is true as it happens in some other Revolutions they did not all submit to a Man and I conceive the Doctor will not insist upon the Necessity of this Condition But those who stood out Antiochus was well able to crush and did it to a very severe purpose As for the Time of his Government it held no less than three Years which the Doctor must own is long enough in all Conscience to justify a Compliance These Arguments for Submission are as strong as the Doctor 's Principles can require And yet we see the Convocation dislike Antiochus his Settlement and allows of Mattathias his Resistance So that nothing is more plain than that these Reverend Divines did not believe that the Concurrence of the Majority of a debauched Nation A full and uncontrolable Possession of Power lengthened out to three Years of Government were Advantages sufficient to infer a Divine Authority and to change a bad Title into a good one I know the Doctor urges That Antiochus his Governmert was not owned by any publick National Submission which is both more than the Convocation says or the Doctor can prove For if by a National Submission he means a Recognition of his Title in a publick Meeting of Persons of Condition he might probably receive such an Acknowledgment It 's not unlikely that Iason and Menelaus who were so forward in making their Court being Persons of the first Quality might engage the Nobility to render their new Allegiance in a solemn and publick Manner However the Business of Form is not Material 'T is certain from Iosephus that the generality of the Jews complied and when a Nation submits one would think there was a National Submission Indeed why should they not submit Here was most certainly Power in a very large and irresistable Proportion which is a thing we are told will Govern and therefore God always seconds it with his Authority I hope the Doctor does not believe Antiochus could make himself King of Iudea whether God would or no And if not How could these Jews have the Liberty to stand out against Providence and oppose a Divine Right 3. To give a farther Instance that the Convocation did not agree with the Doctor in his Notion of Power and Settlement We are told That if any Man shall affirm that the Jews might have withstood any of their Kings who claimed by Succession without Sin and opposing themselves against God or that the Kingdom of Iudah by God's Ordinance going by Succession when one King was dead his Heir was not in Right their King however by some Athaliah he might be hindered from enjoying it or that the People were not bound to obey him as their Lawful King He does greatly Err. Now for an Assembly to affirm That where a Succession is established the People cannot withstand it without opposing themselves against God that a Person who is Heir Apparent is immediately upon the Death of his Predecessor their Lawful King and ought to be obeyed as such notwithstanding the Usurpation of some Athaliah I say for them to affirm all this and at the same time to make Force a certain Sign of Divine Authority and that we ought to obey it from what point soever it rises To put it in the Subjects power to break all the Links of Succession and to give away an Hereditary Prince's Right by a National Submission or Treason as often as they please these are such rank such staring Contradictions that they are beneath the Inadvertencies of common Sense much more the Judgment of that Venerable Assembly If the Doctor replies that the Canon is to be restrained to a Succession which was settled by God's Ordinance or express Appointment and consequently to be understood only with Relation to the Kings of Iudea which had their Grown entailed by a particular Revelations To this I answer 1. That to take the Canon in this Sense is to make it insignificant and foreign to their Design Whereas it is evident their Book the first especially was written to assert the Right of Princes and to state and fix the Duty of Subjects But if the Examples they alledge and the Doctrine they maintain are not to be drawn down to application and practice what are we the better for them If their Precedents and Conclusions hold only for the Kings of Iudah to what purpose are they brought If we are unconcerned in them why are they couched into Canons and Principles and reported with that particularity and exactness We are not now to expect any express Orders from Heaven for the regulating Successions and therefore if the Convocation is to be understood only of Entayles by Revelation they might have spared their Pains for we are not likely to be the wiser for their Determination as they might easily perceive 2. I answer That Succession founded upon Humane Right is of equal Force with that which is supported by Revelation and requires as strong an Authority to defeat it 'T is true God in reward to David's Piety enntayled the Crown upon his Posterity by special Designation And no doubt it was no small Satisfaction to Him to be assured that his Family should reign as long as it continued and not be set aside by God's express Order to make room for another Line as that of Saul's was for himself But if by by the Fundamentals of the State the Crown was before Hereditary I cannot conceive what additional Strength could accrue to the Title from an Entayl by Revelation Eventually stronger I grant it might make it by refreshing the Peoples Minds and conveying an awfull Impression by the Solemnity of the Declaration but their Obligation to preserve the Descent was the same before For all Humane Provisions stand upon a Divine Bottom for which Reason the Apostle commands us to submit to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake The Laws of a Kingdom when the Authority is competent and the Matter just are as much as to the Ground of the Obligation the Laws of God as those he gave upon Mount Sinai And Kings are his Representatives as well as Angels by whose Disposition that Law was given Therefore those who pretend a Divine Repeal ought to bring Miracles and Revelation in one case as well as in the other These are such obvious Truths that the Convocation could not possibly overlook them and therefore could not lay any of that stress upon a Scripture Entayl upon which the Doctor insists But must suppose Compliance with Athaliah would have been as unaccountable in any other Country not governed by Revelation as it was in Iudea provided her Title was illegal To urge this Argument a little farther upon the Doctor If that which he phraseth Providence and Settlement is sufficient to null the Constitution thô never so clear and unquestionable then a great part of the Ceremonial Law was abrogated under Antiochus Epiphanes and the Iews were bound in Conscience to eat Swines Flesh and forbear
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
Mental Evasion or Secret Reservation whatsoever But to swear with this private supplemental Sense That we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King provided the Majority of his Subjects will do so too if this is not a plain wresting of the common Sense and Understanding of the Words if this is not a Mental Reservation to purpose I despair of seeing any such in the Iesuits Morals Secondly This Construction of the Oath makes Government very uncertain and precarious The Dr. frequently flourishes with the Body of the Nation I hope he does not think the Nation is all Body By this great Body I suppose he must mean the Majority of the Kingdom Now if a Government lyes at the Discretion of the Multitude it must needs be admirably provided for If a King must go to the Poll for his Sovereignty and and we are obliged to tell Noses to know whether our Allegiance continues or not we are likely to enjoy the Blessings of Peace and Order at a great rate The generality of Mankind formerly don 't use to be over burthened either with Prudence or Conscience and I don't perceive that this Age has much mended the matter Which makes me wonder why the Dr. should give them such an unbounded Privilege to pull down and set up Kings to dispence with Oaths and other Commandments to repeal Laws to transferr Titles and turn the World topsy turvy at their pleasure But which way does the Great Body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths By Law No. They are not the Legislative Power The Parliament it self cannot pretend to this Privilege without the King This Great Body are Subjects like other People when they are separate and dispersed Whence then comes the sudden Alteration Can they rendezvouz themselves into Independency Can a Crowd give a man a Dispensation purely by the Magick of their numbers and the Disorder of their Meeting This makes the Composition work incredibly beyond the vertue of the simple Ingredients Who would live alone if Company can do all these Wonders Well! Possibly the Dr. means This Great Body can't absolve themselves from their Oath lawfully but when they have once done it their Act must stand Can they not do it Lawfully Then certainly not at all For in these cases id tantum possumus quod jure possumus Who ever heard that unlawful Absolving or a Dispensation against Authority and Right signified any thing However this is the Dr's meaning which makes him still more incomprehensible For 3 dly This Construction confirms the highest Breaches of Law and gives Force and Authority to the most irregular Proceedings It does not warrant the Deposing Act it 's true but when it 's over it gives it a Blessing and pronounces it valid The Pope sometimes pretends to depose Princes by a Privilege of Right But this Doctrine scorns to be beholden to a Colour of Justice but does the same thing by a Privilege of Wrong It sets Violence in the place of Law and gives Treason and Authority the same effect And how the difference between Good and Evil can consist with such a Latitude is somewhat difficult to understand But what can the minor part of the Subjects perhaps but a little handful do towards the restoring their King Why they can shew an exemplary Firmness and Resolution which may probably encrease their numbers and awaken the better-meaning part of the People into right Apprehensions of their Duty They can wait God Almighty's leisure retain their Integrity and save their Souls And is all this nothing The Dr. has a farther Reserve and that is An Oath to fight for the King does not oblige us to fight against our Country which is as unnatural as to fight against our King As unnatural then it 's unnatural to fight against our King which is worth the observing To go on and 1. As the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige us to fight against our Country so neither does it to sight against our King If it did it has been well kept Besides I would gladly see a reason why we ought to preferr the Country to the King Did we swear Allegiance to the Country or has it any Authority over us independent of the King If not why should we esteem Multitudes above Justice and side with the Subject against the Soveraign 2 dly We are to remember That the Dr. disputes upon a Supposition of Usurpation and therefore the Assistance of our Country does not belong to his Plea For those who appear for the Rightful Prince for the Laws and Establish'd Government of the Country they and no other are properly speaking the Friends of the Country If the Dr. takes the Country on any other notion he must make it a Wilderness of Disorder or a Den of Thieves And to carry on the Dr's Supposition To fight against Revolters is not to fight against our Country They have no Country to lose but have forfeited the Privileges of their Birth and Industry by their defection And though they may find Favour if they seek in time yet they can challenge none The Dr. was apprehensive that this Post was scarcely tenable and therefore after a little skirmishing retires to the main Fort his pretended Disposal of Providence And after all he grants That Subjects must have Regard to Legal Right And if they pull down a Rightful King and set up a King without Right they greatly sin in it Most certainly And therefore one would think when they have set up a pretended King without Right they ought to pull them down again and not persevere in the Breach of their Duty What the Dr. adds by way of Parenthesis That Subjects ought not to remove or set up Kings without Legal-Right unless the Constitution of the Government should in some cases allow it is somewhat unintelligible 'T is true some people would make us believe though without Reason That the Constitution does acknowledge an Illegal Prince after he is once set up and established But that it should allow the setting him up in any case I suppose was never heard of till now If the Constitution allows of its own Violation and the Laws grow lawless and give Men Authority to break them it 's time to look out for some other Government I can guess what the Dr. would have called such disputing as this is if he had catched an Author at such a disadvantage The Dr. proceeds to another Objection viz. This Doctrine of his makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right This is a severe Charge How does he purge himself Surprizingly enough He tells you It may be called a Difficulty in Providence if you please but it 's no Difficulty to the Subject unless a passionate Affection for the dispossessed Prince makes it a Difficulty Otherwise it will rub off easily enough For 't is but yielding to Necessity and leaving every thing else to Providence and there is an end of
Conscience From whence it follows That where the Laws speak out there is no need to recur to Events and Providence For where-ever the Constitution is plain it ought to carry it So that the Doctor 's Fundamental Principle of Divine Right or Power upon which his whole Scheme is erected falls to the ground For by his own Concession Providence is but a secundary Rule of Conscience and only to take place where the directions of Law are defective and unintelligible It will not be improper therefore to cite some of the Laws for possibly they are not so intricate and obscure as the Doctor represents them The 24 H 8. c. 12. Begins thus By sundry old and authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed without Labyrinths That this Realm of England is an Empire and hath been so accepted in the World governed by one Supreme Head and King unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People been bounden and owen a natural and humble Obedience he being instituted and furnished by the goodness and sufferances of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire Power c. 5 El. c. 1. And be it further Enacted That every Person which shall hereafter be elected or appointed a Knight Citizen or Burgess c. for any Parliament or Parliaments hereafter to be holden shall from henceforth before he shall enter into the said Parliament House or have any Voice there openly receive and pronounce the said Oath the Oath of Supremacy before the Lord Steward for the time being And that he which shall enter into the Parliament House without taking the said Oath shall be deemed no Knight Citizen Burgess c. for that Parliament nor shall have any Voice In 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. there is this remarkable Paragraph And be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That if any Person or Persons shall put in practice to absolve persuade or withdraw any of the Subjects of the King's Majesty or of his Heirs or Successors of this Realm of England from their natural Obedience to his Majesty his Heirs or Successors or move them or any of them to promise Obedience to any other Prince State or Potentate That then every such Person their Procurers Counsellors c. be to all Intents judged Traytors And being thereof lawfully Convicted shall have Iudgment suffer and forfeit as in Cases of High Treason The 7 th Iac. 1. c. 6. concerning the Oath of Allegiance Enacts That all and every Knights Citizens Burgesses c. of the Commons House of Parliament at any Parliament or Session of Parliament hereafter to be assembled before he or they shall be permitted to enter the said House shall make take and receive a Corporal Oath of Allegiance upon the Evangelists before the Lord Steward for the time being c. In 14 Car. 2. c. 3. it 's declared That within all his Majesty's Realms and Dominions the sole and supreme Power Government Command and Disposition of the Militia and of all Forces by Sea and Land and of all Forts and Places of Strength is and by the Laws of England ever was the undoubted Right of his Majesty and his Royal Predecessors Kings and Queens of England And that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor ought to pretend to the same nor can nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs or lawful Successors To these may be added 13 Car. 2. c. 1. 12 Car. 2. c. 31. 25 Ed. 3. c. 2. not to mention any more Now I believe most People will conclude that the meaning of these Statutes is not very hard to come by And that a moderate Share of English and common Sense is sufficient to understand them I shall insert two or three Maxims relating the same Subject The First tells us The King never dyes The second The King can do no wrong The third affirms Nullum in tempus occurrit Regi that is No length of Usurpation can prejudice the King 's Right And least the Doctor should take these for no more than to many quaint Sentences he may please to observe from a very Authentick Authority That Maxims are one of the Grounds of the Law that they need no Proof but are sufficient Authority to themselves that they are Equivalent to a Statute and that all Inferences from them are of the same Force with the Principle from whence they are drawn Having shewn that the Laws with respect to Allegiance and Prerogative are not full of Mystery and Labyrinth as the Doctor would suppose but are plain easy and unperplexed in these great Points indeed were they otherwise it would be no ordinary Misfortune and Reproach to the Government I shall proceed to examine the Doctor 's Scheme which he owns may startle some Men at first because it looks Paradoxically and carrys the Face of Singularity However it 's so much for the ease and safety of Subjects c. that every one has Reason to wish it true How much his Principles are for the ease of Society will be disputed afterwards But allowing them this Advantage his Inference is by no means conclusive nor proper for his Character For if we are to wish every Thing true that makes for our Ease than we ought to wish the Christian Religion false because there is so much Mortification and Self-denial enjoyned by it Which made the Gnosticks from an inward Principle of Self-preservation abjure it in Times of Persecution Soul take thine Ease is so far from being good Divinity that a generous Heathen would scorn such Advice if he found it prejudicial to Justice and Honour But before I enquire more particularly into the Truth of the Doctor 's Scheme I shall briefly represent some of the Consequences which follow from the supposal of its being true By which we may be in some Measure able to guess how much the Doctor has obliged the World by his Discovery 1. If Power as he affirms Pag. 15. is a certain Sign of God's Authority if by what means soever a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God Almighty and the Advantages of Success are always to be interpreted the Gifts of Providence then the best Title may be defeated without either antecedent Injury Consent or an express Revelation from God And if so the Nature of Property is perfectly destroyed and all Dominion is resolved into Occupation and no one has any Right to any Thing any longer than he can keep it This Doctrin condemns a Man to Poverty for being ill used and makes a Prince forfeit for no other Reason but because his Subjects were disloyal If it s said that an unjust Seizure of a private Estate extinguishes no Title but for the Peace of Mankind God has so ordered it that whosoever possesses himself of a Government is immediately the proper Owner That it s not thus ordered I shall prove more large afterwards At present I
Circumcision because they were so commanded by the King who had the actual Government of their Country and sufficient power to crush them upon their Refusal From whence it follows That those Men of Resolution who were tortured for their Noncompliance and whom the Apostle is supposed so highly to commend threw away their Lives when they ought to have kept them and were Self-Murtherers instead of Martyrs He can't say these Precepts they were commanded to transgress carried any moral Obligation in them He must therefore recur to his Distinction between Humane and Divine Laws but this Expedient will not do his Business for I have proved that both of them as to their Authority are equally Divine Now as to the Matter in dispute it 's granted that God as universal Lord may alter the Seat of Property and Dominion and transfer one Man's Right to another but we ought not to conclude he has done it except we can prove our new Claim by the Course of Humane Justice or express Revelation Having shewn from the Principles of the Convocation that they cannot understand Providence and Thorough Settlement as the Doctor does without the plainest Inconsistency with themselves I shall proceed to give a distinct Answer to the Passages cited by him 1. To prove that Princes who have no Legal Right may have God's Authority He tells us the Convocation teach That the Lord in advancing Kings c. is not bound to those Laws he prescribeth others and therefore commanded Iehu a Subject to be anointed King From whence the Doctor infers That what God did by Prophets in Israel by express Nomination he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms without any regard to Succession or Legal Titles This he affirms as the Doctrine of the Convocation and attempts to prove it from their saying That the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim or Interest which they can challenge In answer to this we may observe First That upon Iehu's being anointed by the Prophet he is called the lawful King of Israel and Ioram his Master is said to be his Subject Now if Ioram was Iehu's Subject it was Treason for him to attempt the Recovery of his Kingdom and consequently he could have no Legal Right after Dispossession For if Iehu was Lawful King then Ioram the dispossessed Prince had no Right to recover unless two opposite and contesting Claims can have a Legal Right to the same Thing which certainly is a Contradiction in Law From hence one if not both of these Conclusions must necessary follow 1. Either that his Distinction of Legal and Divine Right which he coined to answer an Objection is Chimerical and then the Difficulty he propos'd remains unanswered Or 2. If there was any singular Advantage in Iehu's Case because he was anointed by God's immediate Designation then it follows that Revelation about the Disposal of Crowns is a much safer Warrant then that which the Doctor calls Providence and that we can't argue with the same Authority from the one as from the other though the Doctor is pleased to affirm the contrary viz What God did by Prophets in Israel c. he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms Where by Providence we must understand the Doctor means Success Now that the Convocation does not suppose Revelation and Success equivalent to justify Alterations in Government but makes a wide Difference between them will appear from the Consideration of the Place before us They teach us in the instance of Iehu That God in advancing Kings is not bound to those Laws which he prescribes others Which is a plain Intimation that where Governours are not changed by God's express Order Allegiance ought to be paid according to the Direction of each respective Constitution For those Laws of Subjection which God is here said to prescribe others can be no other than the Laws which establish the Rights of the Crown in each particular Country which Laws according to the reasoning of this Passage are to be inviolably observed where God does not expresly interpose to the contrary And therefore in their Canon upon this Place they determine That if any Man shall affirm that any Prophets Priests or other Persons having no direct and express Command from God might Lawfully imitate the said Fact of Elizeus who caused Iehu to be anointed in anointing Successors to Kings which had otherwise no just Interest Title c. to their Kingdoms or that it is Lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whatsoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign c. by the Example of Iehu except it might first plainly appear that there are now Prophets sent extraordinarily from God with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf he doth greatly Err. And since the Convocation condemns the removing of Princes without particular Orders from Heaven It 's plain they could not believe that every effectual Revolution had God's Approbation For if they did believe that God does that by his Providence now which he did formerly by his Prophets i. e. If they did believe his Will is to be interpreted by Events and that he approves and acts in all Revolutions which are successful Why do they pronounce all Practices of this Nature Unlawful except they are warranted by express and immediate Authority from Heaven Certainly they could not declare that Unlawful which they believed to be God Almighty's doing What is the Reason they tell us No Man must imitate the Example of Iehu thô like him he should be chosen by the Captains of the Army and have Power and the Consent of the People to dethrone the Lawful Prince If they thought Revelation and Success Principles of equal Certainty If it was their Opinion that Providence was always on the prevailing side and that Kings had no Right to govern any longer than the major part of their Subjects were willing to obey them The Doctor 's Instance to prove that Providence or Success is a certain Manifestation of the Divine Approbation is clearly against him For thô the Lord may and is able to overthrow Kings notwithstanding any Claim Title c. Yet it 's evident by this Example and the Canon made upon it that the Convocation did not think this was ever done without God's particular Commission For it 's positively affirmed by this Reverend Synod that Ehud and Othoniel the Deliverers mentioned in this place Were raised up by God Almighty with a full Assurance of their lawful Callings and made Judges immediately by Him without which Prerogatives it had been altogether unlawful for them to have done as they did Because that God foresaw what Mischief private Men as all Subjects are in respect of their Prince might do under the Colour of these Examples Now if it 's unlawful for any Person to step out of his private Sphere and to act counter to the Laws of Subjection and common Justice without
a brief touch of the History may not be unacceptable to the Reader We are to observe then that about the year 65 before the Incarnation the two Royal Brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus hapned to dispute the Sovereignty of Iudea In which Contest Hyrcanus though the eldest was by Misfortune and Duress compelled to resign And the Articles between his Brother and him for the more Solemn Ratification were agreed to in the Temple However this Resignation being forced made Hyrcanus uneasie who for remedy applies himself first to Aretas King of Arabia and afterwards to Pompey the Great Who glad of the Invitation marches his Army into the Country takes Ierusalem and makes Iudea a part of the Roman Empire Hyrcanus is contented to receive the High Priesthood from his Patron Pompey and Aristobulus is sent Prisoner in Chains to Rome with his Children After several Varieties of Fortune he was enlarged by Caesar and had the Command of two Legions under him And the next News of him is that he was poysoned by some of Pompey's Faction and his eldest Son Alexander beheaded by Scipio The younger Antigonus recovers Ierusalem by the help of the Parthians cuts off his Uncle Hyrcanus's Ears to unqualifie him for the Priesthood and afterwards submits to Sosius and Herod who commanded for the Romans and is Beheaded by Mark Antony Upon this Herod who was some time since made King of Iudea by the Romans goes on with his Project to dispatch the Royal Line And to colour his Design the better he invites Hyrcanus who was in Parthia to his Court and gets him into his power Then he makes Aristobulus Son to Alexander abovementioned and Brother to Mariamne High Priest and soon after procures him to be drowned in a Canal And to make sure work he proceeds to the Murther of Mariamne his Queen and Hyrcanus her Mother's Father And thus we see how the Romans came by their Title to Iudea which though they might introduce by Stratagem and Force yet it soon improved into an unquestionable Authority For first they had the Submission and afterwards the Extinction of the Royal Family either of which were sufficient to support their Claim and make them a Lawful Magistracy By this time I suppose it 's sufficiently apparent that this Convocation is far from teaching That Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones are either placed there by God or vested with his Authority But before I conclude this Argument I must consider what the Doctor has lately advanced to fortify his Opinion that the Moabites Aramites and Aegyptians could not have a Legal Right to govern Israel For by the Constitution of the Iewish Common-wealth They could not give the Power of the Government to a stranger The four Monarchies likewise were erected with the most manifest Usurpation In Answer to this Objection I shall endeavour to prove that these Governments were all free from the Charge of Usurpation both from the sence of the Convocation and likewise by Arguments independent of their Authority 1. In Answer to the Text of Deuteronomy 17 15. Upon which the Doctor relies We may take notice That every Breach of a Constitution does not make a Governor an illegal Prince Solomon Multiplied Wives and Horses contrary to the express Command in this Chapter and several others of the Israelitish Kings were guilty of greater Errors Yet these miscarriages did not in the least disoblige their Title or make them cease to be Legal Princes 2. We may observe there were some Things the Jews were forbiden to do Which when they were once done their Act was valid and firm and they were bound to maintain it For Example the Jews were expresly prohibited intermarrying with the Seven Nations of which the Hittites are first named However we read that Bethsheba a Jewess Daughter to Eliam the Son of Achitophel was Married to Uriah the Hittite But notwithstanding this Obstacle the Marriage was undoubtedly lawful as appears from Nathan's application of the Parable and the aggravation of David's Sin To give another instance The Gibeonites were a remnant of the Amorites which the Isralites were Commanded to destroy but after they had received them into their protection they became their natural Subjects whom they were bound to preserve By parity of reason though the Jews were forbidden to Elect a stranger for their King Yet when they had once made choice of him provided they were not preingaged to another he becomes their Lawful Prince and ought to be acknowledged as such 3. Either these Foreign Governors the Doctor excepts against were Lawful Princes or Usurpers the latter they were not For as to their Authority they neither Usurped upon the Right of the People or the Crown for either the People submitted that is consented to be Governed by them when their was no King in Israel Or else they had a Resignation from the Royal Line Now if the Doctor knows any mean between Usurpers and Legal Kings he would do well to acquaint the World with it for it will be a perfect Discovery Having premised this I shall proceed to a more particular Consideration of the Doctors Defence and examine his Monarchies accordingly as they fall in order of Time To begin with the Aegyptian Kings And there I need not repeat what I have urged already to prove that they had a Natural and Legal Right to govern Israel It s sufficient to observe that the Doctor 's main Objection does not affect them For the Israelites were under their Government before the Delivery of the Mosaical Law by which they were enjoyned not to choose a Foreign Prince So that Deuteronomy 17.15 cannot be alledged against the Legality of Pharaoh's Title because this Text was wrote long after the Children of Israel came out of Aegypt This the Convocation must needs know and therefore could not reckon Pharaoh an illegal Prince with respect to the Israelites 2. The Kings of the Aramites and Moabites are called Tyrants by the Convocation not with respect to their Title but their Government God gave them Judges to save them from the Tyrants that oppressed them For that they were no Usurpers in continuance whatever they might be at first appears 1. From the Comparison the Convocation makes between Ehud and Iehu Ioram and Eglon. They expresly tell us That the case of Iehu was like unto this of Ehud Now to make the case Parallel the Kings that were removed must have the same Title to their Government And since the Doctor must allow that Ioram was a Lawful Prince of the Israelites it follows that Eglon was so too For the Convocation mentions them without any manner of Distinction and requires the same extraordinary Commission from Heaven to enterprize any thing against either of them 2. By their general conclusion which they make immediately after the recital of these cases it plainly appears They believed Eglon to be a Lawful
Prince with respect to the Israelites Their words are as follow Both these Examples of Ioram and Eglon do make it known to us that the Lord may overthrow any Kings c. notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms Now this Inference cannot be drawn from the premises unless Eglon had a good and unexceptionable Right to the Government of Israel For if Eglon's Title was defective in any point it could not be a ruled Case against those Princes who had a better But the Convocation affirm that from these Examples of Ioram and Eglon its evident that God can overthrow any Kings notwithstanding any Claim Right Title c. which reasoning supposes that Eglon had all the Right and Claim Title c. which was requisite and by consequence was a Legal Prince From whence it appears that the Convocation does not mean a King de Facto in opposition to one de Iure for the Examples before them gave them no occasion for such a distinction but only a Prince in actual Administration of the Government without any reflection upon his Title 3. I have proved above that the Babylonian Monarchy was legally established over Iudea The Jews being expresly commanded by God himself to submit to the King of Babylon Now though the Jews were not allow'd out of their own voluntary motion to chuse a Foreign Prince especially when they had one of their own yet without question they might accept of one of God's chusing God doubtless has the liberty to dispense with or repeal his own positive Laws And as the Government of the Babylonians over Israel was unquestionable so likewise was that of the Persians who succeeded to the Right of the former Thus the Convocation affirm That the Kings of Persia continued a Supreme Authority over the Jews by God's appointment And that Nehemiah and Zorobabel were lawful Princes Which they could not have been unless the Kings of Persia were such because they acted by their Deputation 4. As to Alexander the Great the Convocation declares that the Jews were as much his Subjects as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia. And if they were as much his Subjects his Title to command them must be as good as that of the preceding Kings Besides I have already made it appear that the Jews submitted to him by God's particular direction Lastly The Convocation affirms That it was unlawful for Aristobulus the Father or either of his two Sons Alexander or Antigonus having all of them submitted themselves to rebel against the Romans This is a clear Argument that this Reverend Assembly believed the Right of the Crown of Iudea translated by the Submission of the Royal Line and that the Romans by consequence were their legal Governors And to make their Testimonies demonstrative they expresly pronounce that the Romans were the Jews lawful Magistrates And what Countrymen were the Romans Were they not Foreigners The Doctor sure does not think the Convocation took them for native Jews And if not they could not understand Deut. 17.15 in his Sense Farther To argue with the Doctor independently of the Convocation As this command in Deuteronomy was not given till after the Aegyptian Monarchy so the force of it expired under the Roman For after the coming of Shiloh the Scepter was to depart from Iudah Now the command of choosing a King of their own Nation could not extend to a Time in which it was foretold by Sacred Writ that their State should be dissolved and there was no more Kings of Iudah to be expected So that after the Messiah appeared it was Lawful for the Jews to submit to a Foreign Power notwithstanding the Text of Deuteronomy or else they were obliged to live in Hobs's State of Nature For if they might not submit to Foreign Princes they must break up Society and be independent of all Government For Iacob's Prophecy had barred them from having any Governors of their own Which latter supposition all Men will grant to be impracticable and absurd But if the Jews might Lawfully submit to a Foreign Power then those they submitted to were their Lawful Governors Besides at the Death of our Saviour all the Mosaick Law unless the Moral part of it was cancelled So that the Roman Emperors were as much the Natural Princes of the Jews as the Kings of Portugal and Spain are over their Posterity who now live in those Dominions From whence it follows that when St. Paul wrote the 13. to the Rom. upon which the Doctor so much insists He could not suppose the Roman Authority could receive the least blemish from Deut. 17.15 which I desire may be remembred against another Time In short the meaning of this last Text appears to be no more than this That the Jews were not permitted out of Levity to make a voluntary choice of a Foreign Prince But when they were under hard circumstances and injured none but themselves by their submission They were at Liberty to consult their advantage this as to the main is the Opinion of Grotius and has been the Doctor 's too Who seems to wonder the Pharisees could not distinguish upon the Prohibition but took it in too unlimited a sence So that its in vain for the Doctor to reply that if Force dissolves the Obligation of a positive Divine Law a meer human one cannot hold out against it For the command we see does not reach a case of Force but points at circumstances of Liberty and Inclination And what is farther very remarkable It does not follow that because the Israelites might submit to prevent hard usage when they were in their own Power When they were unengaged to any Prince of their own I say it does not follow from hence that they had any Authority to desert their Prince in his Distress and to give away his Right to save themselves harmless These two Cases are extreamly different In the first a Man resignes nothing but what belongs to him and is at his disposal But the other confounds the nature of property makes a Man forfeit without consent or provocation given And puts it in the Subjects power to translate their Allegiance without their Princes allowance and to depose them when they please I shall now proceed with his Book of Allegiance and before I take leave of the Chapter I was examining I shall just observe how inconsistent the Doctors Notion of Settlement is with it self and of what incoherent parts its compounded He tells us when the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crushed by Him when all this is done and I suppose not before he concludes the Settlement compleat By which definition he plainly makes Force and Consent Power and Law essential to a
Apostle Commands us to submit to the King as Supream and unto Governors as unto them who are sent by him Now if we are bound to submit to Subordinate Governors by virtue of their Delegation because they are sent by the King or Supream Power It follows that when they are not sent by him but Challenge our submission upon the score of independent Right they are not to be obeyed Suppose then the Emperor's Procurator of Iudea had set up for himself in the Apostles Time and brought over the Sanedrim and the Majority of the Jews to his Party and possessed himself of the Civil and Military Power of that Nation were the Jews bound to submit to the Procurator or not By the Doctor 's rule undoubtedly they were For here is nothing less than his Through Settlement and by consequence Providence and Divine Authority to oblige them to acquiesce But on the contrary St. Peter's Doctrine teaches us to look upon this Procurator as a Treasonable Usurper and to have nothing to do with his Settlement For we cannot suppose him acting in his Masters Name when he Rebels against him unless we can imagine the Emperor would grant a Commission to fight and destroy himself If therefore the reason of our submission to inferior Magistrates is founded in their Subordination in their being sent by the Supream as is evident by the Apostles Argument Then certainly we are not to obey them how successful soever they may be when they act upon their own pretended Authority and against him that sent them I can't foresee what the Doctor can reply excepting that Iudea was but a small part of the Roman Empire and therefore a general Revolt in that Country alone could not plead God's Authority from their Success nor oblige the Noncomplying Subject to Obedience To this I answer That if we are to obey the Higher Powers i. e. those who can crush us without respect to the Legality of their Title If Soveraign Force and Soveraign Authority are the same then we ought to obey them as far as their Power reaches For so far their Divine Authority must extend If the Revolt be general and the Power undisputed the Largeness of Dominion is not at all material For as has been observed the Boundaries of Empire are of an inferior Consideration They depend only upon Pacts and Humane Laws and ought not to stand in competition against Providence and hinder the exercise of a Divine Right God without question can change the Limits as well as the Governors of a Kingdom and ought not to be confined in this respect no more than in the other And since Settlement and Success is a certain Sign of Divine Authority we ought according to the Doctor to submit to every Subdivision of Power though never so illegally Cantonized as long as they keep distinct and unsubordinate to each other 3. That the Distinction between Lawful and Usurped Powers is not unknown to Scripture will be manifest from the consideration of Hebr. 13.17 There the inspired Author commands the Hebrews to obey those who have the Rule over them and submit themselves I grant the place is to be understood of Church-Governors but it 's as plain by universal Practice that this Submission is to be paid to none but Lawful Spiritual Powers For if any Bishop should offer to govern another's Diocese and Usurp his See such intrusions have been always condemned by the Church and the People obliged to adhere to their first Bishop And since this Scripture concerning Ecclesiastical Rulers has been always understood of those who are Lawfully and Canonically set up though these words are not expressly in the Text why the Higher Powers should not be restrained to Magistrates Legally Constituted is somewhat hard to imagine What reason have we to suppose God should Confirm an intrusion upon the State and disallow in the Church Why should he give his Authority to Temporal Usurpers and deny it to Spiritual Are not Bishops de Facto as good as Kings of that Denomination To put the Case more home and to draw it into a narrower Compass Let us suppose according to St. Cyprian's Principle every See independent of each other and that a lawful Bishop is deposed by his People and another chosen and consecrated by the Presbytery who are the Spiritual Estates and nothing of the usual Solemnity omitted Now I desire to know whether the New Man is a Bishop and has a Divine Right to govern the Diocese If the Doctor says Yes he contradicts the Universal Church and destroys the Episcopal Authority If he says No I would gladly hear his Reason The Person we are speaking of is generally submitted to and called Bishop and wears the Episcopal Habit and had all the Ceremonies performed at his Consecration and is disown'd by none but a few obstinate People and what would you have more If you say the Clergy were under Tyes of Canonical Obedience to their former Bishop that neither They nor the Laity have any Power to depose their Bishop or to ordain a new One that such Proceedings are contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Church-Government and subversive of its Monarchical Constitution This is all Truth I grant but am afraid it will disoblige the Doctor 's Argument For under Favor are not the States bound by natural and sworn Allegiance to their King What Right have the Members to depose the Head and Inferiors to displace their Supreme And what Law is there to chuse a Prince in an Hereditary Kingdom By what Authority do they these things And who gave them this Authority I put these Questions to the Doctor because I hope he will be so kind as to take them for no more than Enquiries Farther By the Doctor 's Assistance it may be urged That in the first Ages of Christianity Bishops were nominated by the Holy Ghost as Kings were in Israel and Elections apparently governed by Miracles and Inspiration as we may learn from Clemens Romanus And as it hapned afterwards in the Case of Fabian Bishop of Rome But now since Miracles are ceased God does that in the Church by his Providence which he did at first by express Nomination Therefore though one Layman should consecrate another his Episcopal Character ought to be acknowledged against the Canonical Bishop provided the great Body of the Diocese has submitted to him and the whole Administration of Ecclesiastical Government is in his hands and every thing is done in his Name and those who won't submit can be crushed by him And if any one objects against this Bishop de Facto I hope the Doctor 's parallel Reasons will satisfie him For first Here is as good a spiritual Settlement according to our Author's interpretation of that word as a Man would wish To go on No Man can make himself a Bishop any more than a King whether God will or no. God is then said to set up a Bishop when by his Providence he advances
Interpretation of Rom. 13.1 which I am contending for is supported by the Authority of the Fathers I shall produce some Testimonies from them St. Chrysostom upon the place puts the Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is every Governor chosen and set up by God Almighty To this he Answers in the Apostles Name I affirm no such thing For I am not now Discoursing of every particular Prince but of Government it self The Constitution of Magistracy does indeed proceed from the Divine Wisdom to prevent Confusion and Disorder Therefore the Apostle does not say that there is no Prince of God But that those Powers that be are ordained of God Therefore where the wise Man tells us that it's God who joyns a Woman to a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He means no more then that God instituted Matrimony Not that every one who lives with a Woman is joyned to her by God For we see many cohabit sinfully and not according to the Laws of Marriage Which is by no means to be attributed to God Almighties doing This Comparison without the rest of this Father's Testimony is sufficient to show that he was far from believing that Power and God's Authority always went together For as a Man and a Woman can't be joyned together by God though they receive each other with never so much Freedom unless the Essentials of Matrimony are premised especially when either of them are preingaged So an Usurper though he may debauch the Subjects with presents of Flattery from their former Obligations yet the whole commerce is no better then civil Adultery and therefore must not pretend to be Authorized from Heaven The next Testimony shall be taken from Theodoret who affirms That the Power of unjust Men as all Usurpers are does not proceed from God's Choice but only the Dispensation of Government in General Now if unjust Powers or Usurpers are not chosen or delegated by God then they can have none of God's Authority For no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given Bare permission to Govern as the Doctor goes on will not do And yet this is all Theodoret allows to such unqualified Persons Occumenius and Theophylact express themselves to the same purpose with St. Chrysostom Only they add That all kinds of Power whatsoever are Orderly as Theophylact has it Ordained by God Whether it be that of a Father over his Children or a Husband over his Wife c. Now these two Jurisdictions of Father and Husband are on all hands granted to be unexceptionable and founded in the Laws of Nature and Revelation And since these Fathers have made their instance only in Powers confessedly Lawful We have Reason to believe they understood the Apostles Higher Powers in this sense had they given us no other Argument which it's evident they have These Testimonies of the Fathers not to mention others together with the concurrent Sense of our own Divines the Doctor is pleased to call a Common Evasion And tells us he knows not what they mean by Civil Authority unless it be that God intended that Mankind should live under Government And is not this a sufficient meaning No. This does not prove that all Power is from God unless those who exercise this Power which he must mean by Authority receive it from God Right And is the Doctor offended at this Is he angry because they don't contradict themselves which they must have done if they had asserted Successful Violence had a Divine Commission to act by Their maintaining Civil Authority to be of Divine Institution with an Exception to particular Persons proves that all Legal Power is from God and that they took Power not for meer Force as the Doctor does but under the Notion of Right and Authority If the Doctor is resolved to stick so very close to the Letter I am afraid it will carry him to a Construction he will not approve What does he think of the Kingdom of Satan is not that called the Power of Darkness Will the Doctor say these Powers are ordained by God I hope he is not so much straitned for Government as to make the Devil a Magistrate 3. The interpreting the Text in dispute only of Lawful Powers is agreeable to the Sentiments the generality of Mankind had of Usurpation at and before the Apostles time I shall give some Instances out of the most famous Governments in the World by which it will appear that Mankind has always had a very unkind Opinion of Usurpers And notwithstanding their Success they have not thought them so much the Favourites of Providence nor their Calling so Divine as we are lately made to believe To begin Astartus Contemporary with Rehoboam recovered the Kingdom of Tyre after it had been held twelve Years by Usurpers as Sir Walter Ralegh informs us It seems these Tyrians knew nothing of the Divine Right of Possession from whence I conclude it 's no innate Principle The same Author observes that the ten Tribes did never forbear to revenge the death of their Kings when it lay in their Power of which he gives some Instances nor approved the good Success of Treason unless Fear compel'd them So that it 's plain when they did comply it was Interest not Duty which engaged them From whence it follows that they were as much unenlightned as to this Point as the Heathenish Tyrians To continue the Argument the counterfeit Smerdis was in possession of the Empire of Persia for some Months who after he was understood to be an Impostor the Princes of the Blood immediately removed him which practice of theirs is mentioned by Iustin with Commendation And the just odium which Usurpation lay under was probably the Reason why this Usurper's Government is pretermitted and not reckoned by itself in the Chronological Accounts but added to the Reign of Cambyses as the Misrule of Cromwel was to that of King Charles II. From Persia let us travel homewards into Greece and to the most polite part of it Athens where we shall find the Memories of Harmodius and Aritogiton honoured and their Families exempted from paying Taxes for delivering their Country from the Tyranny of Hippias who broke in upon their Government and was expelled by the Athenians after several years Usurpation The learned Bodin gives us the Sense both of the Greeks and Romans in this matter as fully as can be desired 1. He defines a Tyrant or Usurper to be one who unlawfully seizes upon the Government And then adds Such a Person the Laws and Writings of the Antients command to be slain and propound the highest Rewards to those who can dispatch him Neither in such a Case are the Qualities of the Person considered or any distinction made between a kind and a cruel Usurper Let this therefore be laid down as an undoubted truth That whosoever in a Monarchy shall wrest the Government from the Lawful King or shall set himself
Scheme of Government with such Divinity as this 2. To suppose no Distinction between what God permits and what he does with respect to Events destroys the Notion of his Patience For Patience supports Aversion or Dislike to Things or Persons But no omnipotent Being can be said to suffer or be displeased with those Events which he promotes and brings to Maturity and Effect It 's unintelligible Sense to say God bears with his own Decrees and suffers those Things which he determines and over-rules 3. This Opinion makes God though not the first Contriver yet the Abetter and Maintainer of Sin as will appear if we consider the plain English of directing determining and over-ruling an Event To direct an Event is to put it into the road of Success And he that does so is an Accessary to it and a Party to the Quality of the Action To determine an Event must be nothing less even in the Author's Sense than a Divine Decree that such Things shall come to pass by the help of fixed and particular Means and Circumstances And therefore the Commendation or Blame of the Action must belong to him by whom they are appointed Lastly By over-ruling an Event the Doctor must mean a Change either in the Circumstances or Success of the Action by which it is diversified from what it would have been had it been left to the Conduct of inferior Agents And then by consequence if the Event is accomplished by ill Means the Over-ruler is accountable For his Interposal has distinguished the Kind of the Event and given Life and Form and Complexion to it God indeed does sometimes over-rule Events i. e. he restrains the Wickedness of Men and hinders them from doing so much Mischief as they would do otherwise But to affirm That he prompts them to the Violation of his own Laws and inspires them with Courage and Conduct to be successful in Disloyal and Treasonable Enterprizes is very singular Doctrine and has been seldom thought proper to explain any part of the unsearchable Wisdom of Providence till the Disturbances under King Charles the I. and Cromwel's Usurpation I confess in those Times this Doctrine of Providence was very much in Vogue And that the Doctor may not seem to argue without Precedent I shall quote some of the Learned in Rebellion for his Opinion 1. The Prentices and Porters as Palmer has it were stimulated and stirred up by God's Providence to Petition the rebellious Parliament for speedy Relief Cockain in his Sermon to the Commons discoursing concerning the King of Syria's coming against Israel and being taken Prisoner makes this Inference viz. That the Mind of God was which he discovered only by that present Providence that Justice should have been executed upon him This passage he applies to encourage them to the Murther of the King who was then in their Hands Some Persons says the Sufferers Catechism may be stirred up to do some Things which are not in themselves so just and seemingly Warrantable at least in all Circumstances which yet the Over-ruling hand of God may be in as in Moses killing the Egyptian The next Testimony is Dr. Owen's which to give its due is very moving and had without doubt a considerable Effect upon the Army Saints Where is the God of Marston-Moor and the God of Naseby was an acceptable Expostulation in a Gloomy day O what a Catalogue of Mercies has this Nation to plead by in a Time of Trouble God came from Naseby and the Holy One from the West Selah Ienkins in his Petition is no less full to the Doctor 's purpose For without mincing the matter he does not stick to affirm That a Refusal to be subject to this Authority i. e. to the Rump and Cromwel under the pretence of upholding the Title of any one upon Earth is a Refusal to acquiesce in the wise and righteous pleasure of God The same Doctrine you may find in his Conscientious Queries Milton in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking in Justification of the King's Murther tells us That God has testified by all propitious and evident Signs that is by over-ruling Events whereby in these latter Times instead of Oracles Prophets or express significations of his Will he is wont to testifie what pleases him that such a solemn and formerly unexampled Act of due Punishment was no mockery of Justice but a most grateful and well-pleasing Sacrifice Let Ienkins speak once more for the Cause He delivers himself thus God's Providence that is his permission of Events and Success are antecedent Declarations of his good Will and Approbation Which comfortable Doctrine he applies to the Commonwealth To conclude Saunders is admirable in his Descant upon Rom. 13.1 where within the compass of one single Question he determines the great Dispute on the Doctor 's side There is no Power but of God Is not says he the late King with his Heirs and Successors dispossessed by God Besides he has several other choice Observations For he founds Authority in providential Power He answers the Objection concerning Athaliah the Doctor 's way He quotes his Texts of Scripture to the same purpose And presses Obedience to the Common-wealth from their having the Administration and Force of the Kingdom in their hands Thus I have given a small Catalogue of the Doctor 's Worthies These are the Chariots of his Israel and the Horsemen thereof And were I not reasonably assured that the Doctor is both well inclined and furnished for this Argument I should suspect he had borrowed some of his Artillery from the Authors abovementioned their Thoughts and even their Expressions being so like his own What the Doctor urges upon this occasion in pursuit of his Point is as remarkable as any thing we have had yet viz. God permits Men to do wickedly but all Events which are for the good or evil of private Persons or publick Societies are ordered by him He permits Men to do wickedly c. Now one would think we had gained a distinction of the usual Latitude from the Doctor between what God does and what he permits For Permission signifies a liberty of Action And where there is such a Freedom it 's a Contradiction to say the Agent is determined by any Superior Power And if the Agent is free the Action or Event must be so too For an Event is nothing but an Execution and Train of Actions No The Doctor will tell you That Events notwithstanding are ordered and over-ruled by Providence That is though God permits them to do wickedly yet all Events i. e. every thing they do is over-ruled by him Which is in other words to affirm that Liberty and Force or Necessity are the same things If the Doctor meant nothing more by God's ordering Events then that by his Wisdom he draws Good out of Evil and makes the Wickedness of Men tend to the promoting his own Glory and the happiness of his Servants This
no longer than the Children are pleased to obey him And have they a Right to his House as soon as they can turn him out Is a Wife bound to entertain an Husband de Facto Now if the Priviledge of Fathers and Husbands holds in Case of Dispossession why not that of Kings Why should Publick Authority upon which the common Security depends have a less firm Establishment than that of single Families If private Disobedience can't challenge a Divine Right to govern upon Success why should a National Rebellion pretend to it He goes on to acquaint us That to give Authority to a Man does not signify to permit him to take it And that no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it 's given By which it 's plain he means that no Person can be vested with God's Authority barely by his permissive Will but that Consent and Approbation is always implied But this Proposition is not only Foreign to his Point because Usurpers have no Authority from God either one way or other but is likewise untrue and dangerous For suppose an Eldest Son Murthers his Father privately in this Case it must be granted he has God's Authority to possess his Estate and to govern the Family For he who has a Legal Claim has by consequence a Divine one all Humane Laws being ultimately resolved into the Divine Warrant and Appointment But then I conceive the Doctor wont say this unnatural Murtherer has God's Authority in the Family any other ways than by bare Permission God indeed suffered him to Murther his Father as he suffers all other Wickedness And because the Murther was secretly committed the Villany turns to Advantage and the Party becomes Master of his Father's Fortune But to say that he had God's consenting Authority in this Matter would sound very harshly and amounts to no less than God's Approbation of Parricide For he who absolutely approves the End without any regard to the Lawfulness of the Means must consent to the Means though never so Unlawful And to apply this Remark An Usurper when the Royal Line is either Extinct or Surrenders comes by God's Authority the same way with the forementioned Murtherer The next rub the Doctor casts in the way is that unless we take our Governors as they rise without minding their Titles we shall not be able to distinguish those God permits only from those he appoints Now this Difficulty is easily removed For the Constitution of each particular Country will inform us who governs by Permission and who by Appointment from God Almighty The Laws of Succession c. were made for this purpose and to prevent Usurpation So that there is no need of the Doctor 's Expedient to teach us to distinguish between God's King and those who would be so of their own making We need not be at a loss whom we must obey out of Conscience and whom we must not obey for we have the Direction of Law ready to inform us The same Direction which there is in private Cases to know the right Owner from an Intruder He comes on with the Repetition of his former extraordinary Doctrine That by what means soever a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God as truly as if he had been nominated by him and anointed by a Prophet So that Cromwel was as much God's Vicegerent as David and if so our Laws are very much to blame for attainting him of Treason and exposing him to Ignominy after his Death However the Doctor is sure God never suffers a Prince to ascend the Throne but when he sees fit to make him King No! Does God suffer nothing but what he sees fit to be done Does he not suffer all the Wickedness which is committed for no Man can do an ill Thing whether God will or no And will the Doctor take the freedom to say that God sees it fit and convenient that men should be Unjust and Lewd and Atheistical that they should disturb the World and damn themselves Such Practises as these certainly can never gain the Approbation of the Divine Wisdom nor seem agreable to his Goodness His fourth Proposition gives us another admirable Piece of Politicks viz. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God Why so Because it 's impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God would or no. Nay then farewell all Property For by the help of this Logick I will prove there can be no such Thing as Cheating Stealing and Oppression in Nature The Argument lyes thus All Possession is rightful with respect to God for it 's impossible there should be a wrong Possessor unless a Man could make himself Master of his Neighbour's Goods whether God will or no. This is comfortable Doctrine for the Gentlemen of the High-way and were it admitted would serve to plead off their Indictment But if this Plea should fail which is not likely the Doctor can reinforce them with another For he has told us That all Events which are for the Good on Evil of private Persons are ordered by Providence Now is not the taking a Purse or stealing a Man's Cloaths an Event Doubtless it is and sometimes very much for the Evil of him who looses them Such Events as these have been very frequent since the Doctor 's Book came out But why he that stole these Goods should be bound to make Restitution except in point of Generosity is past my Skill to understand For if God orders a Man a Sum of Money it 's certainly Lawful for him to keep it His fifth Proposition affirms That God is not bound by Humane Laws True But if Men are it 's sufficient for our purpose For we are not disputing about God's Prerogative but the Duty of Subjects However may not God make whom he pleases King without regard to Legal Rights No doubt he may But then we are to observe that every Thing which is done is not of God's doing And the apparent Injustice of an Action is a very bad Argument to prove the Righteous God had a hand in it 'T is true God is the chief Proprietor of all Things but it does not follow from hence that whatever a Man can catch is his own If the Doctor has no supernatural Credentials to produce he must be contented to let the common Laws of Justice take place Unless he has a mind to cut the Sinews of all Property and in a great Measure to destroy the Nature of Right and Wrong His sixth Proposition says We have but one King at a Time which is a good Hearing were it not misapplied in his Seventh where he affirms That King is the Name of Power not of meer Right Which Assertion is not only contrary to the common Notion or Justice but to the Language of our own Laws In which the Lancastrian Princes who though for Kings de Facto had several peculiar Advantages such as a Formal Resignation
puts me in mind of Epicurus's Deities whom for Fashion sake he supposed to exist but gave them such a slender Constitution that it was impossible for them to hold out against the least rencounter of his Atoms Just so kind is the Doctor to a Prince whose Title stands upon the Fundamentals of the Government For what does this legal Right signifie Are the Subjects bound to restore him No. This would oblige them to Two opposite Allegiances Are they at Liberty to stand neuter Not that neither For Allegiance signifies all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King And if this as the Doctor affirms falls all to the share of him who has the actual Administration of Government I 'm afraid there will be but little left for the other And as if all this was not sufficient to Mortify his legal Prince he Musters the Laws and Lawyers against him And says it s a very wise Constitution which obliges us to pay our Allegiance to a Prince who is not the legal Heir i. e. to an Usurper And the Reasons and Order and Necessity of Government require it The Reason and Necessity of Government is a very serviceable Principle to the Author whether he does not misapply and overstrain it shall be farther examined afterwards At present I shall only desire to be informed of the Doctor Whether it 's any part of the business of Reason to do an unreasonable Thing what necessity there is to destroy Justice and establish a Revolt Indeed if there was a Law that a King should forfeit his Kingdom as soon as the Disobedience of his Subjects should oblige him to retire though the singularity of such an Act would be amazingly Remarkable yet it would not be absolutely unintelligible But this is not the Case For both the Doctor and the Dispute supposes that the King 's Right continues after he is Dispossessed Now this is that which makes it superlatively Wonderful His Right continues in full Force and yet as far as the Laws can provide he is barred from all possible means of Recovery For it seems the Subjects are bound to stand by the Usurper and to distress and fight the King de Iure if he offers to regain that which they own belongs to him He has a Right it 's granted as much as ever say you so Then I hope it 's to govern and if so his Subjects are bound to re-establish him Hold there cries the Doctor They are bound to stand by the Usurper I confess I always thought that if a King had a Right to the Crown the Subjects were obliged to pay him Allegiance Right one would think should relate to something For to have a Right to nothing is to have no Right But the see improvements of Time Here we have a Right without a Property a King without a Subject One who has a legal Right to govern and yet all the Kingdom has a legal Right and a legal Duty to kill him if he goes about it Thus the Doctor makes the Laws fall foul upon each other And gives the People a legal Right to oppose a legal Right in the Crown Which is somewhat a plainer though not a truer Contradiction than his bringing in a Divine and a Legal Right clashing with each other For here the repugnancy lyes in the Constitution so that the Word Providence which uses to be so serviceable can give him no Assistance In short to tell a Man he is a King and yet to assign all his Subjects over to another and to barr him all possible means of Recovery is such a Jest of Iniquity and supposes the Legislators so incomprehensibly Singular and Unreasonable that for the Credit of our Countrey we ought not to interpret the Laws in such a wild Sense If the Doctor had a mind to turn St. Stephen's into Bedlam and make the Nation Mad by Representation he could scarcely have gon a more effectual way to work To conclude this business if the Subjects are obliged to defend an Usurper in Possession as much as if he was their rightful Prince I would gladly know what priviledge the one has above the other I grant the Doctor allows the Dispossessed legal Prince a Right to make War upon the Usurper But then as he has ordered the Matter he can have none of his Subjects to help him but those he brings along with him Besides this Principle gives two contending Parties a Right to the same Thing and makes a War justifyable on both sides which is something more than usual In answer to a Second Objection he observes That an Oath of Allegiance can oblige no longer than the Regal Character continues which is most true But his Inference concerning the Grounds of the Oaths being removed is altogether inconclusive For where the Crown is settled upon Hereditary Right and fortifyed by irresistable Authority There the King must necessarily continue in Being as long as the Man Because the Subjects can have no Power to call him to an Account or displace him The Doctor encounters a Third Objection but with the same Success The Objection is That we swear to defend the King 's Right and the Right of his Heirs c. To which he returns That we dont swear to keep them in the Throne Right For some Mens practises would make one believe we swore to throw them out as soon as we had an Opportunity But the keeping our Prince in the Throne is sometimes impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion Does it therefore follow that we must joyn such a prosperous Rebellion and support it with our Interest Is it the Meaning of the Oath that we should desert our Prince in his Distress and refuse him when he has most occasion for our Service If Subjects should swear with such Declarations as these there are few Princes would thank them for their solemn Security I grant it 's sometimes impossible for us to keep our Prince in Possession against a Rebellion But certainly we ought not to follow a Multitude to do Evil. We ought to stand upon the Reserve and not fortifie the Rebels by our Revolt Soldiers don't swear That they will always get the Victory for that may be out of their Power But if they endeavour to debauch the Fidelity of the Army and make seditious Harrangues to defame the General they very much misbehave themselves Much less is it agreeable to change their sides upon the loss of a Pass or a Battel 'T is true upon the Prospect of an Exchange they may sometimes submit to be made Prisoners of War But if their Surrender will not be accepted without translating their Allegiance they ought rather to carry their Honour and Honesty into the other World than take their Life upon such scandalous Conditions To this Firmness in Loyalty not only Christians but Heathens upon whom Virtue and Bravery had made any considerable Impression always thought themselves obliged What the Doctor adds
this is one of the Crowns Prerogatives The Royal Style is for very good Reasons an incommunicable indivisible Right and cannot be given to another without taking it from the true Owner And if Stealing is Breeding it 's time to have done This puts me in mind of what my Lord Bacon observes concerning the giving wrong Names to Things which he terms Idola Fori which he tells us is one of the principal Causes that Sciences are so often disturbed and the Understandings of Men so much perplexed And doubtless where the Matter relates to Conscience and Morality the dressing up an uncreditable Character in the Habit of Reverence and Dignity is very apt to draw a false Idea upon the Mind and disorder the Practise of the Generality And if the Doctor pleases to look into the Statute Book and Parliament Rolls he will find our own Legislators of the same Mind For there the Three Henrys of Lancaster though they had considerable Advantages above other de Facto Men are called pretensed Kings and their Reigns Usurpations and Henry the Fourth is Styled Earl of Derby The same cautiousness of Expression we shall find in the Case of Richard the Third and Lady Iane Grey who notwithstanding their Possession of the Crown are attainted of High-Treason and mentioned in the Style of Subjects And if we consult the Scripture we shall find the Royal Style never given to Usurpers For though Asa's Mother and Ester are called Queens notwithstanding the first was but Dowager and the other had no more than a Matrimonial Royalty Yet Athaliah with her Six years Mis-rule is never allowed this Title either in holy Writ or by Iosephus I grant Hushai in his Salutation of Absalom was a very mannerly Person and cryed God save the King God save the King And told him moreover That he was a Providential Monarch and chosen by the Lord and all the People of Israel But then we are to observe That Hushai acted the part of a Deserter all this while and spoke the Language of Rebellion But in all other places where the History speaks the Words of the inspired Writer Absalom is never called King though David is mentioned as such when his Fortunes were at the lowest Ebb. If it 's Objected That Absalom was not sufficiently raised for this Title I shall prove afterwards which at present I desire the Reader would take for granted that Absalom had more Advantages than the present Dispute requires That he did not only Administer the regal Power but was likewise Settled upon the Doctor 's Principles and ought to have been entirely obeyed If it 's said That Abimeleck is called King I answer That there was at that time no lawful Prince Dispossessed and Claiming against him And therefore though he unjustly seized the Government yet since there was no rightful Competitor Possession gave him a Title both to the Name and Thing But to support an Usurper in his Majesty the Doctor says He is King indeed while he administers the Regal Power How can that be when it 's supposed in the Dispute That he has neither Legal nor Divine Authority Fourthly We must Pray for an Unsettled Prince that is an Usurper in his own Sense under the Name and Title of King Why so Because the Doctor has lead the the way I wish that is not the main Reason However he gives Two others 1. Because we are bound to pray for all in Authority which is more than an Usurper especially in this Condition can pretend to For to give him legal Right is a contradiction in Terms And as for Divine Authority the Doctor can allow him none of that till he is thoroughly Settled His 2. Reason why we should pray for him as King is because he has Power to do a great deal of Good or a great deal of Harm Now upon this Score we might pray for many more Kings than Iulius Cesar found in Kent There is a certain Person that shall be nameless for whom I hope the Doctor does not pray under the Title of King who has it in his Power to do a great deal of Good and in his Will a great deal of Harm as the Indians are very sensible and order their Devotions accordingly As for his Direction That we must take care to do it in such Terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed Prince it is contradictious and impracticable For First This dividing our Prayers between Two contesting Princes is to split our Duty into halfs and obliges us to Two opposite Allegiances which he condemns For certainly Prayers for the King are one part of the Subjects Duty especially of those of the Doctors Function Secondly His Advice is impracticable For the Proclaming him King to the People is a great injury to the Dispossessed Prince And as the Doctor well observes His very Possession of the Throne and every Act of Authority he does is against the Interest of the King de Iure And therefore such a Prayer cannot be Justified unless we pray to be rid of him Thus I have considered his main Principles The remainder of his Book being most of it consequences from these intermixed with Repetitions and naked Affirmations will go off with less trouble He observes That the taking away the Distinction between Rightful and Usurped Powers gives the most intelligible account of the Original of Government This he attempts by Induction and endeavours to prove that Government take it which way you will is not to be Explained upon a Foundation of legal Right He begins with Paternal or Patriarchal Authority And says That no Man had Authority either to give it away or usurp it I easily agree with the Doctor That no Man had Authority to usurp Paternal Power or any other But why it might not be fairly parted with is not altogether so plain The Doctor knows Emancipation was frequently practised among the Romans and allowed by their Laws This was no other than a Resignation of Fatherly Authority into the hands of the Child Indeed to chain a Man thus inseparably to his Right is in effect to take away the Advantage of it For it bars him the Liberty of disposing of his own and makes him a Slave to that of which he should be Master But suppose a Father can't give away his Authority I hope the Doctor will permit him to leave it behind him when he dyes Now this is sufficient for the Patriarchal Scheme For by this Hypothesis Adam and the other Patriarchs who had Sovereign Dominion from God left their Jurisdiction to go by Descent to their Heirs who were Lords not only of their immediate Brethren but of all the remoter Branches of the younger Families So that here is no need of the Resignation of Paternal Power For the successive Conveyance of Original Authority to the Heirs or reputed Heirs of the first Head is as much as this Hypothesis requires This is the
and at the same time to deny the Duties consequent upon it is to say that we are resolved not to render to all their Dues notwithstanding the common Reason of Mankind and the Apostles Command to the contrary But he the legal Prince does not and can't Govern If that is none of his own Choice it ought not to be alledged to his Prejudice If nothing but the Disobedience of his Subjects hinders him from Governing it 's unreasonable for them to plead their own Crime in Discharge of their Allegiance and to make a Privilege of Rebellion His next Answer has nothing new in it excepting an Admonition to all Princes to be upon their good Behaviour For they must take some care to preserve their Crowns by good Government i. e. they must govern as the Doctor and the rest of their Loyal Subjects think fit Which Courtly Advice must end in an Appeal to the judicious Mobb and make the Vulgar the last Resort of Justice For these being the Majority ought not to be denied the common Privilege of examining the Actions of their Sovereign But what is the Penalty the Doctor lays upon Princes if they don't give Satisfaction Why then their Subjects are allowed to stand Neuter and not to maintain them so much as in Possession Just now the Doctor told us That the Duty of the Subject was to obey the Laws of the Prince in Possession Some of which Laws provide expresly for the Defence of his Person Crown and Dignity Now to allow this Priviledge to an Usurper and deny it to a lawful Prince in Possession amounts to little less then asserting That Justice ought to be Discountenanced and that a bad Title is better than a good one But is the Doctor sure the People are at Liberty not to assist a Prince when he does not please them Are they not bound to defend a Divine Right which he grants is never parted from Possession Is not God's Authority in a bad Prince supposing he was really such as much as in a good one If not Dominion is founded in Grace and so we are gotten off from Thomas Hobs to Iohn of Leyden and Knipperdolling And though the Doctor was not very sure the Subjects are bound to defend an unacceptable Prince in his Throne yet a little time has better informed him For Pag. 29. he grants it's Reasonable enough to venture our Lives and Fortunes to defend the King's Person and Government while he is in Possession This I mention that the Doctor may have the Honour to confute himself Neu quisquam Ajacem possit superare nisi Ajax However at present he will not be thus Liberal For if the Subjects have a bad Prince who notoriously violates their Rights What follows Then to be even with him they may be bad Subjects and notoriously violate his Rights In such a Case if he cannot defend himself and fight an Army singly Let him go though we are bound to support him by the Fundamental Laws of Government in General and of the Constitution in Particular But what if he Strikes at Religion If he does it 's able to bear the Blow without any Damage A Man might as well undertake to stab a Spirit as to destroy Religion by Force We can never lose our Faith unless it 's thrown away by Negligence or surrendred by Treachery Religion is out of the reach of Injury and invulnerable like the Soul in which it 's seated For it 's not in the Power of Violence to rifle our Understandings or ravish the Freedom of our Wills Religion instead of being Weakned rises upon an Opposition and grows more Glorious by Sufferings as is manifest from the History of the Primitive Christians I don't mention this as if we lately either felt or indeed had any reason to fear any thing like a Persecution but only to shew the Sophistry of the Doctor 's Argument For if the Religion of the Subject be out of the Prince's Power to alter it ought not to be pretended as a Reason of Deserting him Besides to pretend Religion for the breach of Oaths and Natural Allegiance is the greatest Reproach we can lay upon it and makes one part of it to contradict and destroy another And though the Doctor says It 's a little too much for the Subjects to venture their Lives to keep a Prince in the Throne to oppress them That is a Prince the People are not pleased with for if they don't fancy him they will either say he is or will be an Oppressor Now if Allegiance depends upon the Qualities of the Prince and his Subjects were made Judges of his Behaviour as the Doctor will have it it 's impossible for any Government to continue At this rate the Ignorance and Levity of some the Disgust and Ambition of others would soon argue themselves into Liberty and the State into Confusion And therefore Obedience is unconditionally bound upon us by the Laws of Nature which are part of the Constitution of this Realm as the Judges agree in Calvin's Case This Faith and Ligeance of the Subject is as they observe proprium quarto modo to the King omni soli semper and by consequence forecloses all Objections against Rigour and Maleadministration Allegiance as all the Judges resolve it in the Case of the Post nati follows the natural Person of the King and by consequence must continue as long as his natural Person is in being without any respect to his Moral Qualifications But a Subject and a Soldier are two things and a Man may be the first without any Obligation from the Laws of God or Man of being necessarily the latter To this I answer That though every Subject needs not be a Soldier by Profession yet whenever his Prince is in danger and requires his Service he is bound by the Laws of God and Man to fight for him I doubt not but the Doctor is so far of Sir Edward Coke's Opinion That the Duty of the Fifth Commandment extends to the King who is Pater Patriae Now one part of the Duty we owe our Parents is to defend their Persons from Violence Which Assistance seems due a fortiori to the Father of our Country who has the Jurisdiction over all private Families and from whom both our selves and our Parents have received Protection Solomon tells us where the Word of a King is there is Power And if the Subject is bound to give a general Obedience to his Prince then certainly he is not at Liberty to decline his Service when his Crown and Person are concerned The same Conclusion is plainly implied in our blessed Saviour's Answer to Pilate If my Kingdom were of this World then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iews From which Words this Proposition naturally follows That Subjects as Subjects are bound to hazard their Persons in Defence of their Prince Indeed this Doctrine stands in little need of the
with the former And though I don't pretend to know what the Doctor is hatching in his Heart yet I 'm afraid he has slipped into this damnable and damned Opinion of the Spencers for he has ventured to affirm with great assurance That the Diminution of the Crown and the Personal Right of the King are very different Things Now if they are so very different it is because they are separable from each other And if the Crown may be diminished without injuring the Personal Rights of the King then the Rights of the Crown are not tyed to the King's Person That is in the Spencer's Language Allegiance the great Prerogative of the Crown follows the King 's Politick Capacity not his Personal and is due not to any Hereditary Advantage of Blood but may be challenged by Possession and Power especially if the Administration be cast into a Monarchical Figure From these Observations 't is evident That to maintain and defend the King's Person Crown and Dignity implyes an endeavour to restore him For not to repeat what has been said already the Crown is in construction of Law the Ius regnandi So that to swear to maintain his Crown imports an Obligation to defend his Right which is inseparably annexed to his Person and runs parallel with his Life unless he resigns From whence I conclude against the Doctor and Republican Saunders That in the Sense of the Oath to restore is necessarily included in Maintaining But possibly we are not aware what a monstrous Contents the Oaths of Allegiance will be big with if restoring is included in maintaining For then besides several other terrible things which I shall consider afterwards We swear it seems to disturb all Governments and raise Rebellions if we can to restore our King which are such absurd and unreasonable Engagements That had they been expressed in the Oath no Man in his wits would have taken it I think so too as the Doctor has represented the Matter But then before he drew such tragical Inferences it had not been amiss for him to have proved that there is any Government to disturb under a Usurpation For by way of Quere I would gladly know how there can be a Government without any Authority to administer Acts of Government And how a Man can have any Authority who has no Right to ground it upon or to give him a publick Character If Allegiance as we have seen is inseparably tyed to the Person of the King one would think there was no danger of a Crime in the performance of it Unless we should stretch it beyond the duration of his Person and appear from him after he was dead If the asserting the Laws and supporting the Constitution and engaging in the Cause of Justice Is a raising of Rebellion the Names of things are very much altered of late and if the things are not so too some Persons I fear are in no good Condition But to insist upon this no farther I believe the Doctor forgot that this extravagant Oath of Allegiance cannot be refused by any Person except Women Covert of the Age of Eighteen Years without incurring a premunire Now by the Iudgement of a premunire a Man is thrown out of the King's Protection And his Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels are forfeited to the King And his Body is to remain in Prison at the King's Pleasure Now a Man though he had no higher aim than Self-preservation might better venture the inconvenience of following his King into Banishment and run the risque of the rest then have this Act executed upon him For these are present and severe Punishments whereas the other are but contingent and remote Misfortunes at the worst So that no Man in his wits who considers the danger of declining this Oath would scruple the taking it though it was drawn up with all that Strictness of Loyalty which startles the Doctor And though he has dressed up this Oath in frightful Colours and given it an unkind parting Blow which looks like a sign that there was more of Convenience than Inclination in their former Correspondence yet if we take off the disguise and wipe off the marks of the Doctor 's hard usage we shall find it of a Complexion agreeable enough that it obliges us to no more than what was our Duty before and implied in our natural Allegiance and that the Contents of it are both reasonable and necessary to the Support of Government The Dr. proceeds to remove another Difficulty contained in the Oath of Allegiance viz. we swear to the King's Heirs and lawful Successors who are not in actual Possession and therefore that must signifie to give them Possession Right If the King dies Possessed of the Crown we must swear to maintain the Succession otherwise it seems not But 1. I can't conceive what Security this construction of the Oath can give to an Hereditary Monarchy Yes very much says the Doctor For if the King dies Possessed we swear to maintain the Succession and to own none but the true Heir But how long is this Maintenance and Owning to last Truly no longer then his Sword can challenge it If he gets Possession we are for him and so we are for any body else For if Iack Straw steps before him and proves lucky in his Events the true Heir must be contented to live upon the Metaphysical Dyet of legal Right without any Subjects to support him And thus the Oath of Succession when prudently interpreted resolves it self into this kind Interpretation That we solemnly swear to be unalterably true to our own Ease and Convenience and to adhere Religiously to the nimblest and strongest Party And for fear this should not satisfie the lawful Successor we swear moreover if you please not to make it our Act to set up any Prince who is not the right Heir True For there may be danger in doing otherwise especially when the King dyes possessed For then the Posse of the Kingdom is usually conveyed immediately to the right Heir and his Interest is much the strongest We ought therefore to be faithful to him when it 's unsafe for us to desert and assist him as long as he is able to live without us 'T is granted we are not to be too busy at first in setting aside the Succession for fear of burning our Fingers But if any ambitious Person is strong enough to make a Break in the Line we may lawfully comply with the Intrusion So that it seems we must not form an unjust Interest nor set out with it at first for possibly it may sail us But when it has gathered Strength by the Conjunction of more Wickedness and improved into a thriving Condition we may fix and support it fairly enough I perceive some people out of a tenderness to Society won't give us leave to break our Fast with Rebels for fear we should ruffle our Concerns and miscarry before Noon but when the day is once
their own we have Liberty to come in at the Evening and sup with them and may wipe our mouths after all with the same good Conscience the Woman did in the Proverbs But truly I think those who won't venture to ride the Chace ought not to be admitted to the eating of the Venison However if we examine the matter critically it 's hard to tell which sort of Revolters the early or the later ought to be preferred They have each of them their peculiar Excellencies The one has more Courage the other more Caution and both the same Staunchness of Principles Ambition is predominant in the first Fear and Covetousness in the latter who is such a flexible apprehensive Creature that whoever can command his Interest may likewise command his Actions and fright him out or into any thing at their Pleasure I observe 2. That this Construction of the Doctor 's determines against K. Charles II. as fully as is possible For he was driven into Banishment before he could gain his Right And the Rump and Cromwel mounted the Seat of Government And the King his Father dyed dispossessed of the Crown So that by the Doctor 's Reasoning the People were not only disingaged from the Successionary part of the Oath but were bound to stand by the Commonwealth and oppose the Restauration If any one questions K. Charles I. his being dispossessed at his Death he may please to consider That this Prince was not only Defeated in the Field and made Prisoner by his Rebellious Subjects But there was a High Court of Justice erected to try him for Treason The Supream Power and Authority was declared to be in the Commons of England And Monday 29. Ian. 1648. the Day before his Majesties Martyrdom The Commons in the Name of the present Parliament enact That in all Courts of Law Justice c. And in all Writs Grants c. instead of the Name Style Test or Title of the King heretofore used that from thenceforth the Name Style c. of Custodes Libertatis Angliae shall be used and no other In short the King's Name was enacted to be struck out in all judicial Proceedings in the date of the Year of our Lord in Juries in Fines in Indictments for Trespass and Treason From these unquestionable Matters of Fact it 's manifest beyond contradiction That the King had not so much as the Shadow of Authority left him but was perfectly out of Possession before he lost his Life I shall draw one Advantage more from this Citation and so dismiss it The Inference is this That Treason lies against the King though out of Possession For the Regecides who were not comprehended in the Act of Indemnity were excepted for Sentencing to Death or Signing the Instrument of the horrid Murther or being Instrumental in taking away the Life of King Chales I. For this Reason They are left to be proceeded against as Traytors to his late Majesty according to the Laws of England If the Doctor desires another Instance that Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession he may receive Satisfaction from the first 12 Years Reign of King Charles the Second For in this Act of Indemnity it 's said That by occasion of great Wars and Troubles that have for many Years past been in this Kingdom divers of his Majesties Subjects are fallen into and be obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties And to the intent that no Crime committed against his Majesty or Royal Father shall hereafter rise in Judgment or be brought in Question against any of them to the least Endamagement of them either in Lives Liberties or Estates his Majesty is pleased that it may be Enacted That all Treasons Misprisions of Treasons acted or done since the 1. Ian. 1637. to the 24. of Iune 1660. shall be Pardoned Released c. From this Act we may observe 1. That though the King was newly restored at the making of this Act it 's said notwithstanding Divers of his Subjects not his Fathers had for many Years past been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties c. which is a plain Argument that as his Reign was dated from the Death of K. Ch. I. so they looked upon the People of England as his Subjects from that time and that his Authority to punish was entire during his Dispossession otherwise they could not have been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties for acting against him 2. The King pardoned all Crimes committed against Himself Which would have risen up in Judgment and Endamaged his Subjects in their Lives Liberties or Estates Some of which Crimes as they can amount to no less than Treason so they must relate to the time of the Usurpation because the King was but very lately entered upon the actual Administration of the Government Neither do we read of any Treasons committed against the King from the 29 th of May to the 24 th of Iune which was the utmost term to which the Pardon extended 3. All Treasons Misprision of Treason c. excepting those excepted are Pardoned from Ianuary 1. 1637. to Iune 24. 1660. Now if Treason did not lye against a King though out of Possession this Pardon should have reached no farther then 1648. because then K. Charles I. was Murthered and his then Majesty deprived of his Kingdoms till the Year 1660. The General Pardon I say ought to have stopped at 1648. unless we can imagine the King intended to rank those among Traytors who appeared for his own Interest and to pardon the Treasons committed against Cromwel and the Rump which is a Supposition sufficiently Romantick especially if we observe That the pretended Indictments of High Treason against any of the usurped Powers are considered by themselves in the next Chapter and pronounced null and void And the Styles of the Usurpation Keepers of the Liberties of England Protectors c. notwithstanding their plenary Possession are declared to be most Rebellious Wicked Trayterous and Abominable and Detested by this present Parliament And why all these hard Words Because these Names of Authority when misplaced Were opposite in the highest Degree to his Majesties most just and undoubted Right That the Doctor may not complain for want of Evidence in this Matter I shall cite him a Proclamation of both Houses for Proclaiming King Charles the Second Dated May 8. 1660. It begins thus Although it can be no way doubted but that his Majesties Right and Title to his Crowns and Kingdoms is and was every way COMPLEATED by the Death of his most Royal Father c. without the Ceremony or Solemnity of a Proclamation Yet since the Armed Violence of these many Years last past has hitherto deprived us of any such Opportunity wherein we might express our Loyalty and Allegiance to his Majesty We therefore c. Now if the King 's Right was every way Compleated at his Fathers Death and the Allegiance of the Subject was due to him before his Restauration than
Treason was committable against him for Treason is nothing but a high Breach of Allegiance But this Proclamation is so plain that there needs no farther Comment upon it And thus I have made it appear from the Resolution of all the Judges in two distinct and celebrated Cases by Proclamation and Acts of Parliament that Treason lyes against the King though out of Possession Which performance the Doctor is pleased to call Proving the Point and looked upon it as an impossible Undertaking The Doctor 's next Observation begins very obligingly for the Crown And seems to insinuate that the Subjects need not disturb themselves with Fears and Jealousies For in case a Prince should be enclined to stretch his Prerogative He can't hurt them unless they will betray their own Liberties and venture to be Hanged for it And who would venture an Execution only for Robbing himself There is no fear the Majority of the English Nation especially should ever be guilty of such an Extravagance So that now one would think all was safe enough But it happens quite otherwise For the Doctor flyes out unexpectedly against Arbitrary Power makes indecent Reflections and gives all Princes a Second Admonition to take warning And after this sit of Schooling is over he argues thus That if the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige Subjects to defend a Prince in the Exercise of an Arbitrary Power He thinks it much less obliges them to restore such a Prince To this granting the Doctors supposition for Disputes sake I answer That notwithstanding the Subjects are not to act for the promoting of Arbitrary Power yet they are bound to support an Arbitrary Prince supposing they have one This the Doctor must grant unless he will maintain That a Sovereign and unaccountable Power may be Forfeited by Maladministration which I think is a Contradiction For all Forfeitures imply a Legal and Superiour Court to take Cognizance of the Cause and pronounce Sentence which cannot be supposed in this Case without making a Superiour to a Supreme And if Sovereign Power is Unforfeitable than the Right of him who is vested with it must always remain And if so the Subjects are bound to support him in the Exercise of it though it may be sometimes over-strained into Rigour Let us try the Doctor 's Argument once more The Subjects are not obliged to defend a Prince in the Exercise of Arbitrary Power They are not bound to maintain the Excesses of a Prince's Prerogatives therefore they may deny him his just Rights They are not bound to give him more than his Due therefore they may give him less or take all away from him 'T is a fault to break the Laws in Favour of the Crown therefore we may break them for Rebellion Where lyes the Equity and Logick of these Propositions A less Master of Thinking than the Doctor would have found out the Distinction between Arbitrary and Regal Power and concluded that our Obligations not to promote the one did not discharge us from supporting the other His Inference That the making and receiving Addresses of Lives and Fortunes is supposed to signifie some other Defence than the Oath of Allegiance obliged the People to is not Mathematically drawn For may not Men make a Recognition of their Duty and give fresh Assurances to perform that which they were obliged to before What is more common in Religion and Civil Conversation than to renew former Engagements by repeated Promises and Solemnities of Action These Addresses of Loyalty refresh the Obligation of the Subject and the good Opinion of the Prince And therefore it 's no wonder they are kindly received though they present him with nothing but his own I don't mean that the People have no Property in their Lives and Fortunes but only that they are bound to expose and resign them to the Publick i. e. their Prince's Interest when Occasion requires The Doctor remarks farther That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath and therefore the Defence or Maintenance we swear is National that is to joyn with our fellow Subjects in defending the King's Person and Crown But in case the body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths and depose their King and drive him out of his Kingdom and set up another Prince in his room it 's worth considering whether some private Men are still bound by their Oath And immediately concludes certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath for it is a national not a private Defence we Swear I confess the Doctor has stated the Matter of Fact notably enough about Absolving Deposing Driving out Setting up c. But the Consequence he infers from thence I cannot understand for these following Reasons First because there is nothing in the Form of the Oath to countenance this Interpretation but the contrary For by the Oath of Allegiance every Person Swears to bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and his Heirs c. and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power Whence I observe 1. That the Swearing in the Singular Number and without Conditions of Assistance is an Argument that every individual Person is bound to unalterable Fidelity to the Crown without any Relation to or Dependance upon the Behaviour of his fellow Subjects 2. He that runs in to a Majority of Revolters does not defend the King to the uttermost of his Power For the King has neither his Counsel the Reserve of his Person nor the Example of his Constancy some or all of which might have been serviceable in their way and were in his Power to give him Nay he is so far from defending the King to the utmost of his Power that he consigns himself and all his Power into the hands of the Usurper to be employed against his lawful Sovereign which is as direct a Contradiction to the Words and Intention of the Oath as can possibly be imagined Farther the Oath declares I do believe and am in Conscience resolved That neither the Pope nor any Person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof But the Doctor is of another mind and concludes That when the great Body of the Nation has absolved themselves their Neighbours are absolved too I suppose the Doctor will not quibble upon the Word Person and argue that though the Pope nor any other Person has any Power to absolve us yet the People may because they imply another Number and include a Plurality of Persons If he objects in this manner the latter end of the Sentence is sufficient to disappoint him For there we renounce all Dispensations to the contrary Which Clause is levelled against Popular as well as Papal Plenitude of Power and comprehends the VVestminster-Infallibility as much as that of Rome Lastly all these things are sworn according to the express Words spoken and according to the plain and common Sense and Understanding of the same Words and without any Equivocation or
Irregularities committed by the Subjects towards each other which remains uncensured and unrectified by the Courts of Justice and therefore why should not Providence interpose by way of Supplement and determine private Property by Events as well as the Dominions of Princes Subjects by their Immoralities and Mismanagement deserve oftentimes to be chastized and dispossessed of their Fortunes Why therefore should there not be a Court of Events set up to assert the Soveraignty of Providence and to supply the defects of Human Justice in one Case as well as in the other But Providence has no Effect upon such Personal Rights Is it because they are Personal Then it can have no Effect upon the Crown for that surely belongs to the King's Person The Dr. cannot deny that God is supreme Lord of private Estates as well as of Kingdoms and that He disposes them according to his pleasure And since He orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private Persons it follows by inevitable consequence that whatever any man can catch is God Almighty's Gift and then surely there is no reason to question the Title God in erecting Courts of Judicature did not intend to make the Subjects any more than the Prince independent of his own Jurisdiction or to exclude Himself from any part of the Government of the World And therefore if all publick Changes and Revolutions of Kingdoms are certain Signs of God's Approbation and fortified with his Authority we ought to conclude the same with respect to inferiour Concerns If the Successes of Violence always draws Allegiance after them and translates the Authority from the Rightful Prince to the Usurper I see no reason why they should not have the same consequence upon private Property for that Cause which can produce a greater Effect may no doubt produce a less of the same kind If Providential Events can unsettle the Crowns of Princes 't is strange they should not have an equal Jurisdiction over things of an inferiour value If this Principle is sufficient to overturn the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom and to transferr the Prerogatives and Royalties of Government I wonder how any petty private Rights can stand before it Have private Rights a firmer Establishment than the publick And is the Property of Crowns more precarious and slenderly guarded than that of a Cottage If Events can give an Island or a Continent to every Victorious Usurper why should a more modest Robber who makes himself Master of a small Sum of Money be denied the same Privilege of his Industry or Courage This is great Partiality and by the Dr's Reasoning a Confining Providence with a witness and fettering it with Courts of Human Justice So that God can't dispose of the Property of the Subject unless the Judges and Jury are pleased to consent to it The truth is the Dr. has made the Condition of Princes very lamentable As for Subjects when they are injured by Theft or Intrusion their Property remains entire and they have the Remedy of Law to relieve them But Princes must not pretend to these Securities when they are once disseized though never so unaccountably their Authority is out of doors and they must sit down by their Misfortune without Redress They are to Govern only durante bene placito no longer than the Sence and Conscience of the People will give them leave two Qualities which seldom fall to the share of the majority And which is an harder Consideration than all the rest it 's their Honourable Relation to God Almighty which puts them into these circumstances of disadvantage Had they not had a Commission from Him their Right had been fenced as well as those of other Men but their being His Ministers to Rule the World has cut them off from the common Privilege This must needs be a mortifying Consideration to Princes and make their Charge a very dangerous Undertaking Who that could live any other way would wear a Crown at this rate Who would change the Title of Private Property and throw himself out of the protection of the Law for such a glittering Uncertainty Who would quit a certain and solid Interest and expose himself to all the Humours and Accidents the Wickedness and Extravagance of Human Nature is capable of producing 'T is certainly much more eligible to have the Security of stated Justice than to stand to the Courtesie of Events and lye at the Mercy of Ambition and the Madness of People But Such Disputes which are too big for a Legal Decision for the decision of which God has erected no Vniversal Tribunal upon Earth He has reserved to his own Iudgment What sort of Dispute does the Dr. mean and between whom does it lye Is it between the Lawful Prince and the Usurper If so the very Names of the Parties are sufficient to end the Controversie For certainly there is no need of disputing whether Right is Right or Wrong is Wrong The Dr. I fear to perplex the Argument seems to perplex the Title and disputes as if it was equally doubtful on both sides and then I confess Events i. e. Possession might determine it But this cannot be supposed without altering the state of the Question For the Dr. has put the Case at the worst and reasoned upon the Supposition of Vsurpation and owns That his Principles oblige him to do so And would our Author have a Vniversal Tribunal erected to overthrow Universal Justice to dispossess and exterminate Lawful Princes and determine the Cause in Favour of Violence Well! Possibly the Dr. means this Dispute is between God and the Lawful Prince 'T is for the Correction of Princes and the Transferring of Kingdoms Touching the transferring of Kingdoms there are several ways as I have already observed of maintaining the Divine Soveraignty in this point without making any Difficulties in Providence and sapping the Foundations of Common Right And as for the Correcting of Princes God does not stand in need of Injustice and Rebellion for this purpose He can execute this Discipline without the necessary Wickedness of the Subject He can afflict Princes in their Families and in their Persons He may likewise suffer them to be over-run by Violence without giving any Approbation or Authority to the Oppression As he suffers the Devil to do a great deal of Mischief though He neither gives him a Commission nor ratifies his Acts. Besides there will be an Vniversal Tribunal erected at the last day where Princes must appear as well as meaner persons and where mighty Men if they have done amiss will be mightily tormented Thus we see Kingdoms may be transferred Princes punished and God's Prerogative asserted without returning to the Doctrine of Events These Expedients are plain and lye easie upon the Understanding and answer all the Difficulties objected by the Dr. without running us upon greater Thus Kings who are only less than God are left to his Sentence and Correction Whereas the Dr's Scheme puts them in the Power
is not Hereditary or the Royal Line is extinct to the Kingdom there Possession of Power makes a King From whence it follows that where there is a Regular Succession established and an undoubted Title there meer Possession of Power does not make a King If the Dr. can confute this Reasoning he may remember it is his own But in my opinion it is unanswerable and so I shall leave it and proceed to the 3 d. Which he calls the True Answer to this Text of Hosea by which Character we may understand what he thought of his two former In this Answer he affirms That Israel was originally a Theocracy he must mean after the Revolt of the Ten Tribes as well as Judah and though God at their request allowed them to have Kings yet He reserved the appointment of them to himself and appointed Jeroboam to be their first King Therefore the fault the Prophet taxes them with is their omitting to consult God for his Nomination after Jeroboam 's and Jehu 's Line were cut off for these were the only Kings named by God But by the Dr's Argument the Ten Tribes should have consulted God about a new King immediately after Ieroboam's death because his Line was cut off for the Crown was promised to his Posterity upon condition of his own good Behaviour which Condition was notoriously broken by him I might likewise observe that it 's very unlikely the Prophet Hosea who lived so many Generations after Ieroboam and Nadab his Son should charge the Children of Israel with an Omission at so great a distance of Time which no Mortal then living could possibly beguilty of But to come closer to the Dr. The Theocracy was determined when Baasha made himself King as the Learned Dr. Spencer has proved to satisfaction The Theocracy says he was mightily weakened and in a manner expiring under Saul and David but was quite as it were extinguished under Solomon When the Kingdom was made successive and the Ark fixed in the Temple and the Vrim supposed to be no longer Oracular Then it was plain God had given up the Government and resigned the political Supremacy to the Kings of Israel If the Reader is desirous to see this Argument managed at length he may consult the Author for to avoid tediousness I have cited him but briefly Indeed I need not make much search after Authorities for the Dr. in his Case of Resistance speaks as home as one would desire he there observes That after Saul was chosen King the Government ordinarily descended not by God's immediate choice but by the Right of Succession though now he is pleased to contradict it And having given an account how the Face and Motions of the Government were changed and that the Jewish Monarchs in their Councils in their State and Defence were conformable to their Neighbours He adds Therefore the Government of Israel by Kings was like other Human Government liable to all the defects and miscarriages which other Governments are whereas while the Government was immediately in God's Hands the Administration as He goes on was under a quite different management So that we see the Dr. has given up the Theocracy rather sooner than the Learned Author I quoted before Now if the Theocracy was determined before Israel and Iudah were parted into two Kingdoms we have farther Reasons to believe it had its period after their division especially in the Kingdom of Israel for in that Kingdom there was neither Tabernacle nor Temple nor Ark there was no regular authorized Priesthood no Vrim and Thummim no Symbols of God's Presence excepting the Calves at Dan and Bethel which were unacceptable to Him 'T is true they had Prophets sometimes sent them so had the Ninevites and other neighbouring Nations where they were very far from being under God's immediate Government And therefore though the Theocracy should have continued till this time in the Kingdom of Iudah we have no reason to believe the Ten Tribes in the same condition for they wanted the Signs of the Theocratical Superintendency the Organs of Inspiration and the Ministers by which God was wont to execute his Orders and direct the State Now what does the Dr. bring to confute himself and the Reverend Dean and the Inference I have drawn from them Why nothing but that Ieroboam and Iehu were made Kings by God's immediate Designation But this Remark does not come up to the point for Nebuchadnezzar had several Countries given him by God's express Designation and yet the Babylonian Monarchy was never taken for a Theocracy The Dr's next Essay is to prove That this Doctrin of Allegiance to the present Powers is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrin of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience and therefore both must be true or both false This Argument he knows some men will not like Which is no wonder for I am pretty sure it 's no good one as will appear by examining his Proof He tells us Passive-Obedience is founded on this Principle That God invests Kings with his Authority True God does invest them with his Authority when they are either appointed by his immediate Designation or claim their Soveraignty by the Constitution of the Country for God declares That the Higher Powers are his Ministers and commands us to submit our selves to every Ordinance of Man for his sake and confirms Human Laws with his own Authority So that where the Laws make it Treason to resist the Prince there the Gospel makes it Damnation And upon this Bottom the Doctrin of Non-Resistance stands But it does not follow from hence that Illegal Powers are vested with God's Authority Yes says our Author this Principle equally proves that all Kings who have received a Soveraign Authority from God and are in the actual Administration of it must be obeyed and not resisted But here the Dr. takes the matter in dispute for granted he supposes a King and an Usurper to be Terms equivalent he confounds the Notion of Authority and Force and inferrs a Divine Right from the actual Administration of Power Now I have made it appear that King is the Name of Right not of meer Force that Authority and Power are things vastly different that Usurpers have no Authority from God neither soveraign nor unsoveraign and that their actual Administration of Government is no more an Evidence of a Commission from Heaven than any other Success of private Injustice Therefore unless he can disprove what I have urged upon these Heads there is no danger of his making Passive-Obedience dependent upon his new Scheme To the remainder of this Paragraph I have given an Answer already which needs not be repeated He complains the Old-Church-of England Principles limit the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Injured Subjects for it seems God has no way to do this but either to turn the Princes Hearts or to take them out of the World Very well And is not
disobliging our great Patrons of Liberty Nay he is so far from condemning such singular Casuists that he seems to argue in Justification of them For They says he could not think that Oaths which were made and imposed for the Preservation of a Protestant Prince and the Protestant Rights and Liberties of Church and State could oblige them to defend and maintain a Prince in his Vsurpation as they thought upon both The Dr. by his wording it would almost make an ignorant man believe that the Protestant Religion was the Supreme Power in England and that we were Bound to support it in the Field against the King But those who will take the pains to peruse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy will see they oblige us to bear True Faith c. to the King and to defend him and his Heirs and Lawful Successors without making any Enquiry into their Creed It was never known that the Kings of England held their Crowns by the Tenure of Religion If their Claim had not been wholly founded upon Birthright and Proximity of Blood there had been no Pretence for the late Bill of Exclusion But such Absurdities as these are too gross to deserve any farther Consideration And since we are indispensably Bound to serve and defend our Prince without any regard to his Perswasion it must be a very bad Religion which teaches us to desert or oppose him There can't be a greater Reproach cast upon the Reformation than to make it give Countenance to such horrid and treacherous Practices as these What our Author means by the Protestant Rights and Liberties of the State is hard to understand for the Rights of the State are purely Secular and Civil He may as well call a Farm a Protestant Farm as give that Epithete to the Rights of the State but the word Protestant must be crammed in otherwise the Charm will not work The Dr. once more lays a great stress upon a National Submission and Consent and makes it necessary to the introducing a Settlement Now I have shewn that this Expedient must be altogether unserviceable to our Author upon his own Principles for if by whatsoever means a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God's Authority of which Power is a certain sign To what purpose is the Consent of the People required Have they the Liberty to refuse Submission to God's Authority when it produces such infallible Credentials and appears in such a demonstrative manner Besides as has been already hinted his making Submission a necessary Assistant of Power is not only a Contradiction of himself but likewise brings a farther Inconvenience along with it and makes that Absurdity which he endeavours to throw upon Hereditary Principles return upon his own for if God's Authority is not given to any Prince before a Through Settlement and this Settlement cannot be compleated without a National Submission then God as well as men is confined by Human Laws or by Human Inclinations which is as bad in making Kings which is to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People How the Dr. will disengage is best known to himself Farther I must ask him the old Question over again Whether this National Submission must be Legal or Illegal If an Illegal Submission will serve his turn this is no better than plain Force under the Disguise of a new Name 't is a violent Combination against the Laws and Rightful Governour and resolves it self into the Principles of Power If the Submission ought to be Legal he must not only prove it such but be obliged to give up the main design of his Books and dispute a point which he has declared is nothing to his present purpose However I must follow him through all the Windings of his Discourse He says Though some men dispute whether a Convention of the Estates not called by the King's Writs be a Legal Parliament yet all men must confess they are the Representatives of the Nation c. I suppose very few People besides the Dr. will dispute Whether a Convention is a Legal Parliament or not if they consider that the King's Writs are necessary to impower the People to make and return Elections And supposing they had the advantage of this Preliminary yet unless the Members take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy all their Proceedings are declared null and void by express Statutes Now if a Convention is no Legal Assembly their Deputation from the People signifies nothing it only makes them the Mouth of publick Disorder and the Illegal Representatives of the Nation And how the Dr. can oblige them by such a Character I can't imagin But the Nation can have no Representatives but such when there is no King in the Throne To make this Argument good the Dr. should have prov'd That the Throne is immoveably fixed at Whitehall That the King was Legally ejected by his Subjects That after this Retirement they sent to entreat him to return and promised a more agreeable Behaviour That upon these Submissions he refused to engage any farther and resigned up the Government into their Hands The Dr. should have proved that all this was either done or else unnecessary before he set the Nation a Representing at all Adventures As for his Flourish with the word Estates I question whether it will do him any service for Who made them Estates Does their Number and Quality make them such Then they are Estates in the Intervals of Parliament in their own Houses in a Tavern as well as at other times and places Does the Choice of the People though altogether Illegal give them the advantage of this Character If so I would gladly be informed whether every Riotous Meeting may not furnish out their proportion towards a Body of Estates to be compleated by the general Distraction of the Nation I perceive I must enquire farther I desire therefore the Dr. would tell me whether the Parliament House has any peculiar Vertue to raise private Persons into a publick Character If it has great care ought to be taken who comes into it Besides it 's worth the knowing which way this mysterious Privilege is conveyed Have we any Legislative Brick and Stone Or does the House work by way of Steams and Exhalations as the Oracle at Delphos is said to have done The Dr. I perceive does not trouble himself with these Scruples but is resolved to go on with his Submissions c. and tells us That the Consent and Submission of the Convention especially when confirmed by subsequent Parliaments is a National act Therefore I must ask him a few more Questions How a Convention can sublimate it self into a Parliament i. e. How a private and illegal Assembly can give it self the Privilege of Authority and Law Now a National Act without and against the Authority of the Constitution is to speak softly no better than a National Disorder
up for a Prince where the Supream Power is by the Constitution in the People may be lawfully killed by all or any Person of the Community And for this Conclusion he Quotes the Lex Valena among the Romans And Solon's Law at Athens which was not much different from the other And that this Doctrine concerning Tyrants might not be prejudicial to Rightful Governors under pretence of Maladministration He takes care to subjoyn That Lawful Princes where they are Supream in their Government Such as they are in France Spain England c. Are not to suffer in their Dignities Fortunes or Lives whether by Force or Formality of Iustice though they are never so flagitious and oppressive These passages I have cited from the Greeks Romans c. not that I approve of their expedient of Assassination but to show what an Aversion they had to Usurpation Alas They were perfectly to seek in the modern Doctrine of Possession They never dreamed that Violence and Right were words of the same signification Or that the continuation of an injury could give an Improvement of Title and supply the defect of the first Injustice They believed that the property of Crowns and Scepters was at least as well fixed as that of private Persons and that it was not in the Power of Violence and Treason to take it away These Observations are sufficient to prove that unless we will make St. Paul clash with St. Peter and contradict other plainâ— Texts and Inferences from Scripture Unless we will Expound the Text contrary to the Fathers run counter to the Sentiments of Mankind in general and debase Christianity below the Justice and generosity of Heathenism we must understand St. Paul's all Power of all Legal Power And therefore I think there was as little Reason as Decency in the Doctor 's making so bold with the Apostle as to say That he ought i. e. God ought to have made an express distinction between Legal and Illegal Powers otherwise no body could reasonably have understood him that he meant only the first As to the difficulties which he imagines will follow from this Interpretation viz. It will be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to be well skilled in the History and Laws of a Nation I Answer 1. That all these Inconveniences as the Doctor reckons them the Iews were liable to under the Family of David Upon which he owns the Crown was so firmly entailed that it could not be defeated by Usurpation This Entail was made by God's Appointment And does God put his own People upon all these intolerable Inconveniencies Did his infinite Wisdom fix the Government upon the most incomprehensible Basis Does God use to oblige Men to determine Disputes above their Capacity to lead them into Labyrinths of History and Perplexities of Conscience I suppose the Doctor does not imagine the Iews were all inspired with the knowledge of David's Family and of the elder Branches of it and yet we don't read they were ever at a loss about it but found the right way to their Sovereign easily enough And so doubtless they may do in other Countries without the Doctor 's Assistance It requires no great reach of Understanding to resolve all the Questions incident to this matter A Man needs not be any great Lawyer to tell whether he lives under a Monarchy or a Commonwealth It 's no difficult matter to distinguish the King from a Subject especially in a Country where the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are almost universally taken There are very few People with us so ignorant as not to know that it's Treason to take up Arms against the King And as for the Right Heir to the Crown he is generally as easily known as the Louvre or Whitehall One would have thought that since God by immediate Designation has given the Royal Authority to a particular Family and tied the Obedience of the Subject to Legal Right the Doctor would have concluded that an Adherence to Legal Right was most for the Advantage of Society And not have given us Reasonings which reflect upon the Divine Model and which suppose the Seat of Authority much more unaccountably fixed in the Iewish Government than in those of meer humane Contrivance But the Legality of Princes Titles is a great Dispute among Learned Men and how then should Unlearned Men understand them 1. He may remember that himself and the generality of the Learned in this Kingdom had not long since very different Thoughts of the present Controversy from what they now have and whether their Improvements in Learning or some other Reasons have altered their Opinion is a great Question 2. Can Unlearned Men understand nothing about which the Learned differ Then without doubt they are not bound to understand the Creed For there are and always have been a great many Learned Jews and Heathens and Hereticks who dispute about these Things Nay why should they believe any Religion at all since there are several Learned Atheists who deny it What he adds concerning the Title of the Roman Emperors which for many Ages together were either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful is of the same Complexion with the rest For 1. The Emperors Titles when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans which is the time pointed at by the Doctor and the Controversy could not be stark nought for many Ages together because at the time of the Apostle's writing the Empire itself was little more than One hundred Years standing 2. What Authority does the Doctor bring to shew the Emperor's Titles defective Why none but his own Indeed he had no other for if we consult the Historians who treat of this Argument we shall find the matter quite otherwise than our Author represents it The Reader may be satisfied from Tacitus that Augustus and Tiberius were chosen by the Consent of the People and Senate The Consuls Senate Army and People swore an Oath of Allegiance to Tiberius If part of this Author's Works had not been lost we might no doubt have received the same Testimonies from him concerning the Titles of Caligula and Claudius For Dion Cassius an Historian of unquestionable Credit speaks home to all four He tells us That the whole Senate pressed Augustus by earnest Entreaties to take the Soveraign Authority of the Empire to himself Tiberius was likewise made Emperor by the Importunity of the Senate and Consent of the People Caligula and Claudius had the same Charter for their Authority For as the same Author informs us They received the Empire by the Choice of the Senate and Army I might cite Suetonius who is full to the same purpose were not what is already alledged sufficient for the Point in hand However there is one thing in Cassius very remarkable which shews how comprehensive and absolute the Emperor's Power was For all other great Branches of Authority which lay