any other Title Allegiance is not due to the Crown but to the natural Person of the King which is ever accompany'd with the Politick Capacity it is due to the natural Body by Nature God's Law and Man's Law cannot be forfeited nor renounced by any Means it is inseparable from the Person and it has been said to be due to him even when he is driven out of his Kingdom And lastly we have the Resolution of all the Lord's and Commons in the Case of the Claim of the Duke of York against Henry the Sixth that an illegal Settlement of the Crown by Acts of Parliament and the Settlement of 60 Years Possession without interruption were not sufficient to defeat the legal Title nor to settle the Usurper's against it Further it appears from the whole Sâ—…ies of our History from the constant practice of Usurpers and from the Acts and Recognitions of their Parliaments that no Possession whatsoever without a legal Right was ever esteemed a through Settlement by the Parliaments the People or by the Usurpers themselves they have always pretended to a Legal Right and got themselves to be declared Kings dejure by their Parliaments for the satisfaction of the People to what purpose but that they knew it was the surest Foundation of their Power that the People could never be brought to a plenary Submission nor their Government be throughly setled without a general Persuasion of it These Recognitions of Parliaments were as illegal as the Usurpations they could not alter the nature of things lawful Parliaments did always declare them to be invalid and null the whole Body of the Nation have rejected and made no account of them and they never yet were effectual to establish Usurpation But they who had no Right thought the Pretente and Opinion of it necessary to a Settlement they knew that Parliaments were the best Instruments to delude the People and therefore they made them to recognize Force and Usurpation to be Right and Inheritance and this constant practice of Usurpers is an evident Proof that it has been the Universal Sense oâ—â— the Nation that without a Legal Right there could be no hopes of Settlement Lastly I appeal to the Sense and Reason of Mankind whether according to the natural course of things there can be a through Settlement of an Usurped Power while the rightful Prince is actually prosecuting his Right Mankind are not so degenerate nor so much in love with Oppression and Injustice as to have no regard to Right nothing is more natural than to commiserate and assist the Oppressed and that may well be expected in the case of a Rightful Sovereign to whom the Subjects have sworn Assistance and whom they know to be wrongfully deposed The generality of Men will never so far shake off the bands of Reason and Equity as to think they are loos'd from the Obligations of rendring every Man his due and doing as we would be done by Brave and Generous Spirits will never be wanting who will dare even to dye for a Righteous Cause and will scorn to abandon a Prince because he is unfortunate Men may be câ—â—eated and deluded for a while with the plausible Pretences of Religion and 〈◊〉 Publick Safety but time does always discover the Imposture and when once the Fig-Leaves are remov'd the Usurpation and Injustice will be expos'd naked to their view and their Abhorrence will be heightned by the Briars and Thorns the Sweat and Labour and Misery they have produc'd and then they will strive who shall be the first in bringing back their King all this is natural to imagine what has often happened and what may be reasonably expected Usurpers are always in the state of Robbers they may be well arm'd and strongly fortisied but they can never be secure Usurpation will never want Enemies not Right its Friends and Defenders Nature and Religion and the Common Interest of Mankind do conspire for Right and Justice against Injury and Oppression and 't is not likely they should be establish'd in spite of so powerful a Combination Lastly it was never yet known in this Nation that a Legal Right to the Crown when prosecuted was totally deserted or a through Settlement acquir'd without it and therefore I conclude that Reason and Experience do assure us that Right is necessary to a through Settlement The Result is this that seeing the Civil Law the Law of Nations the Law of England the Practice of Usurpers the constant Sense of the People and even Reason it self do unanimously agree in proving the necessity of Right to Settlement it is very unreasonable to consider Settlement without it or when we meet with it in any Author to give it such an Interpretation as is warranted by no good Writer and is contradictory to Law and Practice Reason and Experience and when on the contrary it may fairly be interpreted in a sense agreeable to them The Doctor concludes this Section with repeating his former Prejudice and insinuating a new one That his Principles are so very useful in all Revolutions that Subjects have reason to wish them true and to examine over again those strict Principles of Loyalty which if pursued to their just consequences must unavoidably in some junctures sacrifice whole Kingdoms at least all Subjects who pretend to this degree of Loyalty and Conscience to the ill Fortune of their Princes Now this is nothing but Wheedling and Prevaricating if his Principles be false it is certain they are not useful to the Good of Mankind and 't is as impious to wish them true as to wish that Vice were Virtue as absurd as to wish that an Ox were an Elephant His Principles are useful enough to them who think sleeping in a whole Skin should be preferred to all Obligations and such is that Principle which was once vouched by the Devil Skin for Skin and all that a Man hath c. But the strict Principles of Loyalty are such as may sacrifice Kingdoms to the ill Fortune of a Prince so may the Principle of Passive Obedience to the Cruelty of a Prince so may the Doctrine of the Cross to the Fury of a persecuting Prince so it is possible that Obedience to any Law of God oâ— Nature may in some junctures be the destruction of a Kingdom must the Laws of God and Nature be therefore cancelled Must the Doctrine of the Cross and of Non-resistence be therefore rejected as destructive to Society Must the Principles of Honour Loyalty and Fidelity be sacrificed to ill Fortune Is our Allegiance due to Fortune And if a righteous Cause be unsuccessful is it our Duty to abandon and bind our selves by Oaths to oppose it We may thus briefly answer his Objection We will discharge our Duty and leave the Event to God But as for the Doctor 's Principles they are exactly the same with Mr. Ascham's and because he professes greatly to reverence the profund Judgment of Bishop Sanderson I will conclude
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS Drawn from Scripture and Reason In Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE And his Vindication of it LONDON Printed in the Year M DC XCI An EXAMINATION of Dr. SHERLOCK's Case of Allegiance IT is the design of this Treatise to examine all the Arguments in Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance that are drawn from Scripture and Reason and that the state of the Controversie may be clearly understood I begin with SECT 1. The Case plainly and briefly stated HEre he complains first of the perploxing this Controversie by intermixing the dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience but is it not as much perplexed by Separating them Is not this the great Controversie between us whether Allegiance be due to those who have no legal Right to it And thus the Controversie is perplexed because it is a Controversie Then he tells us it seems unfit to dispute the Right of Princes a thing which no Government can permit to be a Question but it seems to me unfit that Religious Oaths should be broken and if Allegiance be due only to those who have a Right the dispute of Right is unavoidable and if no Government can permit it that is no Obligation upon me to be Perjur'd But such disputes will carry Men into the dark Labyrinths of Law and History and therefore the Doctor leads them into the inextricable Labyrinths of Providence Now I think that Law and History are not such dark unintelligible and uncertain Riddles as he makes them they were not designed to maze and blunder our Understandings but to rectifie and inform us about Fact and Right If History cannot enlighten us in Matters of Fact then the Ages that are past are buried in Darkness and Oblivion and all History Sacred and Profane is no better than Romance If Law be a clear and safe Rule of Conscience only to a very few why is it publish'd and enjoyn'd and enforc'd by Penalties upon the many It is a contradiction to the very nature of Law to say it cannot be a clear and safe Rule of Obedience and if Law and History are clear in any thing it is very probable they are clear in things Fundamental and in Matters of greatest Importance and most universal Concernment I know there are great and intricate disputes about our Constitution and so there are about the most evident conclusions of Faith Sense and Reason but Doubts and Errors do not overthrow Truth and Certainty and if some Men shut their Eyes at Noon-day it is no good Consequence that there is no Sun in the Firmament or that Light is Darkness He gives a summary Account of the Difficulties which they who refuse the Oaths do labour under They think that a rightful Prince only has a Right to our Allegiance that though he be dispossessed of his Throne he has Right still and therefore our Duty is still owing to him and to no other and our Oaths of Allegiance to him still bind us and that no other Prince who ascends the Throne without a legal Right has Right to our Allegiance and that to swear Allegiance to him while we are under Obligation of a former Oath to our rightful Prince is Perjury This is indeed the Principle we proceed on though it is not the sum of all that can be said in this Cause our Principles I think may be more clearly and fully expressed and â— propose them thus We maintain that a lawful Sovereign cannot lawfully be Resisted on any pretence whatsoever and therefore cannot lawfully be Deposed nor consequently be lawfully Dispossessed that such unlawful Acts are null in themselves and can effect nothing that a rightful Prince does not cease to be so because he is wrongfully Deposed that his Right does remain after he is Deposed unless he renounce it by Resignation or lose it by Deâ—eliction that when this ancient Right is extinguished the Usurper of the Throne becomes a lawful Sovereign and has a Right to Allegiance and not before that the Dispossessed Prince as long as his Right to the Government continues has a Right to Allegiance that Allegiance includes all those Duties which are contained in the relation of a Subject not only Submission and Obedience in things lawful but most especially actual Defence and Assistance against all his Enemies That therefore Allegiance cannot be Sworn to an Usurper because it is an Obligation to assist him against the true and rightful Sovereign that such assistance is manifest Injustice and in them that are bound by Oath to assist the rightful Sovereign inexcusable Perjury And lastly That God's Authority is Delegated only to rightful Princes and that Usurpers while they continue such have no better Title to it than even Pyrates and Robbers and these I take to be the Principles of them who refuse the Oath But the Propositions which the Doctor opposes to their Principles are fairly reconcileable with them for 1. We may acknowledge that Allegiance is due not for the sake of legal Right but Government and 2. That it is due not to bare legal Right but to the Authority of God We may admit that Allegiance is due to God's Authority and for the sake of Government and yet a legal Right to Government may be still an evident Proof both of the Authority of God and of a Right to Allegiance 3. We may allow also That God when he sees fit sets up Kings without any regard to legal Right or humane Laws He may do it by express Revelation and he may do it by his Providence extinguishing the legal Right and so making the Possessor a rightful Prince though his Right be grounded on no humane positive Law but upon the Law of Nature And 4. It may be granted that a Prince so established Is invested with God's Authority which must be obeyed not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake and thus admitting these Principles to be true in some Sense it will neither follow That our old Allegiance nor our old Oaths are at an end nor that Allegiance is always due to the Powers in possession But here in short lies the Controversie between us whether an Usurper who has wrongfully Dispossessed a rightful Prince whose legal Right to the Throne does still continue in force has nevertheless the Authority of God on his side and by consequence a divine Right to our Allegiance The Doctor is for the affirmative and his Adversaries against it But first he endeavours to byass the Reader to his Opinion by obsering How much it makes for the ease and safety of Subjects in all Revolutions and therefore they have reason he says to wish it to be true and to be glad to see it well proved Whether this Principle be in reality for the ease and safety of Subjects may be debated hereafter suffice it here to observe That ease and safety are usually strong Arguments but only to Flesh and Blood Trouble and Danger do generally pursue Truth and Virtue and if
rightful Prince in actual Possession such a one hath both legal Right and God's Authority and yet the Doctor denies afterwards that Subjects in some Cases are bound to maintain them and thus as a legal Right does signifie nothing with him here so neither does God's Authority hereafter He eludes and trims and distinguishes them away as often as he has occasion he grants Allegiance to Power without Right and denies it to lawful Right and God's Authority together The other Objection he propounds is this If we have Sworn Allegiance to a lawful Prince and his Heirs and lawful Successors How can we pay Allegiance to any Prince while He or any of his Heirs and legal Successors are living and claim our Allegiance without violating our Oaths And the summ of his Answer is That an Oath of Allegiance made to any King can oblige no longer than he continues to be King i. e. in Possession for if it did it would oblige us against our Duty and so become aâ— unlawful Oath I acknowledge this Answer would be good if he had sufficiently proved that Allegiance is always and only due to the Possessor and whether that be done let every one judge as he sees Reason Were it here pertinent it would be easie to prove That our Oaths were intended to bind us to the lawful King and his Heirs even in the Case of Dispossession so all honest Men did understand them in the Age of Usurpations and till of late they were never otherwise Interpreted but by a few wretched Slaves of the Usurpers All the faithful Members of the Church of England thought them Obligatory when their Princes were Dispossessed they thought it no breach of Duty to stick so a righteous Cause when it proved Improsperous and as long as the Man was in bring they never looked upon the King as gone The truth is they were not wise in their Generation and they understood not that Jesuitical Evasion which would have been worth more than the whole World unto them That when the King is deposed tum definit esse Princeps which if it be true Doctrine the Consequence of Lessius the Jesuite is unavoidable quod quidquam licet in eum attentare he becomes a private Person and may be lawfully murthered In the next Paragraph he observes that we do not swear to keep the King and his Heirs in the Throne which may be impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion And who was ever so senseless as to imagine that we swore to keep them in the Throne when 't is impossible to keep them but I presume we swore that in case our King should be thrown out by a prosperous Rebellion we would not bind our selves to oppose his Restitution by transferring our Allegiance to his Rebel yet he argues that we did not because such an Oath would be unlawfull as contrary to that Duty we owe so the divine Providence which conveys God's Authority to the Usurper Thus the same precarious Assertions are everlastingly inculcated but a Million of Repetitions will never amount to one Argument for them And now having routed the Objections he concludes thus These seem to be very plain Propositions and to carry their own Evidence with them Very plain and self-evident Propositions And why then could not the Doctor discover them before the publishing of Bishop Overall and the Battel on the Boyne Is it possible so great so quick-sighted a Writer could be above a year in finding out self-evident Propositions Alas poor miserable Swearers and Non-swearers that cannot see that which is as clear as the Noonday and carries its own Evidence with it How unhappy are they that have not the Doctor 's Spectacles by which he is able to see clearly through Mountains and to discern things dark and invisible to others But after all 't is well these bright Propositions do carry their own Evidence and are known by Intuition for it seems to me that the Doctor hath given them no additional Lustre he has hitherto proposed them without Proof and if they are not innate Ideas they seem to be altogether as indemonstrable But if these Propositions are true they are a very plain Direction to Subjects in all Revolutions of Government And the Direction in short is this They must have no hand in the Revolution and oppose it as far as they can and not be hasly in complying but when such a Revolution is made they must pay Allegiance to the new Prince as invested with God's Authority Now his Direction is every whit as plain as his Propositions in the days of the Unlawfulness of Resistence the contrary Direction was then very plain and evident with him but it is the singular Prerogative of great Writers to alter the nature of Things with the Alteration of their Judgments and in all their Changes to carry Evidence Perspicuity and Demonstration with them But yet the Direction is not so very plain neither for even the Doctor himself was sensible there remained still a very considerable Difficulty which he labours next to remove and to give us more plain Directions about it The Difficulty is to know when a Revolution is so perfectly completed or when a new Prince is so fully invested with God's Authority as to have a Right to our Allegiance but the Doctor according to his way does very easily resolve it Obedience is due to God's Authority and when we can reasonably conclude that God's Providence has settled the new King in the Throne we must pay our Obedience to him But how comes Settlement here to be the onely Indication of God's Conveyance of Authority Does not all his Reasoning conclude as strongly for all Possession of Sovereign Power without respect to Establishment God removeth and setteth up Kings onely by his Providence and he sets up a King when by his Providence be puts Sovereign Authority in his hands every advancement to a Throne whether setled or unsetled is an Event and therefore ordered by God's Will and Appointment and peculiarly ordered by him at having so great an Influence upon the Government of the World and this will be farther confirmed when we remember that Kings are God's Ministers and are invested with his Authority all Authority is God's and no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it is given and yet 't is very plain that Princes that are not fully settled are in Authority We must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings whom he does not make Kings for then we can never distinguish between God's Kings and Kings of their own making and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no And therefore a King whose Possession is not firmly established cannot be a wrong King because he is a King of God's making he has the Authority of Government in his hands and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull
Allegiance when he changes my King In another place he states it thus The Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil to us not his Providence but Providence lays new Obligations upon us by creating new Relations The Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him I Answer 1. That impious Doctrine which teaches that the Cause which Providence prospers is God's does seem the unavoidable Consequence of the Doctor 's Principle for he teaches that all Events are God's doing and that he positively decrees appoints accomplishes all Usurpations But if all Events are God's doing he is certainly the Author of that which he does and in such Events which are necessarily and inseparably accompanied with Iniquity he must be the Author of the Iniquity too And as to the Event of Usurpation if he decrees assists and accomplishes it if he does all this for Usurpers we must needs conclude that their Cause is Gods ' for it is impossible for God to do more than this for any Cause whatsoever 2. If the Laws of God and not his Providence are the Rules of Good and Evil to us then it follows undeniably that Providence of it self can never direct us how to distinguish between Good and Evil and therefore when the Question is whether an Action be lawful or not we must have recourse to Laws and not to Providence to determine it Thus when we dispute about Allegiance to Usurpers the Question must be whether there be any Law that requires it and if there be no such Law it is certain there is no such Duty It is true that the divine Providence does change our Condition and Relations and by introducing new Relations does oblige us to new Duties But it is also certain that all Changes which befall our Selves or the Persons to whom we are related do not extinguish our Relations and Obligations to them and therefore we must have some other Rule besides Providence to instruct us when they are extinguished When I am in Prison or my Father iâ— in Prison here is a providential Change but no Cessation of Relation or Duty When the Course of civil Government is interrupted by Rebellion and the Prince cannot actually administer here is a providential Change which affects my Sovereign but is no discharge of my Allegiance And how then shall I know when the Events of Providence do extinguish my Duty My Duty does not cease upon every Change in the condition of my Sovereign that is made by Providence and it is impossible that the Events of Providence should direct me when it is extinguished by any Event of Providence And therefore I must be directed by some other Rule which may inform me when any Duty is extinguished by a Change of Providence and that Rule can be nothing else but Law either divine or humane Law Thus it appears that though a Change is made sometimes in our Duties by the Events of Providence yet our only Direction is Law and thither we must appeal at last in all our Controversies about the Change of Duty and the result is that if there be no Law that requires Allegiance to Usurpers the Events of Providence cannot make it to be a Duty Providence 't is true does make Kings and God transferrs my Allegiance when he changes my King But the Question is whether Providence does not make Kings by Permission and whether when my lawful Prince is dispossessed my Relation to him is extinguished and the only way to determine those Doubts is by appealing not to Providence but to Law and Reason The Doctor tells us That we must conform our selves in the discharge of those Duties that Providence lays upon us according to the nature and intention of the Providence But how shall I know that it is the intention of Providence when an Usurper is advanced that I should pay Allegiance to him I know that God disapproves Usurpations and strictly forbids them and declares that he will punish them and I know also if Usurpation be so great a Wickedness that God's Providence does not assist or authorize it though he does not interpose his irresistible Power to hinder it this I am taught by natural and reveal'd Religion and I find no Precept in either to assist any Man in his Wickedness in the whole Progress of the Usurpation I find nothing but Injustice in the Rebellion or Invasion in setting the Usurper on the Throne and in supporting him on it and therefore I have reason to conclude that since my Assistance is unlawful neither the Nature nor the Intention of the Providence does require it There remain some other Objections and Evasions in the Vindication which relate to Providence and I will consider them as they occur He objects against our Principle that it opposes Providence to Providence the force of the Objection is this God does settle the Crown on any Family no otherwise but by his Providence and when an Vsurper is setled in the Throne he is advanc'd by Providence too and therefore to oppose an Hereditary Right which is made by the over-ruling Influence of Providence against God's setting up an Vsurper by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence Now there is no absurdity at all in opposing Providence to Providence A Divine Entail is nothing but an Act of Providence and yet the Doctor thinks that the Providential Advancement of an Usurper is of no validity against it and thus himself does oppose Providence to Providence God's Providence may make Kings by Nomination by the conveyance of a legal Right and by granting Possession without Settlement and Possession with it And if it be no Absurdity to oppose and prefer the first to all the others and the fourth to the third why is it absurd to prefer the second to the third and fourth It would be absurd indeed if the latter Providence were as clear a Declaration of God's positive Will as the former but that is the great Controversy between us All Men are agreed that when a lawful King is on the Throne he has God's Authority but not that an Usurper setled or unsetled is invested with it I am sure there is a Providence that is only permissive which conveys no Authority which we cannot possibly distinguish but by the moral nature of Events and I think it is no absurdity to distinguish Providence nor to oppose Wrong to Right a permissive Providence to a legal Right which is establish'd by God's Authoritative Providence And this single Observation that for all that yet appears an Usurper is advanc'd only by permissive Providence is a sufficient Answer to all the Reflections which he makes upon our opposing Providence to Providence He observes that this is to shackle and confine Providence and that we will not allow God's Providence to change and alter We only maintain that God's permissive Providence is no
that he had no other way but to decline it by answering what was never objected Does not the Doctor teach that our Allegiance is extinguished when the King has not the Administration of Government in his Hands and that Allegiance and actual Government are essential Relatives Mr. Hobbs had taught the same before him That the Obligation of Subjects to their Sovereign is understood to last no longer than the Power lasts to protect them The Doctor maintains That when a lawful King is wrongfully deposed he has still a legal Right to the Crown but the Subjects are absolved from their Allegiance to him the Doctrine of the Leviathan is just the same The Right of the Sovereign is not extinguished yet the Obligation of the Members is The Doctor binds the Subjects to an actual assistance and defence of the Usurper so doeâ— Mr. Hobbs The Subject is obliged so strictly obliged that no pretence of having submitted himself out of fear can absolve him to protect and assist the Vsurper as long as he is able Thus it appears that they are Fratres Fraterrimi and it is not within the Power of Metaphysicks to distinguish them But what saith the Doctor That Power does not give Right and Authority to govern but is a certain sign to us that where God hath placed the Power he has given the Authority And is not this a manifest Confession of Hobbism That Dominion is naturally annexed to Power Mr. Hobbs does often call his Sovereign God's Lieutenant and his Vicegerent and Sovereign under God he affirms that he governs in God's stead and that from him and under him he hath Authority to govern He agrees with the Doctor then that the Right of Government does flow from God's Authority so that still it seems impossible to distinguish their Opinions Prop. 8. Is this Allegiance is due only to the King and the Reason this For Allegiance signifieâ— all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King and therefore can be due to none but the King He had told us before That by King he understands the actual Possessor and therefore it is his sense of the Proposition that Allegiance is due only to the Possessor a precarious Assertion repeated often and never proved But here he pretends to give a very plain Reason for it the suram of it is this That Allegiance is due only to God's Authority and no one has it but the actual King And if this be not a very plain Reason let every one be judge that can distinguish Reasoning from Affirming But Propositionmaking was by this time grown cumbersome to the Doctor he was forced to make up a round number by Tautologies and Repetitions and now having exhausted his stock of Postulates he endeavours next to fortifie them against two Objections which he imagined might be raised against them Obj. But if this â—e so What does a legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects Why according to the Doctor certainly it signifies nothing for the legal Right of the Dispossessed Prince can give him no Right to the Crown against the Right of divine Authority the divine Right to all intents and purposes must null the legal therefore if this continue still to be a Right it is a Right to nothing But a great Writer is worth nothing that cannot defend Absurdities and Contradictions and thus the Doctor endeavours it 1. He answers that ele legal Right bari all other humane Claims no other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right The plain meaning of this is That if the legal Right can be in one Prince it is not in another which â—â— an admirable Proof that the legal Right does signifie something When Oliver usurped Charles II. had a legal Right to the Throne but no Allegiance was due to his bare legal Title without God's Authority and yet this legal Right did signifie something for if Charles had a legal Right to the Throne than neither the French King nor the Grand Signior nor the Great Mogull could have a legal Title to it and though Oliver being setled in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power had a divine Right yet the legal Right did signifie something to King Charles though it was null'd by the Divine and though it made him not a King for that is the name of Power and left him no Subjects because no Allegiance was due to him Thus the legal Right of a Dispossessed Prince is only a Feather in his Cap it constitutes him only an Vtopian King yet without so much as imaginary Subjects But he tells us 2. That Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince as far as they can that is against all Mankind but not against God's disposal of Crowns But who is this such a Prince Is he a Prince dethroned and dispossessed of his legal Right Of such a Prince the Doctor is Discoursing and if such a one he means How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right as far as they can when they are bound as far as they are able to oppose it their whole Allegiance being due to the Possessor And thus the Obligation to maintain the dispossessed Prince must be expounded as a Duty to destroy him But if his legal Prince be such an one as is not dispossessed but has either a Right to the Throne upon the Demise of the Predecessor or is actually in Possession then I say he speaks not to the Objection for the Objection relates to the Case of a legal Prince excluded from his Right by the Intrusion of another the Case which he proposes in the preceding Paragraph When he who has the legal Right is not our King i. e. has not Possession and he who has not iâ— And he asserts upon it That all our Allegiance is due to him who is our King and not to him who is not though it be his Right to be so and upon this Case does the Objection proceed If this be so What does the legal Right signifie So that if here he speaks of a Prince Possessing the Throne or Claming it when it was Vacant Amphoram instituit urceuâ— exit he puts one Prince in the Objection and another in the Solution and in short he does not Answer but Evade and Prevaricate Well! but suppose a Prince with a legal Title to a vacant Throne How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right since they are not his Subjects and owe him no Allegiance For according to the Doctor Subjection and Allegiance are due only to Possessors and not to a bare legal Title without it Maintenance therefore In such a Case can be only a Debt of Justice because it is due by Law and Equity and the same Debt will continue when the rightful Prince is wrongfully Dispossessed for the legal Right is the same and the same Law and Equity for restoring a due as giving it at first But farther suppose that he means a
no Man blames them for it No Man blames them for living peaceably when to live otherwise would be unserviceable to the Prince and to them inevitable Destruction No doubt they may do so as long as they are in the Enemies Power but as soon as that Power or Force is removed and the Subjects are in a capacity of exerting their Allegiance then the reason of living peaceably ceases and the paying actual Allegiance to their lawful Sovereign is an indispensible Duty and I believe no one ever denied that it was lawful thus to live peaceably under all Usurpers 2. We must pay Taxes to them for these are due to the Administration of Government as St. Paul observes for this Cause pay ye Tribute also for they are the Ministers of God attending continually on this very thing The Powers to whom Tribute is to be paid are there expresly said to be the Ministers of God and to be ordained by him they are therefore such Powers as have a right to Allegiance and the Doctor in the next Section does argue upon that supposition And yet here he argues from this Text That Tribute is due to such Powers as have no right to Allegiance and therefore are not God's Ministers nor Ordained by him If Allegiance be always and only due to God's Authority as he affirms in his self evievident Propositions and if they who have not God's Authority are not his Ministers nor his Ordinance and Tribute is due only to God's Ministers because it is enjoyned to be paid for that Reason only than the Consequence is That such Powers as are not throughly Setled have no right to Tribute because they have no right to Allegiance The Apostle requires Taxes to be paid to God's Ministers and if they who administer the Government are not God's Ministers they cannot claim them from the Apostle Taxes are due to the Ministers of God as attending continually on the Administration of Government but if they are hindred from attending it by the Rebellion or Revolt of their Subjects Are the Subjects then discharged from paying them because they have wickedly Rebelled or Revolted from him In a time of Rebellion Is nothing due to the Sovereign because he can't administer the Government And if a Sovereign forfeits all his Rights when it is impossible for him to administer it May it not equally be argued from the Apostle that he forfeits his Crown if he is not a tâ—â—â—or to evil Works but to the good But if the Doctor still thinks that to be an unreasonable Inference he must allow the other to be unreasonable also To the Text of the Apostle he adds this Reason If we owe the secure Possession of our Estates to the Protection of the Government let the Government be what it will we ought to pay for it No doubt we may pay Taxes to an Usurper as we may deliver our Purses to a Robber in both Cases it is lawful to give that which we cannot keep But to pay Taxes voluntarily when we can avoid it is no more our Duty than to present a Robber with our Purses when we can easily save them If it is our Duty it must be either on the score of Gratitude or Justice but since the payment of Taxes must necessarily strengthen the Usurper and enable him to resist and to destroy the rightful Sovereign it must necessarily be Injustice to pay them because it is unjust to support Injustice and to contribute voluntarily to the overthrow of a just and righteous Cause And if the Contribution be unjust it cannot be a Debt of Gratitude for that does never oblige us to Injustice and consequently though the Usurpers Protection be a Benefit as receiving Quarter from the Banditi is a Benefit yet this cannot oblige me to support him in his Usurpations nor pay such Taxes as are raised to establish the unjust Power and resist the Rightful I ought not to receive his Protection on that condition nor purchase a Benefit to my self by Perjury and Injustice If it be a Duty to pay Taxes to support an Usurper that is not throughly settled Why should it not be a Duty to pay Allegiance to him If we asist him with Money we may assist him with Counsel Prayers and Arms we may fight for him with our Persons as well as with our Purses and if we do all this we pay him plenary Allegiance But since the Doctor does not require Allegiance to an Usurper doubtfully settled the Subjects cannot be obliged to contribute their Assistance to support him for that is the principal Duty of Allegiance nor consequently to pay him Taxes for that purpose for that is the principal and most powerful Assistance 3. We must give the Title of King to such a Prince and this he requires for two Reasons 1. Because it is a piece of good Manners 2. Because he is indeed King while he administers the Regal Power tho we may not think him so well setled as to all Intents and Purposes to own him for our King What Title we are obliged to give him in good Manners I leave to the Heraâ—lds and the Master of the Ceremonies to determine but till I am better inform'd if the Title does not belong to him I cannot think it good Manners to call him that which he is not But if he be King indeed then a very little Sense without Skill in Heraldry or Casuistical Divinity will serve to inform us that we must give him the Title of King and this is one of the plainest Directions in his Book that if he be King indeed he has a Right to be called so But he is indeed King while he administers the Regal Power and this is evident from what he affirms in Prop. 7. That King is the Name of Power But Prop. 8. This King is one to whom Allegiance is due and yet here he is indeed King to whom Allegiance is not due as being not well setled in his Government and who is not to all Intents and Purposes to be owned for our King Thus we must give him the Title of King because he is a King or at least half a King and yet in reality no King because he has no Right to Allegiance But the Doctor may trifle and shuffle with Names as he pleases he may give the Title of King if he will to every Rebel and Usurper to Oliver and Richard and Massaniello for they administred the Regal Power for a time But I hope he will not be offended if others follow not his Humour if they call a Spade a Spade and say that he has no Right to the Title of King who has no Right to the Office and no Right to Allegiance 4. We must pray for him under the Title and Name of King for we are bound to pray for all who are in Authority and that a Prince is who has the whole Government in his hands and has power to doe a great deal of hurt or a
great deal of good All this was true of Oliver he was visibly in Authority had the whole Government in his hands and had power to doe a great deal of Hurt or Good were the Clergy therefore bound to pray for their Sovereign Lord King Oliver In those days the Sons of the Church were of another Mind they esteemed it infamous and wicked to thrust their lawfull Sovereign out of their Prayers to make room for the Usurper and to stile him their Sovereign Lord their King or their Protector and yet pray for all in Authority was then a Text in the Bible What does the Apostle mean by all in Authority Not certainly all that have the Administration of it for then Pyrates Robbers and Rebels will be comprehended in that Expression But the Motive or Reason annexed is a clear Limitation of it we must pray for them that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life which shews we must here understand such Authority as is for the Quiet and Peace of of Society and such are all lawfull Powers even the most Tyrannical but such are not the Usurpers of that Authority that belongs to others whether Rebels Robbers or titular Tyrants for these are the great Enemies of Society their Usurpation of their Authority tends to its Subversion and considering its natural and ordinary Effects it can never be expected that a quiet and peaceable Life should be attained under them But the Doctor understands by the Expression such as have the whole Government in their Hands though they are not perfectly settled And whose Authority have they Certainly God's Authority for according to him the whole Authority of Government is God's but if they have God's Authority his Propositions give them a Right to Allegiance and to what purpose then is his Distinction of a through Settlement And if they have not his Authority how impertinent is the alleadging that Text for a Right to our Prayers We are bound to pray for all Men for private and publick Enemies for Thieves and Murtherers and Usurpers but we are principally obliged to this out of Charity to their Souls and therefore we must pray chiefly for their Repentance and Conversion and to pray thus for Usurpers that God would bless them thus with the chiefest of his Blessings is as says the Doctor so far from being a Fault that it is a Duty while we do it in such terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed But if in the late Usurpations a Doctor had ejected Charles and inserted Cromwell and had prayed in these Terms Bless we beseech thee our Sovereign Lord King Oliver I presume the Master of the Temple would have been as forward as any Man to charge Hypocrisie base Compliance and breach of Allegiance upon him And Reason would have made good the Charge for to pray for Oliver as our Sovereign Lord is to acknowledge before God and Man that he is so and to teach the People to acknowledge him and to pay him that Subjection and Allegiance that is due to a Sovereign Is not Prayer for a King one of the principal Expressions of Allegiance And when we pray for the Usurper in the room of the lawful Sovereign does not the very nature of the thing require this Interpretation that we do not own him for our King whom we thrust out of our Prayers and that we have transferred our Allegiance where we pay the most benefical Expression of it this is the general Sense of the People concerning it and he that can satisfie his Conscience to own an Usurper for his King and Sovereign Lord in the most Solemn Manner that can be tho he owns no Allegiance to be due to him when the Reason for which he does it the Nature of the Thing and the Construction of the People do imply an acknowledgment of Allegiance may I think be satisfied in any thing and need not scruple any Compliance whatsoever Thus far the Directions about Submission to a Government not throughly settled to which Allegiance is not required but tho he requires it not here in the Sequel of his Discourse he infers it as a necessary and indispensible Duty for when he comes to confute Bp. Sanderson's measures of Submission his Reasons there do prove if they prove any thing that Allegiance is due to such a Government The Doctor here directs us to pay some lower degrees of Submission but not Allegiance to his unsetled Usurper and so does Bp. Sanderson but his Arguments against the Bishop's do equally conclude against his own Directions and thus I argue after him If under an Vsurper unsetled the Safety and Tranquillity of Human Societies requires any thing of us it requires and justifies a great deal more for 1. As he states the matter this destroys Civil Government and a governed Society for seeing Allegiance is not due to such a Prince it follows he has not God's Authority so that to speak properly here is neither King nor Subject and I suppose no Man that considers it well will caâ— this a Civil Government to which God's Authority and Allegiance is essential 2. I would ask whether Self-Preservation publick Good and Gratitude for Protection do oblige me to obey and submit to the Prince who governs and to wish and pray for and do my utmost to endeavour his Prosperity if it does I see no difference between this and Allegiance if it does not then I am at liberty to disturb the Government nay am under an Obligation by my former Allegiance to do it when I can and how does this contribute to the Safety of Societies 3. Suppose such a Prince should require an Oath of Allegiance and the Subjects according to their Duty should refuse it and the Prince had Power to compel them what must be the effect of this but the utter Destruction of the Nation But there is no need of transcribing the rest of his Discourse it will be obvious to every one that considers it that it is applicable throughout to his own Directions for Submission without Allegiance Thus the Doctor does engage the Doctor his Arguments do overthrow his Directions or his Directions his Arguments His Propositions prove that Allegiance is due to every Usurper his Directions deny it and his Arguments against the Bishop do again infer it let him choose the one or the other either Allegiance is due to all Usurpers and then he loses Bp. Overal's Convocation-Book several Pages of his own Book and innumerable passages about a through Settlement Or it is due only to Usurpers that are settled and then his Propositions and all his Arguments from Scripture and almost all from Reason are irrecoverably gone The World knows he can prove which he pleases but I think he is not so great a Writer as to be able to prove Contradictions We come next to this summary account of a Government throughly settled and these are his Notes and Characters of it When besides the Possession of the Throne
will admit and reasonable Men will expect no more 5. Farther it is objected That the Reason the Apostle gives for Submission to the higher Powers is not a legal Right but the Authority of God that all Power or every one who exercises the supreme Power is of God and the Ordinance of God which seems plainly intended to wave the Dispute about the legality of the Powers But 1. This Objection does conclude as strongly against his own Principle as against his Adversaries he requires Allegience not to every one who exercises the supreme Power so did Oliver but to a Possessor throughly settled by the general Consent of the People But the Reason the Apostle gives for Subjection to the higher Powers is not a through Settlement or the Consent of the People but the Authority of God that every one who exercises supreme Power is the Ordinance of God which seems plainly to wave all Disputes about Settlement and Consent He can make no reply which will not serve his Adversaries if he says that Settlement and Consent are not the formal Reason of Allegiance but only the Signs of God's Authority to which it is immediately due we say the same for our Principle we confess that the Duty of Allegiance must be ultimately resolved into God's Authority we only affirm that a lawful Right is a Sign of that Authority we maintain that Allegiance is due to God's Authority and thus far we are agreed But how shall we know when a Prince is invested with this Authority When he is settled saith the Doctor when he has a lawful Right say others and here lies the difference between us If the Apostle had required Subjection to all Possessors for the sake of Possession there could have been no Dispute about the legality of Powers but since the Apostle's Reason of Subjection is not Possession but the Ordinance of God and he does not say that every one who is in Possession is ordained by God for every one who exercises the supreme Power is the Doctor 's saying and not the Apostle's it remains a Question what Powers in the meaning of the Apostle are ordain'd by God whether lawful only or also unlawful Powers and if he means lawful only the Dispute about Legality is unavoidable The Doctor in the Vindication of his Arguments from Rom. 13. demands How God does invest any Prince with his Authority whom he does not immediately nominate To this he Answers himself and confutes himself but my Answer is That God annexes his Authority to those Princes who have a lawful Right to govern or to execute the Regal Office And what says the Doctor If God's Authority be annexed to the Regal Office a Prince must be in the actual Administration of the Regal Office before he can have God's Authority as a Man must be actually Married before he can have the Authority which the Divine Laws give to a Husband By Regal Office either he means the Duty in the Abstract and whoever said that God's Authority was annexed to the Duty or he must mean a Right to execute it or the actual Execution of it if he means the former he asserts a manifest Absurdity That he who has a Right to an Office must be in the actual Administration of it if the later he only asserts That a Prince who actually administers the Regal Power must be in the actual Administration of it and thus this shew of Argument is nothing but an Amusement and so is the similitude of an Husband for the Relation of a Husband is subsequent to Marriage and no Man can have the Authority of a Husband before he is a Husband But the Relation of a King is not founded upon Possession but upon a Right to govern which implies a Right to Obedience and we acknowledge that a King must actually have that Right before he can have God's Authority but this very instance of a Husband is a convincing Proof that God's Authority may be given to those that cannot exercise it for that is the condition of many Husbands He urges farther That to call a Right to the Crown the Authority of Government is contrary to the Sense of Mankind when they speak of Sovereign Princes For he has actual Authority who actually administers the Government and it is actual Authority which is God's Authority not Authority in Fancy and Idea for God does not give Authority to govern without the Power of Government which is a very fruitless and insignificant Authority The Reply is very obvious a Right to the Crown is a Right to govern and that implies Authority to govern and a Prince may have actually this Authority and yet not actually administer it And this is so far from being contrary to the Sense of Mankind that nothing is more consonant to it for all Men know that there may be Power without Authority and Authority without Power and there is no Man in his Wits but can easily distinguish them and this is not an Authority which subsists only in Fancy for it has a moral Efficacy and obliges to Obedience and it might as well be said that all Duty Law and Right are nothing but Fancy and Idea but to say that God never gives Authority to govern without the Power of Government is an Assertion manifestly false Have not Parents Masters and Husbands Authority from God to govern when they cannot govern those that are ungovernable Had not David God's Authority to govern when Absalom forc'd him to be Abdicated Had not Charles I. Authority to govern the Parliament and the Regicides And have not all Princes the same Authority over their Rebellious Subjects But God's Authority without Power is fruitless and insignificant that I think is no fault of God or his Authority the Grace of God is fruitless much more than his Authority and his Authority in Parents Husbands and Church Governours is too often as insignificant as his Authority in Princes but woe to them who render God's Authority insignificant For their Damnation slumbereth not And this may suffice to his Objection about God's Authority But he endeavours farther to support it by observing 6. That the Pharisees made this Objection against Submission to the Roman Powers that they were bound by the Law of God not to submit to them as being unjust Vsurpations upon the Priviledges and Liberties of God's People and therefore the Apostle tells them that all Powers are of God and the Powers that be are ordained of God Let it be granted now that some such Objection was made by the Pharisees How does it appear that the Apostle intended to oppose or answer it Was that Opinion maintained by any of that Sect after they were converted to Christianity or by any of the Roman Converts or by any of the Christians at all That the Doctor will not affirm and if he does it it is impossible to prove it And why should we then imagine that the Apostle designed to confute an Error which