Power that it may be exercised but if wicked Men obstruct the exercise of it the Gift is not forfeited though the End is accidentally defeated In a Rebellion which is the Parent of Anarchy the Sovereign cannot exercise his Authority But does he then cease to be th 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is God's Ordinance Or arâ—â— the Rebels then Licensed to resist him The same is the case of Usurpation the Usurper obstructs the exercise of God's Authority and his own Wickedness can give him no Right to continue it The exercise of God's Authority is often hindred by the Wickedness of Men as for instance his Authority in a Father when his Children are Rebellious in a Husband when his Wife in a Master when his Servants are Disobedient and in a Bishop or Pastor in the Cases of Schism Usurpation and Persecution and yet still the one remainâ— a Father the other a Husband the other a Master and the other a Bishop though those are names which relate to the exercise of Authority as well as Rulers Kings and Governours 3. He insists much upon the silence of Scripture as to the distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers he affirms there is no such distinction to be found any where in Scripture and thence he argues That if St. Paul had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express Words or else no body could have reasonably understood him to intend this precept of Subjection only to legal Powers To this Objection the Doctor himself hath given a sufficient Answer What he has observed of our Savlour in his Case of Resistance is as true of his Apostle We have no Reason to suspect that Christ would alter the Rights of Sovereignty This was no part of his Commission to change the external Forms and Polities of Civil Governments He who would not undertake to divide an Inheritance between two contending Brethren Luke 12. 13 14. Can we think he would attempt any thing of that vast Consequence as the alterations of Civil Power which would have unsettled the Foundamental Constitutions of all the Governments of the World Again What Rights he found Sovereign Princes possessed of he leaves them in the quiet Possession of for had he intended to make any change in this Matter he would not have given such a general Rule to render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar ' s without specifying what those Things are And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesar ' s Right whatever is essential to the notion of Sovereign Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar ' s Right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this Matter Now say I if our Saviour or his Apostles had enjoyn'd Subjects to adhere to Usurpers against their legal Sovereigns They had altered the Rights of Soveverignty and unsettled the Fundamental Constitutions of all Governments But on the contrary they leave all Princes in the Possession of their Rights they have given 〈…〉 this general Rule that we should render them their dues and what those are they have left to the Laws of Nations to determine and whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be a Prince's Right that the Subjects must render to him for the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter And if this be good Reasoning then the point is whether Allegiance were due to Usurpers before the Gospel for if it were not the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter nor made that to be a due which before was none But the Examples of Scripture the Law and Consent of Nations which have always allowed the Resistence of Usurpers do put that out of Question and therefore supposing the Gospel has given us no distinction between rightful Princes and Usurpers that silence can be no Argument against it for the Gospel has left the Rights of Princes as it found them it requires Subjects to render them those Rights and if by the Laws of Nations Allegiance is the right of lawful Princes it is their Right also by the Gospel Where may we find in Scripture any Distinction between a true and a false Father a lawfull Husband or Master and such as usurp those Characters Yet Subjection is required to Fathers Husbands and Masters as well as to Sovereign Princes but there was no need that the Scriptures should declare that it was due only to real Fathers and to lawful Husbands and Masters or that it should give Rules to distinguish them from the Usurpers of those Authorities common sense is sufficient to inform us that such a Distinction is necessary to be made and in ordinary cases it is easie to distinguish them The Scripture requires Obedience to Parents but tells us not who they are nor distinguishes real Parents from pretended and yet no one thinks that final Obedience is due to the Usurpers of that Authority Suppose it to be in the Case of Subjection to Civil Powers the Scripture requires it but distinguishes not between lawfull Powers and Usurpers Must we therefore conclude that it requires Subjection to Usurpers And why may we not conclude alike for the Usurpers of paternal Authority Is it because Sense and Reason do agree that Usurpers must be distinguished in the one Case but not in the other But Reason tells me plainly that Obedience is not due to the Usurpers of Civil Power for he who has no Right to Power has no Right to Obedience The Foundations of Paternal and Civil Authority may be different but in both the Duty of Obedience must be founded on a Right to Obedience nothing can be due to him who has no Right as an Usurper of paternal Power has no Right so neither has the Usurper of Civil Power he has neither a legal nor natural Right and as for the Right of Providence both the Usurpers may lay an equal Claim to it for they are both advanced by the same way of Providence There is no more Reason therefore to pay Obedience to a Civil Usurper than to the Usurpers of the Power of Fathers Husbands or Masters and where there is a plain necessity of making a distinction the silence of Scripture is no Argument against it There is no express Distinction in Scripture between the legal and illegal Possessor of an Estate there are onely general prohibitions of Injury and Injustice and general Precepts of rendring every Man his Due but what Estates or Properties are due to every Man is left to the Civil Laws of Nations to determine and yet the Silence of Scripture in these points is no Argument against the Distinction of Right in private Possessions and how can it hold good against the same Distinction in respect of Sovereignty There is the like Reason and Necessity for admitting it in the one case as there is in the other if there be any difference it is on
the side of Sovereignty which is the preserver of private Property and of much greater Importance and therefore in reason ought to be better secured and the right to it be more inviolable however if there be no distinction in Scripture about the Rights of Sovereignty so neither about the Rights of Property and therefore the Silence of Scripture is of itself no Argument against it Let us suppose the Throne to be vacant and two Competitours claiming it and claiming a Right to our Allegiance how shall the Conscience of the Subject be directed in this Dispute Here the Scripture is perfectly silent and gives him no particular Directions but the Laws of the Land and the Oath of Allegiance will direct him to pay his Allegiance to the true and lawfull Heir if he knows him and the Doctour acknowledges that the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God And he acknowledges also that in such a Case we are bound to oppose the illegal and to assist the lawful Title thus far the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience though the Scripture makes no distinction between a lawful and unlawful Heir But suppose farther that the false pretender does actually usurp the Throne and the lawful Heir does still demand our Allegiance Here again we suppose the Scripture to be silent and that there is no distinction in it between rightful Princes and Usurpers and then it is evident we can have no other direction but the Law of the Land and if the Law determines our Allegiance to the rightful Heir we are certainly bound to obey the Law because it contradicts not the Laws of God But the Doctour will not allow that the Scripture is perfectly silent in this matther for he objects That the Apostle generally affirms that all Power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it he should have limited it to legal and rightfull Powers This I have answered already there is no necessity of understanding the Apostle's words universally of all the Powers that ever were are or shall be in the World it is very probable he spake onely of the Powers then in being viz. the Roman Emperours the Words will fairly allow that Construction and it is impossible to confute it And therefore since there is no necessity of understanding the words so universally as to take in all Usurpers it is evident That Text is no sufficient Rule to direct us in that Difficulty and if there is no plainer Direction in the Bible we are left only to politick Laws and if these direct us to pay Allegiance to the lawful Prince they are a Rule to us and we must regulate our Actions by them In short the Scripture directs us to render to Sovereign Powers their due and not to resist them as it directs us to pay Obedience to Parents Masters and all that have Authority over us But which are the higher Powers and who are our Parents or Masters or are invested with any Authority over us the Scripture does not determine but when there iâ— any Competition we are left to Moral Evidence to Political Laws and to the Laws of Nature and Nations to direct us and it is no imperfection in Scripture if it does not determine such Controversies if it supposes us rational Creatures and embodied in Civil Societies and under the Direction of Laws sufficient to determine them 4. The Doctor urges That if the Apostle had intended such a Distinction between rightfull Princes and Vsupers to the fulfilling of his Precept it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to that end to be well skilled in the History and Laws of Nations and to be able to judge between a pretended and real Right and to know exactly what gives a real Right But thâ—se are great Disputes among learned Men and how should unlearned Men understand them And I cannot think that the Resolutions of Conscience in such Matters at all Mankind are concerned in should depend on such Niceties as learned Men cannot agree in The Force of this Objection as far as I can apprehend it is this That learned Men who are skilled in Law and History do often differ in their Opinions of a legal Right and it cannot then be supposed that unlearned Men who are the greatest part of Mankind should be able to judge of it and therefore it cannot be a Rule to them But is not this Objection as strong against the Law of God as against the Laws of Nations If nothing can be a sufficient Rule to the unlearned which the unlearned cannot agree in Does it not plainly follow that the Scripture cannot be a Rule of Faith to the unlearned who are the greatest part of Mankind because the most learned do differ in interpreting it Is not this to say they are his own words that nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Controversie and thus we mâ—st be either Scepticks in Religion or seek an insallible Interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Arâ—â—â—â—es of Faith thus Papists Dispute against the Scripture's being the Rule of Faith and yet I think it would be unjust and uncharitable to insinuate as he does against his Adversary that the Doctour has an Inclination to Rome because his Argument looks kindly towards it But the Doctor easily eludes this Consequence I grant indeed that the Resolution of Conscience ought not to depend on such Niceties of Law and History as learned Men cannot agree about and that is a Reason why legal Rights should not be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes but is this a Reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too because some Men will dispute the plainest Texts Well but are not Law and History in many things as plain as the plainest Texts in Scripture And if those can be no Rule of Conscience because learned men do raise Disputes about them does it not follow that the plainest Texts of Scripture can be no Rule of Faith if the learned raise a Controversie about them if nothing can be a sufficient Rule which has been disputed by the learned neither Law nor History nor Scripture nor even Sense or Reason are sufficient Rules for inextricable Difficulties have been raised about them by perverse Disputers He will say that legal Right depends on the Niceties of Law and History but Articles of Faith upon plain and evident Texts of Scripture and yet even those evident Texts are many of them perplex'd by the Niceties of Criticism and the subtile Interpretations of Hereticks The Scripture evidently teaches the Divinity of Christ but the Doctor knows and no Man better that the Socinians who deny it do elude the plainest Texts and by their Skill in Criticism do wrangle them into Niceties A Rule then may be plain and sufficient though learned men do pretend it is difficult
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS Drawn from Scripture and Reason In Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE And his Vindication of it LONDON Printed in the Year M DC XCI An EXAMINATION of Dr. SHERLOCK's Case of Allegiance IT is the design of this Treatise to examine all the Arguments in Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance that are drawn from Scripture and Reason and that the state of the Controversie may be clearly understood I begin with SECT 1. The Case plainly and briefly stated HEre he complains first of the perploxing this Controversie by intermixing the dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience but is it not as much perplexed by Separating them Is not this the great Controversie between us whether Allegiance be due to those who have no legal Right to it And thus the Controversie is perplexed because it is a Controversie Then he tells us it seems unfit to dispute the Right of Princes a thing which no Government can permit to be a Question but it seems to me unfit that Religious Oaths should be broken and if Allegiance be due only to those who have a Right the dispute of Right is unavoidable and if no Government can permit it that is no Obligation upon me to be Perjur'd But such disputes will carry Men into the dark Labyrinths of Law and History and therefore the Doctor leads them into the inextricable Labyrinths of Providence Now I think that Law and History are not such dark unintelligible and uncertain Riddles as he makes them they were not designed to maze and blunder our Understandings but to rectifie and inform us about Fact and Right If History cannot enlighten us in Matters of Fact then the Ages that are past are buried in Darkness and Oblivion and all History Sacred and Profane is no better than Romance If Law be a clear and safe Rule of Conscience only to a very few why is it publish'd and enjoyn'd and enforc'd by Penalties upon the many It is a contradiction to the very nature of Law to say it cannot be a clear and safe Rule of Obedience and if Law and History are clear in any thing it is very probable they are clear in things Fundamental and in Matters of greatest Importance and most universal Concernment I know there are great and intricate disputes about our Constitution and so there are about the most evident conclusions of Faith Sense and Reason but Doubts and Errors do not overthrow Truth and Certainty and if some Men shut their Eyes at Noon-day it is no good Consequence that there is no Sun in the Firmament or that Light is Darkness He gives a summary Account of the Difficulties which they who refuse the Oaths do labour under They think that a rightful Prince only has a Right to our Allegiance that though he be dispossessed of his Throne he has Right still and therefore our Duty is still owing to him and to no other and our Oaths of Allegiance to him still bind us and that no other Prince who ascends the Throne without a legal Right has Right to our Allegiance and that to swear Allegiance to him while we are under Obligation of a former Oath to our rightful Prince is Perjury This is indeed the Principle we proceed on though it is not the sum of all that can be said in this Cause our Principles I think may be more clearly and fully expressed and â— propose them thus We maintain that a lawful Sovereign cannot lawfully be Resisted on any pretence whatsoever and therefore cannot lawfully be Deposed nor consequently be lawfully Dispossessed that such unlawful Acts are null in themselves and can effect nothing that a rightful Prince does not cease to be so because he is wrongfully Deposed that his Right does remain after he is Deposed unless he renounce it by Resignation or lose it by Deâ—eliction that when this ancient Right is extinguished the Usurper of the Throne becomes a lawful Sovereign and has a Right to Allegiance and not before that the Dispossessed Prince as long as his Right to the Government continues has a Right to Allegiance that Allegiance includes all those Duties which are contained in the relation of a Subject not only Submission and Obedience in things lawful but most especially actual Defence and Assistance against all his Enemies That therefore Allegiance cannot be Sworn to an Usurper because it is an Obligation to assist him against the true and rightful Sovereign that such assistance is manifest Injustice and in them that are bound by Oath to assist the rightful Sovereign inexcusable Perjury And lastly That God's Authority is Delegated only to rightful Princes and that Usurpers while they continue such have no better Title to it than even Pyrates and Robbers and these I take to be the Principles of them who refuse the Oath But the Propositions which the Doctor opposes to their Principles are fairly reconcileable with them for 1. We may acknowledge that Allegiance is due not for the sake of legal Right but Government and 2. That it is due not to bare legal Right but to the Authority of God We may admit that Allegiance is due to God's Authority and for the sake of Government and yet a legal Right to Government may be still an evident Proof both of the Authority of God and of a Right to Allegiance 3. We may allow also That God when he sees fit sets up Kings without any regard to legal Right or humane Laws He may do it by express Revelation and he may do it by his Providence extinguishing the legal Right and so making the Possessor a rightful Prince though his Right be grounded on no humane positive Law but upon the Law of Nature And 4. It may be granted that a Prince so established Is invested with God's Authority which must be obeyed not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake and thus admitting these Principles to be true in some Sense it will neither follow That our old Allegiance nor our old Oaths are at an end nor that Allegiance is always due to the Powers in possession But here in short lies the Controversie between us whether an Usurper who has wrongfully Dispossessed a rightful Prince whose legal Right to the Throne does still continue in force has nevertheless the Authority of God on his side and by consequence a divine Right to our Allegiance The Doctor is for the affirmative and his Adversaries against it But first he endeavours to byass the Reader to his Opinion by obsering How much it makes for the ease and safety of Subjects in all Revolutions and therefore they have reason he says to wish it to be true and to be glad to see it well proved Whether this Principle be in reality for the ease and safety of Subjects may be debated hereafter suffice it here to observe That ease and safety are usually strong Arguments but only to Flesh and Blood Trouble and Danger do generally pursue Truth and Virtue and if
Principles may be prejudged by this Criterion the Epicurean and the Atheist have much the better on 't and are wiser in their Generation at least than the Religionary and the Christian Salus Populi has been ever the Argument for Rebellion and Regicide we know it is Milton's Fundamental Principle and in all Revolutions it is as much for the ease and safety of Subjects certainly to execute the Deposed Prince as it is to abjure him The same renowned Author wrote a Book for the Lawfulness of Divorces in the case of a troublesome and unsociable Marriage and the great Reason that runs through his Book is this because the Remedy of Divorce is much for the ease and happiness of Mankind and the making the Bond indissoluble is says he the Changing the Blessing of Matrimony into a familiar and coinhabiting Mischief at least into a drooping and disconsolate Houshold-captivity without Refuge or Redemption Mr. Hobbs hath taught his Followers that Subjects when commanded by their Sovereign to deny Christ may lawfully obey him they have the Licence says he that Naaman had and need not put themselves into danger for it A Principle much no doubt for our Worldly ease and safety and upon the same account he advanced another Principle the same for ought that I can see which is maintained by the Doctor That the Obligation of the Subject to the Sovereign does last no longer than the Power lasteth by which he is able to protect them In short the Temptation for it is nothing else with which the Doctor would corrupt his Reader may equally serve as a persuasive to the denial of Christ the Existence of Spirits Hell Torments and to divers other Articles of the Hobbian â—elief and to a Discourse concerning them no fitter Introduction could be devised than this That those Principles are so much for the â—ase and safety of Mankind that they have reason to wish them to be true and to be glad to see them well proved But I think it a much fairer way of procedure which the Casâ—â—stâ— have hitherto prescribed First to consider Lawfulness and then Expediency to examine what is just and righteous before we enquire what is safe and easie and if a byass must needs be clapt upon our Reason before we enter into Argument I am sure it is much safer for a Christian to incline the Balance on the other side and to suffer Ease and Safety to weigh against Duty and Conscience And now we come to Argument and the Doctor undertakes to prove his Opinion from Scripture and Reason and from the Principles of the Church of England He begins with the last but that comes not within the compass of my undertaking and therefore I proceed to consider SECT 3. The Testimony of Sripture and Reason in this Matter HEre the Doctor does premise That the Proofs from Scripture and Reason must necessarily be intermixed and interwoven with each other But why was this necessary Was it impossible for the Doctor to separate his own Reasons from God's Revelations Are not Arguments from Scripture and Reason easily distinguished And to what purpose is this Confusion of Discourse but to blunder and confound the Reader 's Understanding nevertheless he pretends to set thâ—â— matter in a clear Light and first he presents us with some plain Propositions as he calls them The 1. and 2. Propositions That Civil Power and Authority is from God and that he gives this Power and Authority to soâ—â— particular Persons are beyond all Controversie with the Refusers of the Oath and for this very Reason they refuse them because they are sure the Dispossessed Prince had Authority from God to govern them and they cannot be sure that God hath depriv'd him of it But the 3d. Proposition is that on which the whole Controversie turns and the sum of it is this That every one who is in Possession of Sovereign Power has the Authority of God If this can be prov'd the dispute is at an end and so it is likewise if it cannot be prov'd It will be evident to any one that throughly considers the Doctor 's Book and all the Reasons and Arguments in it that most of them must stand and fall together with this Proposition The Doctor has not only asserted it but has endeavoured also to establish and deduce it by a train of Consequences here he has laid the Foundation of his Discourse and therefore no doubt it has all the Strength and Stability that so wise a Builder could give it This is his Fundamental Proposition and let us impartially examine the Deduction he has made to prove it There are but Three ways says he whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any Persons either by Nature or express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence Now these Three ways are really no more than One for the ways of Nature and express Nomination are only some of those various ways whereby the Providence of God has disposed of Authority and they are not therefore contradistinct to Providence but comprehended â—n it the World has been ever governed by Providence and therefore there never was noâ— can be any Power or Authority which was not derived from it But the various Methods by which Providence has conveyed Authority may indeed be reduced to some general Heads and then according to the Doctor 's Scheme of Principles there will be Three ways of conveying Authority by Nature by Nomination and by giving Power and Possession but we think that a legal Right is one of the ways of Providence also we are sure that whosoever has it it is a Gift of Providence and since a Right to a Sovereign Power implies a Right to the Possession of it we cannot possibly conceive how one Prince can have a legal Right to Possession by virtue of God's Donation and another at the same time have a divine Right to be the Possessor by God's Donation also But let us follow the Doctor through his own ways of Providence 1. By Nature Parents says he have a Natural Superiority over their Children and are their Lords and Governours too this was the first Government in the World and is the only Natural Authority for in Propriety of speaking there is no Natural Prince but a Father Thus he plainly acknowledges that a Parent is a Natural Prince and that in the beginning of the World the Fathers of Families had Civil Power and Authority over their Children And now for Argument sake let us revive the Patriarchal Government and suppose a Paternal Prince as Noah for instance invested with Civil Authority over his Children suppose again that one of his Natural Sons let it be Cham for example does by force depose Noah and usurp his Power and acquire plenary Possession of it and suppose once more that the Unnatural Vsurper requires an Oath of Sem and Japhâ—t and all the rest of the Family wherein they must Swear That they will live in Obedience to
consider how the Doctour illustrates and confirms his Proposition In hereditary Kingdoms says he a rightfull King is he who has by Succession a legal Right to the Crown and he who has Possession of it without a legal right is a King de Facto a King but not by Law That is he is an unlawfull King or an Usurper Now if this Law which creates a Right to the Crown be truly and properly a Law then it is certain the Authority of God confirms it and consequently the King de Jure having his Right established by the Law of God the Usurper cannot claim by virtue of it if the legal and divine Right be in another it is manifest he has neither and must be a wrongfull Possessour with respect to God and Man but if the Law of Succession be no Law the talk of a King de Jure is Banter and there is no such thing as Right or Law in the World The Dr. acknowledges that Subjects are so tied up by the Constitutions of the Kingdom that they must not pull down or set up Kings contrary to the Laws of the Land but he adds God is not bound by humane Laws but can make whom he pleases King without Regard to legal Rights This is liable to many Reflections 1. He grants that Subjects must not see up illegal Kings therefore they must not set them up by giving their Consent to the Advancement of them and yet he affirms afterwards that Kings de Facto are not set up by God till they are settled and that they are not settled till they have the Consent of the Subjects Thus the Result is That God can never set up Kings against Law for Subjects must not set them up by their Consent and there is no other way to doe it 2. If Subjects must not is it lawfull for others to advance them May Foreigners lawfully set up Kings over others Who made them Judges or King-makers in other Kingdoms Or how can they prove any Commission from God to doe it Thus it can be lawfull for no sort of Men to be Instruments in setting up illegal Kings and therefore they must be set up by God's Permission onely for when wicked Actions are done by wicked Instruments it is certain he onely permits them 3. If neither Subjects nor Foreigners can lawfully set up Kings against Law how shall Providence doe it God must either set them up without Instruments which he never did nor will doe or he must allways set them up by wicked Instruments and then it must be said that God can lawfully set up Kings but never by lawfull means and whether this be not derogatory to the Goodness and Justice of his Government let every one consider 4. Whereas he affirms that God can make Kings without regard to legal Rights why may it not be as well said that he can make Marriages or legitimate Bastards or create Judges Constables and Freeholders against Law No doubt he can doe all this by an express Revelation of his Will and so he can make Kings against Law by express Nomination But providential Events are by no means equivalent to it the unjust Possessor of another's Freehold is in some sense a Freeholder by Providence but that can be no barr to an Ejectment by Law and so it is in the unlawful Possession of Sovereignty God's Providence does not Abrogate the legal Right nor make an Ejectment unlawful As I said before the Matter of humane Laws is often Substracted by Providence and so is the Matter of divine and natural Laws but Providence does no more act against those than these The bond of Law is the Authority of God and God is the Author of Political Society and the establisher of Law which is the Soul and Cement of it and therefore to say he destroys it by his Providence is to represent his Providence as Subverting his Authority and to make him not the God of Order but the God of Confusion Prop. 6. The summ of it is this We can have but one King at a time and therefore our Allegiance can be due only to one King By King he means the Possessor of the Throne so that this Proposition is a very wonderful Discovery that two opposite Kings cannot at the same time possess the same Throne which is as clear as that they can't be in the same place together or that two Mâ—â— cannot be one Man this the little Writers can easily comprehend and if it were as clear that Allegiance is always due to the Possessor the Controversie would be at an end between us Prop. 7. He is our King who is setled in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power this we deny to be true in our sense of King and his sense of Settlement But King he says is the Name of Power and Authority not of mere Right Then the sense of the Proposition is this He has Power and Authority over us who has the Administration of Power and Authority over us but if the Doctor will assume an Authority over Words it is not for me to contradict it We know the World did generally give the name of King to Charles I. and II. when they had only a legal Right to the Crown but did not Possess it and so they do to such a Prince who ought by the Laws of the Land to be King but is not as the Doctor understands the name of King But since he is resolved that King shall signifie Possession of Power only let him have his Humour but let him draw no Arguments from his Arbitrary interpretation of Names His King can have no Title to God's Authority against legal Right which always carries God's Authority with it Here the Doctor proposes an Objection That it is Hobbisin that Dominion is naturally annexed to Power and in Answer to it he makes shew of a distinction between Hobbs's Opinion and his own Hobbs makes Power and nothing else to give Right to Dominion and asserts that God himself is the natural Governour of the World not because he made it but because he is Omnipotent But I say that Government is founded in Right and that God is the natural Lord of the World because he made it and that no Creature has any Right to govern but as he receives Authority from God He might as well have Answered That Hobbs makes Civil Laws the Rules of good and evil and denies the existence of Spirits but I do not Is there any dispute here about the Grounds of God's Dominion Is it not wholly about humane Government And was Hobbism ever laid to his charge for asserting that God's Dominion is founded only in his Omnipotency The Question is whether Mr. Hobbs and the Doctor teach not the same Doctrine about the legal Right and Possession of Sovereignty and the transferring of Allegiance to Usurpers And whether he can clear himself from Hobbism in the Points we are now debating And this charge is so evident
the deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too as it was in Nebuchadnezzar ' s Vision the Tree is cut down but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after they shall know that the heavens do rule Dan. 4. 26. In those times the Right and Title of the natural Prince were of such importance that there could be no Settlement of the Usurper as long as a stump of the Tree remained but Times and Principles are altered and now says the Doctor We must not take the consideration of Right into the Settlement of Government for a Prince may be settled without legal Right and when he is so God has made him our King and requires our Obedience The Doctor no doubt may consider Settlement without Right and then declare that a Prince may be settled without it But any one else may consider it with relation to Right if he pleases for a legal Settlement is I hope a Settlement and 't is as certain that the extinction of all legal Claims and Competitors will contribute much to a through Settlement We may consider Settlement in a natural and in a legal or moral Sense in relation to Possession and in relation to Right He that dwells in a House and keeps out the right Owner may be said to be settled in it because he keeps Possession but enquire in Westminister-hall whether this be good Settlement and the query will be easily resolved Oliver was settled in some sense at White-hall so he was in the Government but that Settlement was thought to be of no validity in Law and Conscience nor did it give him a divine Right to the Palace and the Throne Settlement is a Word of manifold and ambiguous Meaning and must be always interpreted according to the nature of the Matter to which it is applied when civil Property is the subject Matter the very nature of the Thing requires it to be understood in the civil or legal Signification of it and then as it has been well observed it denotes two Things peaceable Possession and legal Right This is undeniable in relation to private Rights And why does it not require that Interpretation in respect to politick Dominion Is that the sense of all Lawyers when they speak of private Estates And is there any Lawyer that ever applied that Term to a Government usurp'd and possess'd without Right Is there any other good Author that called such a Possession a through Settlement The Lawyers have always considered Right as necessary to the firm Establishment of any Possession and it would be a contradiction to their Profession to consider otherwise for if Right be not requisite to the Settlement of Possessions there is an end of all Law and there is no need nor use of it in the World When a Man is Possessor malae fidei and such are all Usurpers the Lawyers do not account him to be throughly settled in his Possession for as he is bound in Conscience to Restitution so he may be ejected by Law and they never look upon him as settled till he becomes a lawful Possessor and has acquired a legal Right by Prescription of a 100 Years or time immemorial in which they presume a Dereliction of the true Proprietor Their Doctrine is the same concerning the Possession of the Rights of Sovereignty they never supposed it to be established without Right they affirm the Usurper as long as he is such is bound to Restitution that the rightful Prince may lawfully eject him by War that the presumption of Law is always for the lawful Prince that the Usurper cannot prescribe a Right nisi accesserit praescriptioni scientia patientiaque ipsius Principis without the knowledge and permission of the Prince and lastly that these are never to be presumed but in case of perpetual and undisturbed Possession for a 100 Years or a time exceeding the memory of Man Tyrants says Petrus Gregorius after they have Dethroned th◠true and rightful Princes are yet desirous of their Titles and they make use of Parliaments or Assemblies of the People to acquire them yet they are Tyrants still and are comprehended in the Laws that relate to Tyrants unless as some think they abdicate their Power and submit to their Judgment who can confer lawful Sovereignty upon them or unless after their Vsurpation they with their Posterity prescribe a Right to the Sovereignty by the Possession of a 100 Years or more Thus the Civil Lawyers And if we may believe Grotius their Doctrine is confirmed by the Law of Nations He says it is probable that this Law was introduced by the consent of Nations that immemorial Possession peaceably enjoy'd without Interruption Omnino dominium transferret should to all intents transfer Dominion he shews by many instances that this was often pleaded by Nations those out of Isocrates are apposite to our Purpose in his Archidamus he argues the Right of the Lacedemonians to Messana from their Possession of it for some hundreds of Years and he lays down this Rule as most certain and confessed by all That Possessions both private and publick become proper and patrimonial if they have been held for a long time and in his Oration to Philip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When length of time had made the Possession firm and settled These and other Instances that might be produced do shew it has been the Sense of Mankind that Prescription is requisite to establish Possessions without an original Right and that there could be no Settlement till a new Right were introduced for if Dominion might have been transfered without Right the introduction of the Right of Prescription by the Law of Nations would have been superstuous But the Law of England is yet more rigid in requiring legal Right it differs from the Civil Law in Matter of Prescription for by the Common Law Prescription maketh no Right in Land but the difference is in favour of Right against Possession which cannot in any tract of time advance to a legal Settlement when an antecedent legal Right can be made out against it And can we think that the Law is more careful of private Property than of Sovereignty of Lands and Tenements than of the Royal Crown and Dignity That it has provided that the Rights of the Subjects be Sacred Inviolable and Eternal and hath left the Crown to every one that can catch it though all the Estates in the Realm are held in Fee of the Crown and are deriv'd Originally from it On the contrary the Favour and Presumption of the Law is always for the King no time is allowed to prescribe against his Rights it is the first Principle of the Law that his Crown is Hereditary it is entailed on his Posterity for ever Descent is declared to be a Title stronger than all others it being an undoubted Title made by Law it cannot be defeated by
and obscure and say it depends on Niceties and the Question then is Whether humane Laws may be a plain Rule to determine the Rights and Titles of Princes for it is certain the Rule may be plain in its self though learned Men may make a Nicety of it But nothing can be a more palpable Absurdity than to say that Law cannot be a plain Rule of Right for that is to say that the Law giver cannot plainly declare his Will and that no Controversie about Right can be determin'd by Laws and if the Law may be a plain Rule to determine the Rights of Subjects may it not be aâ— plain about the Rights of Princes Have not our Laws plainly declar'd the King to be irresistible Do they not plainly invest him with the whole Power of the Militia I know that learned Men do not agree in these Points but I think the Doctor will grant that the Law is clear about them And in the nature of the Thing there is no Reason but it may be as clear about the Right and Title to the Crown for may it not be plainly declar'd by Law that the Crown shall descend by Hereditary Succession and that he who invades the Crown without this Right is an Usurper and has no Legal Right to Allegiance this we believe to be our Law and we believe it to be a plain and sufficient Rule to the Subjects But when we say that the Law is plain we do not deny but learned Men may have another Opinion of it we intend that the Law is plain in it self and may be made plain to Men of common Understanding who will take the pains to inform their Judgment and judge without Byasâ— and Interest The very design of Law is that it should be a plain Rule of Right and Practice and it is a Rule to the common People as well as to the Lawyers it is presum'd they may understand it if they will and the ignorance of Law is always presum'd to be affected and to be culpable as well as the Transgression of it To say therefore that the Law cannot be a plain Rule to the unlearned who are bound to obey it is a plain Contradiction to the very nature and end of the Law and is to charge it downright with Folly and Barbarity There are many Difficulties in Law as there are in Religion and in both the unlearned must consult the learned the Lawyers and Divines but they must judge also for themselves and judge rightly at their peril if a Lawyer or a Judge advise a Man to commit Treason and tell him it is lawful the Law will nevertheless condâ—mn him as a Traitor The Law no doubt requires our Allegiance to the legal King but he who should pay his Allegiance to another King though he should think him to be the legal King his Mistake would be no good Plea in Law against an Indictment for Treason the reason is because the Law is suppos'd to be sufficiently promulg'd to all and therefore the ignorance of it is inexcusable In short I demand was not the Law of the Land sufficient to inform all Men that K. James the First had a legal Right to the Crown and that Charles the First and the Second had it successively after him was there any honest understanding Man in England who ever doubted of their Right and that when the two last were actually excluded from the Possession of it Nay was the Right of K. James the Second either unknown or uncertain to any of that Character I think the Doctor will confess that the legal Right of these Princes was among all honest Men certain and unquestionable and thence it evidently follows that the Law of the Land may be a clear Rule of the Prince's Right and the Subjects Obedience and if the Law may sufficiently direct us how to distinguish between Rightful Princes and Usurpers there is no need of any other Direction But though the Law be in it self a sufficient Rule as far as the intention of it reaches yet Controversies may also arise aâ— in other things so in the Right to the Crown of which there could be no foresight and therefore no Provision about them and further it sometimes happens that when the Law is clear the due application of it is doubtful and difficult the matter of Fact being disputed when the Rule of Right is uncontested Thus in those Kingdoms where there is a known and uncontroverted Rule of Succession yet there are sometimes Controversies about the matters of Fact which are necessary to the application of it as for instance in Hereditary Kingdoms who is the right Heir in Elective who is duly elected When such 〈…〉 ases happen as are beyond the Provision of Law and for which there could b 〈…〉 o Provision as in the Disputes of Fact if there be no Legislative Authority to determine them as it is thought there can be none in the Disputes about the right to Succession there is no other way but for every Man to judge for himself to examine the Competitors Evidence for their Claim and Title to judge impartially and to act accordingly But it follows not hence that Law is an insufficient Rule because it prevents not or decides not all Controversies about Right for neither can Scripture which we acknowledge to be a sufficient Rule in Religion decide all Controversies that relate unto it for instance it requires Christians to obey them that have the Rule over them not every one surely that intrudes himself into the Office of a Ruler but only those that are lawfully called to it but who those are the Scripture does not determine that is a dispute concerning matter of Fact and must be decided by such Evidence as can be had concerning it But when the matter of Right and matter of Fact is clear as ordinarily they are in the Rights of Sovereigns to their Crowns then there is a plain Direction for the Allegiance of Subjects But in cases extraordinary when Right and Fact are doubtful and there is no such Evidence concerning them as may direct honest and understanding Men to the right Object of their Allegiance in such Cases it is agreed That if either of the Competitors be in Possession the Subjects must pay their Allegiance to the Possessor for the Laws of Nature and Nations declare Possession to be a just Right when there is not a better and Allegiance certainly is due where there is a just and lawful Right to it And thus the unavoidable Defects of Political Constitutions are supplied by such Rules as are founded on the Law of Nature and the Consent of Nations and therefore if the Scripture has only required Obedience to the higher Powers in general and has left us to the direction of other Laws to determine which those Powers are to whom our Obedience is due we are not left to Niceties and Uncertainties but have as clear and plain direction as the nature of the Thing
to submit to Vsurpers This indeed is to the purpose But where are these Examples to be found in the Prophecies of Jeremiah and the Discourses of our Saviour with the Scribes and Pharisees about paying Tribute to Caesar Let us now examine these Examples Our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the Possession of Power whose Image and Superscription hath it and if this be a good Reason it is good in all other Cases that we must submit to all Princes who are possess'd of Sovereign Power I refer the Reader to our Saviour's Discourse and let him satisfie himself whether this Proposition is in it That Allegiance is due to all Princes in Possession of Sovereignty or this other which is contradictory it to That it is due only to these Possessors that are setled by the consent of the People that I think cannot he infer'd from the Image and Superscription for Usurpers may coin Money before they are setled neither is it any Proof that a Prince is in Possession because his Coin is current if it is Allegiance is due to King JAMES or at least all the Money that has his Image and Superinscription Is the Doctor sure that the Coin presented to our Saviour had the Image of Tiberius Others say it had the Image of Augustus and then our Saviour's Argument could not relye upon Possession for the Coin of a Prince deceas'd could suggest no Argument that Allegiance was due to the Possessor Dr. Hammond I take to be the better Expositor thus he upon those Words Whose is this Image and Superscription The Inscription on the Coin is Caesar Agustus such a Year after the taking of Judaea this being a Record of the Conquest of the Romans â—ver this Nation and the Right by them acquir'd by the dedition of Hyrcanus and an expression of the Years since that taking about 90 Years for so long ago did Pompey subdue and take Jerusalem shew that now it is unlawful to seek change after so long continuance of that Power so fairly and legally setled So the excellent Dr. Hammond and in his Annotations he evinces historically the Legality of the Roman Government over Judaea Dr. Sherlock on the contrary supposes that Caesar was an Usurper and that our Saviour reprov'd the Pharisees for not submitting to an Usurper but he was pleas'd only to suppose it and I presume to affirm that it is impossible to prove it For an Usurper must have some Competitor who claims a right to the Sovereignty and let him name us that Person if he can that was Caesar's Competitor if he cannot he may suppose but he can never prove him an Usurper His other Instance is out of the Prophet Jeremiah and here he acknowledges that his Argument for Submission is Prophecy or an express Command from God to submit to the King of Babylon And was Nebuchadnezzar then an Usurper if Allegiance was requir'd to him by God's reveal'd Will Was he not King over the Jews by particular Nomination Did not the Sin of the Jews consist in their Disobedience to God's express Command And how can he prove that the Prophet would have condemn'd them if they had refused to submit without express Revelation or that he himself would have advised them to submit without it Before the first Conquest of Judaea under Jehoiakim the Jews could be under no Obligation to submit to Nebuchadnezzar but when their Kings had made a voluntary dedition to him and confirm'd it by an Oath then their Obedience was due to him as their lawful Sovereign Their Revolt is afterwards stiled Rebellion and the Violation of that Oath was punished with final Captivity and Destruction Ezek. 17. The Doctor pretends there was a necessity of an express Command to submit because they could not without it subject themselves to any other Prince while any of David's Family were living because God himself had entail'd the Kingdom upon his Posterity But this is a groundless Fancy and contradicted by himself for in his Vindication he maintains That whether there be a Divine Entail or no it is always lawful to submit to Force and then sure there was no need of a Revelation But where is that Reason to be found in Scripture Does the Prophet Jeremy mention it Had the Jews any Scruple then about a Divine Entail The Prophet declares from God that if Zedekiah would submit to the King of Babylon he should live in Safety chap. 38. and after his Captivity and the Destruction of Jerusalem he assures the remaining Jews that if they would still abide in the Land God would deliver them from the King of Babylon chap. 42. The only Motive which he urges to the King and People is an assurance of Safety by Submission But it appears from the Prophet Ezekiel that they were bound to it by Oath and Covenant and they are therefore branded by both the Prophets with Rebellion because they revolted from their lawful Sovereign But the Doctor argues hence That where the Entail of the Crown is only by Humane Laws there is no need of Prophecy to direct the People to submit to any new Prince whom God sets over them Well suppose there was need of Prophecy in case of a Divine Entail how does it follow there is no need of Prophecy when an Entail is by Human Laws perhaps it may follow from something else but I am not subtile enough to discern how it follows from his Premises It will follow as well that because a King by a Divine Entail cannot be depos'd without Prophecy there is no need of Prophecy to depose a King of Human Entail or because Abraham could not lawfully Sacrifice his Son without an express Command therefore other Parents may murther a Son without it When God sets up a Prince by his positive Will there is no need of a Prophet to prescribe Submission but there is need of a new Revelation to inform us when it is his Will to convey Authority to an Usurper for the Event is no Indication of it But since the Prophet's Motive for Submission to the Jews was Safety may we not for the same Reason submit to any King in Possession I answer the Case may be different for 1. The Jews were bound to submit to the King of Babylon for they were his rightful Subjects by Dedition and by God's express Appointment and though Safety is a good Argument to enforce Duty it is none against it 2. The case of absolute Conquest when the Lawful Prince is a Captive the Government dissolv'd and no possibility of restoring it is manifestly different from the case of a People deposing their lawful Prince advancing an Usurper supporting him by their Power opposing their Rightful Sovereign and still in a capacity of restoring him their Safety in this case is no Argument for persisting in Rebellion and if they are under any Necessity it is of their own making and continuing 3. Submission is not Allegiance and though the former is lawful when it is to
side to invade in the other to defend and Vasquez this because that a War be just on one side it is requisite there be injustice on the other for herein consists the reason of War that he who deserves it should be punished by vindictive Justice If the War of the legal Prince be therefore just and the War of the Usurper unjust these Consequences must inevitably follow 1. That the Usurper is bound to restore the Crown he has usurp'd for if it be unjust to defend it it must be unjust to keep it 2. If he is bound to restore it he has no right to it by God's Donation 3. He is responsible for all the Blood that is shed in an unjust War his Soul must answer for all the Persons that are kill'd as for so many Murthers And 4. The Subjects cannot lawfully assist him in murthering Innocent Persons and much less in executing a Sentence of Death for such in effect is War upon their innocent Sovereign to whom they had sworn Allegiance and who seeks for nothing but what is justly his own And now upon the whole is not this Scheme of Principles an incomparable Security for Princes Subjects must not depose their Princes but they may stand by and see them deposed and murthered if the best of Princes be unfortunate they may lawfully abjure them and swear Allegiance to the Usurper and then contribute their Purses Prayers and Arms to destroy their lawful Sovereign But let the Usurper be sure to be fortunate still and not to invade our Properties and Religion let him look to it or most Men will say let him go if he cannot defend himself that he is placed in the Throne at present does not prove that it is God's will it should always be so The dispossessed Prince has a lawful War against him and if he gets a Battel he is God's Ordinance again and our Allegiance is due to his Victory On the contrary if Principles are to be judg'd by their being for the Security of the Prince and Subject an immovable Allegiance to our lawful Prince will appear to be the truest for it is the best Principle to prevent all Revolutions of Government and all the Mischiefs of Civil War and Anarchy which usually attend them and therefore is most for the Peace and Security of Human Societies But to this the Doctor has several Objections 1. If this Principle would prevent all Revolutions it is a demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle because it is contrary to God's Prerogative of reproving and setting up Kings This Objection concludes as strongly against Justice and Christianity it self for it is certain that if the Principles of Justice and of Christian Religion were universally preach'd there would be no Usurpations nor Revolutions and that is a Demonstration with the Doctor that they are bad Principles meer Human Inventions which cannot come from God 2. It is evident that this Principle was either unknown to the World or that it cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government But still it may be the best Principle to prevent them and no Man ever affirm'd that it would always actually prevent them Mankind are not generally govern'd by Principles but by Lusts and Passions Christianity is the best Religion to prevent Revolutions and to preserve the Peace of Societies but we see de facto it fails of preventing them no less than our Principle of Allegiance 3. Such Principles as must dissolve Human Societies when such Revolutions happen and expose the most conscientious Men to the greatest Sufferings without serving any good end by them cannot be true I answer there is no Principle of Morality and Religion but may occasion the dissolution of Human Societies but then the wickedness of Men is the proper Cause of it and not the Principle The Doctor has answer'd this Objection himself the Divine Providence takes care of all such extraordinary cases and there we must leave them And even his own Principle is liable to the same Objection for till the new Prince is setled no Allegiance is due to him and therefore in that Interval which may last for an Age or more since no Allegiance is due there can be no Sovereign nor Subject and consequently no Society As for the Sufferings of conscientious Men that is their Portion here but great is their Reward in Heaven and whereas he says those Sufferings can serve to no good end the keeping of their Consceinces void of Offence is one good end and the promoting the publick good of Human Society in general is another But does not this Principle tend to dissolve Societies No otherwise than as Christianity tends to set Men at variance in the same Houshold not naturally but contingently not in its own Nature but in the Event of Things and by the Wickedness of Men. 4. Is the Right of any Prince so sacred as to stand in competition with the very Being of Humane Societies I answer That the Sovereign is comprehended in the Society and ought not to be opposed to it that we must not do Evil that Good may come of it and that Perjury and Injustice Revolutions Civil Wars and Anarchy are against the Interests of Society Must we defend the Prince's Right with the destruction of the Nation and the Ruine of his Subjects This perhaps may be a Case in the New Atlantis or Vtopia But I ask another Question may we abjure and sacrifice a lawful Prince for the safety of his Rebels and Enemies Which is most necessary that the Nation should be governed or that such a Prince should govern it And if he be driven out of his Kingdom and cannot govern must we thâ—n have no Government Or how shall the Nation be governed if the Subjects are bound to pay Allegiance to no other Prince Let us remember the Rump and Cromwell and all these Questions are answered The Loyal Members of the Church of England in those days thought it necessary that the Nation should be governed by the lawfull Prince they reserved their Allegiance for him when he was driven out of his Kingdom and could not govern and they refused to pay Allegiance to Usurpers In short it is better to be without Government than to do Evil for the sake of those who will not be governed by their lawfull Governours But this is to make all Mankind the Slaves and Properties of Princes as if all Men were made for Princes not Princes for the Government of Men. To this I oppose some other Sayings of the former Dr. Sherlock in his Case of Resistance If the King be God's Minister he is upon that Account as much greater than all as God is pag. 104. The whole Nation is as much Subject to the higher Powers aâ— any single Man pag. 107. Sovereign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Sovereign Prince p. 200. We must not deny Duty to be Duty because we may suffer by it p. 215. And
discharge of our Allegiance and that we may not abjure and resist our lawful Sovereign because God has suffer'd others to rebel or to depose him We confine not God's Providence but we confine our selves to that which is just and lawful and we hope it is no shackling of God to say he is not the Author of Iniquity He observes that when lawful Kings and Usurpers are advanc'd it is all but Providence still and he desires to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other act of Providence which gives a setled Possession of the Throne And is not an unsetled Possession an effect of Providence too Is a Divine Entail any thing more than an Act of Providence It is all but Providence still But the Answer is obvious it is God's Authority and not Providence which is Obligatory we are sure that Lawful Kings have his Authority but not that Usurpers have it they are advanced by God but by his permissive Providence only Lastly He raises a great Dust about opposing Humane Rights and Laws to God's Authority I will not dispute with him about the Obligation of Humane Laws it is enough to answer that he supposes what he has not proved that Usurpers have God's Authority because they are advanc'd by his Providence and if this is not true all his Harangues about Humane Laws and Providence do signify nothing I have often urged the Case of Robbery and the unjust possession of private Estates and Properties to shew the unconclusiveness of all his Arguments from Providence and to prove that Possession by Providence is no Evidence of Divine Right or Authority But the Doctor has found out Distinctions and Evasions to take off the Force of these Instances and now I am at leisure to consider them The Substance of his First Answer is That the Dispute is not about legal Right but about Authority no Man pretends that Thieves and Pirates have God's Authority they have Force and Violence which every Man may submit to when he cannot help it but Sovereign Power is God's Authority though Princes may be advanc'd to it by no honester means than Theft or Burglary I answer 1. That no difference is here assign'd between the Usurpations of Sovereignty and private Property but only this that Sovereign power is God's Authority I have answer'd all his Arguments whereby he would make good his Proposition and if this Proposition be unprov'd the Evasion that is founded on it must needs be insufficient 2. This Evasion is at last a begging of the Question the Fundamental Dispute is Whether God's Authority is always annex'd unto Sovereign Power His Fundamental Argument from Reason is that all Providential Events are God's Appointment it is objected that Piracy and Robbery are Providential Events as well as Usurpation and the summ of his Answer is this That Sovereign Power is God's Authority which is nothing but arguing in a Circle and is plainly petitio principii 3. Thieves and Pirates have often Sovereign Power they exercise the Power of the Sword they make Laws decide Controversies and assume all the Properties and Badges of Sovereign Authority and to make them absolutely God's Ordinance according to the Doctor 's Principle the Sovereign Thieves and Pyrates are setled in their Administration by the voluntary Consent and Submission of their Subjects such there have been in the World and such there may be and whenever they shall be they will have as good a Title to God's Authority as any Usurper for Sovereign Power is God's Authority and when once the Subject Thieyes have consented to their Sovereignty upon pain of Damnation they must pay Allegiance to them 4. It has been answer'd that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Providence as well as Usurpers though they have not God's Anthority A Thief cannot take a Purse whether God will or no and he must have the Concurrence of God's Providence to take it and if these are Arguments of God's Will and Appointment if Providence give a Divine Right it is certain that the Thief has it as well as the Usurper for they have both the same evidence for it To this the Doctor replies That there is a great difference between these Cases which is this that to the settlement of an Estate nothing more is requir'd but a meer legal Humane Right and though the Providence of God allots Men's private Fortunes yet he gives no Man a Right to an Estate which he has got by Fraud Injustice and Violence but leaves all such legal Rights to the care of publick Government But on the contrary it is God's Authority which makes a King and not a meer Humane Right and God's Authority is not inseparably annexed to Humane Entails for he can make a King without a Humane Right if meer Law made a King as it makes an Heir to an Estate it were very unjust to own any but a legal King but if God can remove a legal King and set up an Vsurper then it is no Injustice when God does so to transfer our Allegiance This contains the force of his Reply and in Answer to it I observe 1. That this is no Reply to the Objection which is only levell'd against his Arguments from Providence the summ of it is this that the Usurpation of a Crown and an Estate are effected alike by Providence and that 't is impossible to find any difference in the Concurrence of it and therefore if Providence proves a Right the Usurper of an Estate has a divine Right to it The Doctour replies that a legal Right is sufficient for an Estate but to make a King he must have God's Authority Admit this to be true what does it signifie to the Dispute about Providence How does it shew that there is not the same concurrence of Providence to the Usurping of an Estate and the Usurping of a Kingdom As God can give Kingdoms so he can give Estates to whomsoever he will and if the meer providential Advancement to a Kingdom is a proof that it is God's Will to give it why is not the same providential Advancement to an Estate a proof of the divine Donation also If God may give the Possession of an Estate without a Right to keep it so he may give Kingdoms and if God's Providence does not over-rule and cancel the Obligation of Laws in the one Case how shall it appear that it cancels them in the other he acknowledges that Providence gives no Right to the unjust Possession of an Estate and yet the unjust Possession is certainly an Event and therefore he must quit his fundamental Argument which is drawn from the Events of Providence for he must either confess that all Events are not God's Doing or that his Doing his Giving Possession of any thing is no Evidence of any Right or Authority to possess it In short his Reply is a Confession that his general Arguments from Providence are unconclusive God's Providence is nothing when
and yet Jerusalem was no more to the Persian Empire than a Village is to England and thus upon the late Abdication as we are taught to call it there might have been a new Heptarchy of Governments nay as many as there are Counties Towns or Villages in the Kingdom every Government would have been throughly 〈…〉 in it self even without a peaceable Possessim and Settlement Thus when Monmouth was at Taunton and the People generally submitted to him as their King his Government was setled in that Town and private particular Men being under the Power of the new King might have lawfully paid Allegiance to him The Doctor thinks it very absurd to found the Right of Government upon Humane Laws or the Legal Consent of the People but if they consent against Law their Consent does make a Lawful King by the Law of Nature and Nations he accounts it a monstrous Absurdity to say that God cannot give his Authority himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws if Princes receive their Authority from Humane Laws he cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust for which they are accountable he thinks it a bold Contradiction to say that God cannot remove or set up King 's against Law This is shackling of his Providence and in fine whoever will confine the Power of God in setting up Kings to Humane Laws ought not to be disputed with But now instead of Humane Laws insert the Consent of the People against Law and all these Absurdities and Contradictions are easily reconcil'd to Reason and Religion and he that will not shackle God's Authority and Providence to Submission and Consent shall not be thought fit to be disputed with I grant that the Laws of Nature and Nations do make him a lawful King who has the Consent of a Free People who are under no antecedent Obligation But when they are they have no Power to Consent and then their Consent is a Nullity by the Law of Nature it self for it is a Rule in that Law That Actions which are forbidden by it for defect of Power are not only unlawful but also void this is true in Contracts and Acts of Donation in Vows and Dedition and all relie upon the same Reason He that cannot give 〈…〉 he that cannot be given cannot contract or be contracted with Therefore in what Cases soever the People have no Power to consent to the advancement of a new Sovereign their consent is nothing in Law and therefore cannot make a rightful King according to the Laws of Nature and Nations No 〈…〉 suppose as before that a Rebellious People by the assistance of Foreign Power drive their King out of his Kingdom refuse to restore him or so much as to treat with him and then set up an Usurper over them here the Question is whether their Advancement of the Usurper was lawful and whether they had Power to consent to it if the Doctor can prove the People have Power to rebel depose and set up Usurpers let us see him prove it but if he cannot prove it he will never prove that such a People had Power to consent or that a consent which is nothing can effect any thing can create â—a lawful Right by the Law of Nature or Nations their consent is void and unlawful it is a breach of their Allegiance and that cannot absolve them from it it is Perjury and that is no release from their Oaths and in short it binds them only to Repentance and Restitution He allows that the lawful Prince who is dispossessed has a lawful Right to make War for the recovery of his Kingdom I demand Is not this lawful by the Laws of Nature and Nations It hâ— lawful by those Laws or by none for it is no proper Matter for political Laws and they prescribe nothing about it But the Doctor will grant that and if he will not it is easie to prove it by a cloud of Witnesses and by the practice of Nations But now if the dispossessed Prince by the Law of Nature and Nations has a Right to recover his Kingdom he has certainly a Right by the same Laws to possess it and consequently the Usurper has no Right to it by those Laws unless they are contradictory to themselves by giving two incompatible Rights to the same Possession And this is a plain Demonstration whatever becomes of the Usurper in the Vindication that the Usurper in the Case of Allegiance is not a rightful Prince according to the Laws of Nature and Nations One thing more may seem necessary to be considered because it looks like Argument from Reason and that is the Discourse concerning the Relation between a King and a Subject but I have the Doctor 's Warrant to let it pass as a logical Banter the result of it is this that the Fundamentum Relationâ—s is God's Authority and that says he is always annexed to the settled Possession of the Throne but this again is the Fundamental Proposition in Dispute between us I have endeavoured to answer all the Arguments that are drawn from Scripture and Reason to provâ— it and the Reader is left to judge whether they are sufficiently Answered ADVERTISEMENT THe Reader may please to take Notice That the following Postscript doth not relate to this Book nor yet to the Author but it was an Addition to the Answer to Dr. Sherlock in Defence of the Case of Allegiance to the King in Possession and written to the same Friend but the Impression of it being then prevented it was thought convenient to annex it to this POSTSCRIPT IT will Sir be no small Surprize to you to tell you after all that the Case of Allegianeâ— to a King in Possession with all the Mistakes Nonsense and Trifling which the Doctour now discovers in it had notwithstanding the Doctour's Imprimatur before it saw the Light as you may fully assure your self from the following Testimony of a Person of very good Credit who some time since gave me this following Account The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession in M. S. was recommended to Dr. Sherlock who read it over and mightily approved it and wished it were then actually printed especially for the sake of Dr. who had written a Letter to him which he also then read wherein he endeavoured to persuade him that Allegiance was due to the Regnant Power He urged to have it printed as soon as might be and that Care might be taken that Dr. should have a Copy which shews a strange Temper in the Master to treat a Book and an Authour at such a rate which a little before he did so approve and commend The Authour ought to take this for a very great Honour done him by the Doctour as great as if the Book had been Licenced under his hand and it will be some Comfort to him to hear that once he stood so fair in the Doctor 's
that he had no other way but to decline it by answering what was never objected Does not the Doctor teach that our Allegiance is extinguished when the King has not the Administration of Government in his Hands and that Allegiance and actual Government are essential Relatives Mr. Hobbs had taught the same before him That the Obligation of Subjects to their Sovereign is understood to last no longer than the Power lasts to protect them The Doctor maintains That when a lawful King is wrongfully deposed he has still a legal Right to the Crown but the Subjects are absolved from their Allegiance to him the Doctrine of the Leviathan is just the same The Right of the Sovereign is not extinguished yet the Obligation of the Members is The Doctor binds the Subjects to an actual assistance and defence of the Usurper so doeâ— Mr. Hobbs The Subject is obliged so strictly obliged that no pretence of having submitted himself out of fear can absolve him to protect and assist the Vsurper as long as he is able Thus it appears that they are Fratres Fraterrimi and it is not within the Power of Metaphysicks to distinguish them But what saith the Doctor That Power does not give Right and Authority to govern but is a certain sign to us that where God hath placed the Power he has given the Authority And is not this a manifest Confession of Hobbism That Dominion is naturally annexed to Power Mr. Hobbs does often call his Sovereign God's Lieutenant and his Vicegerent and Sovereign under God he affirms that he governs in God's stead and that from him and under him he hath Authority to govern He agrees with the Doctor then that the Right of Government does flow from God's Authority so that still it seems impossible to distinguish their Opinions Prop. 8. Is this Allegiance is due only to the King and the Reason this For Allegiance signifieâ— all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King and therefore can be due to none but the King He had told us before That by King he understands the actual Possessor and therefore it is his sense of the Proposition that Allegiance is due only to the Possessor a precarious Assertion repeated often and never proved But here he pretends to give a very plain Reason for it the suram of it is this That Allegiance is due only to God's Authority and no one has it but the actual King And if this be not a very plain Reason let every one be judge that can distinguish Reasoning from Affirming But Propositionmaking was by this time grown cumbersome to the Doctor he was forced to make up a round number by Tautologies and Repetitions and now having exhausted his stock of Postulates he endeavours next to fortifie them against two Objections which he imagined might be raised against them Obj. But if this â—e so What does a legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects Why according to the Doctor certainly it signifies nothing for the legal Right of the Dispossessed Prince can give him no Right to the Crown against the Right of divine Authority the divine Right to all intents and purposes must null the legal therefore if this continue still to be a Right it is a Right to nothing But a great Writer is worth nothing that cannot defend Absurdities and Contradictions and thus the Doctor endeavours it 1. He answers that ele legal Right bari all other humane Claims no other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right The plain meaning of this is That if the legal Right can be in one Prince it is not in another which â—â— an admirable Proof that the legal Right does signifie something When Oliver usurped Charles II. had a legal Right to the Throne but no Allegiance was due to his bare legal Title without God's Authority and yet this legal Right did signifie something for if Charles had a legal Right to the Throne than neither the French King nor the Grand Signior nor the Great Mogull could have a legal Title to it and though Oliver being setled in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power had a divine Right yet the legal Right did signifie something to King Charles though it was null'd by the Divine and though it made him not a King for that is the name of Power and left him no Subjects because no Allegiance was due to him Thus the legal Right of a Dispossessed Prince is only a Feather in his Cap it constitutes him only an Vtopian King yet without so much as imaginary Subjects But he tells us 2. That Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince as far as they can that is against all Mankind but not against God's disposal of Crowns But who is this such a Prince Is he a Prince dethroned and dispossessed of his legal Right Of such a Prince the Doctor is Discoursing and if such a one he means How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right as far as they can when they are bound as far as they are able to oppose it their whole Allegiance being due to the Possessor And thus the Obligation to maintain the dispossessed Prince must be expounded as a Duty to destroy him But if his legal Prince be such an one as is not dispossessed but has either a Right to the Throne upon the Demise of the Predecessor or is actually in Possession then I say he speaks not to the Objection for the Objection relates to the Case of a legal Prince excluded from his Right by the Intrusion of another the Case which he proposes in the preceding Paragraph When he who has the legal Right is not our King i. e. has not Possession and he who has not iâ— And he asserts upon it That all our Allegiance is due to him who is our King and not to him who is not though it be his Right to be so and upon this Case does the Objection proceed If this be so What does the legal Right signifie So that if here he speaks of a Prince Possessing the Throne or Claming it when it was Vacant Amphoram instituit urceuâ— exit he puts one Prince in the Objection and another in the Solution and in short he does not Answer but Evade and Prevaricate Well! but suppose a Prince with a legal Title to a vacant Throne How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right since they are not his Subjects and owe him no Allegiance For according to the Doctor Subjection and Allegiance are due only to Possessors and not to a bare legal Title without it Maintenance therefore In such a Case can be only a Debt of Justice because it is due by Law and Equity and the same Debt will continue when the rightful Prince is wrongfully Dispossessed for the legal Right is the same and the same Law and Equity for restoring a due as giving it at first But farther suppose that he means a
rightful Prince in actual Possession such a one hath both legal Right and God's Authority and yet the Doctor denies afterwards that Subjects in some Cases are bound to maintain them and thus as a legal Right does signifie nothing with him here so neither does God's Authority hereafter He eludes and trims and distinguishes them away as often as he has occasion he grants Allegiance to Power without Right and denies it to lawful Right and God's Authority together The other Objection he propounds is this If we have Sworn Allegiance to a lawful Prince and his Heirs and lawful Successors How can we pay Allegiance to any Prince while He or any of his Heirs and legal Successors are living and claim our Allegiance without violating our Oaths And the summ of his Answer is That an Oath of Allegiance made to any King can oblige no longer than he continues to be King i. e. in Possession for if it did it would oblige us against our Duty and so become aâ— unlawful Oath I acknowledge this Answer would be good if he had sufficiently proved that Allegiance is always and only due to the Possessor and whether that be done let every one judge as he sees Reason Were it here pertinent it would be easie to prove That our Oaths were intended to bind us to the lawful King and his Heirs even in the Case of Dispossession so all honest Men did understand them in the Age of Usurpations and till of late they were never otherwise Interpreted but by a few wretched Slaves of the Usurpers All the faithful Members of the Church of England thought them Obligatory when their Princes were Dispossessed they thought it no breach of Duty to stick so a righteous Cause when it proved Improsperous and as long as the Man was in bring they never looked upon the King as gone The truth is they were not wise in their Generation and they understood not that Jesuitical Evasion which would have been worth more than the whole World unto them That when the King is deposed tum definit esse Princeps which if it be true Doctrine the Consequence of Lessius the Jesuite is unavoidable quod quidquam licet in eum attentare he becomes a private Person and may be lawfully murthered In the next Paragraph he observes that we do not swear to keep the King and his Heirs in the Throne which may be impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion And who was ever so senseless as to imagine that we swore to keep them in the Throne when 't is impossible to keep them but I presume we swore that in case our King should be thrown out by a prosperous Rebellion we would not bind our selves to oppose his Restitution by transferring our Allegiance to his Rebel yet he argues that we did not because such an Oath would be unlawfull as contrary to that Duty we owe so the divine Providence which conveys God's Authority to the Usurper Thus the same precarious Assertions are everlastingly inculcated but a Million of Repetitions will never amount to one Argument for them And now having routed the Objections he concludes thus These seem to be very plain Propositions and to carry their own Evidence with them Very plain and self-evident Propositions And why then could not the Doctor discover them before the publishing of Bishop Overall and the Battel on the Boyne Is it possible so great so quick-sighted a Writer could be above a year in finding out self-evident Propositions Alas poor miserable Swearers and Non-swearers that cannot see that which is as clear as the Noonday and carries its own Evidence with it How unhappy are they that have not the Doctor 's Spectacles by which he is able to see clearly through Mountains and to discern things dark and invisible to others But after all 't is well these bright Propositions do carry their own Evidence and are known by Intuition for it seems to me that the Doctor hath given them no additional Lustre he has hitherto proposed them without Proof and if they are not innate Ideas they seem to be altogether as indemonstrable But if these Propositions are true they are a very plain Direction to Subjects in all Revolutions of Government And the Direction in short is this They must have no hand in the Revolution and oppose it as far as they can and not be hasly in complying but when such a Revolution is made they must pay Allegiance to the new Prince as invested with God's Authority Now his Direction is every whit as plain as his Propositions in the days of the Unlawfulness of Resistence the contrary Direction was then very plain and evident with him but it is the singular Prerogative of great Writers to alter the nature of Things with the Alteration of their Judgments and in all their Changes to carry Evidence Perspicuity and Demonstration with them But yet the Direction is not so very plain neither for even the Doctor himself was sensible there remained still a very considerable Difficulty which he labours next to remove and to give us more plain Directions about it The Difficulty is to know when a Revolution is so perfectly completed or when a new Prince is so fully invested with God's Authority as to have a Right to our Allegiance but the Doctor according to his way does very easily resolve it Obedience is due to God's Authority and when we can reasonably conclude that God's Providence has settled the new King in the Throne we must pay our Obedience to him But how comes Settlement here to be the onely Indication of God's Conveyance of Authority Does not all his Reasoning conclude as strongly for all Possession of Sovereign Power without respect to Establishment God removeth and setteth up Kings onely by his Providence and he sets up a King when by his Providence be puts Sovereign Authority in his hands every advancement to a Throne whether setled or unsetled is an Event and therefore ordered by God's Will and Appointment and peculiarly ordered by him at having so great an Influence upon the Government of the World and this will be farther confirmed when we remember that Kings are God's Ministers and are invested with his Authority all Authority is God's and no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it is given and yet 't is very plain that Princes that are not fully settled are in Authority We must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings whom he does not make Kings for then we can never distinguish between God's Kings and Kings of their own making and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no And therefore a King whose Possession is not firmly established cannot be a wrong King because he is a King of God's making he has the Authority of Government in his hands and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull
great deal of good All this was true of Oliver he was visibly in Authority had the whole Government in his hands and had power to doe a great deal of Hurt or Good were the Clergy therefore bound to pray for their Sovereign Lord King Oliver In those days the Sons of the Church were of another Mind they esteemed it infamous and wicked to thrust their lawfull Sovereign out of their Prayers to make room for the Usurper and to stile him their Sovereign Lord their King or their Protector and yet pray for all in Authority was then a Text in the Bible What does the Apostle mean by all in Authority Not certainly all that have the Administration of it for then Pyrates Robbers and Rebels will be comprehended in that Expression But the Motive or Reason annexed is a clear Limitation of it we must pray for them that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life which shews we must here understand such Authority as is for the Quiet and Peace of of Society and such are all lawfull Powers even the most Tyrannical but such are not the Usurpers of that Authority that belongs to others whether Rebels Robbers or titular Tyrants for these are the great Enemies of Society their Usurpation of their Authority tends to its Subversion and considering its natural and ordinary Effects it can never be expected that a quiet and peaceable Life should be attained under them But the Doctor understands by the Expression such as have the whole Government in their Hands though they are not perfectly settled And whose Authority have they Certainly God's Authority for according to him the whole Authority of Government is God's but if they have God's Authority his Propositions give them a Right to Allegiance and to what purpose then is his Distinction of a through Settlement And if they have not his Authority how impertinent is the alleadging that Text for a Right to our Prayers We are bound to pray for all Men for private and publick Enemies for Thieves and Murtherers and Usurpers but we are principally obliged to this out of Charity to their Souls and therefore we must pray chiefly for their Repentance and Conversion and to pray thus for Usurpers that God would bless them thus with the chiefest of his Blessings is as says the Doctor so far from being a Fault that it is a Duty while we do it in such terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed But if in the late Usurpations a Doctor had ejected Charles and inserted Cromwell and had prayed in these Terms Bless we beseech thee our Sovereign Lord King Oliver I presume the Master of the Temple would have been as forward as any Man to charge Hypocrisie base Compliance and breach of Allegiance upon him And Reason would have made good the Charge for to pray for Oliver as our Sovereign Lord is to acknowledge before God and Man that he is so and to teach the People to acknowledge him and to pay him that Subjection and Allegiance that is due to a Sovereign Is not Prayer for a King one of the principal Expressions of Allegiance And when we pray for the Usurper in the room of the lawful Sovereign does not the very nature of the thing require this Interpretation that we do not own him for our King whom we thrust out of our Prayers and that we have transferred our Allegiance where we pay the most benefical Expression of it this is the general Sense of the People concerning it and he that can satisfie his Conscience to own an Usurper for his King and Sovereign Lord in the most Solemn Manner that can be tho he owns no Allegiance to be due to him when the Reason for which he does it the Nature of the Thing and the Construction of the People do imply an acknowledgment of Allegiance may I think be satisfied in any thing and need not scruple any Compliance whatsoever Thus far the Directions about Submission to a Government not throughly settled to which Allegiance is not required but tho he requires it not here in the Sequel of his Discourse he infers it as a necessary and indispensible Duty for when he comes to confute Bp. Sanderson's measures of Submission his Reasons there do prove if they prove any thing that Allegiance is due to such a Government The Doctor here directs us to pay some lower degrees of Submission but not Allegiance to his unsetled Usurper and so does Bp. Sanderson but his Arguments against the Bishop's do equally conclude against his own Directions and thus I argue after him If under an Vsurper unsetled the Safety and Tranquillity of Human Societies requires any thing of us it requires and justifies a great deal more for 1. As he states the matter this destroys Civil Government and a governed Society for seeing Allegiance is not due to such a Prince it follows he has not God's Authority so that to speak properly here is neither King nor Subject and I suppose no Man that considers it well will caâ— this a Civil Government to which God's Authority and Allegiance is essential 2. I would ask whether Self-Preservation publick Good and Gratitude for Protection do oblige me to obey and submit to the Prince who governs and to wish and pray for and do my utmost to endeavour his Prosperity if it does I see no difference between this and Allegiance if it does not then I am at liberty to disturb the Government nay am under an Obligation by my former Allegiance to do it when I can and how does this contribute to the Safety of Societies 3. Suppose such a Prince should require an Oath of Allegiance and the Subjects according to their Duty should refuse it and the Prince had Power to compel them what must be the effect of this but the utter Destruction of the Nation But there is no need of transcribing the rest of his Discourse it will be obvious to every one that considers it that it is applicable throughout to his own Directions for Submission without Allegiance Thus the Doctor does engage the Doctor his Arguments do overthrow his Directions or his Directions his Arguments His Propositions prove that Allegiance is due to every Usurper his Directions deny it and his Arguments against the Bishop do again infer it let him choose the one or the other either Allegiance is due to all Usurpers and then he loses Bp. Overal's Convocation-Book several Pages of his own Book and innumerable passages about a through Settlement Or it is due only to Usurpers that are settled and then his Propositions and all his Arguments from Scripture and almost all from Reason are irrecoverably gone The World knows he can prove which he pleases but I think he is not so great a Writer as to be able to prove Contradictions We come next to this summary account of a Government throughly settled and these are his Notes and Characters of it When besides the Possession of the Throne
Emperors who now govern the World are now ordained and appointed by God Now if the Roman Emperors were lawful Powers it is plain the Apostle required Subjection unto lawful Powers and not unto Usurpers and the former general Proposition There is no Power but of God must be restrained by the later The Powers that be are ordained of God The later Proposition shews what Power he speaks of in the former and restrains it to this Sense There is no lawful Power but of God This Interpretation is natural and agreeable to the common Rules of Interpreting and to the common Sense and Reason of Manking if the Apostle had liv'd in the Reign of Charles I. and required the English Christians to be subject to the King then in being as ordained by God Would this have been a good Argument for Subjection to the Rump and Cromwell as the Ordinance of God Could the precept which required Allegiance to a lawful King be of any advantage to an Usurper And would not such an Interpretation have appeared unreasonable and unnatural The Doctor excepts unsettled Powers out of the Rule but he can give no other Reason for it but that the Powers then in being were throughly settled he must allow then that the same Reason will hold good for the exception of Usurpers if the same Powers were lawful He saw himself that this Consequence was unavoidable and therefore to prevent the Force of it he denies the Roman Emperors to have been lawful Powers affirms that for many Ages together the Titles of the Roman Emperors were all of them either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful and I believe he is the first that ever affirmed it What were their Titles nought and were they all Usurpers for many Ages together What Historian Lawyer or good Author what Demonstration or even probable Argument can be produce for so incredible an Assertion But what have we to do here with the Emperors of many Ages he knows that either Claudius or Nero were the higher Powers to whom Subjection is requir'd by the Apostle and it was plainly his business to speak to their Titles if he intended to speak to the purpose but he declines this for it was impossible to prove them Usurpers he says only in general and without proof he says it that the Emperors Titles were either stark nought or very doubtful And is there no difference between no Title and a doubtful Title the Laws of Nature and Nations and I believe the Municipal Laws of all Societies do allow Possession to be a good and lawful Right where the Title is doubtful and the antecedent Right cannot be sufficiently proved if the Titles therefore of the Emperors were doubtful they were lawful Emperours and if Allegiance be due to such it is no good Consequence that Allegiance is due to Usurpers He should have prov'd that the Emperors were manifest Usurpers of that Sovereignty which was the Right of others and he should have prov'd this particularly of Claudius and Nero But the Title of these Emperors was unquestionable for 1. They had no Competitors who claim'd a Right to the Empire and therefore either there was no better Right or it was extinguish'd by Dereliction 2. Neither the Senate nor the Roman People had a good Right against them for they had not that which they had parted with that Right which they had by their own Acts and Deeds they convey'd upon the Emperors The Lex Regia which is mention'd in Dion Cassius and Justinian's Code and some Remains whereof are publish'd in Gruter's Inscriptions is an authentick evidence of this Translation of their Right It is very probable that this Law was renew'd at the advancement of every Emperor and it appears plainly from the Remains of it that Augustius Tiberius Caius Claudius and Vespasian had the Imperial Power conferred on them by a written Law and therefore they were lawful Emperors It is certain they had all of them the concurrent agreement of the Roman Senate and People Claudius was first set up by the Soldiers but the Senate soon consented to his Advancement and swore Fidelity to him and the Roman People and all the Provinces received him as their Emperour and the same universal concurrence there was to the Advancement of Nero without any Opposition Thus the Senate and People by express Law or by their Submission and Oaths of Fidelity which were as evident Declarations of their Will as any Law could be had transferred their Right upon the Emperors and therefore had not that which they transferred and there is no pretence of Right for any others and then it is evident those Emperors were Rightful Princes because they had a Lawful Right and because no other Right could be made good against them The Doctor insinuates this Prejudice against their Right that the consent of the Senate was extorted by â—ear or Flattery or other Acts. But their Consent however was voluntary and therefore valid against themselves Consent extorted by Fear or Flattery is as obligatory aâ— that which proceeds from Love or â—varice or Ambition or any other violent Passion and if all Contracts in which Fear or other Passions have a share are â—ill there is an end of all Justice and Faith among Manking But the Consent of the Senate and the People of Rome to the advancement of the Emperors may be justified by Reason and Necessity and the publick Good there was no other way to prevent Civil War and the Dissolution of the Empire We find in History that this Reason prevail'd upon the wisest of the Romans and since there are rational Grounds for their Consent why should it be ascrib'd to Fear and Folly rather than to Reason or Wisdom In the consent of a Multitude there may be as many Reasons as Men and therefore we must have regard only to their Act of consenting and not to their Reasons otherwise no consent of a Multitude will be valid for the Reasons of many of them will be always invalid and such as may be resolv'd into some Passion or other The Doctor adds that it is plain the Romans themselves were great Vsurpers and had no other Right to the greatest part of their Empire but Conquest and Vsurpation The Romans always pretended Justice in their Wars and if their pretence was true and the Right of Conquest in a just War be a good one they had a just Right to their Acquisitions they obtain'd a just Right to many of their Provinces by the dedition of the former Sovereigns and by express Compacts with them and by the extinction of all Competitors But in short it may suffice to answer that when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans they had a Right to their Provinces by Prescription and the Law of Nations declares that to be a good one This is all that the Doctor hath objected to the Title of the Roman Emperors and for any thing he hath objected their Title
was just and lawful He says if we must obey such Powers as the Roman Power was I know very few Powers that we may not obey and he had said it to some purpose if he had prov'd that Power to be Usurpation But I know no Powers that are more lawful and if we are requir'd to obey such Powers only we are under no Obligation to be the Subjects of Usurpers if the Powers intended by the Apostle were lawful then he requir'd Subjection only to lawful Powers and to say that he speaks of such Powers is not gratis dictum for there is evidence of it if I were the Doctor I should say there is little less than Demonstration for it 2. That the Rule of the Apostle must be restrain'd to lawful Powers does seem evident as from the Powers then in being so also from the Nature of the Duty and the Apostle's manner of expressing it Subjection or Non-Resistance is the Duty requir'd but Scripture it self and the Law of Nations do allow Resistance of Usurpers and therefore this Rule of Scripture ought not so to be interpreted as to prohibit that which is allow'd by Scripture and by the Consent of Nations especially when it may be interpreted in a Sense agreeable to them Who can doubt but that the Recuperative Wars of the Israelites against the Nations that usurp'd upon them recorded in the Book of Judges that the Resistance of Absalom by Joab and other Loyal Subjects and the Deposition of Athaliah after a Settlement of six Years Possession are approv'd in Scripture Does Christianity any where forbid such Recuperative Wars Have not all Nations ever allow'd and practis'd them And are not they allow'd by all Divines and Christians excepting Quakers Anabaptists and Socinians But if such Wars for the recovery of usurped Dominion are lawful it evidently follows that Usurpers may be lawfully resisted and therefore they are not such Powers as are declar'd by the Apostle to be God's Ordinance and unresistible Nothing can be objected to this Argument but that a Recuperative War may be lawful to the dispossessed Sovereign and yet unlawful to the Subjects and this indeed is asserted by the Doctor But here it shall suffice to reply in short that if an Usurper be God's Ordinance and Minister he has a Divine Right to the Throne and therefore a Recuperative War against him is a War against God it cannot be lawful to dispossess any one of a Power for which he has God's Authority no Truth and Principle can be more evident than this and so the Result must be either that the Usurper is not God's Ordinance or that a War to dispossess him is absolutely unlawful if the Doctor choose the former he overthrows his Book if he choose the latter he contradicts Scripture the Law and Practice of all Nations the Judgment of all Lawyers and almost all Divines and asserts a Proposition of which the L. Bacon hath said That no Man is so poor of Judgment as to affirm it 3. It should be considered that an Usurper is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that resists opposes and fights against Authority he is so much more than a Rebel for his Opposition is greater and his Usurpation is onely prosperous Resistance all the Iniquity of Resistence does lie in the Usurpation of that Power which by divine Ordinance is invested in another for when Resisters have a lawfull Right to the Power of the Sword there is no Iniquity in their Resistence and they are not within the Apostles Prohibition that which makes them liable to Damnation is the usurping the Power of the Sword and using it against those who have a divine Commission for the Exercise of it There can be no Resistence without Usurpation and therefore Usurpers must be condemned by the Apostle as well as the Resisters and if the Resister in the Apostle does comprehend the Usurper it is impossible he should be God's Ordinance and have a Right to Subjection by virtue of his Authority To this it will be objected that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he who resisteth a Sovereign in Possession that such a Resister usurps the Power of the Sword and is liable to Damnation but if by a prosperous Resistence he gets Possession of Sovereign Power he ceaseth to be an Usurper and has God's Authority and the former Power is no longer the Ordinance of God but is deposed by him The force of this Objection consists in these two Propositions 1. That Subjection is due to all Possessours of Sovereignty 2. That a lawful Sovereign ceases to be God's Ordinance when he is dispossessed But neither of these Propositions are affirmed by the Apostle he says not that every Sovereign in Possession is God's Ordinance but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is now no Power over us but of God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Powers now in being are ordained of God It is very obvious that these Propositions are limited to the Powers then in being and the former Propositions included in the Objection are universal and every one that has but natural Logick does know that Universals are not comprehended in particulars As to the 2d Preposition the Aposile has given us no intimation how a Sovereign that is God's Ordinance can cease to bâ— so â—or has he taught us that when he is wickedly depos'd by damn'd Resisters he is depos'd by God's Authority also This Doctrine is neither taught by the Apostle nor by any of the inspir'd Writers The whole Scripture is a perfect Stranger to these two Propositions and the great Writers for Usurpation cannot produce any Text of Scripture which contains them either expresly or virtually To except the Usurpers of Sovereignty out of the number of Resisters is therefore a precarious Exception that has no Foundation in the 13th of the Romans nor in any Chapter of the Bible 4. Let us then suppose that Reason is the sole Judg of this Controversie Whether a Sovereign dispossessed is no longer God's Ordinance And whether a prosperous Resister who has usurped the Sovereignty is ordained by God and has his Authority to govern These are not Propositions that carry their own Evidence and from what Topicks shall we deduce them From the politick Good and the Preservation of humane Society But this Proof will be as doubtfull at least as the Propositions to be prov'd not only because it is a great Question whether the publick Good can set up Kings and depose them but also because it will seem evident to many that the Encouragement of Resistence and Usurpation by conveying divine Authority upon every prosperous Resister and the unavoidable consequence of frequent Wars the greatest Evil to Society which will often end in Anarchy and the Dissolution of Society are the things which are most destructive to the publick Good and the Preservation of Society Are those Propositions then to be deduced from the Topick of Providence We all acknowledge that the World is governed by
Providence but this can be no Proof that whoever gains any thing by any concurrence of Providence has God's Authority to keep it If it were these two Consequences would be inevitable 1. That God does authorize all the Injustice and all the Wickedness in the World for no Man can commit Wickedness without some concurrence of God's Providence and if that be a proof of his Authority then it necessarily follows that God does authorize it 2. That there is no such thing as the Obligation of Justice for iâ— there be no doubt it binds us to render to every Man his due but if it is impossible to get the Possession of any thing without God's Providence and that is always a Conveyance of his Authority then he who has the Possession of another's Property has acquired a Divine Right to it and there can be no Obligation upon him to restore it And in short nothing can be due to a Man which he has not in his Possession and therefore since suum ouiquâ— cribuere is the onely Office of Justice and that Office is impracticable it follows that Justice is only an empty Word that has no significancy in it These are the desperate consequences of that Doctrine which overturn at once the very Foundations of all Religion civil Society and Morality and therefore we are as sure that it is false as that God is holy that Justice is a Duty or that Wrong is not Right nor Vice Vertue Providential concurrence thereof to the gaining of any Possession is in its self no Proof of the conveyance of divine Authority it neither deprives the former Possessor of his Right nor transfers it to the new one this is undeniable in the Case of private Property and there is equal Reason to allow it in the Case of Sovereignty Private Property and Sovereignty are different Things indeed but the notion of Right apply'd to both is the same and the concurrence of Providence to the acquiring of both the same and therefore if Providence extinguishes not the Right to one neither does it so to the other if it gives not a divine Right to Robbers neither does it to Usurpers Since the influence and co-operation of Providence is the same in bringing any one to the unjust Possession of a Purse a House a City and a Kingdom and it is impossible for Reason to observe any difference as to the conveyance of Power though there be a difference in the extension of Power proportionably to the Usurpation it necessarily follows that from the precise Consideration of Providence Reason cannot possibly distinguish between God's Ordinance and Permission his conveying Authority upon an Usurper and not upon a Robber his establishing the Possession of a Throne by divine Donation when he gives no Establishment to the Possession of a Robber But on the contrary Reason seems to assure us That God's Providence does never give Authority to Injustice that Robbery is not God's Ordinance that great Robbers are no more authorized by him than little Robbers that as Stealing of it self introduces no Right so neither does Rebelling noâ— Usurping that Prosperity in Wickedness is no Proof of a divine Commission lastly that if resisting God's Ordinance be unlawful it is unlawful to carry on and continue that Resistance it is unlawful to resist a King so far as to depose him and to usurp his Throne and if it be unlawful to resist and to usurp it is unlawful to continue the Usurpation by keeping Possession against the rightful Sovereign for that is only a continuation of his Injustices which increases his Crime and if it be unlawful to resist a lawful Prince to depose him to usurp his Throne and to continue the Usurpation it seems evident beyond all Contradiction that an Usurper while he is such is never established by God's Authority for that is never granted to unlawful Acts or Possessions In short If it be unjust to usurp the Usurper is bound to Repentance and Restitution he who has unjustly invaded another's Right is bound in Justice to restore it And if the Usurper is bound to restore the Power he has usurped he cannot have a divine Right to that which he is bound to restore to another and consequently cannot have the Establishment of divine Authority This to me is the voice of Reason and if Reason is so far from proving that an Usurper is God's Ordinance that it proves the contrary if that Proposition is not to be found in the 13th of the Rom. nor in any part of the Bible if an Usurper be properly a Resister of God's Ordinance if the Examples in Scripture and the Law of Nations do prove it lawful to resist him and finally if the Powers to whom the Apostle requires Subjection were lawful Powers than it is evident that the Rule of the Apostle must be understood of lawful Powers and that there is as much evidence for excepting of Usurpers as there is for excepting Thieves or Rebels Thus there is Reason to except Usurpers out of the Rule and this will appear more reasonable when we have examined the Doctor 's Arguments against it 1. He objects that the Criticism between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not do because they signifie the same thing in scripture either Force and Powers or Authority But he has produc'd no Instance to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it denotes Civil Authority does signify Possession of Power without Right he knows the Word is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 licet and therefore properly it must signifie only Lawful Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far from being spoken concerning Civil Authority and when the same Apostle declares that our Saviour was exalted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in this World but also in that which is to come I hope he spake not of Usurped Powers unless there are such also among the Angels in Heaven Every one knows that Force and Authority are two different things and if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be applied to signifie Force and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authority the Propriety of the Words will bear it but we depend not upon that Distinction to exclude Usurpers though it is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture must be sometimes necessarily understood to signifie only Lawful Power as Matth. 21. 23. and I have shewn there is a necessity of understanding it to in the 13th of the Romans 2. But the Doctor observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who exercise Authority and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers veâ— 3â— the Ministers of God which bear the Suâ—rd ver 4. in St. Peter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King and Governours and thence he infers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does evidently relate to the exercise of Civil Authority not to a legal Right I think it relates to the rightful exercise of Authority God gives Authority and
will admit and reasonable Men will expect no more 5. Farther it is objected That the Reason the Apostle gives for Submission to the higher Powers is not a legal Right but the Authority of God that all Power or every one who exercises the supreme Power is of God and the Ordinance of God which seems plainly intended to wave the Dispute about the legality of the Powers But 1. This Objection does conclude as strongly against his own Principle as against his Adversaries he requires Allegience not to every one who exercises the supreme Power so did Oliver but to a Possessor throughly settled by the general Consent of the People But the Reason the Apostle gives for Subjection to the higher Powers is not a through Settlement or the Consent of the People but the Authority of God that every one who exercises supreme Power is the Ordinance of God which seems plainly to wave all Disputes about Settlement and Consent He can make no reply which will not serve his Adversaries if he says that Settlement and Consent are not the formal Reason of Allegiance but only the Signs of God's Authority to which it is immediately due we say the same for our Principle we confess that the Duty of Allegiance must be ultimately resolved into God's Authority we only affirm that a lawful Right is a Sign of that Authority we maintain that Allegiance is due to God's Authority and thus far we are agreed But how shall we know when a Prince is invested with this Authority When he is settled saith the Doctor when he has a lawful Right say others and here lies the difference between us If the Apostle had required Subjection to all Possessors for the sake of Possession there could have been no Dispute about the legality of Powers but since the Apostle's Reason of Subjection is not Possession but the Ordinance of God and he does not say that every one who is in Possession is ordained by God for every one who exercises the supreme Power is the Doctor 's saying and not the Apostle's it remains a Question what Powers in the meaning of the Apostle are ordain'd by God whether lawful only or also unlawful Powers and if he means lawful only the Dispute about Legality is unavoidable The Doctor in the Vindication of his Arguments from Rom. 13. demands How God does invest any Prince with his Authority whom he does not immediately nominate To this he Answers himself and confutes himself but my Answer is That God annexes his Authority to those Princes who have a lawful Right to govern or to execute the Regal Office And what says the Doctor If God's Authority be annexed to the Regal Office a Prince must be in the actual Administration of the Regal Office before he can have God's Authority as a Man must be actually Married before he can have the Authority which the Divine Laws give to a Husband By Regal Office either he means the Duty in the Abstract and whoever said that God's Authority was annexed to the Duty or he must mean a Right to execute it or the actual Execution of it if he means the former he asserts a manifest Absurdity That he who has a Right to an Office must be in the actual Administration of it if the later he only asserts That a Prince who actually administers the Regal Power must be in the actual Administration of it and thus this shew of Argument is nothing but an Amusement and so is the similitude of an Husband for the Relation of a Husband is subsequent to Marriage and no Man can have the Authority of a Husband before he is a Husband But the Relation of a King is not founded upon Possession but upon a Right to govern which implies a Right to Obedience and we acknowledge that a King must actually have that Right before he can have God's Authority but this very instance of a Husband is a convincing Proof that God's Authority may be given to those that cannot exercise it for that is the condition of many Husbands He urges farther That to call a Right to the Crown the Authority of Government is contrary to the Sense of Mankind when they speak of Sovereign Princes For he has actual Authority who actually administers the Government and it is actual Authority which is God's Authority not Authority in Fancy and Idea for God does not give Authority to govern without the Power of Government which is a very fruitless and insignificant Authority The Reply is very obvious a Right to the Crown is a Right to govern and that implies Authority to govern and a Prince may have actually this Authority and yet not actually administer it And this is so far from being contrary to the Sense of Mankind that nothing is more consonant to it for all Men know that there may be Power without Authority and Authority without Power and there is no Man in his Wits but can easily distinguish them and this is not an Authority which subsists only in Fancy for it has a moral Efficacy and obliges to Obedience and it might as well be said that all Duty Law and Right are nothing but Fancy and Idea but to say that God never gives Authority to govern without the Power of Government is an Assertion manifestly false Have not Parents Masters and Husbands Authority from God to govern when they cannot govern those that are ungovernable Had not David God's Authority to govern when Absalom forc'd him to be Abdicated Had not Charles I. Authority to govern the Parliament and the Regicides And have not all Princes the same Authority over their Rebellious Subjects But God's Authority without Power is fruitless and insignificant that I think is no fault of God or his Authority the Grace of God is fruitless much more than his Authority and his Authority in Parents Husbands and Church Governours is too often as insignificant as his Authority in Princes but woe to them who render God's Authority insignificant For their Damnation slumbereth not And this may suffice to his Objection about God's Authority But he endeavours farther to support it by observing 6. That the Pharisees made this Objection against Submission to the Roman Powers that they were bound by the Law of God not to submit to them as being unjust Vsurpations upon the Priviledges and Liberties of God's People and therefore the Apostle tells them that all Powers are of God and the Powers that be are ordained of God Let it be granted now that some such Objection was made by the Pharisees How does it appear that the Apostle intended to oppose or answer it Was that Opinion maintained by any of that Sect after they were converted to Christianity or by any of the Roman Converts or by any of the Christians at all That the Doctor will not affirm and if he does it it is impossible to prove it And why should we then imagine that the Apostle designed to confute an Error which
relate to Civil Society As for God's Decrees they are unknown to us till they are fulfilled and when they are we can never know whether they are positive or permissive whether they require our Submission or Resistence but by the nature of the Events Usurpations are decreed by God and so are Robberies so is Antichrist and if there be no difference between these Decrees as there may be none and there can be none gathered out of Daniel or out of any other part of Scripture it follows necessarily that God's Decreeing of Usurpers infers not any Obligation of Subjection to them Thus I have done with his Argument from Dreams Decrees and Prophecies and I hope it appears that the Doctour's Commentary upon Daniel does by no means make good his Commentary upon the Apostle 8. He argues farther That this Distinction that only legal not usurped Powers are of God had made the Apostle's Direction signifie nothing for the great Question had still been undetermined what Powers are of God and what they must obey if some Powers be of God and some not The Apostle directed the Roman Christians to be subject to the Roman Powers then in being and if there was any Dispute whether they were lawfull Powers or Usurpers he plainly determines it by declaring they were God's Ordinance and that Subjection was therefore due to them he tells them the Powers then in being were ordained by God and that was enough to silence all Disputes about them The Doctour confesses That had the Apostle confin'd himself to the then present Powers it would have directed them at that time but says he it would have been no general Direction to Christians in other Ages to obey the present Powers it would have been very convenient for some Men if the Apostle had given such a Direction but what if he hath not Why then we have no Direction in Scripture what to do in such disputed Cases unless by a Parity of Reason Well suppose that we have not the Direction is sufficient if we will be content with what may be reasonably expected St. Paul required the Christians to pay Subjection to the Roman Emperours who were lawfull Powers and the Reason upon which he enjoins it extends the Obligation to Subjects in all Ages and Nations who are under the government of such lawful Powers But the Apostle has not directed us to distinguish what Powers are lawful neither have we any Directions to find out true Parents lawful Husbands Masters and Pastors and yet I think the Scripture is not to be charged with Imperfection The Scripture prescribes the Duties of these several Relations but gives no Rules to distinguish the Relatives the True and Lawful from the False and Counterfeit that depends upon the infinite variety of Fact of Customs and of Laws and therefore cannot be comprehended in general Rules so does the Distinction between lawful Powers and unlawful it depends upon the various Constitutions of Civil Politics and often upon Matters of Fact and therefore that Distinction could not be bounded and defined within Rules nor consequently be determined in Scripture In short it may be inferred by parity of Reason from the Apostle that the supreme Powers in every civil Government are God's Ordinance and irresillible But which are the supreme Powers he hath left to be determined by the Laws of every Government The Doctor himself hath told the World That whatever Power in any Nation according to the Fundamental Laws of its Government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme Power of that Nation the higher Powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And is there any Nation in the World which hath made an Usurper irresistible by a Fundamental Law The Doctor may recant this but he will pardon me if I am still of his Opinion But the Doctor is sure the only Direction in Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government And I am sure there is no such Direction there and which is more the Doctor himself is sure of it for he is sure that Usurpers who have the actual Administration of Government without the consent of the People have no Title to Subjection He seems to lay stress upon those Words of the Apostle At God's Ministers attending continually upon this very Thing the Emperors were then actually Administring the Government and that was their Business as God's Ministers But does the Apostle say that Sovereign Powers are not God's Ministers when they are hindred from their Business though they are still attending upon it and endeavour to remove the Impediment Do they cease to be God's Ministers because their Subjects are Rebels Obedience is required to Spiritual Rulers because they watch over Souls Heb. 13. 11. Are the People then discharged from their Duty if they will not suffer their Pastors to watch over them but separate from them And are the Pastors no longer God's Ministers because they can't exercise their Function But there is not the least notice given us of any kind of Duty to a Prince removed from the Administration of Government whatever his Right may be Neither say I is there any the least notice of paying any Duty to Usurpers no more is there of paying Obedience to a Father or a Master remov'd from the Government of their Families or to a Bishop removed from his Church by Persecution there is no more than this that the Scripture requires Obedience to them and neither Scripture nor Reason does teach us that when they are violently removed from the actual Administration of their respective Governments the Relation ceases and the Duty with it And thus much may be said for Sovereign Princes Subjection is required to them but neither Scripture nor Reason do inform us that the Relation is extinguished when they are violently deposed On the contrary we are expresly required to give Princes their dues and what those are we must learn from the Laws of Nature and Nations for the Scripture has not taught us But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to Vsurpers In the 2d of Samuel we have the People of the Jews submitting to Absalom in the 13th of Revel the People of all Nations to Anti-christ but in neither do we find that they are blamed for it But I wonder when he was heaping up these negative Arguments that he did not remember that if they are good for any thing they overthrow his own Hypothesis he maintains that Allegiance is not due to all Usurpers though all his Arguments from Providence and Scripture do prove it but only to those that are setled by a general consent and yet there is no Rule no Example not an Iota for this Distinction in Scripture But this was not convenient to be remember'd for then he had lost these pretty Arguments But in Scripture we have Examples of Subjects being condemn'd for refusing
no purpose to resist yet it is no more lawful to assist an Usurper to the destruction of a Rightful Prince meerly for my own Safety than it is to assist a High-way-Man to save my own Purse or to compound for my own Life by assisting an Assassine to destroy my Neighbour's Thus I have consider'd all the Doctor 's Arguments from Scripture but there is one Text more to be consider'd which the Doctor propounds as an Objection against his Principle the place is Hosea 8. 4. where God himself does thus complain of the Israelites They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Here we are assur'd that all Kings have not been set up by God and this is as plainly and expresly declar'd as Words can do it and how then is this reconcileable with the Apostle's universal Proposition there is no Power but of God I have intimated that this Proposition is restrained by the following Words unto the Powers then in being which were lawful Powers And thus the Texts are easily reconcil'd and there is no Contradiction between them if we understand the latter of lawful Powers the former of Usurpers or if we distinguish between Kings set up by God's Ordinance and Authority and Kings set up by his Permission and the general Concourse of his Providence But what saith the Doctour 1. Those Words in Hosea are not true of all the Kings of Israel after their Separation from the Tribe of Judah for Jeroboam and Jehu were set up by God's own Appointment This is contrary to the general-Sense of Expositors who apply this Speech to to Jeroboam especially But did not God declare by the Prophet Abiah that he would give him the Kingdom over Israel It is answered though Jeroboam had a Prediction of his Advancement yet he did not tarry for God's farther direction about it as David did he possessed himself of the Kingdom not by God's Appointment but by the Gift of the People who had no Command nor Direction from God to depose Rehoboam and whereas another Prophet declared that the Thing was from God this may denote that God permitted and ordered the Rebellion and Usurpation for the punishment of Solomon and his Son and such a permitting and over-ruling Providence could be no Conveyance of Authority for thus the Cursing of Shimei and the Usurpation of Absalom were also from God 2. One of these Kings was Baasha who made himself King without God's express Nomination and yeâ— God tells him I exalted thee out of the Dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel This might have been said of Cromwell who yet had no Title to God's Authority and it may be understood of the general Concurrence of God's Providence and the concession of Power to usurp the Throne But as for these Kings if God did actually deprive the Family of David of their Right to the Kingdom of Israel then they were lawfull Kings because Possession was a Right when there was no other if he did not which seems very doubtful they were certainly Usurpers upon a Divine Right and therefore though they were exalted by God's Providence yet they could not be invested with his Authority 3. The true Answer is this Israel was a Theocracy and therefore they ought to have received their Kings from God's Nomination but instead of that they submitted to any who could set up themselves over them and this he says was a great Crime it being in effect a renouncing their Prerogative of having Kings set up by God's Nomination and putting themselves into the common condition of the World where Kings are set up onely by his Providence This contains the force of his Answer and at most 't is only conjecture and such as has little shew of Probability No doubt it was a Crime not to consult God when they might have consulted him but upon the Doctour's Principle it could be no fault to submit to any who could set themselves over them for he says himself concerning those Princes that they were set up by God and surely it could be no fault to submit to his Ordidinance He affirms expresly That in Judah and Israel God did sometimes set up Kings onely by his Providence and these providential Kings had all the Rights of other Sovereign Princes of Judah or Israel consequently they had a Right to Submission and therefore it was no fault to pay it and if it was a fault to submit to those Kings of Providence then certainly they were not invested with God's Authority and then the meaning of the Words in debate is this they have set up Kings by the Concurrence of my Providence but not by me but without the conveyance of my Authority As for the Prerogative of receiving Kings by express Nomination I understand not upon the Doctor 's Principles how that could be any Prerogative I am sure it could be no advantage for if Kings of Providence have divine Authority as much as Kings by Nomination where is the difference Cannot good Kings be made by Providence as well as by a Prophet Is not the one God's Act and will as much as the other There can be no Priviledge or Advantage in a singular way of making Kings if all are made by God and enjoy his Authority and therefore in the nature of the thing it self it could be no Crime to forego it I hope it appears now that his Scripture-Proofs are as ill grounded as his Propositions I might well spare the Labour of examining his other Reasons but if they be not answered they may be thought unanswerable and therefore I will briefly consider them 2. The Doctor observes That his Hypothesis gives the easiest and intelligible Account of the Original of humane Government that all Power is from God who is the Sovereign Lord of the World Having observed this he recites the various Opinions about the Origine of Monarchy and confutes them severally and concludes at last That he cannot see where to fix the Foundation of Government but in the Providence of God who by the choice of the major or stronger part of the People or by Conquest or Submission or the long successive Continuance of Power or by humane Laws gives a Prince and his Family Possession of the Throne which is a good Title against all humane Claims and requires the Obedience of Subjects as long as God is pleased to continue Him and his Family in the Throne but it is no Title against God if he please to advance another Prince To set this Matter in a clear Light I observe 1. That our Dispute with the Doctor is not about the Origine or first Beginning of Government whether it began in Paternal Authority or by Original Contracts but about the Resolution of Government and Obedience whether they must be resolved into Right or Possession 2. The Dispute is not whether the Power of Government is derived from God or whether it is founded upon
this Providence We acknowledge that the Authority of Government is derived only from God and from him no otherwise but by a Providential Conveyance of his Authority upon particular Persons and thus far we are agreed But then the Question is Whether God's Providence does invest a Prince with his Authority by the conveyance of Right or by the conveyance of Possession without it In short whether every Prince in Possession is invested with God's Authority We affirm that Government is founded in God's Authority but we deny that God conveys it upon every Prince in Possession 3. When we say God's Authority is annexed to Right we do not confine this to a Right by political Laws of particular Governments the adaequate Rule of Right is Law and whatsoever is Law may create a Right and consequently Right may result not only from political Laws of this or that Government but also from the Laws of God of Nature and Nations the Will of God revealed is a Law to us and therefore when God nominates a King by express Revelation he has a Right to the Possession of Sovereignty and the Obedience of Subjects In a state â—f Nature as they call it wherein Men are under no Government nor Obligation of Subjection they may choose a Sovereign and when they have chosen him he has a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature By the Law of Nations it is generally said how truly I dispute not that Conquest in a just War does create a lawful Right And lastly when political Societies are Constituted and a Rule of Succession Established either at the first by an Original Agreement or afterwards by Prescription or positive Laws that Law of Succession does create a Right to the Sovereignty which is confirmed by the Laws of God and Nature and Nations but if this Law be violated and an Usurpation is made against it the Usurpers may acquire a Right by Prescription which implies an undisturbed Possession and a Dereliction of the former Right and this new Right which commences from the extinction of the former is such by the Law of Nature which is Equity and of Nations which is the Consent of civilized Societies Lastly Where there is no Rule of Succession or no Right in any Person to the Sovereignty as when a Royal Family is extinguished in such Cases The Possession of Sovereign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it for then we may presume that God gives him the irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an irresistible Power When there is no other Right Possession is a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations but Possession of another's Right has been always pronounced invalid by the voice of Equity and the suffrage of all Nations These Two last Rights may perhaps be reduced to the Second the Consent of a free People for they suppose them to be discharged from all former Obligations and Possession of Sovereignty supposes Submission of the People and that is nothing else but a Consent to be governed which in a free People I have observed does create a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature And now let us consider what the Doctor does object against these Titles to Sovereignty Against the Choice and Consent of the People he objects That then no Man is a Subject but he who Consents to be so for the major Vote says he cannot include my Consent unless I please that is the effect of Law and Compact or Force not of Nature I answer when a free People choose a Sovereign if they consent to choose it is presum'd unless it be otherwise provided that they consent the major Vote shall determine the Choice this presumption is grounded upon manifest Equity But if any one refuses to be determin'd by a Majority he refuses to enter into the Society and may remove out of it but if he will live within the Government of the new Sovereign he accepts him for his Sovereign and is bound to Obedience He urges farther That if Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away again if they please Bp. Sanderson propounds this very Inference and his Answer is this Contra stat ratio omnia jura omnia for a reclamant scilicet legitima pacta non esse rescindenda It is the Voice of Reason and of all Laws and of all places of Commerce that lawful Compacts are not to be resâ—inded at pleasure But another Answer is also given The Subjects are only instrumental Agents God is the principal Agent in the making of a King the People design the Person and God conveys the Authority It is God that makes Kings the People are his Instruments but he has given them no Power to depose them The Doctor himself affirms That the Consent of the People are the means by which Princes gain a Right to their Thrones and I affirm no more the People may be a means of conveying Right though it be God alone that confers the Authority and if God alone does make Kings he alone can depose them But farther Vpon this Principle there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can choose only for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had True if there could be no Right to Sovereignty without the constant Election of the Subjects but that is no Principle of mine and I am not bound to answer for it but this I will answer for that a Law made a Thousand Years ago may be Obligatory now and that it may create a Right to a Person now living and that it may be a Sin to deprive him of it tho' it be done by the help of Providence His Objection against the Right of Conquest supposes it to be effected by unjust and violent Force and I easily acknowledge that unjust Conquest gives no Right Submission he says is only a forced and after Consent not to make a King but to own him who has made himself King and what Right can that give more than Force He shall Answer this himself The Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was Originally no more but Force into a civil and legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince by this means Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedont Right this is certainly true where the People are under no antecedent Obligation The continuance of an Vsurpation can never give a Right unless that which is Wrong grow Right by Continuance That Maxim of the Law to which he refers has this Exception Vnless a new Cause intervene which of it self can create a Right Now that which makes way for a new Right is the Extinction of the former Right The continuance of an Usurpation of it self may never give a Right but if the Usurpers enjoy quiet Possession of a 100 Years together it is a presumption in Law and Equity
into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter for a legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People and if the People have Authority to make Kings they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them A Legal Entail may be founded on the express consent of the People or upon a long continued Prescription which implies a full Consent and derives a good Title of Inheritance both before God and Man but though the Right be founded on Consent yet the Authority of Government is only from God The People have Power to consent and when they have consented Reason and Equity do dictate that they are bound to observe their own Pacts and Covenants But to speak properly this Obligation does not arise from Consent and Reason but from the Authority of God for Obligation is the effect of Law and nothing can be Law without the Sanction of superior Authority which in the Laws of Nature such as that is which requires that the People stand to their Pacts and to those Forms of Government which they have entred into can be God alone And thus as the Authority of Government proceeds from God so the Obligation of the People to adhere to that Entail which their Consent has made does proceed only from God's Sanction of that natural Law which makes their Consent irrevocable and for that Reason though they have some Power in making Kings they have none to unmake them But then if Consent be necessary to Right and God's Authority is not convey'd without Right Is not this to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People For if God cannot make a King without the People or against their Consent declared by their Laws the Authority must be derived from the People not from God or at least if it be God's Authority yet God cannot give it himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws And this says the Doctor is very absurd and what those Persons abhor the Thoughts of who insist so much upon a legal Right But where is this horrible Absurdity Is it that God cannot make a King without the People That indeed is an Absurdity but asserted by no one the Question is what God wills or does and not what he can doe He can make a King out of Stones he can make him without the People without any Instruments and without any antecedent Right but this he never does and what he can do is nothing to the purpose But does it not then follow that the Authority must be derived from the People not from God derived from the People onely as Instruments but then God cannot give it himself without the People which indeed is a self-evident Consequence for if God cannot make a King without the People it follows plainly that God cannot give Authority without the People He adds nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws He should have said as God himself has directed for the Direction or Obligation of Laws proceeds from God alone But where are we Is it not his own Doctrine that God does never make Kings without the Consent of the People No matter whether this Consent be Law or no it obliges the People and Providence never sets up a King without it and how then can he acquit himself of these imaginary Absurdities If he says the Consent of the People is the effect of God's Choice is his Instrument or the Sign of his Conveyance of Authority the same say I for a legal Entail and his own Distinctions will answer his own Arguments 3. To justifie the Doctrine of Allegiance to Usurpers he urges this Argument That it is founded on the same Principle as the Doctrine of Nonresistence and therefore both must be true and false for it is founded on this Principle that God makes Kings and invests them with his Authority which equally proves That all Kings who have received a Sovereign Authority from God and are actually in the Administration of it which is the only Evidence we have that they have received it from God must not be resisted This Reason depends upon his former Proofs and falls together with them it is finally resolved into this Assertion that they who are in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power have received Authority from God An Assertion which makes all Usurpers the Ordinance of God which divests Charles I. and II. of God's Authority and assigns it to the Rump and Cromwell which gives the Sanction of divine Right to the greatest Wickedness and Injustice which is contradicted by almost all Divines and Lawyers by the Voice of Nations and by the Doctour himself for he acknowledges that God's Authority is not always annexed to the actual Administration of Sovereign Power Here he asserts that it is the only Evidence we have of the receiving Authority from God yet when he comes to account for Cromwell he confesses it is no Evidence and makes the Consent of the People to be the onely evidence of it We grant that Non-resistence is founded on God's Authority communicated to Sovereigns but we say that it is always communicated with Right that all just Rights are established by God's Authority that actual Administration is onely matter of Fact which is different from Right and that Usurpers may have it by God's permissive Will which is no Conveyance of Authority But Non-resistence it seems is Nonsense unless it be founded on this new Principle if it must be so who can help it We must acknowledge that Dudley Diggs's Dr. Fern's Dr. Hammond's Bishop Sanderson's Archbishop Bramhall's Defences of Non-resistence are Nonsense for they defend it upon another Principle which is more that all the Church of England Writers for at least â—0 years together even Bishop Stillingfleet Doctor Sherlock and the other Worthies of the Age have erred in the Foundation of Non-resistance and have preached nonsensically and writ nonsensically for it and which is more yet that no one Writer of the Church of England before the late Revolution has defended the Doctrine of the Church upon that Principle which by a new Light is discovered to be the true Foundation of it I cannot believe this without Demonstration but for that I am sent to the Clouds and to the unsearchable Abyss of Providence What the Doctour urges about receiving Authority from the People is answered already the 13th of the Romanâ— is also considered and Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book is fully vindicated from his Glosses and I am not now at Leisure for Repetition 4. To say that when the Divine Providence has removed one King and set up another we must not pay the Duty of Subjects to him if he have no legal Right is to deny God's Authority to remove Kings or set up Kings against humane Laws This he propounds as a 4th Reason
it conveys the unjust Possession of an Estate but when it conveys a Crown to an unjust Usurper it is an uncontrollable Evidence of his positive Will and Authority this Distinction cannot be deduc'd from Providence itself for in both Cases the Concurrence is the same he must go to something else to prove it either Reason or Scripture and all his Arguments from both I have examined already 2. The same difference that is assigned in the Reply between a Crown and an Estate may be applied to other Cases I will instance in a Bishop's Right to his Temporalty and to spiritual Jurisdiction to the former nothing is required besides a mere humane Right but to enjoy the later he must have God's Authority suppose now that both are usurped by an illegal and schismatical Intruder who is certainly in some sense Episcopus divina Providentia The Dr. will confess that Providence has given him no Right to the Temporalties the Question then is whether â—â— has a Right to the Spiritual Jurisdiction which is God's Authority It may be urged that there is indeed an ordinary lawful way whereby Bishops are invested with that Authority but God's Authority is not inseparably annexed to that ordinary Vocation he can make a Bishop without it and when he does so a mere lawfull Vocation is not a sufficient Reason to adhere to a Bishop deposed by God nor can the want of it â—ustisie the disowning of a Bishop whom God has advanced The plain Resolution of such a Case is this God can make a Bishop without an ordinary Vocation but this he never does and he that pretends to an extraordinary Call is bound to prove it by indubitable Evidence if he cannot we must reject the extraordinary and adhere to the ordinary Bishop and they that do otherwise are schismatical Dividers of Catholick Communion And thus it is in the Case of Kingdoms God can depose a lawful King and set up an Usurper without antecedent Right but before we can transfer our Allegiance we must be sure that God has done this The pretender to an extraordinary Commission must produce extraordinary Evidence but the ordinary Events of Providence are not sufficient to prove it for the Thief and the schismatical Bishop are in Possession by Providence as well as the Usurper and many things do happen under the Direction of Providence which God himself does condemn and punish which Men are bound by God to resist to the utmost of their Power 3. There is no such great Disparity as is pretended between Right to a Crown and Right to an Estate Right in general is a moral Quality whereby we may possess or doe any thing justly it extends to Government of Persons as well as possession of Things and when it is applied to the former it is called Authority the Rule and measure of Right is Law and the Obligation of all Law does proceed onely from the Authority of God A Right to an Estate is a moral Power of possessing and enjoying it justly a Right to the Government of a Family or Kingdom is a moral Power to command those Societies and where there is no Right to command there can be no Obligation to obey these Rights may be acquired by the positive Laws of God the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Civil Societies which are onely so many several ways of God's revealing his Will to Mankind and therefore all Right either to Government or Estates must be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God the only Lawgiver concerning the Right to govern there is no Question and as to Estates and other private Possessions it seems evident that no humane Law considered as merely humane can create any Right to any thing for humane Law is nothing but the Will of Men and the Act of one Man conveying a Possession to another cannot oblige a third Person to abstain from it and therefore cannot appropriate it as the Right of the other the Obligation must proceed from some Authority superiour to both which does bind the one by the Act of the other and that can be no other but God's Authority In short Right is the Effect of Law and Law hath its Obligation from God and hence it follows that as God's Authority is necessary to make a King so is it necessary likewise to create a Right to an Estate and therefore in this respect there is no difference between the one Right and the other for both are ultimately founded on God's Authority God by his Sovereign Dominion can dispose of Estates as well as Crowns against Law but humane Laws cannot dispose of either without God's Authority but the Power of God to doe a thing is no Proof that he does it and Providential Possession is still as good Evidence of God's Authority to an Estate as of his Authority to govern There remains yet another Reply to the Objection which must also be considered it is this That all private Injuries are reserv'd by God himself to the redress of Civil Government and Courts of Judicature and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights But the nature of the Thing proves that when such Disputes arise which are too big for humane Judicature which God hath reserved to his own Judgment as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring of Kingdoms here the final Determinations of Providence in settling Princes on their Thrones does draw the Allegiance of Subjects after it This contains the force of his Evasion and the first Answer to the former may sustice to this that though this difference be admitted between private Robbery and the Usurpation of a Crown yet there is no difference between them as to the concurrence of Providence for Robbery is a providential Event and if every Event is God's Will and Appointment the Robbery is confirmed by God's Will and if the Civil Magistrate does redress it he fights against God by contradicting his Order and Appointment But 2. There is often no such Difference between Robbery and Usurpation there is none when the Banditi are so strong and powerfull that the Civil Powers are not able to subdue them for then their Injuries are too big for legal Redress there is none in a state of Nature when there is no Civil Government there is none when Anarchy is introduced by Civil War and the Administration of Justice is obstructed by Rebellion and lastly there is none when the injurious Possession of an Estate cannot possibly be cleared by legal Evidence In all these Cases it is impossible that Oppressions Thefts and Robberies should be redressed by humane Judicature it is God alone that can redress them and therefore according to the Doctour's way of arguing the final Determination of Providence does in such Cases create a Right and the unjust Possessour is not bound to Restitution But faith the Doctor to make the Cases parallel he who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly settled in it
but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not ligal Possession and when he has whether Right or Wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again But 1. If we may suppose a state of Nature we may suppose a private Man who is not under the Government of civil Laws to be throughly settled in an Estate which is by Right another's and then the Case is parallel the unjust Possessor has a Providential Right and being under no Government his claim by Providence is the same as the Doctor makes for Usurpers and it proves a divine Right to the purchase of Injustice 2. When an Estate is unjustly possessed and yet the just Right cannot possibly be proved by legal Evidence here is a through legal Settlement of the unjust Possession for which there is no legal redress and therefore this Case is parallel in that respect to the Usurpation of a Kingdom the Question upon it is Whether the Intruder has a divine Right by Providence and may therefore lawfully keep what God has given him 'T is true the injured Person cannot restore himself by Force because he has no Authority to use if but 't is certain the unjust Selzor is bound to Restitution though the Law cannot compel him and therefore has acquired no Right by his providential Possession And so is the Usurper of a Crown obliged in Conscience to restore it and that is a plain Demonstration that he has no Right to it but if he will not restore it the dispossessed Prince has Authority to compel him he may make a lawful War upon him he has still the Power of the Sword and that is a Demonstration that he has God's Authority And thus much concerning the Objection about Thieves and Pirates But there remain somethings more to be considered The Doctor observes in his Vindication That his Adversary is blundered for want of clear and distinct Notions concerning legal Powers and he pretends to clear all the Difficulties by stating the Terms Now says he We may understand legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Law of Nations or the Law of a particular Kingdom and in this last Sense legal is understood by all Men who understand themselves in this Controversie of legal Powers Well if I understand not my self I cannot help it for I understand as well as I am able and by legal Powers I have always understood such Powers as are according to Law either the Law of God of Nature of Nations or of political Societies In the present Controversie the great Question is to what Powers our Allegiance is due we think it is due to legal Powers and if it would be clearly proved that an Usurper is a legal Power according to any Law whatsoever this Controversie would be ended He grants however That legal Powers may be understood in a larger Notion as that may be said to be legal which is agreable to the Laws of Nature and Nations and he adds In this Sense Submission may make a legal King of him who by the Laws of the Land can be only King de Facto Now this as he says is worth considering and a very little consideration will shew the Inconsistency of this Doctrine For according to the Doctor 's Hypothesis the King de Facto has a legal Right by the Laws of Nature and Nations and the dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right by the Laws of the Kingdom And hence it follows undeniably that at the same time two opposite Kings may have a legal Right to the same Throne the one by the Law of Nature and Nations and the other by the Law of the Kingdom But it is easie to shew that this does imply a manifest Repugnancy and I will exemplifie it in the instances of Charles and Oliver Charles is the legal King by the Law of England and Oliver who is in Possession with the Submission of the People by the Laws of Nature and Nations and hence it follows that Charles has a Right to be King and Oliver has a Right to be King but Charles has no Right because it is in Oliver and Oliver has no Right because it is in Charles But though Charles has a Right to the Crown yet he has no Right to possess it for Oliver is a rightful Possessor of it and yet he has no Right to keep it because Charles has a Right to take it from him There cannot possibly be a greater absurdity either in Law or Nature than to say that the Possessor and the Dispossessed the Plaintiff and Defendant have at the same instant a true and real Right to the same thing in Question When two opposite Rights are pleaded the one is undoubtedly none if the Possessor has a good Right by the Law of Nature the Right of the Dispossessed must needs be extinguished for he cannot have a Right to possess that which is anothers by the Law of Nature and if he has no Right to possess he has no Right to recover and his legal Right at last is only a Right to nothing If the Doctor therefore can prove that his Usurper has a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations I will acknowledge that Allegiance is due to him and there is an end of the Controversie but in all his Harangues about the state of Nature the state of Force and the Submission of the People there is no Argument that proves it In a state of Nature when Men are free from any Government a free Consent or a forced Submission are enough to make rightful Princes by the Law of Nature But the Case is different when rightful Princes are established and Subjects are sworn to pay Allegiance to them for then the Subjects are not sui juris they have no Right to consent and therefore their Consent is nothing But a state of Force the Doctor thinks is parallel to a state of Nature and when a Nation is Conquered or private Subjects are under the Power of an Usurper then he thinks that force will justifie Submission and so do I too and his own instance does sufficiently prove it for he tells us When we happen to fall into the Hands of Robbers where the Government cannot protect us we may very innocently for our own Preservation promise and swear to them such Things as are against the Laws of the Land and which iâ— would be unlawful for us to do in other Circumstances It is lawful no doubt to submit to Robbers and in some Cases it may be lawful to dispense with a humane Law for our own Preservation because it waâ— not the intention of the Law given to oblige in cases of Extremity But hence he infers as he thinks with greater Reason That if the Government can't protect it Subjects from a greater Force they are al liberty to submit to the greater Power Where the greater Reason lies I know not the force of an Usurper is no
greater than the force of a Robber is to those who are under it and if Force does justifie Submission there is the same Reason for Submitting to both But what is all this to Allegiance which is a great deal more than Submission Force will justifie Submission to Robbers but will it justifie the assisting of Robbers or the joyning in Robbery with them Or will it justifie the assisting of an Usurper against a rightful Sovereign But our Obligations to Hitmane Government are reasonably suppos'd to except the Case of greater Force What in all Cases whatsoever The Casuists teach us that there are many Cases in which Humane Laws do oblige even unto certain Death as particularly when to undergo the danger of Death is the express Obligation of the Law and such is the Obligation of legal Allegiance as appears from the ancient Oath of Ligeance wherein the Subject is sworn to bear true Faith to the King of Life and Member and terreite Honour that is as the Lord Coke expounds it until the letting out of the last drop of our dearest Heart Blood 2. When it is notorious that the Tyrant Power threatens Death to Subjects to tempt them to transgress the Law and to bid defiance to the Authority of their Superiour they are then oblig'd to obey and dye the Law does then require our Fortitude and Patience and the Lawgiver cannot be presum'd to allow the renouncing of his own Authority or to make an Exception that Subjects may become Enemies to it But the dissolution of the Government or the Power of the Prince to protect himself or his Subjects in his Government puts an end to the Obligation of Oaths This Assertion depends on his Fundamental Principle that a dispossessed Prince has no Right to Allegiance with that Principle it stands or falls I shall only observe that it follows thence that our Oaths are cancell'd by every Rebellion for that as far as it goes is a dissolution of the Government and it follows also that when a Subject falls under the Power of Robbers who require him upon pain of Death to renounce his Sovereign he is then at liberty to renounce him and to swear Allegiance to the Robber for the Prince has no Power to protect his Subject in his Government and that puts an end to the Obligation of his Oath He asserts that every private Man or any City or Garrison when they are overpower'd may submit to the Conqueror and become his Subjects which implies that they may lawfully transfer their Allegiance to him But pag. 40. he affirms that while the Prince is in the actual Administration of the Government though the Subject be violently torn from him yet this relation of a Subject may still continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related and thence it necessarily follows that he owes the Duty of a Subject to his lawful Prince and therefore cannot tranfer it to the Conqueror How shall we reconcile these Repugnancâ—es But if his Arguments from Force are valid they will justify the Translation of Allegiance wherever there is Force enough to exact it as he saith himself it is no matter from what quarter the Force comes if a Man is under a Power which he cannot resist which will undoâ— and ruine him if he transfer not his Allegiance it is allone to him as if his King and Countrey were absolutely conquer'd and these are invincible Arguments for Allegiance not only to a Ket a Cromwell or a Mussianello but also to a Captain of the Banditi or the Rapparees when he gets a Subject in his Power But we have nothing to do with the Cases of irrisistible Force and Conquest suppose a Nation in America under a King acknowledg'd by all to be lawful and the Subjects bound to him by the strictest Ties and Oaths of Allegiance notwithstanding which they call in a Foreign Prince to invade him actually rebel against him force him to leave his Kingdom for the Safety of his Life afterwards a Convention of the Estates assembles which solemnly depose their Sovereign and place his Enemy in the Throne and proclaim him over the Nation and enjoin all that have Offices and Preferments upon pain of forfelting them to swear Allegiance to him and this they voluntarily doe without any force upon them In such a Case as this to talk of Force and Conquest is only Banter the Subjects voluntarily rebel depose and abjure their Sovereign and if all this be Perjury and the highest Injustice iâ— can be no Warrant or Excuse to particular Persons that if they had not comply'd they had lost their Preferments or that they follow a Multitude to doe Evil. The Doctor lays the whole stress of the Controversy upon the Consent and Submission of the People he annexes and limits God's Authority to it it is his great Criterion of a Settlement and he makes it a Legal Right by the Law of Nature and Nations But what he means or whether he means the same thing by Submission and Consent we are left to conjecture we know that Oliver had the intire Submission of the Nation the Doctor acknowledges that it was lawful to submit and since they actually submitted it follows from his Principle that Oliver had a Legal Right by the Laws of Nature and Nations A National Submission as he says must be declar'd by one means or other I confess Submission to Oliver was not declar'd by a Recognition of a Free legal Parliament but it was declar'd by the quiet and peaceable living of all the Estates and of the whole Nation under his Government by their paying him Taxes to support it by their taking Commissions and receiving Justice and Protection from it and if all this be no declaration of Submission there can be no such thing in the World no Recognitions nor Oaths of Allegiance can be equivalent for those we see are taken and made in many Senses they are often obtain'd by Menaces and Promises by Cabal and Faction and it is clear from History that the Nation never thought themselves obliged by them to adhere to Usurpers and yet the quiet and peaceable Submission of a whole Nation to a Government in the Case of Cromwell is of no validity with the Doctor to entitle him to a legal Right and God's Authority There is another Difficulty about Consent and Submission which the Doctor may resolve when he pleases whether the Consent of the whole or the major part of a Society be requir'd to the translation of Allegiance or whether a lesser Part a County a Hundred a Village or a City may submit for its self and make a King by it self and pay their Allegiance to him If a single Town should make a little King for it self according to the Doctor 's Notion there would be a Settlement of the Government within it self so he says Alexander's Authority was setled at Jerusalem before Darius was finally conquer'd