the Case of the Jews they must be obedient to it however different from the former or how much worse soever it may be But the Convocation acknowledge no other settlement 1. Mac. c. 1.2 3. Joseph Antiqu l. 12. c. 7 8 9.11 tho never so full to have been sufficient to debar the Jews from entring into Arms against an Usurper For they justifie Mattathias and his Sons in their open Resistance they made against Antiochus Epiphanes because his Government was neither generally received by Submission nor settled by continuance Now Antiochus was called in by a prevalent Faction and had two years peaceable Possession of Jerusalem for so long it was before Mattathias took up Arms against him that Antiochus han entred into Jerusalem by the Treachery of that Faction without any opposition and it was three years longer before it was recovered out of his Hands by Judas Maccabeus so that he held it in all five years yet because that Faction only that invited him in had submitted to him and the contrary Party who had the Right on their side were not subdued nor brought to a Compliance by this continuance of his Government it was not such a Continuance as is required to that thorough Settlment which the Convocation mention But tho he had for so long time been in full Possession of Jerusalem and of their whole Country and had as the Convocation observe spoiled the Temple and profaned it with his Idols and exercised all the cruel and wicked Acts of the most absolute and tyrannical Conqueror he had notwithstanding no better Right still than at his first Usurpation So that the Convocation cannot mean a bare Possession though it be never so full by a Thorough Settlement but such a Settlemâ—nt only as both supposes Submission or Continuance and no Claim of Right in any other Person And that the meaning of the Convocation could not be that an Usurper by being got into full Possession may have any Right or just Title against the true Heir appears from what they determine about the Deposing of Athaliab after six years Possession Ch. 23. For the Reason they give to justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada therein is that Joash their late King's Son was then their only Natural Lord and Sovereign although Athaliah kept him for six years from the Possession of his Kingdom It may here be objectted that this is a peculiar case and that this Reason would hold good only in the Kingdom of Judah where God himself had appointed and settled the Succession of their Kings in the line of David and that
one can only confirm and strengthen it Indeed when there are two Tiles one may sometimes hold good when the other fails But then this must be when the Titles are wholly distinct and independent one upon another as they are not in the present Case For God bestowed the Kingdom upon David for him and his Heirs after him to hold by Succession that is to hold by the same Right that other Hereditary Monarchs hold by so that if he by his Providence had disposed of the Hereditary Right and caused it to fail his Promise which was grounded upon this Hereditary Right or rather did suppose it as its Object or the Thing Promised could now no longer give him a Title to the Kingdom For God by his Promise did not bar himself from disposing of the Kingdom of Judah in the same manner as he disposeth of all other Hereditary Kingdoms but he promised David that he should Rule that Kingdom by an Hereditary Right just in the same manner and by the same Tenure from himself that other Hereditary Kings hold by God had promised to protect the Kings of Judah and to continue the Kingdom to them and that a peculiar Providence should watch over them but never that his Providence should not have the same Power over them that it had over all other Kings and therefore we find that the Kingdom of Judah did not always continue without Interruption even in David's Line which yet it must have done If God's Promise had been so to be understood as that it was not to be subject to the Contingencies that other Hereditary Kingdoms are liable to And upon this Account the Convocation proposes the Kingdom of Judah as a Pattern to other Kingdoms because the Jews had God's Warrant and Direction in such Cases as happen in other Kingdoms whereas if their Proceedings were to be no example to others the Convocation had argued from a wrong Principle and their whole first Book had been to very little purpose But granting that the Kingdom of Judah was by the Entail upon Davids Line exempted from the ordinary Laws of Providence yet I shall shew First that it was not so exempted in the time of Joash Secondly that when God by his revealed Will deposed the Kings of Judah he so ordered it that the Allegiance of the Subjects would have been transferred by human Laws and Justice without a Revelation First Tho the Kingdom of Judah had been at first exempted from the common Laws of Providence yet it could not be so exempted in the time of Joash For the Promise to Davids House was conditional and upon supposition that his Children kept Gods Covenant and Testimony Ps 132.12 And when the Kings of Judah had by their Transgressions forfeited all that Right which God had made over to them by Promise they could no longer have any pretence to that exemption but there is no Reason to think but that his Posterity might have fall'n from their Right by any way which other Kings may For the promise being conditional if God by his Providence conveys away the Right to other Kingdoms and invests all those with his Authority who are possessed of the Sovereign Power in other Nations the Jews must have concluded in the Case of Joash and Athaliah that since the House of David had not performed the Conditions expresly annexed to the Promise God had taken the forfeiture of the Kingdom of Judah and had by his Providence disposed of it so as to set up another in the Room of the Right Heir For a conditional Promise can oblige no longer than the Conditions are performed by them to whom it is made and therefore there could be no need of a new Revelation to take away the Kingdom from David's Line since the Conditions upon which the Kingdom was entailed were notoriously violated by so many of the Kings of Judah particularly by Solomon the first Successor 1 Kings 9.4 5. who tho God had repeated to him the conditions of his Promise made to his Father David provoked God to that Degree that Ten Tribes were taken away from his Son and Separated from the Kingdom of Judah and by Ahaziah the Father of Joash who walked in the way of the House of Ahab 2 Kings 8.27 The Kings of Judah therefore not observing the Terms which were enjoyned them at the making the entail but transgressing that Covenant which God made with David upon which the Throne of his Kingdom was established 2 Chron. 7.17 18. God could be no longer bound to continue the entail in Performance of his Promise or Covenant but that Kingdom must be afterwards in the same State with all other Kingdoms and there could be no Reason why God should not dispose of it in the same manner that he disposes of any other Secondly When God by his revealed Will deposed the Kings of Judah he so ordered it that the Allegiance of the Subjects would have been transferred by Human Law and Justice without any Revelation For at last when the Scepter departed from David tho not from Judah tho the Kingdom was not taken from the House of David but by Revelation yet it was taken away in such a manner as to make no breach upon the Rights of Kings over their Subjects but to transfer their Allegiance according to the ways of Right and Justice amongst men for God had commanded the Kings of Judah to submit themselves to Nebuchadnezzar and accordingly Jehoiakim became his Servant three years and afterwards when he came against the City Jehoiakim went out to him He and his Mother and his Servants and his Princes and his Offisers 2 Kings 24 12. and submitted to him in the most solemn manner imaginable and therefore the Subjects Case was just the same that it is when there is no Revelation but only the Providence of God to transfer Allegiance For if a King become Servant to the Conquerour if he and his Servants and his Princes and his Officers all that have Right or Authority in the Government are carried away Captive and submit and bind themselves by Oaths to the Conquerour as the Kings of Judah did Ezek. 17.16 there is no doubt but the Subjects may follow their Kings Example and become Subjects to the Conquerour as well as he and cannot be obliged to reserve their Allegiance to him by vertue of that Right which he has now resigned For when a King has resigned his Crown whether it be by God's Appointment or upon some other Account he has resigned his Right to the Subjects Allegiance and they are then at liberty to submit to another Prince And it is a good Evidence that the Allegiance of Subjects is not transferr'd by Providence without the Resignation or Death of the Rightful King because it was not otherwise transferred by Revelation Obj. The Israelites had been 18 years in subjection to the Moabites as they had been a little before 8 years to the Aramites and they knew that it was not lawful
was fully possessed of his Kingdom for above seven years together And there never was any dispossest Prince but he endeavoured to regain his Throne if he could and never any Prince was blamed for it IV. This Argument would hold as well in private as in publick Affairs since both are alike in God's disposal and it would be as unjust for a man injuriously dispossest of his Estate to endeavour the recovery of it by due course of Law as it would be for a King by waging War to endeavour the Recovery of his Kingdoms For in both Cases it may with equal Reason be said that the Title is lost and the Right transferred by God himself And the Example of God's commanding the Children of Israel to spoil the Aegyptians may seem as well to justifie the one Case as his bestowing Kingdoms in the Old Testament to justifie the other If it be said that there is a more peculiar and extraordinary Providence which rules and disposes of Publick States and Kingdoms First if by a peculiar and extraordinary Providence be meant that God is wont more immediately so to interpose as to change the ordinary course of Justice and to transfer Rights and displace and dispossess Rightful Kings more than he does Rightful Owners of private Estates this seems to be groundless and disagreeable to the Methods of his Justice and to those Rules which the Scripture prescribes to us which are the same in our Duties towards Kings as in those towards other men and it besides lays upon us greater Obligations to observe them We must render to all their Dues and particularly Tribute to whom Tribute is due c. Rom. 11.7 But we have no where the least intimation that the Rights of Kings cease any other way than other Mens do viz. by Death Resignation c. not by a foreign Invasion or the Rebellion of Subjects or by the interposition of Providence in a concurrence of unfortunate Accidents And those Texts which seem most to favour this supposition have been already considered and if they prove any thing to this purpose they must conclude as well concerning the Properties of Subjects as concerning the Prerogatives of Princes for it is as easie a thing with the Lord to make a poor man rich as it can be to set up over Kingdoms the basest of Men. and the Providence of God is alike concerned in both Cases for as he leadeth Princes away spoiled and overthroweth the mighty so the Tabernacles of Robbers prosper and they that provoke God are secure into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Job 12.6.19 And thus we find Job ascribes all his Losses and Calamities to Gods afflicting hand upon him for God having all things in his Power and at his Command is often said to do what he does not hinder Secondly If by a peculiar and extraordinary Providence be meant such a Care as is answerable to the great Importance of Publick Affairs and the Government of Kingdoms this will imply no more than that Gods Care is more concerned and more imployed about things of greater importance than in things of less moment that is it manifests itself in a greater number and variety of Exigencies and is applyed to more Circumstances of Affairs Yet his Providence extends itself to the Hairs of our Heads and to the falling of a Sparrow to the Ground and is as watchful over the most inconsiderable and minute things in proportion to their Nature as over the greatest matters His Providence his Justice and Goodness is over all his Works and he may as well be supposed to convey Private Estates to the unjust Possessors of them as to dispose of Kingdoms to Usurpers his Providence which permits both gives one no better Title than the other Kings 't is true receive their Power from God and are his Vicegerents and therefore are accountable to none but him and can be deposed by none else but God invests them with his Authority by the intervention of subordinate means and by the Observation of the same Laws of Justice which ought to be observed in the Rights and Possessions of Subjects Thus in the Elective Monarchies there is the same Justice to be observed in the Election of the King that there is to be observed in the Election of inferiour Magistrates tho after Election the King is accountable to none but God and the inferiour Magistrates are accountable to the King And in an Hereditary Kingdom there is the same Right of Inheritance in respect of the Nature of Right or Justice that there is in Private Estates tho the Inheritance of Kingdoms be forfeitable to God only For as God now makes no Kings by his express Command and immediate Designation but according to the Methods of Law and Right amongst men so he deposes and devests them of their Power in such a manner as does not interfere with the ordinary course of justice The Lord shall smite them or their day shall come to die or they shall descend into Battel and perish 1. Sam. 26.10 V. Tho by the Law of Nations Foreign Princes may transact with any Conquerour as Rightful King Yet by the Law of Nature Conquest can give no just Title unless the Claim before Conquest were just that is indeed it gives no Title at all but only recovers what before there was a just Title to For even a just cause of War will not justifie a Conquest unless there be a precedent Right to the Dominions of the conquered Prince as a Debt of 5 l. tho it will justifie a Suit at Law yet gives no Title to a mans whole Estate And if a Thorough Settlement can give the Conquerour any Right which he had not at first it can be no less than such a Settlement as the Laws and Customs of Nations allow which is an undisturbed and uncontested Possession for a term of years exceeding the Memory of man Jeptha alledged against the King of the Ammonites the Prescription of 300 years Judg. 11.26 and the time for Prescription to Kingdoms is generally set at 100 years Duck de Usu Authorit Jur. Civil l. 1. c. 1. S. 19. and yet the Civilians genetally maintain that the longest Precription can give a right to none but to those who are Possessores bonae fidei not to those who came in by Fraud or Violence but who thought they had a just Title or knew of no better Claim And if it should be granted necessary for the Peace of the World that some certain time be fixt when after a quiet and unmolested Possession all Pretensions should expire Yet men must not be allowed to judg every thing setled that is uppermost or that can brave it for a while for this would in reality let nothing be setled but would open a Gap to perpetual Disturbances and Confusions For every thing that can be called a Government is setled or may appear to be so to Private Men till it is overpowered Thus David fled from Jerusalem and went
gave him license and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and it makes a Murtherer No men can do any Wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into mens hands justifies the wickedness they commit no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin as Rebellion and the Murther of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence at least this must be a setled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids There is another Objection against what the Apostle affirms p. 127. that there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God For is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Usurpers from God Did Oliver Cromwel receive his Power from God then it seems it was unlawful to resist him too or to conspire against him Then all those Loyal Subjects who refused to submit when he had got the Power in his hand were Rebels and Traitors To this I answer that the most prosperous Rebel is not the Higher Powers while our Natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore though such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who resists them does not resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of men In Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of one King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood and therefore he who rebelleth against the Father and murthers him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there possession of Power seems to give a right Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance for the possession of Supreme and Sovereign Power is Title enough where there is no better Title to oppose against it c. But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Judah P. 131. which God himself had intailed on David's Family as appears from the Example of Joash who was concealed by his Aunt Jehosheba and hid in the House of the Lord for six years During this time Athaliah Reigned and had the whole power of Government in her hands but yet this did not make her a Sovereign and irresistable Prince because Joash the Son of Ahaziah the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive And therefore in the Seventh Year Jehoiada the Priest set Joash upon the Throne and slew Athaliah and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so 2 Kings 11. Which shews That no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural Prince Such Usurpers though they have the possession of the Supreme Power yet they have no Right to it and though God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision The Tree is cut down but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after that they shall know that the Heavens do rule Dan. 4.26 Hitherto I had written before Dr. Sherlock's Book was published and upon the most impartial consideration of it can now find no cause to change my Opinion but having proceeded thus far I shall as exactly as I can examine all that relates to this matter in his Book which I could not foresee and have not already given an account of His Two first Sections I cannot think my self much concerned about having already given both the full State of the Case and the plain meaning of the Convocation One thing indeed I omitted which he remarks in the Second Section He observes That whereas in the 30th Chapter it is said P. 8. That Jaddus returned Answer to Alexander That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived the Convocation in the Canon following it takes no notice that he owed Allegiance to Darius during the Life of that King And it is plain says he that Jaddus himself could mean no more by it than that he could not make a voluntary Dedition to Alexander not that he never could submit to him till Darius was dead for when he was in Alexander 's power he made no scruple to submit to him But I think it is not much material whether they mention this in the Canon or no since they set it down in the foregoing Chapter and then approve of the Behaviour and Conduct of Jaddus in the Canon For if this part of Jaddus's Answer which was the most considerable thing in it had been disliked by them it must have been excepted but when they give a general Approbation of what Jaddus did and except against no Particulars they must be supposed to approve of it in all its Circumstances before set down in the Chapter at least they must approve of that which was the principal thing in Jaddus's Answer for when the thing that Alexander required of him was to bear Arms himself against Darius or to solicite others thereunto and Jaddus answered That he might not do it because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived and the Convocation in their Canon determine That if any man affirm that having so sworn he might have done it he doth greatly err they can mean no less in the Canon than they expressed in the Chapter That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived And the Doctor doth not deny that they approved of these words in the sense in which Jaddus meant them and that Jaddus meant them in the strictest sense is evident for the words will admit of no Latitude and what Jaddus afterwards did was by an immediate Direction from Heaven and therefore it can be no Argument that Jaddus had any thoughts of submitting to Alexander whilst Darius lived when he sent that Message but on the contrary That he was resolved not to have submitted and ought not to have done it unless a Revelation had warranted him to do it and thereby absolved him from his Oath to Darius In his Third Section the Doctor lays down some Propositions upon which his whole Discourse depends and indeed to grant him these Propositions is to give up the Cause to him for they plainly imply and suppose the whole Question without any more to do His First Proposition is That all Civil Power and Authority