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
Actions is Law either Positive Divine Natural or Humane but it is impossible that Providence abstracted from the Consideration of the moral Nature of Events should be a Law to us because it declares not the preceptive Will or that Will of God which must be a rule to our Actions Whatever Providence works or is the Will of his good Pleasure we must follow that Will which God has signified to us either in written or unwritten Laws God has never prescribed the Dispensations of Providence as a rule to us they are often Unsearchable and above our Comprehension but in no Case can we understand what God permits and what he effects and authorizeth but by the Moral nature of Events Providence it self must be measured by the rules of good and evil and therefore those must be the ultimate rules of our Practice To conclude Though Success which is but another word for providential Events be a good Argument of God's Approbation and Authority among the Disciples of the Alcoran I think it can be none among the Disciples of Christ I am sure it cannot be found in the Volumes of his Religion Thus I have considered what the Doctor has advanced about Providence now says he The necessary Consequence is this that by what means soever any Prince ascâ—nds the Throne he is placed there by God and receives Authority from him And let the Reader judge whether the Premises to this Consequence be sufficiently proved or confuted The summ of his Proof is this That God now governs the World only by his Providence which is false if it exclude his Government by Laws and however is no Proof that every Usurper does Reign by God's Authority that all Events are from God and especially great Events which is to charge God with all the Wickedness in the World that no one can usurp God's Authority unless God does give it him which is confuted by all Murthers and Rebellions and lastly that we cannot distinguish between Kings by Permission and Appointment unless all Possessours of Sovereignty have God's Authority which may as well be said of all other Possessours and contains no difficulty at all it being as easie to distinguish Permission and Appointment as lawfull Princes and unlawfull This is the summ of his Discourse upon the third Proposition and let the Reader judge how well he has demonstrated it I need not here reflect on his several ways of conveying God's Authority to Princes Election Succession and Conquest or Usurpation These will be considered hereafter suffice it here to observe that there are in general but two ways whereby Princes are advanced by God Permission and Appointment this the way of Rightfull Princes and that of Usurpers We are come now to his 4th Proposition viz. That all Kings are equally rightfull with respect to God which is just as true as this Proposition That all Men are equally righteous with respect to God or that with God there is no difference between good and evil or that with respect to God the Thief and the lawfull Proprietor are equally rightfull Possessors But let us consider how he proves it It is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. The same Assertion with that which is confuted allready That no one can take God's Authority but it must be given him And may it not be said with equal Reason that all Men must be made wicked by God unless Men can make themselves wicked whether God will or no Or is it impossible there should be a wrong Possessouâ— of any thing unless a Man could make himself a Possessour whether God will or no. He proceeds thus The whole Authority of Government is Gods and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull King for he has the true and rightfull Authority of a King But is not every Branch of Sovereign Authority God's if the whole Authority of Government is his Does not every Murtherer usurp the Power of the Sword the principal Branch of that Authority And is the Exercise of that Power rightfull with respect to God or is the Murther committed by God's Authority Having God's Authority is an equivocal Expression it may be had by Commission as rightfull Princes have it and it may be had by Permission as Assassines Rebels and Usurpers have it and such a manner of having will never make the Possession rightfull either before God or Men. To speak properly the Usurper has not God's Authority he has Power or Force and so has the Murtherer but that is not Authority and yet because they exercise a Power which it is not lawfull to exercise without God's Commission abusively and improperly they may be said to have his Authority Prop. 5. The Distinction then between a King de Jure and a King de Facto relates onely to humane Laws which bind Subjects but are not the necessary Rules and Measures of the Divine Providence This Distinction relates to humane Laws just as does the Distinction in all other Cases between Right and Wrong Humane Laws do declare and determine what is right and the Law of God does establish and confirm the Law of man about it Thus he who has a Right to an Estate by the Law of the Land has a Right to it by the Law of God and is the rightfull Proprietor with respect both to God and Man If it were not so the Invasion of another's Property could be no Sin it could not make a man guilty before God nor obnoxious to his Vengeance if it were no Transgression of his Laws In private Dominion therefore the Distinction of a Possessour de Jure and de Facto relates to divine as well as humane Law and why should it not then in the ease of politick Dominion and the Possessours of Sovereignty Shall private Injury be a Breach of Divine and Humane Laws and an Injury to God's Vicegerents be an Offence only against the Laws of Men Does not the Sanction of God establish the Rights of Sovereigns Or does his Law take care of Oxen and not of Men of private Men and not of Princes What can be the Reason of this Prerogative of private Rights above the Rights of Princes Is it because Humane Laws are not the necessâ—â—y Rules and Measures of Providence Does not Providence dispose of them And is it bound to humane Laws in respect to Property and free in respect to Sovereignty Humane Laws are not the adequate Rule of Providence for many things come to pass in God's Government of the World which cannot be regulated by them and yet God's Providence does govern political Societies by political Laws sometimes it makes a Law void by extinguishing the matter of it but it never directly abrogates it for as long as humane Laws are Laws they do continue to bind Subjects they are the necessary Rules and Measures of their Actions and have the Sanction of divine Authority to enforce them Let us
this Providence We acknowledge that the Authority of Government is derived only from God and from him no otherwise but by a Providential Conveyance of his Authority upon particular Persons and thus far we are agreed But then the Question is Whether God's Providence does invest a Prince with his Authority by the conveyance of Right or by the conveyance of Possession without it In short whether every Prince in Possession is invested with God's Authority We affirm that Government is founded in God's Authority but we deny that God conveys it upon every Prince in Possession 3. When we say God's Authority is annexed to Right we do not confine this to a Right by political Laws of particular Governments the adaequate Rule of Right is Law and whatsoever is Law may create a Right and consequently Right may result not only from political Laws of this or that Government but also from the Laws of God of Nature and Nations the Will of God revealed is a Law to us and therefore when God nominates a King by express Revelation he has a Right to the Possession of Sovereignty and the Obedience of Subjects In a state â—f Nature as they call it wherein Men are under no Government nor Obligation of Subjection they may choose a Sovereign and when they have chosen him he has a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature By the Law of Nations it is generally said how truly I dispute not that Conquest in a just War does create a lawful Right And lastly when political Societies are Constituted and a Rule of Succession Established either at the first by an Original Agreement or afterwards by Prescription or positive Laws that Law of Succession does create a Right to the Sovereignty which is confirmed by the Laws of God and Nature and Nations but if this Law be violated and an Usurpation is made against it the Usurpers may acquire a Right by Prescription which implies an undisturbed Possession and a Dereliction of the former Right and this new Right which commences from the extinction of the former is such by the Law of Nature which is Equity and of Nations which is the Consent of civilized Societies Lastly Where there is no Rule of Succession or no Right in any Person to the Sovereignty as when a Royal Family is extinguished in such Cases The Possession of Sovereign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it for then we may presume that God gives him the irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an irresistible Power When there is no other Right Possession is a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations but Possession of another's Right has been always pronounced invalid by the voice of Equity and the suffrage of all Nations These Two last Rights may perhaps be reduced to the Second the Consent of a free People for they suppose them to be discharged from all former Obligations and Possession of Sovereignty supposes Submission of the People and that is nothing else but a Consent to be governed which in a free People I have observed does create a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature And now let us consider what the Doctor does object against these Titles to Sovereignty Against the Choice and Consent of the People he objects That then no Man is a Subject but he who Consents to be so for the major Vote says he cannot include my Consent unless I please that is the effect of Law and Compact or Force not of Nature I answer when a free People choose a Sovereign if they consent to choose it is presum'd unless it be otherwise provided that they consent the major Vote shall determine the Choice this presumption is grounded upon manifest Equity But if any one refuses to be determin'd by a Majority he refuses to enter into the Society and may remove out of it but if he will live within the Government of the new Sovereign he accepts him for his Sovereign and is bound to Obedience He urges farther That if Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away again if they please Bp. Sanderson propounds this very Inference and his Answer is this Contra stat ratio omnia jura omnia for a reclamant scilicet legitima pacta non esse rescindenda It is the Voice of Reason and of all Laws and of all places of Commerce that lawful Compacts are not to be resâ—inded at pleasure But another Answer is also given The Subjects are only instrumental Agents God is the principal Agent in the making of a King the People design the Person and God conveys the Authority It is God that makes Kings the People are his Instruments but he has given them no Power to depose them The Doctor himself affirms That the Consent of the People are the means by which Princes gain a Right to their Thrones and I affirm no more the People may be a means of conveying Right though it be God alone that confers the Authority and if God alone does make Kings he alone can depose them But farther Vpon this Principle there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can choose only for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had True if there could be no Right to Sovereignty without the constant Election of the Subjects but that is no Principle of mine and I am not bound to answer for it but this I will answer for that a Law made a Thousand Years ago may be Obligatory now and that it may create a Right to a Person now living and that it may be a Sin to deprive him of it tho' it be done by the help of Providence His Objection against the Right of Conquest supposes it to be effected by unjust and violent Force and I easily acknowledge that unjust Conquest gives no Right Submission he says is only a forced and after Consent not to make a King but to own him who has made himself King and what Right can that give more than Force He shall Answer this himself The Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was Originally no more but Force into a civil and legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince by this means Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedont Right this is certainly true where the People are under no antecedent Obligation The continuance of an Vsurpation can never give a Right unless that which is Wrong grow Right by Continuance That Maxim of the Law to which he refers has this Exception Vnless a new Cause intervene which of it self can create a Right Now that which makes way for a new Right is the Extinction of the former Right The continuance of an Usurpation of it self may never give a Right but if the Usurpers enjoy quiet Possession of a 100 Years together it is a presumption in Law and Equity
that we will not allow God to deliver us unless he do it by Law This is pretty and passionate but to use his own Eloquence is a very nothing It is often a Duty to refuse Deliverance when God does deliver us we are sometimes bound to suffer Martyrdom not accepting Deliverance A Master of a Family does cruelly treat his Wife his Children and Servants God delivers them by suffering a Robber to drive him out of his Possessions he offers to govern them gently if they will swear to resist the former Possessor and accept of him as a Husband Father and Master A Prince oppresses his Subjects many of them rebel and bring Deliverance to the rest with this Condition that they will swear to joyn in the Rebellion In these Cases is it lawful for the oppressed to accept Deliverance When a Deliverance is offered which cannot be enjoyed without Sin it is God's Providence that offers it not for our Complyance but our Tryal and to accept of such a Deliverance will make us liable to his Vengeance The Question then is whether it be a Sin to abjure our lawful Sovereign and to assist an Usurper against him we believe that it is a Sin against humane Laws and against the Laws of God and Nature and if it be a Sin then interests of Flesh and Blood cannot make it lawful and therefore to talk of God's Deliverance when the only Question is about the lawfulness of abjuring a lawful Sovereign is in plain English only Cant and Banter His 6th Argument wherein he undertakes to confute Bishop Sanderson has fallen into better Hands and there I shall leave it the summ of it is this That we must renounce our Allegiance to the dispossessed Prince for the sake of the publick Good the Necessity and Ends of Government and I shall only observe that here he Argues upon the Fundamental Principle of the Jesuites Republicans and Fanatiâ—ks who have written for Resistance and if the Doctor expects it I will make good this Charge against him His 7th Argument is this These Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the security of the Prince and Subjects and that is a good Argument to believe them true These Principles What are they Non-resistance Non-assistance and Allegiance to Usurpers A Prince who is in Possession is secured in Possession by them as far as any Principles can secure him against all attempts of his Subjects who must submit to him without Resistance though they are ill used On the contrary here is no Security for even the best of Princes his Subjects are indeed forbidden to resist him but if any attempt be made against him by Subjects or Foreigners he may be left to duel them all and to sight his Battles by himself against all his Enemies He will say that a good Prince must be defended by his Subjects and so say the Republicans that he must never be resisted and deposed But it is the unavoidable Mischief of their Principle that the Subjects are made the Judges of their Sovereign and they will often judge the best of Kings to be Tyrants And is not the Doctor 's Principle liable to the same Mischief If Subjects have a very bad King who notoriously violates their Rights they are not bound to defend him and are they not plainly then the Judges of his Crown They may judg the best of Kings to be a very bad one and then David look to thy self for Absalom or Sheba any Rebellious Son or Subject may destroy thee at their Pleasure there is but little difference between Resistance and Non-Assistance as to the Security of Kings the one exposes them defenceless to be murthered by the other this brings them to the Scaffold and that chops off their Heads and 't is the same thing to Princes whether they are betrayed or resisted abandoned or deposed assaulted by Assassins or exposed naked to them But The Doctor 's Principles will not serve the Revolutions of Government to remove one King and set up another and why so the Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative that is God may make Revolutions but the Subjects must not promote them and if God can change Governments without the Subjects Assistance why may he not do it without their Complyance But yet Subjects must comply and transfer their Allegiance and then the new King is secure till he disobliges his Subjects for then they who have Power from God will think they have a Call to execute his Prerogative and the rest will say in their Hearts let him go if he cannot defend himself and if sighting by himself he chances to â—e beaten then God removes him we must â—dore the rising Sun and Allegiance must â—e always a Lacquey to Success These â—re Principles sure that Princes have reason â—o be jealous of for whatever Service they may do them at one time they may do them as great disservice at another they advance Usurpers to the Throne and then tumble them headlong from it But when any Prince is setled in the Throne these Principles put an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience I may answer in his own way it is evident that these Principles were either unknown to the World and that is an Argument against them or else that they cannot put an end to Disputes of Right and Title for there have been such Disputes in all Ages and I believe will be to the end of the World If this be trifling let the Doctor answer for it But admit his Principles were generally receiv'd it is evident they can never put an end to Disputes of Right nor bind the Subjects by Duty and Conscience to an Usurper for he expresly acknowledges that the Providence of God removes and sets up Kings but alters no legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed to recover their Rights The dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right and Claim which he may lawfully prosecute by War And is not here an admirable end the Controversy about Right Oh! but this Controversy is between the Princes only upon these Principles it can be none among the Subjects for they are bound by Duty and Conscience to the Prince in Possession And what are they bound to Non-Resistance and Submission Is that any Security to the Sovereign when he is invaded by the lawful Prince Are they bound to Allegiance or to an actual defence of the Usurper against him That they cannot be for it would be a bond of Iniquity if the dispossessed Prince has a just cause of War and this is evident to the Subjects Is it lawful for them to support an unjust Cause against a just Cause It is generally agreed that a War cannot be just on both sides Grotius gives this Reason because in the nature of the thing there cannot be a moral Faculty unto contrary Actions a right in one
and yet Jerusalem was no more to the Persian Empire than a Village is to England and thus upon the late Abdication as we are taught to call it there might have been a new Heptarchy of Governments nay as many as there are Counties Towns or Villages in the Kingdom every Government would have been throughly 〈…〉 in it self even without a peaceable Possessim and Settlement Thus when Monmouth was at Taunton and the People generally submitted to him as their King his Government was setled in that Town and private particular Men being under the Power of the new King might have lawfully paid Allegiance to him The Doctor thinks it very absurd to found the Right of Government upon Humane Laws or the Legal Consent of the People but if they consent against Law their Consent does make a Lawful King by the Law of Nature and Nations he accounts it a monstrous Absurdity to say that God cannot give his Authority himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws if Princes receive their Authority from Humane Laws he cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust for which they are accountable he thinks it a bold Contradiction to say that God cannot remove or set up King 's against Law This is shackling of his Providence and in fine whoever will confine the Power of God in setting up Kings to Humane Laws ought not to be disputed with But now instead of Humane Laws insert the Consent of the People against Law and all these Absurdities and Contradictions are easily reconcil'd to Reason and Religion and he that will not shackle God's Authority and Providence to Submission and Consent shall not be thought fit to be disputed with I grant that the Laws of Nature and Nations do make him a lawful King who has the Consent of a Free People who are under no antecedent Obligation But when they are they have no Power to Consent and then their Consent is a Nullity by the Law of Nature it self for it is a Rule in that Law That Actions which are forbidden by it for defect of Power are not only unlawful but also void this is true in Contracts and Acts of Donation in Vows and Dedition and all relie upon the same Reason He that cannot give 〈…〉 he that cannot be given cannot contract or be contracted with Therefore in what Cases soever the People have no Power to consent to the advancement of a new Sovereign their consent is nothing in Law and therefore cannot make a rightful King according to the Laws of Nature and Nations No 〈…〉 suppose as before that a Rebellious People by the assistance of Foreign Power drive their King out of his Kingdom refuse to restore him or so much as to treat with him and then set up an Usurper over them here the Question is whether their Advancement of the Usurper was lawful and whether they had Power to consent to it if the Doctor can prove the People have Power to rebel depose and set up Usurpers let us see him prove it but if he cannot prove it he will never prove that such a People had Power to consent or that a consent which is nothing can effect any thing can create â—a lawful Right by the Law of Nature or Nations their consent is void and unlawful it is a breach of their Allegiance and that cannot absolve them from it it is Perjury and that is no release from their Oaths and in short it binds them only to Repentance and Restitution He allows that the lawful Prince who is dispossessed has a lawful Right to make War for the recovery of his Kingdom I demand Is not this lawful by the Laws of Nature and Nations It hâ— lawful by those Laws or by none for it is no proper Matter for political Laws and they prescribe nothing about it But the Doctor will grant that and if he will not it is easie to prove it by a cloud of Witnesses and by the practice of Nations But now if the dispossessed Prince by the Law of Nature and Nations has a Right to recover his Kingdom he has certainly a Right by the same Laws to possess it and consequently the Usurper has no Right to it by those Laws unless they are contradictory to themselves by giving two incompatible Rights to the same Possession And this is a plain Demonstration whatever becomes of the Usurper in the Vindication that the Usurper in the Case of Allegiance is not a rightful Prince according to the Laws of Nature and Nations One thing more may seem necessary to be considered because it looks like Argument from Reason and that is the Discourse concerning the Relation between a King and a Subject but I have the Doctor 's Warrant to let it pass as a logical Banter the result of it is this that the Fundamentum Relationâ—s is God's Authority and that says he is always annexed to the settled Possession of the Throne but this again is the Fundamental Proposition in Dispute between us I have endeavoured to answer all the Arguments that are drawn from Scripture and Reason to provâ— it and the Reader is left to judge whether they are sufficiently Answered ADVERTISEMENT THe Reader may please to take Notice That the following Postscript doth not relate to this Book nor yet to the Author but it was an Addition to the Answer to Dr. Sherlock in Defence of the Case of Allegiance to the King in Possession and written to the same Friend but the Impression of it being then prevented it was thought convenient to annex it to this POSTSCRIPT IT will Sir be no small Surprize to you to tell you after all that the Case of Allegianeâ— to a King in Possession with all the Mistakes Nonsense and Trifling which the Doctour now discovers in it had notwithstanding the Doctour's Imprimatur before it saw the Light as you may fully assure your self from the following Testimony of a Person of very good Credit who some time since gave me this following Account The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession in M. S. was recommended to Dr. Sherlock who read it over and mightily approved it and wished it were then actually printed especially for the sake of Dr. who had written a Letter to him which he also then read wherein he endeavoured to persuade him that Allegiance was due to the Regnant Power He urged to have it printed as soon as might be and that Care might be taken that Dr. should have a Copy which shews a strange Temper in the Master to treat a Book and an Authour at such a rate which a little before he did so approve and commend The Authour ought to take this for a very great Honour done him by the Doctour as great as if the Book had been Licenced under his hand and it will be some Comfort to him to hear that once he stood so fair in the Doctor 's
People have God's Authority and then rebellious Subjects and ambitious Princes who overturn a lawful Government by Force have God's Authority for it for in respect to that Force and Violence he affirms that Governments are destroy'd and set up by God Thus in the transport of his Anger the Doctor forgets his own Principles and the Convocation's 2. Suppose those Passages do relate to Usurpers and to the very Force and Violence by which Empires are overturn'd How does it appear that God's setting up Kings and giving of Kingdoms must be expounded of God's positive and not of his permissive Will of his giving of Authority and not of his concession of Power whereby Rebels and Usurping Princes are enabled to accomplish their wicked Enterprizes If those Passages relate to the very Revolutions of Governments and the wicked Force and Violence by which Usurpers are advanc'd then certainly they must be understood of God's permissive Providence unless we will make God the Author and Abettor of the highest Wickedness and Injustice The Doctor will not affirm that those Passages do prove that Usurpers are set up by God when they are making their way to the Throne nor when they actually place themselves in it for till they are settled in it by consent he himself does allow that they have not God's Authority and yet they will prove this if they prove any thing for Usurpers for they limit not God's setting up to Consent and Settlement they make no difference between Kings in sieri and in facto esse between their ascending to the Throne their fitting and their settlement in it they intimate that all the Gradations and Steps of such Revolutions are alike from God that he bringeth about the whole Change and that the Invasions and Rebellions by which Kings are removed are as much from him as the Advancement of a new King to the Throne and his Establishment in it And therefore if they prove that Usurpers have God's Authority they prove it for Rebels and Invaders also But perhaps the four Monarchies which we supose to be Usurpations were set up by God's Authority because they were set up by the Decree and Counsel of God and foretold by a prophetick Spirit I have observ'd before that some of God's Decrees are permissive and such are his Decrees about wicked Events among which I reckon unjust Violence and Usurpations But they were foretold by a prophetick Spirit And what then Have Usurpers therefore God's Authority because God who is omniscient and sees future things as present does behold them committing Wickedness and foretels it by a Prophet or is God's Prescience a Conveyance of his Authority Among other Changes and Revolutions foretold by Daniel in the Judgment of very learned Men the setting up of Antichrist is predicted and that under the name of a King Dan. 11. 36 37 38 39. and I see no Reason why the setting up of this King may not as well be asscribed to God's Decree and Counsel as any other King in Daniel However it is said expresly of the Beast in the 13th of Revelations which is supposed to be the Antichrist that Power was given him over all Kindreds Tongues and Nations Here we have his Commission for an universal Empire And Power was given him to continue forty two Months Here is a Settlement for a long Tract of Time And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him Here is the Consent and Submission of the People to establish him and if this King has not God's Authority upon the Doctour's Principles and by virtue of as express words of Scripture as any he produces for Usurpers I wonder who can have it Let us know whether this Power of Antichrist was not given him of God and whether he could have it without his Will and Appointment A Power over all Nations must certainly be given him by God and yet I think this giving of Power is no Conveyance of Authority upon this Usurper nor does it inferr any Obligation to Obedience and this Instance overthrows all his Arguments from God's giving Power and Kingdoms for here is a Power and Kingdom which is given by God to which we cannot be Subjects without Apostacy from him The Doctor observes That under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Christ was to be set up and Antichrist was to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in humane Governments Hence he infers That since God has declared that he will change Times and Seasons remove Kings and set up Kings to accomplish his own wise Counsels it justifies our Compliances with such Revolutions he shou'd have added for otherwise Antichrist could neither be advanced nor destroyed Thus it was once argued for Resistence That God's hiding the lawfulness of it from the primitive Christians was necessary to help Antichrist to his Throne and now Compliance with Usurpers is urged to be lawfull as necessary to set up and pull down Antichrist that so God's Counsels may be accomplished and may it not as reasonably be inferred that since God has declared he will make Revolutions remove and set up Kings that therefore Rebellions and unjust Invasions are lawfull because they are the ordinary ways of effecting Revolutions No says he we must not contrary to our Duty promote such Revolutions upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophecies but when they are made and settled we ought to submit to them What! Can it be contrary to our Duty to promote Revolutions which God decrees promotes and effects Is it lawfull for no one to promote them And how then shall they be accomplished But why is it lawful to submit to them when they are made and settled Why because God has decreed them that must be a Reason for it or his Decrees and Counsels are here impertinently urged But we are sure that God has decreed the Kingdom of Antichrist and when his Kingdom is settled must all Kindreds Tongues and Nations pay Subjection to him If God's Decree be a a Reason for Submission we have no more to doe but to fall down and worship when we see his Decree accomplished in the Advancement of Antichrist And if this be not Enthusiasm there is no such thing in the World How vain is it to distinguish between promoting and submitting in respect to the fulfilling of Decrees and Prophecies Does not he that submits promote And what Ground is there for that Distinction in Scripture It was God's Decree that Cromwell should have the Administration of Sovereign Power and he might have foretold it by Prophecy but it was impossible it should have been accomplished without a general Submission Was that therefore a general Duty and was the Nation bound to it to fulfill Decrees and Councils What have we to do with God's unsearchable Decrees Our Rule is Law the Laws of God and Nature for religious and moral Actions the Laws of Kingdoms and Commonweals for those that
relate to Civil Society As for God's Decrees they are unknown to us till they are fulfilled and when they are we can never know whether they are positive or permissive whether they require our Submission or Resistence but by the nature of the Events Usurpations are decreed by God and so are Robberies so is Antichrist and if there be no difference between these Decrees as there may be none and there can be none gathered out of Daniel or out of any other part of Scripture it follows necessarily that God's Decreeing of Usurpers infers not any Obligation of Subjection to them Thus I have done with his Argument from Dreams Decrees and Prophecies and I hope it appears that the Doctour's Commentary upon Daniel does by no means make good his Commentary upon the Apostle 8. He argues farther That this Distinction that only legal not usurped Powers are of God had made the Apostle's Direction signifie nothing for the great Question had still been undetermined what Powers are of God and what they must obey if some Powers be of God and some not The Apostle directed the Roman Christians to be subject to the Roman Powers then in being and if there was any Dispute whether they were lawfull Powers or Usurpers he plainly determines it by declaring they were God's Ordinance and that Subjection was therefore due to them he tells them the Powers then in being were ordained by God and that was enough to silence all Disputes about them The Doctour confesses That had the Apostle confin'd himself to the then present Powers it would have directed them at that time but says he it would have been no general Direction to Christians in other Ages to obey the present Powers it would have been very convenient for some Men if the Apostle had given such a Direction but what if he hath not Why then we have no Direction in Scripture what to do in such disputed Cases unless by a Parity of Reason Well suppose that we have not the Direction is sufficient if we will be content with what may be reasonably expected St. Paul required the Christians to pay Subjection to the Roman Emperours who were lawfull Powers and the Reason upon which he enjoins it extends the Obligation to Subjects in all Ages and Nations who are under the government of such lawful Powers But the Apostle has not directed us to distinguish what Powers are lawful neither have we any Directions to find out true Parents lawful Husbands Masters and Pastors and yet I think the Scripture is not to be charged with Imperfection The Scripture prescribes the Duties of these several Relations but gives no Rules to distinguish the Relatives the True and Lawful from the False and Counterfeit that depends upon the infinite variety of Fact of Customs and of Laws and therefore cannot be comprehended in general Rules so does the Distinction between lawful Powers and unlawful it depends upon the various Constitutions of Civil Politics and often upon Matters of Fact and therefore that Distinction could not be bounded and defined within Rules nor consequently be determined in Scripture In short it may be inferred by parity of Reason from the Apostle that the supreme Powers in every civil Government are God's Ordinance and irresillible But which are the supreme Powers he hath left to be determined by the Laws of every Government The Doctor himself hath told the World That whatever Power in any Nation according to the Fundamental Laws of its Government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme Power of that Nation the higher Powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And is there any Nation in the World which hath made an Usurper irresistible by a Fundamental Law The Doctor may recant this but he will pardon me if I am still of his Opinion But the Doctor is sure the only Direction in Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government And I am sure there is no such Direction there and which is more the Doctor himself is sure of it for he is sure that Usurpers who have the actual Administration of Government without the consent of the People have no Title to Subjection He seems to lay stress upon those Words of the Apostle At God's Ministers attending continually upon this very Thing the Emperors were then actually Administring the Government and that was their Business as God's Ministers But does the Apostle say that Sovereign Powers are not God's Ministers when they are hindred from their Business though they are still attending upon it and endeavour to remove the Impediment Do they cease to be God's Ministers because their Subjects are Rebels Obedience is required to Spiritual Rulers because they watch over Souls Heb. 13. 11. Are the People then discharged from their Duty if they will not suffer their Pastors to watch over them but separate from them And are the Pastors no longer God's Ministers because they can't exercise their Function But there is not the least notice given us of any kind of Duty to a Prince removed from the Administration of Government whatever his Right may be Neither say I is there any the least notice of paying any Duty to Usurpers no more is there of paying Obedience to a Father or a Master remov'd from the Government of their Families or to a Bishop removed from his Church by Persecution there is no more than this that the Scripture requires Obedience to them and neither Scripture nor Reason does teach us that when they are violently removed from the actual Administration of their respective Governments the Relation ceases and the Duty with it And thus much may be said for Sovereign Princes Subjection is required to them but neither Scripture nor Reason do inform us that the Relation is extinguished when they are violently deposed On the contrary we are expresly required to give Princes their dues and what those are we must learn from the Laws of Nature and Nations for the Scripture has not taught us But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to Vsurpers In the 2d of Samuel we have the People of the Jews submitting to Absalom in the 13th of Revel the People of all Nations to Anti-christ but in neither do we find that they are blamed for it But I wonder when he was heaping up these negative Arguments that he did not remember that if they are good for any thing they overthrow his own Hypothesis he maintains that Allegiance is not due to all Usurpers though all his Arguments from Providence and Scripture do prove it but only to those that are setled by a general consent and yet there is no Rule no Example not an Iota for this Distinction in Scripture But this was not convenient to be remember'd for then he had lost these pretty Arguments But in Scripture we have Examples of Subjects being condemn'd for refusing