Support of Authority it being sufficiently evident from the Reason of the thing For First every Subject receives Security and Protection from the King and therefore ought to protect his legal Protector For as all Persons receive the common Benefits of Government so they ought to joyn in a common Defence of it Secondly all Persons are born equally Subjects from whence it follows That the essential Duties of Subjection of which Defence of the King is one chief Branch must necessarily extend to them all Thirdly all Persons are obliged to venture their Lives for the publick Safety and to appear against the Enemies of their Country But the direction of this Affair belongs solely to his Management who is vested with the Power of the Sword and has the Prerogative of making Peace and War Those whom he declares the publick Enemies are to be accounted such and no others To him only it belongs to judge of the bigness of the Danger to proportion the Preparation for War to appoint the time and place for Battel By vertue of which Privilege all his Subjects are bound to comply with his Appointment and to bring their Persons into the Field upon demand If we look into the Laws of our own Country we shall find them clear and decisive against the Doctor In the famous Case of the Post nati argued before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber 4 Iac. 1. all the Judges agreed that Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is beyond the Circuit of the Laws That is the Subjects are bound to defend the King in what place soever he resides whether in his Dominions or elsewhere For as these Reverend Judges go on Every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this i. e. Defence being a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects Now if the Defence of the King's Person and Kingdoms is a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects or necessarily implied in the Notion of Subjection then every Man is obliged to be a Soldier whenever his Prince shall think fit to employ him in that manner This is no more than the Resolution of all the Judges in Calvin's Case who declare That every Subject is by his natural Ligeance bound to obey and serve his Sovereign And since this Obligation of the Subject is thus general and comprehensive it must certainly hold in Cases of greatest Necessity and Importance The Duty of an English Subject is more particularly described in the old Oath of Ligeance mentioned by Britton which as Sir Edward Coke adds is yet commonly in use to this day in every Leet and in our Books The Tenour of it runs thus You shall swear That from this Day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and Truth and Faith shall bear of Life and Member and terrene Honour c. This Oath as Sir Edward Coke observes elsewhere is to be taken of all above twelve Years of Age. The Oath of Allegiance made 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. takes in the same Compass of Duty For there the Subject swears To bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs c and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever This if it were duly performed were enough in all Conscience and as much as can be expected from any Soldier unless the being listed obliges a Man to Impossibilities Now this Oath every Person of the Age of Eighteen years is bound to take if required by Authority Lastly That the extent of Allegiance reaches to the assisting the King in the Feild we may learn from 11 H. 7. c. 1. where we are told that The King calling to mind the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince in his Wars against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him c. This Statute we may observe does not found the Subjects Duty of asserting their Prince in his Wars upon their Military Oath and Possession but upon their Allegiance and therefore since all Subjects owe a Natural Allegiance to their King they ought to defend him in the Feild when and where he shall command their Service And thus if the Judges and Laws may be allowed to determine the Case the Doctors fine speculations about Non-assistance must come to nothing His distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance into the Natural Duty of Subjects and an Obligation superinduced by Law is both ill founded and misapplyed First This distinction has no Foundation either in Reason or Law Our Oath of Allegiance does not extend our Obedience as Bishop Sanderson well observes and make us more Subjects than we were before It only gives a new Security by the Solemnity of the Action for the performance of that to which we were antecedently obliged The Oath finds us Subjects otherwise we might refuse it it does not make us such And therefore those who have not Sworn such an Allegiance are bound to all the Duties of Subjection contained in it This Sworn Obedience is enjoyned by Authority only as a Recognition of our Natural Duty to which it adds nothing but the Enforcement of a Religious Circumstance Which is agreeable to the Judges Resolution in the forementioned Case of the Post nati That Allegiance was before Laws And in Calvin's Case it 's averred That a True and Faithful Ligeance and Obedience which is all we are sworn to is an incident inseparable to every Subject as soon as he is Born Secondly As the Doctors distinction is Chimerical so the Application of it is Mistaken and Unreasonable He says Natural Allegiance is due only to him who has the actual Administration of the Government Natural Allegiance under Favour can be due to none but him who is our our Natural Prince no more than Filial Obedience can be challenged by any excepting our Natural Parents But Possession abstracted from Right does not make any Man our Natural Prince no not in the Doctor 's Opinion For he elsewhere tells us That the Kings of Egypt and Babylon never had a Legal and Natural Right to govern Israel By which Words it's plain he makes a Legal and Natural Right to be the same But bare Possession does not give a legal Right and by consequence not a Natural one Thirdly Natural Allegiance is due to him who is King by the Laws of Nature but he who can prove his Title by nothing but the Administration of Government is no King by the Laws of Nature For Nature i. e. right Reason does not found Dominion in Power nor gives any Countenance to Injustice And if an Usurper has no Prerogatives of Royalty from the Laws of Nature then Natural Allegiance cannot be challenged upon this Score For a Principle which gives a Man no Right to govern can't lay an Obligation
him to the Episcopal Throne and puts the Spiritual Authority into his hands All Events are directed and determined and over-ruled by God So that it 's plain that all Elections of Schismatical and Heretical Bishops were over-ruled by Providential Appointment Besides if there was any distinction between God's Permissions and Appointments yet we ought in reason to ascribe the Advancement of Bishops to God's Decree and Councel because it 's one of the principal Acts of Providence and which has so great an Influence upon the Government of the Church and the Salvation of Mens Souls And if he decrees any Events certainly he peculiarly orders such Events as will do most good or most hurt to the Church From the Absurdity of this way of Reasoning it evidently follows that the Author to the Hebrews must be interpreted of Lawful Rulers though the distinction is not expressed And since the Scripture by undeniable Consequence teaches us not to submit to those who govern in the Church without Right we ought to conclude our Duty the same with relation to the State It 's in vain to urge that this Epistle was written after that to the Romans and therefore St. Paul could have no reference to it This Objection must vanish before those who own the New Testament written by the Holy Ghost For whatever is dictated by Inspiration must be coherent and uniform especially when Duties of a moral and unalterable Obligation are delivered So that unless the Doctor can show a disparity between Church and State such a one I mean as destroys all proportion of Reasoning from the one to the other he must grant that those Higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are to be understood only of those who are Lawfully such I now perceive by the Doctor 's Vindication which I did not before remember that the Author of the Postscript has touched upon this Argument And since I am somewhat concerned in the Vindicator's Answer I shall beg leave of the above-mentioned Author to make a short Reply For as the Doctor has ordered the Matter a few Words will serve He says the Cases mentioned Rom. 13.1 and Heb. 13.17 are by no means Paralel And that the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such Distinction which it was necessary for St. Paul to have done Rom. 13. if he intended to be understood only of Lawful Powers This he endeavours to prove from the Universality of the Expression Because St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the Higher Powers and generally affirms that all Power is from God To this I answer That the Text to the Hebrews is as comprehensive as that to the Romans Obey them that have the rule over you is an indefinite Proposition which he knows is equivalent to a Universal St. Paul it 's true affirms all Power is from God And does not the Author to the Hebrews say with relation to Spiritual Jurisdiction that no Man takes this Honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Besides if all Power is from God then all Spiritual Power is from him which makes way for Heretical Intruders and is a Contradiction to the 13th of the Hebrews by his own Concession But if the Words all Power are to be restrained to a particular Sense the Universality the Doctor contends for is gone If they must be confined to Temporal Powers why are they not capable of a farther Limitation Why should they not be understood only of Lawful Temporal Powers as well as the Rulers mentioned by the Author to the Hebrews though with the same extent of Expression are meant of none but those who are Lawfully ordained But the Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the Rule over them at that Time and that they were Lawful Ministers and had he added any such Distinction i. e. expresly commanded them to submit only to Lawful Rulers he might have made the Hebrews jealous about the Title of their Church Governors and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them In answer to this I observe First That this Inconvenience which the Doctor imagines might easily have been avoided without omitting this Distinction For the Apostle might have added a Clause that he did not question the Authority of their present Governors but only gave them a Caution not to be led away with every pretending Heretick for the future Secondly I observe that the Doctor grants that if the Apostle or the Hebrews had known that either Nullity or Forfeiture could have been truly objected against the Authority of their Spiritual Rulers there would neither have been Submission enjoyned by the one nor Obedience given by the other Thirdly I have already proved and shall do farther that the Roman Emperors at the writing of St. Paul's Epistle were Legal Princes and if so St. Paul or the Spirit he wrote by must know it And as for the Romans they had as good an Opportunity of being satisfied about their Temporal Governors as the Hebrews had about their Spiritual And therefore by the Doctor 's reason St. Paul might forbear adding the Word LAWFUL to Higher Powers because he knew the Emperor's Title to be good and for fear of making his Subjects jealous by such a Distinction But Fourthly Is the Doctor sure that the Apostle to the Hebrews knew that their Spiritual Rulers were all Lawfully constituted The Doctor concludes this Apostle to be St. Paul Now St. Paul complains that these was Schisms and Heresies in the Church in his Time yet there was false Apostles who transformed themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And is he certain the Hebrews were troubled with none of these He may please to remember that the Ebionites Gnosticks Nicolaitans and Cerinthians sprung up in the Age of the Apostles and most if not all of them in Palestine Fifthly Granting the Apostle knew the present Church of the Hebrews was free from unlawful Governors He likewise knew that other Churches were not and that even this would not be always in so good a Condition Now if the Apostle wrote for the Instruction of all Ages and Countrys and I hope the Doctor will not limit the Authority and Usefulness of the Scriptures to a particular Climate or Country he could not suppose the Church had always Lawful Pastors and by consequence the Doctor 's reason why he omitted the Distinction must necessary fail For when their Governors were unlawful they ought to think them so and not be barred up by any Scripture Expressions from a reasonable Enquiry Sixthly I would gladly know the Doctor 's reason why Title and Legality must always be expected in Sacred but not in Civil Authority Why God allows Usurpers to represent him in the State and denies this Privilege to those of the same Character in the Church And what Arguments he has to prove that the Jurisdiction of Kings ought to be more precarious and uncertain than that of Bishops 2. This
Substance of Sir Robert Filmer's Opinion and because the Doctor has said nothing to confute it I shall vindicate it no further His next business is to shew how impracticable and precarious a Government would be if it was settled upon the Choice of the People Now thô I don't pretend to understand the Doctrine of Original Contracts yet upon Supposition any Kingdom was fixed upon this Foundation I can't perceive it would be so sandy as is pretended Yes If Subjects give Princes their Authority they may take it away again when they think fit That is to say after they have solemnly parted with their Freedom and resigned themselves up to the Disposal of another they may break their Oaths and Promises to God and Man and Enfranchize themselves whenever the Humour takes them This is to out-do Mr. Hobs who obliges his Common wealths-men to stand to their Pacts when their Words are once past But there can be no irresistable Authority derived from the People Why so May they not transfer their Right to Resistance without any Limitation of Conditions This cannot be denied and if their Liberty to Resist is thus absolutely conveyed away one would imagine they should be obliged to Performance of Articles If Securities depend only upon the Inclinations of those that make them the Philosophers and Divines have very much misinformed us At this rate no Man ought to trust another any farther than he can throw him and all Society and Intercourse must grow impracticable The Doctor pursues his point and discovers That a Government must be Res unius Aetatis For there can be no Hereditary Monarchy upon these Principles of Choice because one Generation can choose for none but themselves For what Right had my Ancestors to choose a King for me 'T is well for the Doctor 's Ancestors he did not ask them what Right they had to be his Ancestors Such a Question for ought one knows might have brought Difficulties along with it But in Answer to the Doctor 's Demand I desire to know of him whether our Ancestors have not a Right to Govern us If they have why may they not assign over their Jurisdiction and choose a Governor for us By the Doctor 's Logick we may refuse Obedience to any Law which was made before our own time For if our Ancestors could not possibly have any Right to choose us Kings they could have none to choose us Laws His saying one Generation cannot bind another is a manifest Mistake as the Settlement of Inheritances will inform him I think he needs go no farther than a Bond for his Satisfaction To come nearer the point all the Reverend Judges in Calvin's Case affirm That every Subject as soon as he is born oweth by Birthright Ligeance and Obedience to his Sovereign And if he owes this Duty by vertue of his Birthright one would think it should be upon the Score of his Relation to his Parents whose Act he is bound to stand by unless we can suppose he consented to the Constitution in the State of Preexistence To put the matter beyond Dispute I shall produce a remarkable Instance from Scripture It 's the Case of the Gibeonites who notwithstanding they over-reached the Children of Israel into a Treaty by a false Relation of their Country yet after the League was once made the then Israelites and their Posterity were bound to observe it And when Saul out of a Zeal for the Interest of his Kingdom made a Slaughter of the Gibeonites God punished this Breach of Faith with three Years Famine and the Gibeonites had Satisfaction given them We are now to examine Conquest which he tryes to unsettle by saying if Conquest gives a Right then the most unjust Force is Right and every one who is stronger than his Neighbour has a natural Right to Govern him I confess these are sad Stories if they were true But who may we thank for them but the Doctor and Mr. Hobbs who by founding Dominion in Power have as much as in them lyes brought these Consequences unavoidably upon us His Speculation about Submission is somewhat surprizing This he calls a forced and after Consent to own him who has made himself King And affirms by Implication That we might disown a Prince who has thus Scared us into Subjection were it safe to do so That is Oaths and Promises are not to be kept though the Matter be never so Lawful if we are put upon them against our Will This is strange Casuistry and if allowed would make wild Work For if an unwilling Consent if one may speak so is a sufficient Dispensation it 's easie to pretend it in all Cases which Liberty would in a great Measure destroy the Securities of Trust and Commerce between Man and Man His last Effort upon legal Government is in these Words The continuance of an Usurpation can never give a Right c. A bad Title can never improve into a good one though it remains after the right Heirs are Extinct which is as great a Paradox as any of the rest For all Mankind have hitherto agreed That Possession alone is a good Title when there appears no better The reason of this Universal Maxim is plain First Because no Man ought to be molested in what he enjoys excepting upon the Plea of Right For he that disturbs a Man without Right disturbs him without Reason But by the state of the Case no Person has any Right to molest the forementioned Possessor in regard the legal Heirs are supposed no longer in Being Secondly The practise of this Maxim is necessary to the Peace of Society which would be very much disordered if a long continued Possession might be disturbed without any Pretence of Right Now where there is no third Person injured nor no Injustice done those Principles which tend most to the Peace of Society ought to carry it Thus the Doctor has made it his Business with what Success the Reader must judge to disparage and unsettle all Legal Titles to make way for his Leviathan Model which resolves all Government into Providence that is into Power The Doctor now proceeds to Objections and in Answer to one concerning the Injustice of adhering to an Usurper against a lawful Prince he replies That the Right of a Lawful Prince is to administer the Government and not to obey him when he does not and cannot Govern is to deny no Right But on the other hand if a Prince has a Right to administer the Government certainly he ought to have this Right and the People are bound to help him to the Administration of this Right when it 's forcibly detained from him For if he has a Right to the Administration of the Government he has a Right to command his Subjects and consequently they are bound to reserve their Duty for him only and to range themselves under his Obedience as soon as may be To acknowledge a Right