the Terms of it And he may invest the King with his own Authority and make him as irresistible as if he had himself nominated him and not conferred upon him his Authority by any intervention of Subordinate Means I need not mention that in Ordination and in the Sacraments and in all the Dispensations of God's Grace and Authority under the Gospel Human Acts intervene from whence it is obvious to conclude That since in things of the highest and most Spiritual Nature God requires Human Acts and does by them confer his Grace and Power the irresistible Authority of Kings can be never the more doubtful or questionable because the People's Consent and Submission is ordinarily required to the conveiance of it in the first Erections of Kingdoms for God acts as powerfully and effectually by the Ministeries of Men as by an immediate Command or Designation 2. The Absurdities then which he would prove to arise from the asserting a Necessity of a Legal Right in them who are now invested with God's Authority are all upon a false Supposition 1. He argues If the Authority be wholly derived from the People who shall binder them from the taking it away when they see fit Vpon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can only choose for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had And what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years ago to choose a King for me These are the Absurdities he would bring all Men to who are not of his Opinion And upon the same wrong Supposition would afterwards prove that Passive Obedience is altogether inconsistent with any but his present Principles though he has effectually proved it upon other Principles in his Case of Resistance And if he will now suppose that by his former Principles nothing more can go to the making of a King whether he comes in by Conquest or Usurpation upon Defect of a better Claim by any other or by Compact or an Hereditary Right than the bare Choice and Consent of the People this is a little too much to be granted and yet if this be denyed all his Inferences fall of themselves to the Ground The thing to be proved is That Kings have not their Authority from God unless they be set up only by the Divine Providence without any respect to Human Law and Right which can never be proved unless it be shewn That God cannot or will not set up Kings in a way consistent with the Laws of Kingdoms and with the Consent and voluntary Submission of Subjects The Bond of Matrimony is never the sooner dissolved because Marriages are not made in Heaven as they say but Men and Women are at their Liberty and have a Power of choosing whether they will marry this or that Person or will not marry at all God may appoint the Persons and prevent or over-rule the Consent of the Parties and he has sometimes done it Gen. 24. He can appoint Kings and set aside the ordinary Forms and Laws of Government but this doth not prove That he will always do it nor that we are ever to expect it now much less may we conclude That he cannot or will not concur with Human Acts intervening and give them his own Sanction God certainly can and ordinarily does convey Power and Authority as effectually by concurring with Men and ratifying what they do as if he did it immediately himself unless we will say That God does nothing but Miracles and that subordinate Causes do every thing else without him But to use the Doctor 's own Words God not only places a single Person in the Throne P. 14. but entails it on his Family by Human Laws and makes the Throne a Legal Inheritance And after all the only difference between the Doctor and his Adversaries is That he says God's Providence makes Kings by Conquest or by Submission and long successive Continuance of Power or by Human Laws or against Human Laws because if Providence did not make Kings he could not prove that it unmakes them But those of the contrary Opinion deny neither the absolute Power of God nor the Effects of his Providence in setting up and putting down Kings but they suppose that unless it be when God declares that it is his Will to act by an Absolute Power without any regard to the Laws of Men he does not raise up and depose Kings in a way that is contrary to the Constitution of their Kingdoms so as to absolve Subjects from the Allegiance which the Laws of their Country require but so orders and disposes things that Kings shall as long remain invested with his Authority as they have a Legal Right 2. The Notion of a Legal Right he says P. 25. must ultimately resolve it self 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 such an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings be doubts they will challeng as much Authority to unmake them too That is as we were told before no Man is bound by his Ancestors Act and every Man too may undo what he has done himself when he thinks fit It has been already shewn that tho' the Prerogatives of Kings and the Constitutions of Kingdoms may be contrived and agreed upon by Men yet God gives Kings a Right to govern according to them and supreme and irresistible Authority to enable and secure them in the Administration of their Kingdoms P. 14. and entails the Thrones on their Families by Human Laws And though God may over-rule and alter the Rights of Princes yet his Providence is no sufficient Evidence that he intends to do it If we once knew it were his Will all Human Laws must forthwith give Place to it but since his Providence is not a Declaration of his Will in this Matter we must keep to the Observation of Human Laws and of our Oaths grounded upon them But to suppose the most and the worst that can be said If the People did set up Kings by Consent and Compact this is no Argument that they may depose them For a People who consent to the setting a King over them must consent to set one over them with Supreme Authority and the Supreme Authority is that which hath no Superiour and therefore cannot be resisted For if the Supreme Authority may be resisted then to be sure all Inferiour Authority may be resisted too and so all Government must be dissolved for want of any sufficient Authority to manage it It follows then That there must be a Supreme Authority somewhere in all Governments and in a Kingdom this Supreme Authority must be in the King and a People who upon this Supposition should make a King must choose one in whom they place the Supreme Authority that is who is irresistible at least unless they reserve
it But he answers There is a vast Difference between these two Cases which is granted or else the Objection would be needless or none at all But if nowtithstanding the circumstantial Difference between them they be both through Setlements it is unanswerable for we are concerned to consider none of those other Differences which he reckons up but only this of the Settlement of that Usurpation the Question being not about any particular manner of Settlement but in general of a thorough Settlement And the Doctor must say according to his Principles and the whole Tenour of all the rest of his Book that the most illegal and unnatural Usurpers who have murthered the best of Kings and excluded the right Heir who have overthrown both Church and State and have neither National Consent nor any other Pretence of Right but the Sword yet if they can once settle themselves in their Injustice and Violence to the utter Ruine of Church and State notwithstanding all this have God's Authority as much as Saul or David ever had And if the ancient Government be destroyed and another erected in its Room this is still the greater Evidence that they have God's Authority because it is the fuller Proof of a thorough Settlement But if all those Terms and Conditions are required which the Doctor remarks were wanting in the late Usurpations the Providence of God will be confined and limited almost as much as he complains it will be by maintaining a Legal Right For how can God set over Kingdoms the basest the most unworthy and wicked Men who will have no regard to Forms of Law and Government if the Fundamental Laws of a Nation can put any Bar to his Power and if they can is not the Legal Right of the King a Fundamental Law and the principal too of those Laws Nothing then can make a difference between one Usurper and an other as to this matter if both have a Thorough Settlement their Authority must be the same and the Duty of Subjects the same to yield an entire Allegiance to them The only thing therefore to be considered is whether there were such a Thorough Settlement as the Doctor maintains does infer Gods Authority in those Usurpations And the Doctor himself has determined the point For P. 33. says he no Man could have foreseen how King Charles II. should have returned who had a powerful Army against him all the Plots and Conspiraces of the Royal Party were vain and had no other effect but to bring some worthy and gallant Men to an unhappy end but what they could not do God did without them And when it was impossible to foresee that King Charles could ever return when all human endeavours proved in vain and to his disadvantage when God alone could by his Providence restore him this certainly was as full a Settlement of the Party which kept him out of his Kingdom as can be imagined For if that be not setled which God only can displace there can be no such thing as a Settlement in the World But there were many alterations and changes of Government in those times It is plain that their Government was never setled P. 47. it was frequently changed and modelled which was no Argument of Settlement and which was more than that they had not a National Consent and Submission Men who were forced submitted to force but the Nation did not by any National Act ever own them Yet when all those changes conduced nothing at all to the Kings Interest but on the contrary were all fixed and centred in this that he should not be suffered to return this might be interpreted rather to signifie that God had determined he should never be restored because tho' they quarrelled amongst themselves and their Frames of Government so often fell to pieces yet still new Models were erected against him to set him at a further distance from the Throne And Oliver Cromwel at least was setled for he was made Protector in the year 1653. and from that time till his Death exercised all the Power of a King He had brough the Three Kingdoms to an entire subjection so as to be able to crush those who would not submit whenever he pleased P. 9. which is the description the Doctor gives of a Thorough Settlement all the Bordering Nations feared his Power or sought his Friendship and he had a full and uninterrupted Possession for the space of five years It was the common Theme of his Flatterers and of all the Enthusiasts of those times That God had raised him up and they had certainly been in the Right if any Usurper from a bare Possession of Power can claim by Authority from God in prejudice of the Rightful King As for what he adds to make this Case Parallel with that of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes it has been already shewn that that was a quite contrary Case For if the Jews had made a National Submission to Antiochus they had injured no Body nor excluded any Right Heir by it But a National Consent in this case could have been of no force whilst King Charles the Second or any of the Royal Family had been alive And by the Doctors Principles the Authority of Kings depends not upon any Consent of Men whatsoever but solely and purely upon the will of God who puts an Usurper in full Power and Possession of any Kingdom If therefore God's Authority remained in King Charles a National Consent could not have taken it away if it did not remain it must be in Cromwel without any National Consent But a National Consent would have been an Evidence of a Thorough Settlement It would so but this does not infer that no other evidence but that could suffice The Doctor often says that by what way or means soever an Usurper becomes fully possessed of the Supreme Power he has God's Authority So that a National Consent and Submission may be the more regular and orderly way but if an Usurper come to the Throne against the Consent both of King and Subjects and settle himself upon the Ruins both of the Kings Rights and the Subjects Liberties this is no prejudice to the Title he receives from God For if the Sovereign Authority be obtained tho' by the destruction of the Government and the desolation of the whole Kingdom against all Laws both of God and Man when it is once acquired it is by these Principles as much the Ordinance of God as if he had succeeded as next Heir or had been nominated by God himself and were the best and most Rightful King for all Kings are Rightful with respect to God I have now considered all that concerns the point in Question in the Doctor 's Book the rest concerns the Obedience to a King de Facto by the Laws of England not as he is Gods Vicegerent and invested with his Authority But before I dismiss this Question I shall shew that it was the constant Practice of the
not necessary to the constituting one of the Providential Kings Ib. P. 17. Afterwards the Doctor supposes that though the generality of the Nation submit to such a Prince and place him on the Throne and put the whole Power of the Kingdome into his hands yet it may be we cannot yet think the Providence of God has settled him in the Throne while the dispossessed Prince has also such a formidable Power as makes the event very doubtful But in the same Page he says he is indeed King while he administers the legal Right Power though we may not think him so well settled in his Government as to all intents and purposes to own him for our King So that Submission may make a King even before a Thorough Settlement though not perhaps to all intents and purposes Again I cannot see when to fix the foundation of Government Ib. P. 24. but in the Providence of God who either by the Choice of the major or stronger part of the People or by Conquest or by Submission and the long successive continuance of Power or by humane Laws gives a Prince and his Family Possession of the Throne c. In this place he joyns Submission and Continuance of Government together but makes Conquest as well as any of the rest to be alone sufficient and the Providence of God makes Kings by the choice of the stronger though they be not the major part of the People In the next Page Ib. P. 25. if the sole Authority of Government be from God and God gives this Authority only by placing a Prince in the Throne then by whatsoever means he does it is the same thing and therefore if he does it without the Submission or Consent of the People In the case of Antiochus Epiphanes the Doctor determines Ib. P. 48. that a long Continuance is required to settle a Government when there is no National Submission P. 51. And when there is nothing but mere Force it may admit some Dispute when the Government is settled By this it seems that though it may perhaps admit of some dispute whether Cromwels Government was settled or no yet a Government may sometimes be settled by mere Force and Continuance may be sufficient without a National Consent But in the Vindication the general Submission of the People is necessary to a thorough Settlement of such new Governments Vind. P. 32. Ib. P. 22. and the principal part of it is this viz. when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Ib. P. 67. though once more either Submission or Continuance will suffice But it must not be omitted that the Doctor now says that the Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was originally no more but Force into a Civil and Legal Authority Ib. P. 16. by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince this if Submission be necessary to a thorough Settlement takes away the subject of the question which is whether a thorough Settlement without any Civil or Legal Authority be of it self sufficient to entitle an Usurper to the Allegiance of the Subjects by virtue of Gods Authority notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which the dispossessed Prince can challenge to his Country Kingdome or Empire And besides this raises a new and a very nice dispute Whether the legal Kings civil and legal Right or the Usurpers civil and legal Authority make the better Claim and ought to have the preference 4. A National Submission and Consent is not necessary to a thorough Settlement by the Doctor 's Principles By his Principles the thorough Settlement is made by God himself and the People are not necessarily supposed to have any thing to do in it but only are obliged in conscience to submit when it is once brought about by the Divine Providence For if God be the Author of all events if all Kings be equally rightful with respect to God by whatsoever way that can be thought of they are advanced to the Throne and settled in it then a National Submission and Consent cannot be necessary to a thorough Settlement because a Prince may by Foreign Force or by an Army of his own Subjects attain to a thorough Settlement against the Consent of the People and without any but a forced Submission at most and this the Doctor will not allow to be sufficient For he cannot deny but that in the late times Men who were forced Case P. 47. submitted by Force and his only exception is that the Nation did not by any National Act own those Usurpations And this is all that what he has now added in his Vindication can amount to So that Cromwell was throughly that is fully settled because the whole Nation was forced to submit to him and could never rescue themselves from that Force till his Death he was not settled by any National Submission and Consent but he was settled by a forced Submission which is one way whereby a thorough Settlement may be attained and a National Act of Submission and Consent is another but by whatever way the thorough Settlement be obtained God must certainly be the Author of it if he be the Author of all Events and whatever kind of thorough Settlement Cromwell had 't is certain he had the Supream Power fully in his own hands and therefore by the Doctors Principles could not fail of having Gods Authority Case P. 15. For since Power will govern God so orders it by his Providence as never to entrust Sovereign Power in any mans hand to whom he does not give the Sovereign Authority Power does not give Right and Authority to govern but is a certain sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power be has given the Authority Now no man can say that God never places and settles Power without the Peoples Submission and Consent or that Cromwells Power was not settled for five years together as much as it could be without a National Consent and consequently he must have had Gods Authority by the Doctors Principles though the Nation did not by any National Act ever own him And it is the same thing as to the extent of Power for God cannot be confined to give just such a Measure of Power as shall suit with the Model of this or that particular Government Who will say that God cannot turn a Civil into a Despotick Government or can deny by the Doctors Principles that he has constituted him an Arbitrary Monarch whom he has entrusted with Arbitrary Power The Question is not whether God cannot make Kings by his Providence who yet may be limited in the Administration of their Government by humane Laws But whether God does not invest them with an unlimited Sovereign Authority who can by any means attain to a settled Possession of it or even but to the Exercise of it For I shall shew that by the Doctors Principles the Exercise of Power is sufficient without
is from God p. 10. This he rightly observes no man will deny him but an Atheist But then it ought to be proved That it is so from God as to exclude all Humane Rights and Titles or that God now bestows and conveys this Authority contrary to the Rules of Law and Justice amongst Men and in opposition to the Constitutions of particular Governments and the Agreement and Consent of the several Nations of the World That God by his Providence doth set aside all Humane Law and Right and doth give an extraordinary and immediate Right and Title to every Usurper who is got into full Possession of any Kingdom because no Man can have any Authority but from God is no Consequence unless there be no other way for God to rule the World but in this manner for if God may govern the World agreeably to the Methods of Right and Justice which Reason obliges men to observe towards their Sovereign and which by an Authority derived from God himself and settled and enacted in particular Countreys then it cannot be known but by Revelation that God does ever interpose to the Prejudice of Legal Right or absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to their Natural Sovereign by transferring his Authority to an Usurper Prop. 2. That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God than as he gives his Power and Authority to some particular Person or Persons to govern others Civil Power and Authority is from God in its Original Institution as well as in its Application and Donation to particular Persons But not to insist upon that The Person or Persons who are invested with it are either qualified for the Reception of this Authority from God by a just Accession to the Throne according to the particular Form or Constitution of the Government or they must be appointed by Divine Revelation which may discharge the Subjects from adhering to the Legal Constitution in performance of their Allegiance sworn to any other Person But the Exercise of Power may be in him who has properly no Authority but only a Nominal one that is Men are forced to call it so though it be really nothing less for meer Force and External Power gives no Right nor is any otherwise from God than are the Natural Powers and Force of Wild Beasts who devour Men and other Creatures not without the Permission and Concurrence of God's Providence and to use the Doctor 's Expression they cannot devour a Man whether God will or no. But if he Governs without receiving his Personal Authority from God he Governs without God's Authority No doubt of it he Governs when he has no Right and ought not to Govern for the Exercise of Authority may be usurped as well as the Ensigns of Authority or the Jewels of the Crown but the Right to Govern which is bestowed by God is not always in him who actually Governs but in him who ought to Govern tho' perhaps he does not Prop. 3. There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any Persons either by Nature or by an express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence This may be granted and yet the Disposals of Providence may be such as are agreeable to the Rules of humane Laws and Justice and it remains to be proved that there are any disposals of Kingdoms by God's Providence contrary to these Rules And whereas the Doctor says that by what bounds the Paternal and Patriarchal Authority was limitted we cannot tell I can see no Reason to make any scruple or enquiry concerning that matter according to his Principles for Men always had just as much Authority as they could by any means attain to the exercise of if they could enlarge their Dominions all they got by fraud or violence or by any way whatsoever of Injustice was the gift of Providence and if their Patriarchal Authority would not bear them out in it yet the Divine Authority which upon a full Possession they became invested with would never fail to give them an undoubted Right and Title If they could by any means deprive their Subjects of all the Priviledges they enjoyed and take from them all their Liberty and Property and reduce them to the vilest Slavery they were by God himself settled in an Absolute and Arbitrary Government And by the same Argument the King of France has a Divine Right not only to the Principality of Orange but to all the Despotick Power which his Adversaries say he exercises over his own Subjects since he is throughly settled in the Possession of both That God made Kings only in Jewry by a particular Nomination is a mistake Pag. 11. For he nominated Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus as particularly as he nominated David himself Nor is it true that God entailed no other Kingdom but that of Judah as the Doctor seems here to say For as he entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity indefinitely so he entailed the same Kingdom with many others upon Nebuchadnezzar and his Son and his Sons Son Jer. 27.7 And God entailed the Kingdom of Israel first upon Jeroboam and his Posterity promising him that if he would keep his Statutes and Commandments as David did he would be with him and build him a sure house as he built for David and would give Israel unto him 1 Kings 11.38 And afterwards he entailed it upon Jehu and his Children of the fourth Generation 2 Kings 10.30 There can be no doubt but that God ruled in all the other Kingdoms of the World as well as in Jewry and all other Kings ruled by Gods Authority as well as the Kings of Judah and Israel who were advanced by his command And therefore God sometimes interposed his immediate Command in the advancement of Kings in other Kingdoms as well as in those of Judah and Israel and he entailed other Kingdoms and might do so now if he pleased but this is no argument that he will do it nor that we are now to expect it since we are left to the guidance and protection of his Providence in the ordinary course of things and in our obedience to the Laws of that Constitution of Government under which we live which are to determin when the Authority of Sovereigns ceases and the Allegiance of Subjects and we are not to think their Power and Authority transferred unless it be transferred legally For God now Rules the World by no express Commands or extraordinary Declarations of his Will but Governs every People by the just Laws and Constitutions of their Country and whatever happens contrary to these he permits for good and wise Reasons known only to himself But Subjects are not to look upon themselves as discharged from their Duty and Oaths of Allegiance unless the Laws themselves and the Nature of the Constitution discharge them for we are not at liberty to have recourse to Providence for a Dispensation or Release from the most Solemn Obligations that Nature and the Laws of
with wicked men by his Providence but concurs with them as if they were Natural not as they are Moral Agents by sustaining and enabling their Natural Faculties to produce their Effects he never inclines their Minds nor influences their Wills to Evil but oftentimes over-rules their first Intentions and diverts their Will already determined and resolved upon Mischiefs to certain Objects that the Evil may most tend to his Glory and the good of Mankind in the Punishment of Sinners or in the Exercise of the Patience and other Vertues of Good Men. As to the distinction of Events P. 12. That some God only permits and some he orders and appoints it is grounded upon this That he orders and appoints all that are good and just and permits the contrary But then this appointment is known to us not by God's Providence but by his Law For Providence appoints us to do nothing but only concurs with Men and assists them in the performance of what God's Laws appoint or command The most that can be said is That Providence may sometimes be an Indication to us of God's Will and Command but that can be only in Events that are miraculous and supernatural when there is nothing repugnant in them to his Will already known and declared For even Miracles wrought to carry on wicked Designs are to be looked upon as false and the Impostures and Delusions only of the Devil 2. Of that particular Providence which watches over Kingdoms and orders the Government of them and the difference of it from that Providence which guides and influences private Affairs I have said enough already and have shewn That God with his own Hand immediately directs the Motions of the great Wheels of Providence but permits none to move as they please themselves For I take it to be a very wrong Notion of the Permission of God's Providence that he leaves things to move as they please themselves No he rules and restrains and limits what he only permits and puts a check and stop to it when he pleases And by God's more immediate direction I understand not that God ever acts at a distance or leaves any thing in the world to it self but that he sometimes acts in a way to us more visible and remarkable though the steddy and unobserved Influence of Providence has as much of God's immediate Prefence in it as have the most extraordinary and miraculous Events The other Propositions are but Consequences of these Three and therefore need not to be particularly examined and if these Three only were but well proved and not laid down as if they were so very plain to his purpose as to carry their own Evidence with them P. 16. I should readily agree to all the rest and indeed to the whole Book as far as it concerns this matter except some few Particulars less material to the merits of the Cause But I despair of seeing these Propositions so effectually proved as to induce me to think that by what way soever that can be thought of P. 13. a Prince is advanced to the Throne he is as truly placed in it by God as if he had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were Or that it is impossible there should be a wrong King P. 14. unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. I believe the Self-Evidence of these Propositions can work in few men so much assurance as this amounts to The Fundamental Mistake is That the Doctor confounds the Exercise of Power or Authority with the Right of it and supposes that every one who has the Administration of Power has a Right to the Administration of it which are plainly Two very different things For the Administration or Exercise of Power is a Natural Act and may be without that Moral Qualification which is implied in the Right of Power or Authority Thus in his first Proposition That all Civil Power and Authority is from God If he mean the Exercise of all Civil Power I deny it because it may be exercised by him who ought not to exercise it If he mean the Right to exercise Civil Power and Authority the Proposition is true but nothing to the purpose So that either his Proposition supposes the thing in Dispute and is false or if it be true it is to no purpose And the same Mistake runs through the rest of these Propositions For if by Civil Power and Authority he understand only the Exercise and Administration of it he supposes that which ought to be proved if he understand the Right it self though these Propositions were true yet still they would prove nothing But the Doctor makes an Objection to himself P. 15. which has great weight in it If this be so that no Obedience is due to the Rightful King when another is settled in the Throne what does a Legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects He answers It bars all other Humane Claims No other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right and 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 and therefore when God transfers the Kingdom he transfers our Allegiance which is due and annexed to his Authority whether this Authority be conveyed by a Legal Succession or by any other means But notwithstanding all this the Legal Right can signifie nothing unless it be in that Interval of Time between the Dispossession of one Prince and the Settlement of another For if the Legal Possessor be in the Throne his Legal Title can be of no advantage to him because his Divine Authority would secure him while he is in Possession as well without it and when an Usurper is once settled it can then no longer be of any account to him for though it be good against all Mankind yet not against God in his disposal of Crowns but when God has given away his Kingdom to another the Rightful King must submit unless he may plead his Humane Claim against God's Donation Before a Settlement indeed he that has the Legal Right has the Odds on his side But Men are so partial in their Judgments in all things wherein their own Interest is so nearly concerned that every one who were exposed to any great Danger from the Usurper would easily perswade himself that he might become his Subject and that the Legal King had no longer any Right to his Allegiance the Usurper being in his Opinion settled enough to become invested with God's Authority So that a Legal Title would upon these Grounds be little more than an empty Word or Notion and would either be of no use at all or of little benefit when there should be most need of it I shall not much trouble my self about the several Degrees of Settlement P. 17. and of the Proportionable Submission which they
require since I am not yet satisfied that any Settlement of an Usurper though it be in the highest Degree can confer any Authority upon him or cause any Obedience of the Subjects to become due to him merely upon that account But if any Man can prove That a thorough Settlement of an Usurper does of it self and upon its own Account before the Decease or Cession of the Rightful King and his Heirs entitle him to the Crown I will give him no Trouble to dispute with me about the Degrees of Settlement But since the Doctor supposes P. 17. That the Generality of the Nation have submitted to such a Prince and have placed him on the Throne and put the whole Power of the Kingdom into his hands and says expresly That he is indeed King while he administers the Regal Power And since he has told us before That it is impossible there should be a wrong King I cannot see why he should be so solicitous to define the Degrees of Submission and not think him throughly enough settled to have Right to an intire Allegiance while the dispossest Prince has such a formidable Power as makes the Event very doubtful For if God have once made him King as by the Doctor 's Supposition he has then by the same Supposition the Subjects owe him an intire Allegiance to day though they were sure that the dispossest Prince would recover his Kingdom of him to morrow For he that has once God's Authority has a Right to our Allegiance from the first to the last hours he has it why therefore may not Subjects obey him as their King now who perhaps may not be their King a while hence Nay though they were certain that his Royal Authority were to be taken from him in never so short a time yet this could make him have never the less Right to their Obedience while his Authority lasts If he be indeed King P. 8. he must be Rightful King with respect to God for all Kings are equally rightful with respect to him P. 14. and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. So that if he be King as the Doctor supposes he is Rightful King and may challenge the Allegiance of the Subjects by Vertue of God's Authority whatever Forces the dispossest Prince may yet have and therefore either he is now thoroughly settled or a thorough Settlement is not necessary to the obtaining God's Authority and when he is once King there can be no Reason why the Allegiance of the Subjects should in any measure be abated for any Apprehensions of Danger he may be in from the late Legal Possessors Arms. In the Fourth Section the Doctor proceeds to confirm his Doctrine by Arguments and to answer Objections His Arguments are 1. From Scripture 2. From Reason 1. From Scripture Pag. 19. His first Argument is from Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers for all Power is of God The Powers that be are ordained of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation He observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power or Authority which is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifies Force is sometimes used in the same sense with it and that these two words are sometimes used promiscuously in Scripture and that therefore unless there were some distinction set down by the Apostle in express words whereby we might know that by it in this place are to be understood only Rightful Powers we are to understand the word in its full Latitude so as to comprehend Usurpers likewise For the Scripture neither in this nor any other place distinguishing between Lawful Kings and Unlawful we are not to limit the signification of the words so as to exclude Usurpers from a Right to the Duties enjoyned in the Text or to say that they are not ordained of God 1. But if the various signification of words necessarily require that there be some express limitation added to determine them to one particular sense or if every word must be taken in the utmost Latitude of its signification unless it be so limitted we shall be at a great loss to know how to make sense of most Authors or to make them consistent with themselves For the same words often have opposite and quite contrary significations as they are differrently used and applied by the same Authors and yet they seldom give notice when they use them in one sense and when in another but think it sufficient that the senfe be limitted and determined by the subject to which they are applied or by the coherence and connexion which they have with the rest of the discourse And if the Acceptation of a word be still doubtful the most likely way to find it out is to examine in what sense the Author most commonly uses the same word But unless there be an evident Reason to the contrary every word is to be taken in its proper or in its usual sense for there needs no Reason to be given why a word should be understood properly or as it uses to be understood but he that will understand a word in an improper or unusual signification is obliged to produce his Reason for it because every word is supposed to retain its first and most genuine sense unless it be most frequently used Metaphorically and then it must be taken in its most usual signification unless it can be shewn that it is applied to another meaning than is commonly intended by it When we read in Scripture * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lak 22.53 of the Powers of darkness of the God of this World †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 13.2 and of the Power and Seat or Throne and great Authority which the Dragon gave the Beast in the Revelations the words are intelligible though taken very improperly without any express limitation And when St. Paul says Let every soul be subject to the higher powers c. We are to understand only Rightful Powers unless it can be shewn that any other are ordained of God For in its primary and natural signification and in its common use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be acknowledged to mean only Just and Lawful Authority and this every Man must understand by it unless the context determin the contrary which it cannot do here for here is no mention of any Powers but those which are ordained of God In some other places of Scripture it plainly appears from the Text it self that the word is used improperly and contrary to its ordinary signification but here the Doctor seems not to pretend any such thing but only argues that because it is used in an uncommon sense in some other places of Scripture it must be taken so in this because St. Paul makes no exception against Kings who exercise Civil Government without a Legal Title to it Whereas we
and that if this distinction between Usurpers and Rightful Kings be unknown to Scripture yet if it be not unknown to Reason that is sufficient to interpret this Text of St. Paul to be meant only of lawful Powers for the Scriptures always suppose and require that Men should bring their Reason along with them when they read and explain them or else they will make no more difference between Kings authorised by God and those not authorised by him than between Legal Kings and Illegal 4. But I cannot think that the distinction between Rightful Kings and Kings by Usurpation is unknown to Scripture but rather that St. Peter has expresly declared that it is to Rightful Kings obedience is due when he says submit your selves to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as supreme 1 Pet. 2.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He commands them to submit themselves to every humane Ordinance or Constitution of Government under which they lived Or as the Convocation quote this Text according to the old Translation to submit themselves unto all manner of ordinance of Man Pag. 144. I know there are different Interpretations of this Text but this seems the most probable for the King is here called the Ordinance of Man not because he is made King by Men but because the Constitution according to which he becomes King is an humane Constitution or Ordinance and not Divine as was that of the Jews St. Peter admonishes the Christians that they ought not to overvalue themselves upon the account of their Christian Liberty so as to imagine themselves exempted from those Duties which are incumbent upon the rest of mankind as Subjects to their Sovereigns or as Servants to their Masters but to behave themselves as free and not using their Liberty for a cloak of maliciousness verse 16. He had told them verse 9. that they were a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People which was the Character given of the Jews Exod. 19.5 6. and now applied by the Apostle to the Jewish converts and lest they should have too high a conceit of themselves and vainly think as the Jews did that because they were Gods peculiar People they were bound to submit to no Government but what was of God's own immediate appointment and this was the Opinion the Gentiles had of them they spoke against them as evil-doers v. 12. and accused them of disobedience to Caesar and of Preaching another King one Jesus Act. 17.7 St. Peter therefore acquaints the Christians that so was the will of God that by subjection to all in Authority they should with well-doing put to silence the ignorance of foolish men verse 15. in as much as tho' the Frame of all Governments is not of God's appointment yet the Anthority in every Government is from him and therefore whoever is King according to the Legal Constitution of each Government Obedience becomes due to him for the Lora's sake because God makes him King and concurs with the Humane Act in ratifying what is done according to the Ordinance or Constitution of Man So that St. Peter calls particular Governments Man's Ordinance because they are of Humane Contrivance and Institution and he says they are to be submitted to for the Lord's sake because whoever is impowered to administer the Government according to the Constitution of it has God's Authority and in St. Paul's words is God's Ordinance St. Peter therefore speaking of Legal Powers and St. Paul only mentioning the higher Powers in general terms and both saying Obedience is due to them for the Lord's sake both must be understood of Legal Powers and St. Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans after this of St. Peter his words could need no distinction to be understood with that limitation which St. Peter here uses of every Ordinance of Man or of those Powers which are Just and Right by the Laws of Men. For as Bishop Sanderson has accurately expressed it Ad Magistratum Serm. 1. p. 94. Edit ult the truth is the Substance of the Power of every Magistrate is the Ordinance of God and that is St. Paul 's Meaning but the Specification of the Circumstances thereto belonging as in regard of Places Persons Titles Continuance Jurisdiction Sub-ordination and the rest is as St. Peter termeth it an Humane Ordinance introduced by Custom or Positive Law 5. But further we find this Distinction in express words in the Old Testament for according to the Doctor 's Interpretation it is impossible there should be any King who is not Ordained of God for he explains it of all the Powers that at any time be of all that are possessed of Supreme Power however they came by it Whereas besides what has been said of Abimilech and Ishbasheth and Athaliah God says expresly of the People of Israel They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not that is did not approve of it Hos 8.4 To this the Doctor answers Three things which I shall consider 1. This is not true P. 35. as to all the Kings of Israel after their Separation from the Tribe of Judah for some of the Kings were set up by God's own appointment as Jeroboam and Jehu and their Posterity So that this can be true only of those Kings who reigned over Israel between the Posterity of Jeroboam and Jehu and after the Kingdom was taken from the Line of Jehu 2. One of these Kings was Baasha 1 King 15.27.16.2 who slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express Nomination and Appointment and yet God tells him I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel and all the other Kings who were not nominated by God nor anointed by any Prophet no more than Baasha was were yet set up by God as he was 3. The true Answer then is this Israel was originally a Theocracy as well as Judah and though God allowed them at their request to have Kings yet he reserved the appointment of them to himself and therefore as in the Kingdom of Judah he entailed the Crown on David 's Posterity so he appointed Jeroboam to be the first King in Israel and they ought when that Line was cut off to have consulted God and received his Nomination by his Prophets of a New King but instead of that they submitted to any who could set themselves over them which was a great Fault in a People who were under the immediate Government of God For hereby they fell out of the State of Theocracy into the common condition of the rest of the World where Kings are set up by the Providence of God c. 1. To this I reply 1. It is not pretended that the words of the Prophet can be meant of all the Kings of Israel nor of all neither who reigned either from Nadab the Son of Jeroboam to Jehu or after
as it is objected for in such cases the Subjects may lawfully swear to the Possessor and are obliged to pay all Allegiance to him unless his Competitor can make it appear that the Right is his and not the Possessor's and then the Subjects not knowing this before are guilty of no breach of Allegiance to him but are bound as soon as his Right becomes known to them to yield him their Allegiance having taken an Oath or given any other assurance or proof of Obedience to the Possessor only out of ignorance that any other Person could make out a clear and certain Title 3. But granting that St. Paul had meant Usurpers as well as Lawful Powers in this Text yet the perplexities of Conscience would not have been much less than it is said they must necessarily be according to the contrary exposition For so learned a Man as Dr. Sherlock could not find out the true sence of the Text it seems till now upon this occasion and very few perhaps besides have been able to discover it since the Epistle was written * Case of Resistance p. 122. The Doctor acknowledges that St. Chrysostom is against him and produces no Father nor any other Author ancient or modern for his Opinion except the Convocation which I have shewn says nothing to his purpose And St. Basil says expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basil Tom. 2. Constitut Monast c 22. p. 715. that the higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are such as attain to the Government according to Humane Laws and this appears to have been the sence of the Church in his time for he sets it down as a thing certain That the Civil Powers must receive their Authority in a Legal way and from thence proves that if they that resist those who receive their Power according to humane Laws resist the Ordinance of God then much rather must those resist his Ordinance who resist the Ecclesiastical Powers which are by Gods own more immediate Institution invested with his Authority according to the Divine Laws So that if Dr. Sherlock's Interpretation were true yet it would not much have eased Mens Consciences since it has been so little known and so lately discovered and by his own Confession was by himself so lately suspected of Novelty and Singularity 4. The Titles of the Roman Emperours were then neither stark nought nor very doubtful The Titles of Claudius and of Nero were not at all doubtful and under one of them this Epistle was written Claudius was saluted Emperour by the Soldiery and approved of by the Senate and Nero was adopted by Claudius and chosen by the Army and the choice confirmed by the Senate and they were both owned and submitted to by the whole Empire which is all that could be requisite to make them Lawful Emperours for it is evident beyond all dispute that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary Jovian c. 1. And when at any time the Title was doubtful they might have submitted with a safe Conscience to the Possessor as I before observed And thus much may serve in answer to his first Argument from Scripture out of Rom. 13. 2. He urges That we have no example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to the present Powers P. 21. whatever the Vsurpation were tho' we have examples of their being condemned for refusing to submit to them This he proves from the Prophecies of Jeremiah and from our Saviour's Argument in his discourse with the Scribes and Pharisees which relies wholly on the Possession of Power Whose Image and Superscription hath it I answer that the silence of Scripture is no Argument unless it can be shewn that the Prophets at the same time that they reproved the People for their other Crimes did not blame them for submitting to an Usurper while the Lawful King himself had not submitted nor was commanded by God to submit but had a Right to their Allegiance For in matters of History the Scriptures often give a bare Narrative without any remark or censure at all upon it We read of Lot's Incest and that both Noah and he were drunken but no Man I suppose will conclude that either Incest or Drunkenness is Lawful because the Scripture relates only the matter of Fact and says nothing more of it for they are Vices notorious enough in themselves and it was not the design of the Sacred History to inveigh against Vices but only to declare by whom and with what circumstances they were committed in like manner if there be any instance in Scripture where the Subjects abandoned their natural Sovereign and betook themselves to the Usurper and fought against him a bare Narrative of this can no more prove that it is lawful than that it is unlawful for an Historical Relation can prove nothing but that such a thing was done and in such a manner but the nature of the action it self with the circumstances of it or some command in Scripture must discover the goodness or the wickedness of it But in the present case the Scriptures are not silent but plainly enough declare that Allegiance is only due to the lawful King tho' an Usurper be never so well settled For St. Peter and St. Paul both declare this as it has been just now shewn unless we can serve two Masters for they teach subjection to the Rightful King which implies that it cannot be due to his mortal Enemy And when Jehoiada charged the People by their duty to God and to the King to submit to Joash and to depose Athaliah this was a sufficient Declaration against Allegiance to an Usurper in prejudice to the Lawful King 's Right But the case of the Jews under the King 's of Pabylon was such as made their Obedience to them a necessary Duty according to those Principles which are most contrary to the Doctor 's Opinion For 1. God had commanded both King and People to submit to these Kings 2. They did submit and take Oaths to them accordingly 3. Therefore the Kings submitting as well as the People there was none who could claim their Allegiance in competition with the Kings of Babylon And under these Circumstances either of a Divine command or of a joint consent and submission both of King and People no Man who maintains the Right of an Hereditary Succession and a Legal Title can with any Reason scruple to submit to a Foreign Conqueror But I shall speak more particularly to the Texts which the Doctor has produced 1. He acknowledges that the Prophet Jeremy 's Argument is Prophecy P. 21. or an express command from God to submit to the King of Babylon which he says because of the Entail that God himself had made of the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity was necessary though other Kingdoms which are governed only by God's Providence ought to submit to any Conquerour or Invader in the same manner as the Jews did to Nebuchadnezzar without any Revelation to
to themselves a Liberty of Resistance in certain Cases by express Agreement which has been the Custom in Kingdoms where Resistance is allowed Or however let us suppose That the People declare their King irresistible upon their Choice of him and establish that as the Fundamental Law of their Government suppose they oblige all in any Office Military or Civil to swear That it is unlawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against him and oblige all the Clergy solemnly and frequently to declare it would it be lawful for the People to recal this Power because they gave it Or is it not rather of the very Essence of this Power that it can never be recalled because never resisted Are other Contracts revocable by either of the Parties at pleasure because they are entred into by Consent Might Marriage be dissolved when either Party pleased if no more were required to it than the Consent of both Parties Or is there any greater Reason why he that has consented to be governed by an irresistible power may recal his own Act and resist when he thinks fit I do not dispute whether it be possible for the People to convey a Power of Life and Death and to establish a Sovereign Power among them nay I grant it is impossible for any Rightful Government to be erected by mere Consent and Compact without God's Establishment and Confirmation of it I only shew That though this were true yet the Conclusion would be false and though the People might make Kings by mutual Agreement and Contract yet they could not unmake them But tho' the same Persons might not play fast and loose as they please yet what obligation could their Childrenly under to obey that Race of Kings which they had set up For what Rights says the Dr. had my Ancestors three or four hundred years ago to choose a King for me I answer they had a Paternal Right in vertue of which Children are obliged by all the lawful Acts of their Fathers in their behalf or by the Acts of others which are for their advantage when they act as Parents for them Thus Children promise by their Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism and when they come to Age would be guilty of Apostacy and of the breach of the most solemn Vow and Promise made in their name if they should renounce their Baptism In the Covenants which God has made with mankind the Children were always obliged by their Fathers Act thus it was in his Covenant with Adam with Noah with Abraham and with Moses and the Children of Israel There is nothing more plain in Scripture than that the Children had an Interest in the Covenant made with their Fathers and were obliged to perform the Conditions of it And there is no difference between a Covenant made with God and one made with Man in this respect for it is essential to a Covenant that there should be the Consent of the Parties that enter into it and tho' God has a Right over his Creatures to require what Acts of Duty and Obedience he pleases from them yet when he is pleased to deal with them by way of Covenant it is necessary they should consent to the Terms of it either by themselves or by others that represent them and have Power to act for them otherwise what were breach of a voluntary Covenant as well as of natural Duty in the Parents would be only breach of Duty in the Children And no distance of time can make any alteration in this obligation which Parents lay upon their Children as it appears by those Covenants which God has entred into with Mankind But if this could make any difference every Father renews his obligation to the Government for himself and his Children For if the Person immediately consenting to the setting up a King oblige his Sons to pay Allegiance to him then for the same reason they by their Consent and Submission in living under his Government oblige their Children and so on for four hundred Years or as long as the Government continues There is no need further to mention the Obligation all men are under to their Country for their Protection and Education from their Infancy and for the many Benefits they receive from the Government it is manifest that the Act of their Parents is obligation enough if there were no other and they must be obliged by their Parents Choice as well as by their own and are not left at liberty to deny their own Consent if they think their Ancestors have made an ill Bargain But when we add to this God's Authority which is conferred upon all that are duly advanced to Sovereignty we have the surest grounds for the Doctrin of Passive Obedience tho' God do not give his Authority in such a manner as to null or frustrate Legal Rights and Claims He next proceeds to consider the Objections that may be made against his Assertion The first is that the dispossessed Prince ought not to attempt the Recovery of his Throne nor any other Prince to assist him in it which is to oppose God and to challenge that p. 25. which he has no longer any Right to He answers By no means The Providence of God removes Kings and sets up Kings but alters no Legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them to recover their Rights when they can While such a Prince is in the Throne it is a Declaration of God's Will that he shall reign for some time longer or shorter as God pleases and that is an obligation to Subjects to submit and obey for Submission is owing only to God's Authority But that one Prince is at present placed in the Throne and the other removed out of it does not prove that it is God's Will it should always be so and therefore does not devest the dispossest Prince of his Legal Right and Claim nor forbid him to endeavour to reeover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligation to the Prince in Possession to assist the dispossest Prince to recover his Legal Right This Answer seems to suppose that tho' the Prince in Possession have the Exercise of the Supreme Power and do administer God's Authority for a time or rather tho' God governs by him as his Instrument while he is in Possession yet he has no Authority inherent in himself but acts as wickedly all along in withholding from the Rightful Prince his due as he did at first in depriving him of it and therefore may be thrust out by the Legal Prince himself or by any others who have made no Submission to him But this is so directly contrary to all the rest of his Discourse that it cannot be the Dr's meaning in this place For he that is set up by God P. 13. that is made King by him that is invested with his Authority and receives his Authority from him he to whom God gives the Throne and does not only permit him to take
it he who is as truly placed in the Throne by God as if he had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were P. 14. he who is rightful King with respect to God and has the True and Rightful Authority of a King who is God's Minister and Lieutenant P. 15 to whom God has transferred the Kingdom and the Subjects Allegiance this King has as full Right to his Crown as the lawful King himself could ever have he has a Divine Right and then the human Right when it comes in Competition with the Divine is nothing but a meer Formality an empty and insignificant Word and the want of it can never in the least weaken his Title And the Doctor thus plainly and frequently asserting almost in every Page that God has placed the Usurper in the Throne I am not able to understand how it can be lawful for the dispossest Prince to endeavour to recover it from him which is to endeavour to bring down whom God has exalted and placed there with his own Right Hand For the late Legal Possessor can have no more real Right than if he had never been King only perhaps he may have the Honour to be called late King for distinction's sake and to acquaint the World that he is now no longer so But the Legal Right which it is acknowledged he once had must now be extinguished and absorpt in the Divine Right of the present Possessor To justifie the King who is supposed to retain a Legal Right in opposition to the Divine in his waging War for the regaining of his Throne from him who is in possession of it by a Divine Right is plainly to maintain that he may fight against God and may insist upon the Validity of an human Claim against the Divine Will and Command it is to say that God may dispose of Kingdoms as he pleases but the Rights introduced by human Laws are still in force notwithstanding his disposal For though it be uncertain how long an Usurper shall continue in the Throne this alters not the Case since it is certain according to these Principles that how long or how short a Time soever he is in Possession for all that time he has God's Authority Suppose then it were certain that the Usurper were to be dispossessed at such a Time it would nevertheless be as unjust to raise War against him till that time as if he were to remain in the Throne for his Life For God may make Annual Kings if he pleases and yet their Authority will be as sacred and inviolable as any Kings whatsoever It would be no excuse for a Man that should affront my Lord Mayor to say that his Lordship was almost out of his Office nor any excuse to Domestick Rebels or Foreign Invaders to alledge that the King was sick of a Mortal Disease and yet there is no difference in these Cases For a King placed in the Throne by God himself and acting by his Authority can have no just Competitor all the while he enjoys it be it a longer or a shorter Time The rest that follows to Page 33. is a Digression in which whatever concerns the present Question is grounded upon this Supposition that a legal Claim is good against God's Authority with which the King in Possession is invested and so must either stand or fall with it And therefore though there be several things which granting this to be true are unconcluding yet I shall pass them over P. 33. Another Objection is that his Opinion would give great Encouragement to daring and ambitious Men to invade their Neighbours He answers that such Men need no other Encouragement but Power to grasp at Crowns And therefore 't is great pity they should have any other But he says further that if the Kingdoms of the World be disposed of by God and no Art or Power can place any Prince on the Throne but by God's Appointment unless they can flatter themselves that God has ordained them to be Kings it will check all their ambitious Attempts which God can so easily defeat But they cannot be ignorant how easily God can defeat their Attempts whether they know of this Doctrin or no They observe that Kingdoms are lost and Kings dethroned in all Ages of the World and when they have Power in their hands they are apt to promise themselves Success without the hopes of any Authority but what they can gain by the Sword And when they are informed that if they have but success God will give them a Right which will oblige all the Subjects in their Defence against all opposition they will be much more forward and desirous to try their Fortunes and see what success they can meet with and Crowns will be looked upon by bold and aspiring Men as so many Prizes proposed for the reward of Victory And to this there will be need of no great Dose of Enthusiasm tho' Enthusiasm is no unusual thing in such Cases For most of the ambitious Spirits have either flattered themselves or at least made their Followers believe that God would prosper their undertakings that they were doing God's Work and that he had ordained them Success in their Attempts Or if they should not be so Enthusiastick yet this would be too great Encouragement to them that if God would permit them to have that Success which so many others have had before them in as wicked Designs he would be sure to crown it with his own Authority But to what may be alledged of this Doctrin's being inconvenient and dangerous to Princes he says that the contrary Doctrin is much more dangerous to Subjects when such Revolutions happen But beside that a Doctrin which is dangerous to Princes can be no security to Subjects this is not to the Point For if this Doctrin promote Wars and occasion frequent Revolutions it will be of worse Consequence though the other should expose Subjects to greater dangers under the Revolutions which would more rarely happen For Revolutions cannot be brought about without the Expence of much Treasure and the loss of many Lives and it were better for Subjects to suffer more so it were but seldom than to be continually suffering though not altogether in so great a degree But the Objectors do not think it a sufficient Confutation of the Doctrin of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience P. 34. to say That this puts it into the King's Power to invade the Laws and Liberties the Lives and Fortunes of his Subjects at pleasure And the Reason why they think it no Confutation is because though Passive Obedience can give no absolute Security yet it is more for the Good and Interest of the People than the contrary Doctrin For it is evident from all Experience that Civil Wars spill more Blood and waste more Treasure and destroy more Liberty and Property and are every way of worse Consequence to the Subject than the Reign of the
worst King can be But the present Doctrin which the Doctor maintains brings Mischiefs upon both King and People which the contrary to it would prevent and so is worse than that in its Effects and Consequences There is no Doctrin that can secure Kingdoms from all Dangers and Calamities but Passive Obedience is as effectual to that end as the State of Human Affairs will admit and the Divine Providence takes care of all extraordinary Cases And when it is proved that a Doctrin is delivered in the Scriptures and has been taught by the Catholick Church from the Apostles Times and is the best and most beneficial to Societies that can be taught no good Man will dispute the Truth of it though great Inconveniences may sometimes happen which neither that nor any other Doctrin can prevent But if the Doctrin of Passive Obedience should expose Subjects to never so many and great Inconveniences the Doctor 's Notion must expose Men to the same and much greater For Passive Obedience teaches only That Kings may not be resisted by their Subjects But the Doctor goes further and must say That if Kings can once get fully possessed of the Properties of their Subjects and throughly setled in their Encroachments upon their Rights and Liberties they have from thenceforth a Divine Right to them and their Authority over their Subjects is increased and extended with their Power and Usurpations for all is the Gift of God by his Providence after a through Settlement Again he objects P. 34. But have not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown which he seizes by a manifest Force and Violence Does not the Providence of God order and dispose all these Events And are we not bound then as much to submit to Pyrates as to Vsurpers To which he answers That the dispute is not about Human and Legal Right in either Case but about Authority But neither is the Objection concerning Human and Legal Right but Divine Right for the Conveyance of Authority by God's Providence supposes a Right to enjoy and exercise it and that Objection is That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Right to their Booty as an Usurper's Right and Title can be to his Crown and that the Divine Providence may as well be said to dispose of the Properties of Subjects as of the authority of Kings For though an Indictment may be brought against Robbers in Human Courts yet by being in full Possession they may by the same Reason be said to have a Divine Right to the Goods they have taken and that they are not obliged in Conscience to make Restitution by which Usurpers are said to have a Divine Right and Authority from God to Rule the Dominions in which they have unjustly setled themselves And this I think I have already proved or if I had not the Doctor himself has granted it Has he forgot that he told us before P. 12. That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of any Events but makes him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or Publick Societies What then can his Distinction between Human and Legal Right and Authority signifie I cannot but think notwithstanding this Distinction that a Purse may rather be transferred by Providence than a Kingdom for a Purse may be lost and found as a Kingdom can hardly be Yet if a Man should find a Purse of Gold I suppose it would be no Excuse for him to say that Providence had given it him if he should refuse to restore it to the right owner though in this Case he came by it without any Fault of his without any Expectation or Fore-sight it was his good Luck or Fortune or in other Words it was the pure Act of Providence and if Providence dispose of any Rights it must be in such Cases where only Providence without any Human Act or Endeavour takes away from one and gives to another But if the Right to a thing can remain after it is lost it must surely remain after a Man is by Fraud or Violence deprived of it unless it be not the Possession but the Sin in acquiring it which transfers the Right That which he observes of Athaliah that she was not killed nor deposed before Joash was proclaimed King and placed in the Throne is only a Circumstance of Time not at all material I shall not enquire Whether Joash had the whole Power of the Kingdom in his Hands or whether he could on the sudden be throughly setled in his Government when Athaliah yet appeared as Queen and cryed out Treason not apprehending herself totally divested of all Power as the Argument supposes But if it be lawful to dispossess an Usurper it must be lawful to pay Allegiance to the Rightful Prince before the Dispossession of the Usurper for it is lawful to dispossess the Usurper for the sake of the Rightful King and the very Act of Dispossession is the most considerable Act of Allegiance And for this Reason the Doctor maintains That in all other Kingdoms it is unlawful for the Subjects who live under the Usurper to dispossess him in behalf of the Rightful King because there is no Allegiance due to him till he gets into Possession But in the Case of Joash he acknowledges it was otherwise and the Convocation justifie the whole Process of that Action So that by the Doctor 's own Principles in that Peculiar Case where God himself had entailed the Kingdom they might as well have deposed and slain her first and then have set up Joash if it had been as convenient and easie to be done But when the Right Heir had been six Years concealed it could not be Safe for them to depose the Usurper till be had been proclaimed and shewn to the People to give them full Satisfaction that he was yet alive and this way was taken as the most Safe and Easie not that it was upon any other Account of the least Consequence which was done first What he says besides in answer to this Objection and of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah has been spoken to already There is nothing till we come to his Sixth Argument which has not been considered in answer to the foregoing Parts of his Discourse For if God does not confer Sovereign Authority upon Usurpers if he does not remove Kings and set up Kings against Human Laws if he limits his own Providence so as not to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance during their Rightful King's Life then it is in vain to say That those who refuse to comply p. 37. must renounce the only Principle whereon Passive Obedience is reasonably grounded and consequently renounce the Doctrin it self That those are bold Men who will venture to say in plain Contradiction to Scripture That God cannot remove or set up Kings and that this limits the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Innocent and Injured
the plain Truth is no Man ever pretended to an Infallible Remedy to prevent all the Mischiefs of any kind the Quack in Physick and of the Church of Rome itself never pretend that their Directions will work infallible Cures unless they be followed as well as known This Principle would go very far towards the hindring of all Revolutions but such as God by his Appointment and Command would have submitted to if it were practised and as things are now it is the best Remedy against them 3. But if the bare Knowledg of this Principle will not prevent Revolutions or if Revolutions cannot be prevented at all it does not from thence follow That such an immoveable and unalterable Allegiance as is due only to a Legal Right and Title will dissolve Human Societies when such Revolutions happen Our present Experience teaches the contrary for the Distinction between the Divine Authority and the Legal Right of Kings in Opposition to each other is news to almost the whole Nation some acting upon one Principle and some upon another but all generally supposing God's Authority and the Legal Right to be in the same Person Besides the Government must be at least in some Measure setled before the Doctor 's Principle can take Place or be of any use and if the Government may be setled without it I see no Reason why it may not continue without it For how comes that to be necessary to the being of Human Society which is not necessary to the establishment of Government but exerts itself by several Steps and Degrees in Proportion to the Degrees of its Settlement and never is of full Force and Efficacy till a thorough Settlement But our Principle exposes the most Innocent and Conscientious Men to Sufferings without serving any good End by them It must be confessed That those Men must be exposed to Sufferings who can neither be satisfied that the Legal Right is transferred nor be persuaded that they may subject themselves to the Possessor of the Crown unless he had a Legal Right But then this is not without serving any good End for they serve the Ends of Justice and Fidelity to the Rightful King and act upon such Principles as are the support and preservation of Human Society tho the Practice of them may sometimes bring Accidental Inconveniences upon particular Persons and Governments which can never fall out but in extraordinary Cases that no Principles can effectually provide against And God can support Men under their Sufferings or deliver them out of them without their Infringement of Legal Rights or acting against the Nature and Order of Society in General to serve some particular occasions and Exigencies The Doctor 's Argument from the Nature of Human Society p. 45. by which he would prove That the Safety and Preservation of a Nation is to be preferred before the King 's Right is grounded upon the Supposition above mentioned That any thing is lawful which is necessary for the Preservation of particular Societies which proving a false Principle his Argument can be of no Force For that Allegiance is due to all Rightful Kings is a Maxim which concerns Society in general without which no Government can long subsist and therefore if the Good of Society in General be to be preferred before the Good of any particular Government tho this should be preferable to the King 's Right the Consequence would fail because the necessary Relation and Connection between Allegiance and Sovereignty is founded in the Nature of Sovereignty itself not in the Being or Constitution of any particular Kingdom and the Obedience of Subjects must be fixed and permanent not variable with the Changes and Interests in the State of Affairs which could make all Government uncertain and precarious and would leave every Subject at Liberty to pay or with-hold his Allegiance when he thought fit if the Interest of the Government and not the Laws of it were to be the Rule of his Obedience And where should we stop Or whither would not this Argument carry us For if we may withdraw our Allegiance from the King because his Right is not of equal Value with the Safety of all his Subjects then for the same Reason we may rebel against him or we may kill him whenever we will suppose That this single Life and Fortunes come into competition with those of the whole Nation But this Argument has been often brought against the Doctrin of Non-Resistance and as often consuted And if it were true it would not prove that Usurpers are set up by God but by the People For if God sets them up Obedience is due to them for the Sake of his Authority not upon these Considerations which can only serve for Motives to the People to set them up and are no Proof that God has done it For we may suppose the Usurper in possession of the Throne to be so cruel and tyrannical that the People have no way to provide for their own Safety but by deposing him which if God have given him his Authority it is sinful for them to do but if this Argument be true it is a Duty So that this Argument if it prove any thing must prove either that Kings are not God's Ordinance or that God's Ordinance may be resisted for the Publick Good but Evil is never to be done tho the greatest Good may come by it and Obedience is due not to Conveniency but to Law and the Laws of God and Nature have respect not to any Society in particular but to Society in General and to particular Societies only so far as their Preservation may be consistent with the Welfare of Society in general The Objection which he makes against his own Doctrin is much more to the purpose and deserves to be considered â—… 45. He objects to himself That This will equally serve all Revolutions of Government whatever they be and upon these Principles we might submit and swear to a Rump Parliament or to another Protector or to a Committes of Safety or whatever else you please The Doctor is pleased to say That this is a great Prejudice but no Argument but it is very strange that a Man who has built his whole Doctrin upon the Authority of a Convocation and durst never have asserted it if it had not been for that Venerable Authority should now reject the Practice of the whole Church of England at that time and the Judgment of it both then and ever since as no Argument no Objection but only a great Prejudice I must take Leave to say as the Doctor does of the Sense of the Convocation â—… 9. that this is a good Argument from Authority and as good Authority as can be urged to the Members of the Church of England for if so many Years Suffering and the great Veneration all Good Men have for so excellent Examples to this very Day cannot declare the Judgment of the Church of England I know not whence we shall learn
Primitive Christians to adhere to that Emperour who had the Legal Title and that they did not look upon the Usurpers or in the language of those times the Tyrants who were set up against them to have any Authority or Approbation from God tho' sometimes their Power and the extent of their Dominions equalled if not exceeded that of the Rightful Emperour The first Instance I give shall be that of the Christians that lived under the Jews before they were subdued by Adrian The Jews had made one Cochebas their King who it is said reigned above thirty years over them this is certain they were a most dangerous Enemy to the Romans for about twenty years in the Emperours Reign Their numbers were so great and their fury so desperate that they became formidable to the whole Empire Dio. lib. 69. Adrian therefore chose out his best Captains to send against them of whom Julius Severus who was sent for out of Brittain was the chief and he durst not engage with them in a pitcht Battel but waited fit opportunities to take them at advantage and set upon them apart and so in time destroyed them by degrees But at last the victory cost Adrian very dear and lost him great part of his Army which made him in his Letter to the Senate omit the usual stile Si vos liberique vestri valetis bene est Ego quidem exercitus valemus (a) Cochebas dux Judaicae factionis nolentes sibi Christianos adversum Romanum militem ferre subsidium omnimodis cruciatibus necat Euseb Chron. Vltusque est Christianos Hadrianos quos illi Cocheba duce quod sibi adversus Romanos non assentarentur excruciabant praecepitque necui Judeae introeundi Hierosolymam esset licentia Christianis tantum civitate permissa Oros lib. 7. c. 13. The Christians all this while refused to give any Assistance to the Jews under whose usurped Government they lived against Adrian the lawful Emperour and because they would neither assist them in the War nor acknowledge the Justice of it they were put to excessive Torments by Cochebas and the Emperour in reward of their Loyalty granted the Christians liberty to inhabit Jerusalem after he had forbid the Jews under the greatest Penalties to come so much as in sight of it above once a year to lament their calamity It will be objected here that Cochebas pretended to be the Messias or that Star as his name denotes in Balaam's Prophecy Numb 24.17 And that besides the Jews were to be no more a People their destruction being decreed by God and foretold in the Scriptures But this could be no reason why the Christians should deny obedience to Cochebas if his being as he was in full Possession of the Government had made him the Ordinance of God For tho' he had assumed to himself more than belonged to him yet this had been no prejudice to that Right which was truly his and which must depend upon his Possession of the Supreme Power not upon his behaviour or pretensions in matters of Religion And as long as God continued his Power and Authority which he had committed to him they would have been obliged to obey him as God's Ordinance For if his blasphemous pretensions did not provoke God to deny him his Authority what could justifie the Christians in with-holding their Allegiance Gods Authority must challenge the same Duty and Reverence in whomsoever it is placed Jo. 19.11 in a Herod or a Pontius Pilate or a Cochebas And if he had had God's Authority by usurping the Power and Title of a King they would have submitted to his Authority at the same time that they had confuted his Blasphemies with the Peril of their lives And tho' the Jews were to be utterly destroyed and to be no more a Nation the time of this was uncertain but it was certain that the time was not yet come because they had as yet a Powerful Government and so by these Principles had Gods Authority and therefore the Christians would have acknowledged their Authority as the Apostles did that of the Governours of Judea in their times if these Principles were true and there had not been this difference that they were lawful Powers in the time of the Apostles being set over them by the Roman Emperors who had the Supreme Authority in Judea as well as in other Provinces But Chochebas was set up in opposition to the Lawful Powers which only are ordained of God and for that reason no Obedience could be due to him but the Christians chose to endure any Torments rather than they would oppose their Lawful Sovereign in behalf of this Usurper tho' his Power were never so great (b) Vnde shall Cassij Ter Nigri Albini de Romanis nisi faller id est de non Christianis Sed qui nunc Scelestarum Partium Socij aut plausores quotidie revelantur post vindemiam Patricidarum racematio Superstes c. Tertul. Apolog c. 35. Sic circa Majestatem Imperatoris infamamur tamen nunquam Albiniani nec Nigriani vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani Sed ijdem ipsi qui per Genios eorum impridie usque juraverant c. id ad Scapulam c. 2. The next Example I shall bring of the Primitive Christians shall be from these famous Passages of Tertullian one in his Apology and the other in his Book ad Scapulam He in both those places declares and defies any Man to shew the contrary that the Christians never sided with Avidius Cassius against Marcus Antoninus or with Piscennius Niger Governor of Syria or Clodius Albinus Governor of Britain who set themselves up as Emperors in the Provinces over which they presided and upon enquiry it will be found that these two last had as full Possession of their respective Dominions as Septimius Severus the Lawful Emperour had in his part of the Empire (c) Vulcat Gallican in Avid Cassio Avidius Cassius was soon taken off for M. Antoninus was so well beloved and so highly esteemed that Cassius had never been proclaimed Emperour if it had not been given out that Antoninus was dead And no City of note but Antioch took part with him so that his Rebellion had little danger in it being considerable neither for the Strength nor for the continuance of it (d) Onuph Panvin Fast lib. 2. But Niger was in Possession of all the Eastern part of the Empire a year and some Months besides odd days and Albinus reigned as Emperour in the West between three and four years (e) Herodian lib. 2. c. 22. When the Pretorian Bands had murthered Pertinax they set the Empire to Sale making open Proclamation that he should be Emperour who would give most and Didius Julianus outbidding Sulpicianus was accordingly declared Emperour by them and the Senate was forced to confirm their choice But Julianus disappointed the expectations of the Soldiers in not being able to make full payment for his Purchase and was cursed
true and lawful Possessor being always Gods Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of these that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly settled to be reverenced and obeyed From whence the Dr. P. 8. argues that it is plain it is not a legal Authority by the Death or Cession of the Rightful King for we are to obey it as Gods Authority though it be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor and though the present Possessor should have no other visible Title to it but such unjust Force But why may not the Authority be said to be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor when he is forced to resign his Right or quit his Claim May not Consent be extorted and Oaths extorted and may not a Prince be reduced to that condition as at last to resolve for ever to relinquish his Right when he has no hopes left of recovering it and does not History furnish us with such examples However that which is wrung from a lawful Possessor by Death is to be sure wrung by Force from him and the words do not import that the Possessor is supposed to be living after this injustice and violence And by these ways Authority may be said to be unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor though the Authority it self properly and strictly speaking cannot be so obtained For in the Doctor 's opinion it is conferred by God upon a Thorough Settlement and in the opinion of others it is conferred by him upon the Death or Cession of the Person in whom it before was but whensoever it is transferred it is certainly given by God and cannot be torn or forced from the true and lawful Possessor but the external Power and Exercise of Authority may and when it is thus gotten it may afterwards be an accidental means of attaining to the Authority it self And this is that the Convocation speakes of that men by wicked Arts and Practices may arrive at Power and at last when there is no better Pretence or Claim may become invested with the Authority it self as well as exercise the outward Acts of it This the Instances subjoined of the Authority of the Egyptian and Babylonian Kings over the Jews shew to be the meaning of the Convocation for it would be absurd to take their words in such a sense as all the examples immediately added for the explication of them doe not explain but rather confute and contradict and if the literal Sense and Grammatical Construction as the Doctor urges seem to import this we must certainly reject it or else we shall make the Convocation argue as wise and learned men never did and then it will be to little purpose to enquire after their meaning be it what it will But indeed no Grammar nor Logick I think can prove from their words that the true and lawful Possessor is supposed to be alive and to assert his Right The Doctor 's observation concerning the mention of a King de Facto in the Convocation Book I cannot think will prove of any service to him and I believe he thought so himself too when he wrote his Case of Allegiance or else he would never have omitted it though now he makes great use of it But the plain meaning of a King de Facto there is no more than any Rightful King under whom a man lives whether he be his natural Sovereign or any Foreign Prince to whom he is become Subject justly and lawfully but not with prejudice to the Right of his own Sovereign For as the Doctor observes this is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon to whom the Israelites had been in Subjection eighteen years without any Competition of another Prince to their Allegiance Now Ahud was not their natural Prince but only the King under whom they then lived and who had then a Right to their Obedience so that if here is not the least intimation that a King de Facto is opposed to a King de Jure but the King de Facto under whom he lived is no more than the King under whom he de Facto lived that is whose Subject he actually was whether he were his Natural Sovereign or a Foreign Prince But it must be observed that this is not spoken only with respect to Ahud's killing Eglon but with respect likewise to Adonijah's Usurpation in the Reign of David his Father Can. 27. For they say that though a Subject should make never so specious and solemn pretences that God had called him to murder the King de Facto under whom he lived and should have first procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did yet this would not justify him nor his Adherents if he should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master which is just the same thing that was before expressed in other words by Murthering the King de Facto under whom he lived So that a King de Facto in this place cannot be opposed to a King de Jure unless David himself were only a King de Facto The Doctor moves a Dispute P. 17. what kind of Submission of the Rightful King may be sufficient to transfer his Right and whether a King does not submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince or whether nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a Formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power To this I answer that it is of the Nature of Right that it cannot be transferred without the consent of the Person whose Right it is unless it be by some person who has a superior Right to the thing disposed of for what is a mans own cannot be given away from him against his will but by one who has a Superiour and better Right to it than that which he holds it by And it is sufficient if any Submission or Consent of the Rightful King be necessary to transfer Allegiance and if it cannot be proved that God the Supream Lord and Proprietor of all things is pleased to dispose of the Right to Kingdoms otherwise than he does of the Right which private men have to their Estates it must be nenessary that such Acts intervene as are required among men to convey a Right which can be no other than such as imply a Consent But what kind of Consent is necessary and how it ought to be expressed is quite another question which depends upon particular Cases and Circumstances and it is sufficient in the present case to say that a forced Submission is a forced Consent and that is some sort of Consent and not an involuntary Act though not so voluntary as if there had been no Force The Doctor cannot but acknowledge that such a Submission of men with respect to themselves P. 13. gives a Right for it is a voluntary Consent though extorted by
Essence of Sovereign Authority so that no Prince can be possessed of actual Power without Gods Authority and no Prince that is not actually possessed of Power can have his Authority then how came the Nature of things to be changed so in the Case of Joash and Athaliah that Joash upon his first Appearance had an immediate Right to the Allegiance of the Subjects and Athaliah even without Dispossession lost all her Authority But she was dispossessed I grant it But the Argument proceeds not upon her Dispossession but upon the first Appearance of the true Heir and supposes as the Doctor acknowledges that immediately upon his Appearance she had no more Authority or Right to their Allegiance before her Dispossession than she had after it and that she must therefore have reigned and must have been in the Actual Administration of Government without any Authority from God if she could have kept Possession never so long a time though he maintains that this Actual Administration and nothing else is required to invest any Prince with Gods Authority Suppose then that Athaliah had had a strong party that me had not been surprised as she was and suddenly taken off but that the generality of the Subjects had stood by her and had not admitted Joash to reign over them this is no impossible Supposition for the same thing happened to David himself when Ishbosheth was set up against him and therefore might have happened to any of his Line When then would the Authority have been or what would the Divine Entail have signified to Joash according to these Principles Could Joash have had God's Authority tho' he was out of Possession Then other Kings though they be dispossessed may have it too and Possession is not necessary to the being invested with God's Authority Or did God by this Entail alter the Nature of things and was Sovereignty quite another thing in the Kingdom of Judah than it is in other Kingdoms Then all the Examples the Convocation brings from that Kingdom are to no purpose We are told that if Joash did but appear or was known to be alive it was enough to put Athaliah out of all her Providential Right and therefore it could not be necessary that he should be either accepted or recognized to make the Subjects Allegiance become due to him And in other Kingdoms a thorough Settlement is necessary only for Usurpers For when there is a Right P. 28. nothing more is necessary to give Possession but that Subjects actually own and recognize that Right and accept him for their King in whom the Right is For his Right makes their Obedience a Duty when he is in Possession how weak and unsettled soever his Government is But when a Prince has no legal Right to the Crown nor consequently to the Obedience of his Subjects it is only a thorough Settlement which makes Obedience a necessary Duty But there is no ground for this Distinction because if God have disposed of a Crown all human Claims can be of no validity against his Disposal and that Prince must be an Usurper upon Gods Authority who will attempt to recover it For since both Legal Entails and thorough Settlements are Acts of Gods Providence since it is all but Providence still P. 45. as the Doctor says the latter Act of Providence must stand good against the former the effect whereof must be abolished by the latter If God first gives a Kingdom to one and afterwards takes it away to bestow it upon another certainly the last Gift must take place And therefore the Usurper is to be adhered to rather than the late Legal King unless Providence advance him to a thorough Settlement and so cancel the Usurpers Claim making the Crown over again to the Legal Possessor by a new Gift Jeroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by God's Nomination P. 34. and reigned as long as he lived but for his sins God would not entail the Kingdom on his Family At the same time that God nominated Jeroboam by his Prophet Ahijah he made a conditional Entail of the Kingdom upon his Family 1 Kings 2. but Jeroboam not performing the conditions it was of no benefit to him And it is not certain that Jeroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by Gods Nomination For though he was at first nominated by God yet very Learned Men understand Hos 4.8 to be meant particularly of him expounding it that Jeroboam is said to reign but not by God because when God had promised to give him the Ten Tribes he did not wait Gods Time to receive the Kingdom from him but was set up by the People and strengthened himself by Idolatry and the Israelites are said to have rebelled against the House of David unto this Day that is from the beginning of Jeroboam's Reign to the time of the writing of that Book 1 Kings 12.19 As to the Arguments which prove that Fraud and Violence may give a Right to an Estate as well as Usurpation to a Crown the Doctor says P. 46. that all private Injuries are reserved by God himself to the Correction and Redress of publick Government and human Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect as all on such personal Rights but the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a legal Decision or any human Courts for the Decision whereof God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires c. But he says in his Case of Allegiance that the Scripture never speaks of Gods bare permission of any Events P. 12. but makes him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies and that all Events which are for the good or evil of private Men or publick Societies are ordered by him Here he makes God the Author of all Events alike whether they befal private Men or publick Societies and if he will now argue that God disposes of Kingdoms otherwise than of private Estates first this must be proved and if it were proved yet he must maintain the Consequence of his own Principles about Events or else renounce them For when he is charged with the Consequence of some of his Principles it is not enough to say that the same thing may be proved by another Argument though this might be sufficient for his Cause yet it would not be sufficient for his own Vindication Besides the Dispute is neither concerning unjust Possessions of Kingdoms by Usurpation nor of private Estates by Fraud or any other Injustice till both are throughly settled Suppose then that by false Witnesses or by false Deeds or Bribery or by whatever other wicked means a Man gets into quiet Possession of anothers Estate suppose the Cause has gone against the lawful Possessor in all the Courts of Judicature the Question is what Title this Man
the Settlement of it God changes times and seasons Governments and Governours and all this he does only by his Providence that is in the Drs. sense merely by the Events of things and therefore when any Prince makes himself Arbitrary God has changed the Government as when an Usurper gets into the Throne he has changed the Governour And according to the Dr. Authority is inseparable from the Possession of Power and therefore the Exercise of Arbitrary Power or the actual Possession of Power to Govern Arbitrarily implies an Authority from God to govern so Vind. P. 86. For if Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power make a King then Actual Arbitrary Power makes an Arbitrary King 4. But the necessity of a thorough Settlement before the full and entire Allegiance of the Subjects can become due to an Usurper is inconsistent with the Doctors Principles For in his Account of the Relation between a King and a Subject he makes no mention of a thorough Settlement nor supposes it in the least but on the contrary places the Relation in Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power on the one hand to make a King Ib. P. 38. and the Obligations to Subjection and Allegiance on the other hand to make a Subject Why there should not as well be actual Subjection and Alleglance to make a Subject does not concern me now to enquire it is enough to my present purpose that Actual Dominion makes a King and therefore a Settled Diminion cannot be necessary to make one Ib. If the Relation then of a King to his Subject be Dominion and Government does be continue a King says the Doctor when he has lost his Dominion and Government And does he continue an Usurper say I who is actually possessed of Dominion and Government till he is thoroughly settled in it If he does how can Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power make a King How can it be true Ibid. that where Actual Dominion and Government ceases the Kingship is lost and the Obligation to Subjection and Allegiance with it if it be not likewise true that where-ever there is Actual Dominion and Government there is Kingship and the Obligations to Subjection and Allegiance with it For the Actual Possession of Power and Authority to govern and Allegiance or that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government are Relations P. 37. and do mutuò se ponere tollere Thus all that he discourses about this matter wholly excludes the very Notion of a thorough Settlement as necessary to make Allegiance become due The Substance of it all is that there must of necessity be always some Government some actual Power in every Nation whom the People are bound in Conscience to obey that therefore this is always from God and that there can be no Interregnum no time wherein there is no visible Authority ordained by God in any Kingdom For if there were God could not be said to rule in such a Kingdom of which more by and by Now how is this consistent with the Notion of a thorough Settlement which supposes that there may be an Interval of Time more or less when there is none with Authority from God to govern In short if Actual Dominion make a King what need can there be of a thorough Settlement to make Allegiance become due to him If there be a necessity for a thorough Settlement how can Actual Dominion make a King I am perswaded the Distinction between Usurpers that are settled and those that are not settled is at least as unknown to Scripture as the Distinction between Usurpers and lawful Kings And therefore as the Doctor urges that if St. Paul Case P. 19. Rom. 13. had intended any such Distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of Subjection to the Higher Powers only of Powers that had a Legal Right So I may with much greater Reason say that if St. Paul had intended any Distinction between Usurpers before and after a thorough Settlement he ought to have said it in express words or else no body would reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of Subjection only to Usurpers who are throughly settled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Powers that be are ordained of God not that are settled but that are in being that actually are And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and do evidently relate to the Exercise of Civil Authority not to a Legal Right it is as evident that it can as little relate to a thorough Settlement for the Exercise of Civil Authority may be long before any Settlement and continue as long after and it may be wholly without it from first to last 5. If it be necessary there should be a thorough Settlement before an Usurper can have Gods Authority and from the Death of King Charles the First to the Restauration of the Royal Family we had no settled Government then by the Doctors Principles we had none of Gods Authority amonst us For Gods Authority is no longer in a dispossest Prince and no Usurper can have it till a thorough Settlement and therefore I will put the Question which the Doctor puts to his Adversary in the like Case I desire to know whether God rules in a Kingdom Vindicat. P. 59. while an Vsurper fills the Throne or while it is not throughly settled the Reason of the Question is plain because the Prophet Daniel pronounces Vniversally that God ruleth in the Kingdom of Men and as a proof of it adds and giveth it to whomsoever he will and then it should seem that God does not rule in these Kingdoms which he does not dispose of by his own Will and Counsel which are not yet throughly settled which he does not give to whom he will which he has yet given to no body but suffers Vsurpers to take the Government of them but suffers Usurpers to tyrannize over them without coming to a full Settlement or being invested with his Authority In the Case of the English Government during the Exile of King Charles the Second it is impossible for the Doctor to avoid the Force of his own Objection though it really have no force in it against any body but himself For God rules the World when he permits all manner of Wickedness in it and he rules Kingdoms when he permits Kings who have his Authority to abuse it to the worst Purposes of Violence and Persecution and when he permits Subjects to rebel and throw off the Yoke He does not always govern Kingdoms by a visible Authority or by a Person authorized or ordained by himself to act as his Vicegerent But it is yet to be proved that God cannot govern Kingdoms if he suffer Men to exercise all the outward Acts of Power and Sovereignty without any Right and Authority to do it it remains to be proved that when God suffers Subjects to cast off that Authority which he has appointed to reject his Vicegerent and to say We will not have this Man to rule over us they are then no longer under Gods Rule and Government And when this is proved it will still remain to be shewn how by these Principles God could rule in these three Kingdoms if there was no thorough Settlement and consequently no Person invested with Gods Authority for so many Years together FINIS
THE TITLE OF AN USURPER AFTER A THOROUGH SETTLEMENT EXAMINED In ANSWER to Dr. SHERLOCK's Case of the Allegiance DUE TO SOVEREIGN POWERS c. LONDON Printed in the YEAR MDCXC PREFACE PART of the following Papers were written before Dr. Sherlock's Book was published without any design of Printing them But I was much more confirmed in my Opinion when all that the Dr. had said was very far from giving me any Satisfaction And as I was engaged in this Subject before so I have kept close to it not concerning my self with any thing else that the Dr. has said in his Book And I have been so far from Prejudice and Partiality that I must confess before I had fully considered it I could not but think much the better of Dr. Sherlock's Notion because it is his and I am not sensible that I have been wanting in any respect which is due to the Dr's Learning and Worth And this is all that needed to have been said by way of Preface if a Weekly Retailer of Politicks and false History after a very certain and positive Account out of Manuscript as he told us and Original Papers given by him of that Convocation the Acts and Canons whereof gave occasion to the present Controversy had not at last produced Letter pretended to have been written by King James I. to a Member of the Convocation which contradicts what I have said in relation to it and which some perhaps may give Credit to if it be not shewn that it deserves none But this Letter is a Contradiction to all that he had said before of the Convocation and serves only to expose the Vanity of this Pretender to secret History For before he informed us from his MSS. that the King was not inclined to favour the Dutch but the Clergy were for it and in this Letter the King is resolved to espouse their Cause but the Clergy are under mighty Scruples about it This Observator is wont to leave his other Rarities with his Bookseller to be viewed and examined but we are only told that he had this Letter no body knows from whom and that it was written no body knows when nor to whom It is to Good Dr. Abbot but who this Dr. Abbot was is uncertain and he tells us it has no Date tho in his Contents he sets it down as written in the year 1604. What! had he forgot himself or was he not yet resolved whether he should date it or not A Letter of King James to Archbishop Abbot concerning the Convocation 1604. How comes he to be here so positive that it was written to Archbishop Abbot when he afterwards confesses it is only his Conjecture But the Convocation was in 1604. True for it began in 1603. and was continued by Adjournments and Prorogations till 1610. But Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book bears Date only from 1606. But it was written partly by a Secretary as he imagines and partly by the King himself by some Scotch Secretary I suppose but King James's hand is too well known to trust the Learned World in his Cant with a sight of it for fear of some Discovery In this Letter King James blames the Convocation for asserting that all Kings if they be but in Possession are invested with Gods Authority and then he says But you know all of you as I think that the Reason of calling you together was to give your Judgment how far a Christian and a Protestant King may concur to assist his Neighbours to shake off their Obedience to their own Sovereign upon the account of Oppression Tyranny or what else you like to name it In the late Queens time this Kingdom was very free in assisting the Hollanders both with Arms and Advice and none of your Coat ever told me that any scrupled about it in her Reign Upon my coming to England you may know that it came from some of your selves to raise Scruples about this matter And albeit I have often told my mind concerning Jus Regium in subditos as in May last in the Star-Chamber upon the occasion of Hale's Pamphlet yet I never took any notice of these Scruples till the Affairs of Spain Holland forced me to it all my Neighbours call on me to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain and the Honour of the Nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned especially after so much Money and Men spent in their Quarrel Therefore I was of the mind to call my Clergy together to satisfie not so much me as the World about us of the Justness of my owning the Hollanders at this time This I needed not have done and you have forced me to say I wish I had not Here we are told that the Clergy at the beginning of King James I. his Reign 1603. were possessed with strange Scruples which they had never had before concerning the Dutch Affairs tho the same scrupulous Clergy at the same time maintained that bare Possession gives a Title to Vsurpers in any Government and from the year 1581. the united Provinces by virtue of express Privileges and Provisions in that behalf had renounced all Obedience to the King of Spain and had been treated with as free Estates by the neighbouring Princes Now tho Scruples are sometimes very unaccountable things yet these are such Scruples as I think have been seldom heard of that Possession should give a Right and yet not give the Dutch a Right who had so many other Pleas besides from express Laws in their favour But only some of the Clergy were scrupulous Some Who were these Some They must be of the most considerable and eminent and their Number must be considerable too or else the King had taken no notice of it at least he had never called a Convocation to decide the Controversie But the Convocation was called to satisfie not so much the King nor the Clergy as the World about us of the Justness of his owning the Hollanders at this time that is about Two or Three and Twenty years after the World had owned them and when all the King's Neighbours called on him to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain the Convocation is assembled to determine that for the Satisfaction of the World which the World had been satisfied in so long before and now called upon the King for his Concurrence in that very thing about which all this Scruple was raised But because all men are fallible and may change their minds we know sometimes on the sudden let us examin how this Letter agrees with the History of that time How did King James help the Hollanders to shake off the Spanish Yoak Or what Occasion could there be of Scruple in the Clergy at the beginning of his Reign the they had neither held that Possession gives a Right nor that the Dutch had any better Claim The King at his coming to the Crown refused to concern himself in the War between Holland and Spain and would by no
means be persuaded to send the States any assistance of Forces a Scotorum quoque nova eohors Baclavio Tribuno Anglorum Supplementa Permissu Regis non ut ante imperio Grot. Hist lib. 13. An. 1604. but all that went into those Wars went only by his Permission and Connivance not by his Command and all the Supply of Mony that I can find he furnished them with was only thus that after the earnest Sollicitation and Importunity not only of the States themselves but of the King of France in their behalf he consented that a third part of the Money which the French lent them should be upon the King of England's account so as to discharge a Debt which was then owing to England from France and soon after he gave instructions concerning what Money was due to England from the Vnited Provinces In the second Year of his Reign he entred into a League with Spain b Ad Batavos haec pertinebant Hostes Rebellesque alterius alter ne juvaret neu juvari à suis pateretur ib. lib. 1604. one Article of which was that he should not assist the Dutch and he kept himself all along in a state c Quippe sedere Britannum tanti Belli otiosum spectatorem ib. lib. 16. An. 1607. of Neutrality and acted no otherwise than by way of Mediation to accommodate Affairs between them and the Spaniards and he must have been far enough from any Intention or Inclination to take up Arms to force a Peace when as Grotius d Satis hic Jacobus intelligebat Batavorum Armis suam quietem ac maximè Hiberniam defendi Sed haud minùs videbat quà m non idoneus esset Belli suasor qui pecuniam cujus id Bellum maximè egebat nec contulerat antehac nec habebat undè conferret ib. An. 1607. observes he could not but see how much it was for his Interest that the War should continue for by this means Spain was diverted and taken off from giving him any disturbance in Ireland or in any other part of his Dominions In the year 1607. the Vnited Provinces were treated with as Free Estates both by the Arch-Dukes Albertus and Isabella and by the King of Spain himself The Arch-Dukes declare c Grimestone 's Hist of the Netherlands l. 16. An. 1607. that they are content to treat with the General Estates of the United Provinces in quality and holding them for free Countries Provinces and States whereunto they pretend not any Title And the King of Spain in his Ratification says that he upon due deliberation and advice of his own certain knowledg and absolute Kingly Power and Authority had made unto the said Estates and by these presents did make the like Declaration which the Arch-Dukes had formerly made as much as in him lay and that he declared himself to be content that in his name and in his behalf the said Estates should be treated withal in quality and as holding them at this present for free Countries Provinces and Estates to whom he pretended no Title at all This was at the first entrance upon a Treaty in Order either to a Peace or a Truce and afterwards I think there could be no cause of Scruple tho the King had never so openly and vigorously espoused their Interest at the Treaty as he did indeed the year following appear with more Zeal and Resolution in their behalf than before he had done But what happened not till 1608. could not occasion the Scruples mentioned in the Letter to have been in the beginning of his Reign and the last Book of the Convocation had passed the Lower House April 16. 1606. as it bears date What Scruple then could the Clergy raise to themselves in this Case Did K. James by his standing Neuter or by his League with Spain engage himself in the War with the Dutch against Spain or could the most Scrupulous men think it unlawful for him to promote the Peace as a Friend and Allie to both Nations or rather must we not contradict all the Histories of that time if we will believe this to be a true Letter We know by our Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Canons that the Convocation had other Business before them than the Consideration of the Dutch affairs and few men are so little acquainted with the State of Affairs in England at the beginning of King James the first 's Reign but they know that there was too great occasion and I doubt there will always be for the Clergy to declare and explain the Doctrin of the Church concerning the Authority of Kings and the Allegiance of Subjects The Books of Parsons and Buchanan and several others had fill'd mens minds with such Principles as the Orthodox Clergy neither of that nor of succeeding Reigns have been yet able to dispel The Kings Prerogative both in Spiritual and Temporal Affairs was the subject of the most and the Principal Books written at that time as well as of the Convocation and we always have had too great cause at home to need to go so far as the Low-Countries for an occasion to treat of Allegiance But then more especially when there was such an attempt by Gunpowder and fire from Hell to blow up and destroy their Sovereign and the whole State of the Country c. as they mention lib. 2. can 1. But indeed if there were nothing else to prove this Letter forg'd what it contains about the Convocation would be a sufficient Proof of it for I think nothing can be more plain to an unprejudiced Reader than that in the Sense of the Convocation an Vsurper is then only Throughly Settled when the People have submitted to him and when there is no other Prince who has a better Claim The TITLE of an USURPER after a Thorough Settlement examined in Answer to Dr. SHERLOCK's Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers c. TO avoid all Ambiguity and Dispute about Words and to bring the Matter in debate to as narrow a Compass as I can I shall reduce it to this Question Whether the Thorough Settlement of an Usurper doth entitle him to the Allegiance of the Subjects over whom his Usurpation is throughly setled tho the Rightful King who is out of Possession be still living and demand their Allegiance The Resolution of this Question in our present Case depends first upon the Authority of BP Overall's Convocation-Book secondly upon the Reason of the thing it self First the Convocation expresly determins that there is some kind of Thorough Settlement which is sufficient to give a Title and whether it be the Thorough Settlement now described is the Thing to be examined And for the better understanding the Sense of the Convocation it will be convenient to give a brief Account of the first Book so as to collect all together that concerns this matter that at one view a more clear and distinct Notion may be had of it They declare their Chief Purpose to be to imitate the Scriptures
in setting out Ch. 1. Can. 1. and describing the Deity and Dignity of our Saviour Christ by his Almighty Power and Universal Government of all the World as Heir of all things and Head of his Church Ch. 2. Can. 2. And therefore they first affirm that he created the World and gave the supreme Authority to Adam for his time and to the rest of the Patriarchs and chief Fathers successively before the Flood ordaining by the very Law of Nature that their Children and Off-Spring should fear reverence honour and obey them Ch. 6. Can. 6. After the Flood it was committed to Noah who by virtue of this Authority given unto him by Almighty God and also warranted by the Laws of Nature and Reason distributed the whole World among his three Sons and they again divided it among their Sons But Nimrod descended of Cham not contenting himself with the Patriarchal or Regal mild Government Ch. 8. Can. 8. ordained of God by the Laws of Reason and Nature became a Tyrant and Lord of Confusion And within few Ages after the Death of Noah's Sons their Posterity becoming dissolute batbarous and ungovernable cast off that Government which God had ordained and set up new Forms of divers kinds after their own Humours and Inventions Whereupon it is determined by the Convocation If any one shall affirm that the said Posterity of Noah's Children did well in altering either the Manner or Form of Civil Government which God had appointed by bringing in of Tyranny or factious Popularity or that it was lawful for such as then served God upon any Pretence to have imitated their Examples He doth greatly err Abraham with his Family being by God called out from among the wicked and idolatrous People of Chaldea Ch. 8 9 10. Can. 10. that Supremacy of Power which he had over his own Family was continued down to Jacob And tho afterwards this Authority was much weakened and diminished during the abode of the Chilldren of Israel in Egypt yet in Process of time according to Jacob's Prophecy the Scepter was bestowed on Judah In the mean time they were first governed by Moses and then by Joshua after a mild and temperate manner Ch. 11. Can. 11. After the Death of Joshua they had no constant Succession of Princes but God raised up Judges from time to time as Occasion required to deliver and to govern them But upon the Peoples impatience and importunity God appointed Saul for their King and lastly the Scepter came to the Tribe of Judah by David's advancement to the Throne Ch. 14. Can. 14. to which be was as truly called by God himself as Aaron was to the Priesthood And David 's Posterity had by God's Ordinance as Rightful an Interest to succeed him in his said Kingdom as either Aaron 's Sons had to succeed him in the Priesthood or Moses Joshua and the rest of the Judges notwithstanding that God himself did chuse and named them particularly bad in their Governments But after the Kingdom was thus become Hereditary Ch. 15. Can. 15. the Kings were as much obliged as ever to the Observation of those Laws which God had prescribed for them to govern by and that they might do this the better they had their Judges and Inferiour Magistrates which was no diminution of their Power but they thereby ordered their Kingdoms with such a temperate and fatherly Moderation as was most agreeable for the Government of God's People Then the Convocation shews by a brief recapitulation of the Particulars from the beginning of the World Ch. 16. Can. 16. that Kings by Gods institution have a Paternal Authority and that Subjects ow them the Obedience of Children to their Parenâ—s Ch. 17 18 19. Can. 17 18 19. And whether the Kings or supreme Governours were nominated and appointed immediately by God himself or succeeded by an Hereditary Right as in the Kingdom of Judah neither the Priests nor People had any share in conferring upon them their Regal Authority but this was immediately and solely from God The following Chapters and Canons to the 23d are spent in shewing and explaining the Authority of the Kings and supreme Governors among the Jews in Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Subjection and Duty of the Priests to them by which they were bound not to depose or rise up against them upon any account whatsoever And then by way of Objection against this Doctrin is brought the Example of Jehoiada's deposing Athaliah In answer to which it is said that the Right of Succession according to Gods own appointment was in Joash and that therefore Athaliah though she had sate six years on the Throne might lawfully be deposed as being still but an Usurper but that this ought not to be drawn into Example against a lawful King To obviate another Objection they observe Ch 25. Can. 25. that the Prophets under the Old Testament did often severely rebuke their Kings and sometimes anointed one King before the decease of another Thus David was anointed by Samuel in Saul's life-time to succeed him and Jehu was put into actual possession of the Kingdom of Israel by Elizeus and as God had commanded by the said Prophet he killed Joram before that time his Sovereign but then his Subject But these things were done by a direct and express Message from God and therefore were to be no Precedent to the Jews themselves much less to others unless God sent a Prophet with the same Order and Commission Another Objection is wont to be made against the Authority of Kings from Jer. 1.10 Ch. 26. Can. 26. which is likewise answered A fourth Objection might be raised from the Example of Otheniel Ch. 27. Can. 27. and more especially from the Example of Ahud who slew Eglon King of the Moabites to whom the Israelites had been Eighteen years in Subjection But these are shewn to be as extraordinary Cases as that of Jehu was But still another Difficulty arises for the Monarchical Government spoken of hitherto among God's own People Ch. 28. Can. 28. was mild and temperate but in other parts of the World the temperate and fatherly Government which Noah had prescribed unto his Off Spring and which God himself established afterwards amongst his own People was soon degenerated into Tyranny as we see by what the Scripture relates of Nimrod or into Republicks as amongst the Romans who rebell'd against their Kings and quite cast off Kingly Government and in like manner several Forms of Government were introduced in several other Nations In this Case the Convocation determins that tho it be sinful in them who by Invasion or Rebellion invert the Order of the World and set up degenerate Forms of Government instead of that temperate and fatherly Government which God has ordained yet when these Forms are thoroughly setled as that Tyrannical Government of Nimrod and the Bepublick of the Romans in Process of time were they must then be submitted to
For tho they were at first introduced by very wicked Practices yet God having vouchsafed to establish them and to invest them with his own Authority they must be obeyed as his Ordinance These things thus stated and cleared the Convocation proceeds to the remaining course of the Jewish History Ch. 29. Can. 29. and shews that the Jews owed Allegiance to the Kings of Persia after their return from Babylon who still continued by God's Appointment a supreme Authority over them And accordingly Jaddus the High Priest when Alexander required him to assist him in his Wars and become Tributary to him returned this Answer Ch. 30. Can. 30. that he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius liv'd But when Alexander 's Authority was setled amongst them the Case was altered Ch. 31. Can. 31. and they then owed him the same Subjection that before they had owed Darius After Alexander's Death the Jews became again a free People he leaving behind him no Successor Ch. 31. but they were miserably oppressed by the bordering Kings of Egypt and Syria especially by Antiochus Epiphanes whose Invasion and Government was most unjust and Tyrannical until Mattathias moved with the monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of the said Antiochus made open Resistance the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance The great disorders amongst the Priests brought many and grievous Afflictions upon the Jews both under the Government of the Grecians and of the Maccabees till at last Pompty took Jerusalem by the Assistance of Hircanus who had been displaced from the High Priesthood Ch. 32 33 34. Can. 32 33 34. his younger Brother Aristobulus getting into his room And tho Hircanus did very wickedly in taking this occasion to revenge himself of his Brother by enslaving his Country yet when the Jews had submitted to the Romans and had yielded themselves up to their Government they were utterly inexcusable in those Rebellions which they afterwards raised and which ended in their own Destruction Having thus far spoken of that mild and moderate Form of Civil Government which God at first establisht throughout the World Ch. 35. Can. 35. and afterwards preserved in some measure amongst the Jews till they by their perverseness and Rebellions brought utter ruin upon themselves they say lastly that Christ is the universal Lord and Governor of the whole Earth and the orders of the several particular Kingdoms and Governments of it as it may best conduce to the designs of his Wisdom and Goodness in the Government of the whole World which is but one universal Kingdom under him The Substance then of what the Convocation says is this First Christ as Creator and Governor of the World established a mild and temperate and fatherly Government which was to continue throughout all Ages in all Parts of the World but the Wickedness of men soon introduced other degenerate Forms either Tyrannical or Popular and these of several Sorts and Denominations Democratical Aristocratical c. 2. God calling Abraham out of Chaldea into Canaan and choosing his Posterity for his peculiar People continued this mild and Paternal Government amongst them and upon all Occasions did himself appoint their chief Governors till at last he ordained that the Government should be Hereditary and entailed it upon David's Posterity so that the Jews were governed all along after that original Form of Paternal Government which God instituted at the first Creation of Mankind and then again confirm'd after the Flood though this Form of Government was much defaced and diminished among the Jews in succeeding times by the great Abuses that crept in among them And in this Government First the Power was solely from God not depending upon the consent either of the Priests or People nor deriving any Authority from any Act of theirs Secondly their Kings had supreme Authority over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Thirdly their Power was irresistable and they were accountable to God only for it But against this several things might be objected from Examples among the Jews which they answer by shewing that in those instances God's particular Warrant and Commission had been revealed as in the Case of Ahud and Jehu or that his Will and Command was fulfilled in their maintaining that Hereditary Succession which he had appointed by deposing an Usurper and setting up the Rightful Heir and this was what Jehoiada did 3. As for other degenerate sorts of Government though they ought not to have been introduced yet when by never so sinful Arts and Practices by Usurpations from abroad or by Factions and Rebellions at home they had any where been throughly setled as the Governments of Babylon and Egypt and Rome were they must be submitted to because where the Original Paternal Government was extinct the Authority thereby devolved upon the Possessors of the supreme Power in these degenerate Forms whether they were Tyrannical or Republican because the supreme Governour of the World would not suffer so great a Part of Mankind to be without any rightful Government for so long a time and yet so they must be unless he either authorize these degenerate Forms upon the Extinction of the Paternal Original Government or restore it by an over-ruling Providence 4. When the Jews themselves were by God's Judgment upon them for their Sins placed under such degenerate kinds of Government they were to pay the same Submission to those Governors that they did to their own Kings they might not depart out of Egypt without Pharaoh's leave first obtained unless God would have warranted them to do it by his express Direction and Command they must not submit to Alexander whilst Darius lived and no Oppression of the Romans was a sufficient excuse for their rebelling against them This being the Sense of the Convocation it will not be difficult to understand what they mean by a thorough Settlement Their Words are these And when Ch. 28. having attained their ungodly Desires whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection or disloyal Subjects by their Rebellious rising against their natural Sovereigns they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their People the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the True and Lawful Possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly setled to be reverenced and obeyed c. These Words being an inference from the Particulars before related in this Chapter we must judg of them from the occasion and design of the whole Chapter and from the particular instances alledged in it First the design of the Chapter is to shew what Obedience is due to Kings or other supreme Magistrates where that mild and temperate Government which had been the Subject of
the foregoing Chapters was not retained but other Forms set up in its room For as the rebellious Humours of the People declining from their Obedience did in many Countries alter that temperate and fatherly Government which Noah had prescribed unto his Off-spring and which God himself established afterwards among his own People So did the ambitious and insatiable Dispositions of sundry no less elsewhere impeach the same as by the Beginning and Progress of the Four Monarchies it is most apparent And therefore they now declare what is to be thought of all these Aberrations from the said mild and temperate Government before specified And they determine That Almighty God who for the sins of any Nation or Country altereth their Governments and Governors transferreth setteth up and besloweth Kingdoms as it seemeth best to his Heavenly Wisdom having in his Wisdom suffered wicked men to introduce and establish these new Forms we are to look upon them as his Ordinance and therefore to pay them all that Obedience which is due to the Paternal Government of his own Institution Secondly we may learn what is meant by a Thorough Settlement from the particular instances here mentioned and these are the Assyrian Monarchy the Roman Commonwealth the Kingdom of Egypt and all the Four Monarchies When therefore any degenerate Forms of Government or Aberrations from the mild and temperate Government before specified are so setled as these were we must in Conscience yield all Obedience to them and not think that they have no sufficient Authority because they deviate from the first Pattern of Government prescribed by God himself and preserved amongst his own People It is indeed said that the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor is God's Authority and therefore receives no Impeachment from the wickedness of those that have it Which seems to suppose that the true and Lawful Possessor may be still living and may still claim the Allegiance of his Subjects and that the Invader or Usurper keeps Possession as wickedly that is as much against all Human Law and Right as the first got into it But if we observe the instances immediately added it will appear that no such thing can be concluded from this Passage For they instance in the Kings of Egypt who oppressed the Israelites after Joseph's Death and in the Kings of Babylon when they had brought the Jews into Subjection and had carried away the whole Nation into Captivity But the Kings of Egypt after Joseph's Death had undoubtedly as good a Right as they had before it and the Kings of Babylon had such a Right to the Allegiance of the Jews as no other Princes could pretend to when the whole Jewish Nation were brought under Subjection to them and their Kings themselves had made a Covenant with them and taken an Oath to them Ezek. 17.16 and were strictly commanded by God himself to serve the King of Babylon Jer. 27. Yet these are the only Instances brought to shew that God's Authority receiveth no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it that is as no wicked means in the acquiring of Power can hinder but that after a long and uninterrupted continuance as in the Four Monarchies these Forms of Government are confirmed by God's Authority so neither can the abuse of this Authority by Oppression and Tyranny when any such Alterations are throughly setled invalidate the Authority itself but it is always God's Authority and is still to be reverenced and obeyed as such And therefore all the Severities and intolerable Burthens which the Jews endured in Egypt and in Babylon could not warrant their taking up Arms against those Kings so that the Jews themselves when brought under these new Forms of Government were obliged to submit to them and not by any Insurrections or Violence endeavour to restore themselves to that Primary Institution of Government which God had appointed these having his Authority as much as that itself when they are throughly setled and when there is no other Objection to be made to them but that they are irregular and corrupt in their Constitution or had an ill beginning or are oppressive and Tyrannical in their Management and Administration If all who had any Right or Interest in the former Government have submitted to the new one and are under the Obligation of Engagements and Oaths to it which was the Case of the Jews they must be obedient to it however different from the former or how much worse soever it may be But the Convocation acknowledge no other settlement 1. Mac. c. 1.2 3. Joseph Antiqu l. 12. c. 7 8 9.11 tho never so full to have been sufficient to debar the Jews from entring into Arms against an Usurper For they justifie Mattathias and his Sons in their open Resistance they made against Antiochus Epiphanes because his Government was neither generally received by Submission nor settled by continuance Now Antiochus was called in by a prevalent Faction and had two years peaceable Possession of Jerusalem for so long it was before Mattathias took up Arms against him that Antiochus han entred into Jerusalem by the Treachery of that Faction without any opposition and it was three years longer before it was recovered out of his Hands by Judas Maccabeus so that he held it in all five years yet because that Faction only that invited him in had submitted to him and the contrary Party who had the Right on their side were not subdued nor brought to a Compliance by this continuance of his Government it was not such a Continuance as is required to that thorough Settlment which the Convocation mention But tho he had for so long time been in full Possession of Jerusalem and of their whole Country and had as the Convocation observe spoiled the Temple and profaned it with his Idols and exercised all the cruel and wicked Acts of the most absolute and tyrannical Conqueror he had notwithstanding no better Right still than at his first Usurpation So that the Convocation cannot mean a bare Possession though it be never so full by a Thorough Settlement but such a Settlemâ—nt only as both supposes Submission or Continuance and no Claim of Right in any other Person And that the meaning of the Convocation could not be that an Usurper by being got into full Possession may have any Right or just Title against the true Heir appears from what they determine about the Deposing of Athaliab after six years Possession Ch. 23. For the Reason they give to justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada therein is that Joash their late King's Son was then their only Natural Lord and Sovereign although Athaliah kept him for six years from the Possession of his Kingdom It may here be objectted that this is a peculiar case and that this Reason would hold good only in the Kingdom of Judah where God himself had appointed and settled the Succession of their Kings in the line of David and that
therefore Jehoiada said to the Congregation Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David 2. Chr. 23 2. and the Convocation observes that he acquainted them that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them and that God himself had required all that they did at their Hands For when God has given his Promise we must interpret no occurrences of Providence in contradiction to in and therefore we see that when the Kingdom was taken from David's Posterity it was not done without an express Revelation But where God has made no Promise to a King and his Successors that they shall enjoy the Kingdom he may by his Providence take it away from them To this I answer That the whole design of the Convocation is as I have shewn to explain the Duty of Subjects by the example of God's own People and therefore if in this place they suppose something so peculiar in the Constitution of their Government that it could be no precedent to other Kingdoms this must be a manifest contradiction to their whole design They tell us that Government in its Original and by its first Institution was immediately from God and was the same throughout the World and tho it were corrupted in other Nations God preserved it amongst his own People and yet still the same Obedience was due under those alterations from the said mild and temperate Government at first instituted that was to be paid under this itself and by consequence there must be the same obligation to the Right Heir in all other Hereditary Monarchies and therefore they call Joash here the true and natural apparent Heir to the Crown and their only natural Lord and Sovereign which would be very unfit expressions if they did not think that he had an unalterable Right by the Law of Nature as well as by God's Promise In was enough indeed that Jehoiada should remind the People of God's own choice of Davids Posterity to rule over them and nothing more needed to be said by him and it was very fit that this should not be omitted by the Convocation But if this were the only Title which Joash had it would have been improper to call him a Natural Heir a Natural Lord and Sovereign and it would have overthrown all their Arguments from the Pâ—…ce of the Jews if they had said thâ—… Joash ought to be plac'd upon the Throne of his Ancestors after that six years interval only by vertue of a Divine Promise For a Divine command concerning any of their Kings or Judges for the time of their Lives is equivalent to a Divine Promise concerning David and his Posterity and so it might be said by parity of Reason that the Duty which they owed their Kings was due by vertue of a revealed command from God and could not be the same in other Nations where there is no such revealed Command Thus David would not stretch forth his Hand against Saul for this Reason because he was the Lords anointed that is he was so chosen and appointed by God himself as no King now can pretend to be And so in all other instances if we must argue from no example where Gods command or promise intervenes in vain does the Convocation explain the Duty of Subjects from the sacred History and yet we must argue from no such examples if Gods revealed will alters the case and makes it different from Cases of the same Nature which fall out in other Governments concerning which God has not revealed any thing It is true indeed when God so interposes as to invert the ordinary course of Government as in the case of Ahud and Jehu this can be no Precedent for any to imitate without the same command to authorise them that they had but then it was no more a Precedent to the Jews themselves than to any other Nation But when God only regulates the Jewish Government according to the first institution at the Creation and settles it upon the Right of Succession which is common to that with all other Hereditary Monarchies and makes choice of the Person to whom and to his Posterity he grants a Donation of the Kingdom or when he reforms abuses and puts things into their due course and order again and enjoyns nothing but what without a Divine warrant is of itself lawful to be done we may conclude that all these things are written for our instruction and must be a Rule to all other Nations in the like Cases The Convocation therefore proceeds all along upon this Principle Ch. 2.6 Can. 2.6 that from the first institution of Government there is both a Natural and a Divine Right in all Sovereigns which is Natural as it is founded on the Laws of Nature and Divine because Government is Gods Ordinance and owes its Original Form and Constitution to Gods own immediate appointment and therefore that when God by his express direction and command afterwards settled that sort of Government which he at first instituted to all the World among his own People he did not thereby make any alteration in the Duty of Subjects or Rights of Kings but did only oblige both to perform their several Duties in that way and manner which he had enjoyn'd them The Children of Israel asked a King to judg them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5.20 And God chose Saul to be their King but what ever variations there might be in some circumstantials of Government they owed just the same Duty and Subjection to him which was due to Adam and Noah c. And according to the Convocation every other Sovereign Prince has the very same Right that he had neither they in asking nor God in giving them a King made any distinction between the Authority of their King and the Kings of other Nations but the manner or Royal Power of their King is described to be just the same with that of the Kings round about them God entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David and his Seed but the Right of Succession was still the same in that which it is in all other Hereditary Kingdoms only they had a Secondary Obligation to the performance of their Duty from an immediate and positive Command whereas others are oblig'd to the same Duties but by Virtue only of the Law of Nature and of the first Institution of Government The Jews then were bound to set up Joash in that Kingdom upon two accounts that is both as he was their Natural Sovereign and as he descended from David to whom God had made a peculiar Promise and had given the Kingdom to him and to his Posterity but the first obligation had been of itself sufficient and those Kings who hold by no Divine Promise but only by Right of Inheritance have the same Right which he had who held by a Twofold Title because either of them had been alone sufficient For a single Title is enough to convey a Right and an Additional
one can only confirm and strengthen it Indeed when there are two Tiles one may sometimes hold good when the other fails But then this must be when the Titles are wholly distinct and independent one upon another as they are not in the present Case For God bestowed the Kingdom upon David for him and his Heirs after him to hold by Succession that is to hold by the same Right that other Hereditary Monarchs hold by so that if he by his Providence had disposed of the Hereditary Right and caused it to fail his Promise which was grounded upon this Hereditary Right or rather did suppose it as its Object or the Thing Promised could now no longer give him a Title to the Kingdom For God by his Promise did not bar himself from disposing of the Kingdom of Judah in the same manner as he disposeth of all other Hereditary Kingdoms but he promised David that he should Rule that Kingdom by an Hereditary Right just in the same manner and by the same Tenure from himself that other Hereditary Kings hold by God had promised to protect the Kings of Judah and to continue the Kingdom to them and that a peculiar Providence should watch over them but never that his Providence should not have the same Power over them that it had over all other Kings and therefore we find that the Kingdom of Judah did not always continue without Interruption even in David's Line which yet it must have done If God's Promise had been so to be understood as that it was not to be subject to the Contingencies that other Hereditary Kingdoms are liable to And upon this Account the Convocation proposes the Kingdom of Judah as a Pattern to other Kingdoms because the Jews had God's Warrant and Direction in such Cases as happen in other Kingdoms whereas if their Proceedings were to be no example to others the Convocation had argued from a wrong Principle and their whole first Book had been to very little purpose But granting that the Kingdom of Judah was by the Entail upon Davids Line exempted from the ordinary Laws of Providence yet I shall shew First that it was not so exempted in the time of Joash Secondly that when God by his revealed Will deposed the Kings of Judah he so ordered it that the Allegiance of the Subjects would have been transferred by human Laws and Justice without a Revelation First Tho the Kingdom of Judah had been at first exempted from the common Laws of Providence yet it could not be so exempted in the time of Joash For the Promise to Davids House was conditional and upon supposition that his Children kept Gods Covenant and Testimony Ps 132.12 And when the Kings of Judah had by their Transgressions forfeited all that Right which God had made over to them by Promise they could no longer have any pretence to that exemption but there is no Reason to think but that his Posterity might have fall'n from their Right by any way which other Kings may For the promise being conditional if God by his Providence conveys away the Right to other Kingdoms and invests all those with his Authority who are possessed of the Sovereign Power in other Nations the Jews must have concluded in the Case of Joash and Athaliah that since the House of David had not performed the Conditions expresly annexed to the Promise God had taken the forfeiture of the Kingdom of Judah and had by his Providence disposed of it so as to set up another in the Room of the Right Heir For a conditional Promise can oblige no longer than the Conditions are performed by them to whom it is made and therefore there could be no need of a new Revelation to take away the Kingdom from David's Line since the Conditions upon which the Kingdom was entailed were notoriously violated by so many of the Kings of Judah particularly by Solomon the first Successor 1 Kings 9.4 5. who tho God had repeated to him the conditions of his Promise made to his Father David provoked God to that Degree that Ten Tribes were taken away from his Son and Separated from the Kingdom of Judah and by Ahaziah the Father of Joash who walked in the way of the House of Ahab 2 Kings 8.27 The Kings of Judah therefore not observing the Terms which were enjoyned them at the making the entail but transgressing that Covenant which God made with David upon which the Throne of his Kingdom was established 2 Chron. 7.17 18. God could be no longer bound to continue the entail in Performance of his Promise or Covenant but that Kingdom must be afterwards in the same State with all other Kingdoms and there could be no Reason why God should not dispose of it in the same manner that he disposes of any other Secondly When God by his revealed Will deposed the Kings of Judah he so ordered it that the Allegiance of the Subjects would have been transferred by Human Law and Justice without any Revelation For at last when the Scepter departed from David tho not from Judah tho the Kingdom was not taken from the House of David but by Revelation yet it was taken away in such a manner as to make no breach upon the Rights of Kings over their Subjects but to transfer their Allegiance according to the ways of Right and Justice amongst men for God had commanded the Kings of Judah to submit themselves to Nebuchadnezzar and accordingly Jehoiakim became his Servant three years and afterwards when he came against the City Jehoiakim went out to him He and his Mother and his Servants and his Princes and his Offisers 2 Kings 24 12. and submitted to him in the most solemn manner imaginable and therefore the Subjects Case was just the same that it is when there is no Revelation but only the Providence of God to transfer Allegiance For if a King become Servant to the Conquerour if he and his Servants and his Princes and his Officers all that have Right or Authority in the Government are carried away Captive and submit and bind themselves by Oaths to the Conquerour as the Kings of Judah did Ezek. 17.16 there is no doubt but the Subjects may follow their Kings Example and become Subjects to the Conquerour as well as he and cannot be obliged to reserve their Allegiance to him by vertue of that Right which he has now resigned For when a King has resigned his Crown whether it be by God's Appointment or upon some other Account he has resigned his Right to the Subjects Allegiance and they are then at liberty to submit to another Prince And it is a good Evidence that the Allegiance of Subjects is not transferr'd by Providence without the Resignation or Death of the Rightful King because it was not otherwise transferred by Revelation Obj. The Israelites had been 18 years in subjection to the Moabites as they had been a little before 8 years to the Aramites and they knew that it was not lawful
for them of themselves to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were Ch. 27. tho indeed they were Tyrants And therefore they cryed unto the Lord for Succour Yet both these Nations could have no other Authority over them but what was obtained by Conquest and a thorough Settlement I answer first the Scripture says the Anger of the Lord was hot against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim Judg. 3.8 and v. 12. The Children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord and the Lord strengthned Eglon the King of Moab against Israel From whence it is probable that God who governed the Israelites by a more than ordinary Providence and made frequent Declarations of his Will to them especially in denouncing his Judgments before any remarkable Punishment was inflicted upon the whole Nation to give them time for Repentance did now discover to them that the Aramites and Moabites were sent by him to subdue them For the Anger of the Lord was hot against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim and he strengthened Egion the King of Moab against Israel But if this Judgment were not particularly foretold and denounced yet this they knew in general that these Nations the Lord left to prove Israel by them to know whether they would hearken to the Commandments of the Lord which he commanded their Fathers by the hand of Moses v. 1. and 4. And therefore when they were vanquished and were forced to seek their Preservation by subjecting themselves to their Enemies they well knew that they had no Power nor Authority to oppose such Kings whom God for their sins as he had before threatned had set over them but they cryed unto the Lord and he raised up a Deliverer for them Secondly the whole Nation was in subjection 18 years to the Moabites and 8 years to the Aramites and when they had once yielded themselves up and were become their Subjects no Right which any other Person had over them being prejudiced thereby they were obliged to keep their Oaths or other Engagements of Obedience to them and were bound to pay all Duties of Allegiance to these Kings after they had owned them for their Kings tho they were Tyrants that is tho they governed them in a rigorous and tyrannical manner For the consent of a Nation may be the means of conveying a Right to a Prince in such a Case where no other has any precedent Right to their Allegiance tho there be no express Warrant from God for their so doing so that there being at this time no King in Israel there was no injury done to any man if the whole Nation submitted to the Conqueror Obj. Can. 31. But the Jews generally both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia Tho it appears from History that Darius was alive when Jaddus made a surrender of Jerusalem to Alexander or if he had been dead yet he left Heirs behind him Answ First the Convocation observes that when Alexander sent to Jaddus to require him to submit to him and send him Assistance in his Wars Jaddus answered that he might not yield thereunto because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius Ch. 30. which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived And when Jaddus afterwards submitted to him it was by reason of a Command which he had received by Revelation from God Joseph Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. For as Josephus relates in the place referred to by the Convocation Jaddus had appointed Publick Prayers and Sacrifices upon this account and it was revealed to him in a Dream That the People in white and the Priests and Jaddus himself in their Holy Garments should go out to meet Alexander and make their Submission to him who no sooner saw Jaddus but he fell down and worshipped God whose name he saw written on his Mitre and when his Followers were all amazed at it and Parmenio asked him the Reason of that strange Action he answered that before his Expedition he saw in a Vision one attired as Jaddus was who encouraged him to undertake it and promised him success in it and that it was not the Priest but that God whom he served that he worshipped Secondly in Chap. 30. the Answer of Jaddus to Alexander that he was bound by his Oath of Allegiance to Darius during his Life is mentioned and approved of by the Convocation but neither in the following Chapter nor Canon is any mention made of Jaddus only it is said in the Canon that both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them c. Which might be true tho Jaddus had been faulty in submitting to Alexander whilst Darius was alive Thirdly Jaddus went out to meet Alexander and made his Submission to him at his first Approach to Jerusalem so that if his Example be to be followed a City ought to surrender before it be besieged or so much as a Sword be drawn against it And the first sight and appearance of an Enemy is a different thing from that Thorough Settlement which the Convocation requires whatsoever we understand by it The Convocation therefore could not propose the Example of Jaddus in all Circumstances for our imitation for either he had a Divine Warrant for what he did or according to their Principle he must be highly blameable because he did not stay till there was a Thorough Settlement nor indeed till there was any Settlement at all before he submitted to Alexander But after the Death of Darius his Authority was throughly setled for Darius just before he expired sent such a Message to him with his thanks for his great Courtesie and Civility to his Mother and to his Wife and Children as can amount to no less than a bequeathing to him his Kingdom and Alexander taking one of his Daughters in Marriage no Pretensions were made afterwards against his Right to the Kingdom of Persia Obj. But God is the universal Lord and Ruler over all the World and the whole World is his universal Kingdom in the Government whereof he ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates as well in other Countries as amongst his own peculiar People of Israel without any desert of them but as in his heavenly Providence he thought it most convenient I have made saith he the Earth the Man and the Beasts that are upon the Ground Jer. 27.5 and have given it to whom it pleaseth me And again the Prophet Daniel telleth us that God changeth the times and seasons Dan. 4.14.12.17.32 that he hath Power and beareth Rule over the Kingdoms of men that he taketh away Kings and setteth up Kings and that it was the God of Heaven who gave unto Nebuchadnezzar so great a Kingdom Dan. 2.37.5.8 Power Strength and Glory
as then he had to rule with Majesty and Honour a very great Empire Answ First The Design of the Convocation here is to set forth Christ's Universal Empire over all the World and to shew that for all their Dignity and Greatness he did not leave Kings at liberty to do what they list but held himself the Helm of every Government and used their Services insuch sort as were they good or bad and their Designment holy or wicked he ever made them the Executioners of his own just Judgments will and good Pleasure according as he was minded either to bless on punish any Kingdom People or Country All which will be never the less true tho God should not dispose of Kingdoms merely by the events and Success of things without any regard had to Humane Law and Rights Secondly The Chapters here quoted by them are all concerning Nebuchadnezzar In the first Jeremiah prophesieth of his Victories over the Neighbour-Kings and commands them in Gods Name to submit to him And the two latter Chapters contain Nebuchadnezzar's Dreams and Daniel's Interpretation of them In his second Chapter Daniel tells him Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory v. 37. and then proceds to declare that by his Dream was signified the State of the four Monarchies In the fourth Chapter of Daniel is related that Judgment which from God befel Nebuchadnezzar and his Dream whereby it was foretold to him The in ent of which was that the living might know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of Men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men First then as to the four Monarchies we have here no intimation that God did raise up the first Founders of them or did approve of the Settlement they made The Assyrian Monarchy the Convocation takes notice of began in Nimrod contrary to Gods express Institution he having no Authority from God as afterwards Nebuchadnezzar had to enlarge his Dominions and make War against the bordering Princes Cyrus we know indeed was Gods Anointed and was Prophesied of by name long before his Birth and alledg'd his Commission and Charge from God in the Proclamation which he put forth in the first year of his Reign 2. Chron. 36.22.23 Ezr. 1.1 2. God had declared of him I have raised him up in Righteousness and I will direct all his ways Isai 45.13 or as our Translators have noted in the Margin I will make streight all his ways and the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Alexander if we believe Josephus was encouraged by Revelation to undertake his Expedition But the Roman Empire had only Gods Permission as far as we know and at its rise had no further Authority than the Justice of their Arms could give them So that this Prediction is no Evidence whether the first Erection and Settlement of these Monarchies were approved of by God or not if they were erected by his Command and Appointment or by a just Title they were approved of by him if by Injustice and Violence they were only made use of by him as all other Wickedness is to bring about by an over-ruling Providence his own just and righteous Decrees Secondly as to what concerns Nebuchadnezzar himself First all those Expressions have an immediate relation to an extraordinary Case wherein God had revealed his positive Will commanding the several Kings mentioned by the Prophet Jeremiah to serve Nebuchadnezzar and to put their Necks under his Yoak and threatning them with the severest Punishments If they would not do it with the Sword and with the Pestilence and with the Famine untill he had consumed them by Nebuchadnezzar 's Hand Jer. 27 v. 8. and afterwards in the Book of Daniel God takes away all his Power and Greatness to bring him to a sense of his perpetual dependence upon God and to an awe and reverence of the Divine Majesty Secondly God had declared by his Prophet that he had given all the Neighbouring Kingdoms into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon his servant and his Commands were in a publick and solemn manner given out and sent to all the Kings round about to charge 'em that they should without any Resistance or Opposition resign up themselves and their Kingdoms in subjection to him And this being some years before hand with such Zeal and Earnestness publickly and solemnly declared by Jeremiah and so notoriously known in all the adjacent Countries Nebuchadnezzar himself could not be ignorant of it for which reason he gave such strict Charge concerning Jeremiah that he should be used with all manner of kindness and respect Jer. 39.11 Afterwards Daniel in expounding his first Dream had plainly told him that the God of Heaven had made him a King of Kings and had given him a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory Yet Nebuchadnezzar ascribes all to himself and therefore this Judgment was inflicted on him to make him sensible that all his boasted Greatness was owing to God alone who has absolute Authority over the greatest of Kings and can advance to the height of Empire the basest of Men and those that walk in Pride he is able to abase Besides what relates personally to Nebuchadnezzar there is a further intention in the words which respects all Princes in all Ages of the World For Nebuchadnezzar is set as an Example of Gods Almighty Power and of the frailty of all Human Greatness to let the mighty Potentates of the Earth know that all their Power is from God and that he can deprive them of it whenever he pleases But Thirdly This does not prove that God will give or take away the Power of other Princes in the same extraordinary manner that he both raised and debased Nebuchadnezzar For as in ancient times there were-Prophets and Workers of Miracles so these Prophets were sometimes sent by God himself to declare in his name that he had bestowed Kingdoms or Empires upon certain persons as upon Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus c. And then these were no Usurpers because they acted by Gods Appointment and had a right precedent to any Conquest or Thorough Settlement But there wrre in all Ages many Usurpers too and they had no Authority from God nor were the People obliged to obey them having no Command from him to do it And as an Usurper can have no Authority for his Usurpations for if he had they would be no Usurpations nor he an Usurper so the continuance of his Usurpations cannot make him theless an Usurper but the greater and the more injurious Usurper Nebuchadnezzar was no Usurper from the beginning because he acted by Authority from God and if concerning any Prince can be shewn such a Commission now he is not an Usurper but a Rightful King and we must forthwith acknowledge his Authority without staying for a thorough setlement but if he be at first an Usurper he must
always be so unless he acquires a Right by some other means than a setled and habitual Injustice The Scripture no where informs us that God authorises Usurpers after a thorough Settlement but on the contrary that those are no Usurpers concerning whom God by his Prophets has given assurance to the People that himself had raised them up to the Throne Fourthly All are now to be lookt upon as Usurpers who invade the Rights of their Neighbour Princes for the same Reason that we esteem all pretenders to Miracles and Prophecys no better than Cheats and Impostors For Nebuchadnezzar had Prophecys delivered coucerning him which entitled him to the Kingdoms he possessed For tho he sin'd in Invading the Dominions of other Princes if he did not believe the Prophet or knew not of his own Title granted him by God himself to them yet he did them no injury because their Right was already transferred to him and therefore his Sin was only that of a Man who robs another of that which is his own not knowing it to be so But now Prophecys are ceased as well as Miracles and God acts by the ordinary course of his Providence as well as by the ordinary course of Nature Miracles were necessary to awaken Mens attention and put them upon a serious consideration of Religion and bring them to an acknowledgment of the Truth of it and so were such Revelations needful to manifest Gods infinite Power and Majesty and to make the greatest Princes stand in awe of him but when once these ends are served we are left to the Moral and Divine Laws of Reason and of Scripture for our Direction in the performance of our Duty as we are to the Physical Laws of Nature in the Provisions of Health and Life and to conclude that every Conqueror has the same Right to our Obedience that Nebuchadnezzar had to be obeyed by the Nations whom he had subdued is as groundless as to think that any man who comes with lying Wonders and confident Stories has a Power of Miracles and a Gift of Prophecys God many times by a wonderful Providence casts down Usurpers when they are most setled and secure in their unjust Possessions and it is the Glory of his Infinite Wisdom that when he suffers the World to go on in one constant Tenour and does not interrupt wicked men in heir enterprises and practices yet the still holds the Helm of Government and the most lasting and setled Usurpations cannot in the least prejudice the execution and accomplishment of his just and Holy Decrees And in this he exercises his Dominion over Mankind as he shews his Dominion over Nature by a steddy and constant concourse with natural Agents notwithstanding the many seeming Irregularities that appear in the World and we ought no more to imagine his Authority in any Usurpers from whom we promise our selves Protection then we may suppose a Miraculous Power in those Charms which sometimes cure Diseases The Earth is the Lords and all that dwell in it and it cannot be denied but God might if he had pleased frequently raise up Princes as he did Nebuchadnezzar but then he would send his Prophets to give notice of it For we must conclude in this case as the Convocation does in the case of Jehu that it is unlawful to follow such extraordinary examples except first that it might plainly appear that there are now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself Can. 25. with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf and that we might be assured of every such Prince as is by Usurpation setled in anothers Dominions that God himself had in express words required and commanded us to submit to him by Name as he commanded the Nations whom Nebuchadnezzar conquered to serve him declaring that he had given all those Lands into the Hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon his Servant Jer. 27 6. But we may observe that as Nebuchadnezzar was raised up by God himself so the Kings of those Nations were commanded to submit to him as well as their People and did submit or were subdued by him so that the Peoples part in that Revolution was no more than what Subjects may do now if such a thing should be brought about by Providence for when the King has submitted himself there is no Question to be made but that the Subjects may do so too II. Having considered the Arguments from the Authority of the Convocation I now proceed to the Arguments from the Reason of the Thing itself By an Usurper in this Question is plainly meant one who is in Possession of the Kingdom contrary to the Laws and Constitution of the Realm and without any Title but that of Possession and an Usurper In Possession is opposed to a Rightful King out of Possession whether he be either first actually dispossessed and driven out of his Kingdom or secondly have an undoubted Right to it but has been always kept out of Possession and could never come to the enjoyment of it But it 's granted that First If the Title be doubtful the Subjects are at liberty to submit to the Possessor and ought not to embroil the Nation with Wars and sacrifice the Peace and Happiness of it for an Uncertainty And in this case the Subjects are oblig'd to stand by him to whom they have sworn Allegiance till a clear Title be made out against him upon defect whereof the Oath was taken upon supposition that there was no precedent Obligation to another Prince and therefore must oblige till it appears that his Competitor claims by an Hereditary or other antecedent Right Secondly If in an Hereditary Monarchy after the thorough Settlement of an Usurper it should so happen that the Royal Line had failed and the Right of Succession were extinct the People might be oblig'd for their own and for their Countrey 's sake to submit to the Usurper and after their Submission he would become their lawful King For tho he could have deriv'd no Authority from his Thorough Settlement notwithstanding there were none surviving of the Royal Line and the Subjects might have yielded themselves up to the Obedience of any other Person if they had had a convenient opportunity so as to have done it without bringing damage and mischief to the Publick by it yet they might be obliged to submit to him to prevent that Slaughter and confusion which else would ensue and if they should have resused to do it they would have sinned against God in neglecting the safety of themselves and of their Country supposing nevertheless that no Injustice would have been done to the Usurper thereby and that he could have had no Right before their Submission The Question therefore is Whether an Usurper who has no claim to the Crown but that of Possession tho he be never so long and throughly setled in the Throne can have a Right to the Allegiance of the Subjects whilst their Rightful King who has an Hereditary or
whatsoever other undoubted Title by the Constitution of the Kingdom is alive and requires them to bear Faith and Allegiance to him The Sum of what can be said in the Affirmative seems to be this That as it is shewn at large in the Convocation Book Christ has reserved the Government of the World and the disposal of Kingdoms entirely to himself and can make or dispose Kings as he pleaseth notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms and as he first ruled the world by frequent Revelations and Prophecies so since these are ceased he doth it by his Providence only for he always retains the same immediate Inspection with human affairs but now manifests his Pleasure and gives out his Commands as Governor of the world by the Declarations of his Providence that is by the Success and Event of things for he could not govern the World as supreme Lord and King of it or which is all one he could not require our Obedience in Compliance to his disposal of Kingdoms if his Will were not some way or other discovered to us and this being now the only way whereby he discovers it we must acquiesce in the Events of his Providence so as to obey Christ the Supreme Governor of the world in the Person of him whosoever he be whom he has set over us making no enquiry into the Justice of the Cause or into the means by which the Person now fully possessed of another Princes Power and Dominions came so possessed of them For God can take away and transfer any Right or Title as he pleaseth and the Conduct of his Providence in a Thorough Settlement of the Government is a sufficient evidence that he has transferred it because it is the only evidence we now can have And therefore we ought to look upon the Person thus setled as invested with God's Authority and to pay him a full and entire Allegiance as his Vicegerent with the same Submission and upon the same Reasons as if he had commanded us to do it by an express and immediate Revelation since his Providence is now the only Revelation or Manifestation of his will that we can expect and it must be instead of all other Revelations to us This seems to be the full of what can be fairly offered in the Affirmative and it is liable to the following Difficulties I. By Gods Providence must be understood either his Permission in concurring with Natural Causes to produce their Effects or his Appointment First If he only suffer or permit a thing to be done without denying his Concourse or interposing his Almighty Power to prevent it this by no means proves his Approbation of the Event or Success of it For he permits all the Wickedness that is committed in the World and suffers the worst men to prosper many times in their evil Courses Secondly If by Gods Providence be meant his Appointment this may signifie First that he from all Eternity decreed to permit the Event and designed and ordained it to advance his own Glory and to bring about some good to Mankind by it And so the Treachery of Judas was appointed Act. 2.23 that is God had decreed to suffer it to come to pass and had ordained it when come to pass for the Salvation of Mankind And there can be no doubt but the final Issue and ultimate event of all the worst Actions is ordained of God and approved of by him but the Case before us is of an intermediate and subordinate End which must be judged of whether it be good or bad by the Nature of the thing and not by any success or event That all will at last conclude in some good End in the long Series and Chain of Causes and Events which are ordained by God's Decree is most certain but then this doth not prove that the intermediate Causes and Events are approved of by him but we must enquire into the Justice of the Cause whereby we can only know whether the Event be pleasing to him or not Secondly By Gods Providence as it signifies his Appointment may be meant his Will or Command And this Will or Command is either for the doing of a thing or for our Submission and acquiescence in it after it is done His command for the doing of a thing cannot be known before the Event but by the Justice of the Action or by Revelation to neither of which the Doctor pretends And the Event cannot discover to us God's command to do a thing which is already done and past and I have in part shewn and shall more fully shew afterwards that it can as little discover to us his Approbation of the thing done or that it is his Will that we should acquiesce and submit to it II. Whereas it is said that since God now governs the World only by his Providence we must of Necessity acquiesce in the Event of things or else we should disobey him in not submitting to his disposal of the Governments of the World First God governs the World so as to require no Duty or Act of Obedience now of us but what the Laws of Nature or of Scripture enjovn And because Revelations are ceased it seems requisite that he should have revealed it in the Scriptures if he had required us to acquiesce in the Events of things and to look upon the most unjust Usurper as invested with his own Authority when he is once gotten into Possession of the Throne I say this seems necessary to have been revealed since Natural Reason cannot dictate it to us for in Gods permission of all othersort of Injustice in the World we never imagine that any Right can accrue to the Injuring Person by it Secondly God by his Power and Wisdom so orders things as to make the most unjust actions subservient to the Ends of Justice and Righteousness but not to reward Usurpation with the Investiture of his own Authority or to turn wrong into right And all that we learn from Scripture concerning God's Providence is that we must rely upon it for Protection in the performance of our known Duty and by consequence that we are to regard the Justice only of a Cause not the Success of it III. This would make it unlawful for any Prince who is dispossessed or excluded from the Throne to wage War against the Usurper in defence of his own Right For he is supposed to have no longer any Right after the Usurper is in full Possession because that Right which God gives to the Usurper the Lawful King must be divested of unless there can be two opposite Sovereign Authorities at the same time and both from God who severally retain the whole and entire Right at once to the same Kingdom But we read that David waged War against Ish-bosheth who was possessed of the Kingdom of all Israel for two years and against the Jebusites who were in possession of Jerusalem and he was in continual Wars before he
was fully possessed of his Kingdom for above seven years together And there never was any dispossest Prince but he endeavoured to regain his Throne if he could and never any Prince was blamed for it IV. This Argument would hold as well in private as in publick Affairs since both are alike in God's disposal and it would be as unjust for a man injuriously dispossest of his Estate to endeavour the recovery of it by due course of Law as it would be for a King by waging War to endeavour the Recovery of his Kingdoms For in both Cases it may with equal Reason be said that the Title is lost and the Right transferred by God himself And the Example of God's commanding the Children of Israel to spoil the Aegyptians may seem as well to justifie the one Case as his bestowing Kingdoms in the Old Testament to justifie the other If it be said that there is a more peculiar and extraordinary Providence which rules and disposes of Publick States and Kingdoms First if by a peculiar and extraordinary Providence be meant that God is wont more immediately so to interpose as to change the ordinary course of Justice and to transfer Rights and displace and dispossess Rightful Kings more than he does Rightful Owners of private Estates this seems to be groundless and disagreeable to the Methods of his Justice and to those Rules which the Scripture prescribes to us which are the same in our Duties towards Kings as in those towards other men and it besides lays upon us greater Obligations to observe them We must render to all their Dues and particularly Tribute to whom Tribute is due c. Rom. 11.7 But we have no where the least intimation that the Rights of Kings cease any other way than other Mens do viz. by Death Resignation c. not by a foreign Invasion or the Rebellion of Subjects or by the interposition of Providence in a concurrence of unfortunate Accidents And those Texts which seem most to favour this supposition have been already considered and if they prove any thing to this purpose they must conclude as well concerning the Properties of Subjects as concerning the Prerogatives of Princes for it is as easie a thing with the Lord to make a poor man rich as it can be to set up over Kingdoms the basest of Men. and the Providence of God is alike concerned in both Cases for as he leadeth Princes away spoiled and overthroweth the mighty so the Tabernacles of Robbers prosper and they that provoke God are secure into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Job 12.6.19 And thus we find Job ascribes all his Losses and Calamities to Gods afflicting hand upon him for God having all things in his Power and at his Command is often said to do what he does not hinder Secondly If by a peculiar and extraordinary Providence be meant such a Care as is answerable to the great Importance of Publick Affairs and the Government of Kingdoms this will imply no more than that Gods Care is more concerned and more imployed about things of greater importance than in things of less moment that is it manifests itself in a greater number and variety of Exigencies and is applyed to more Circumstances of Affairs Yet his Providence extends itself to the Hairs of our Heads and to the falling of a Sparrow to the Ground and is as watchful over the most inconsiderable and minute things in proportion to their Nature as over the greatest matters His Providence his Justice and Goodness is over all his Works and he may as well be supposed to convey Private Estates to the unjust Possessors of them as to dispose of Kingdoms to Usurpers his Providence which permits both gives one no better Title than the other Kings 't is true receive their Power from God and are his Vicegerents and therefore are accountable to none but him and can be deposed by none else but God invests them with his Authority by the intervention of subordinate means and by the Observation of the same Laws of Justice which ought to be observed in the Rights and Possessions of Subjects Thus in the Elective Monarchies there is the same Justice to be observed in the Election of the King that there is to be observed in the Election of inferiour Magistrates tho after Election the King is accountable to none but God and the inferiour Magistrates are accountable to the King And in an Hereditary Kingdom there is the same Right of Inheritance in respect of the Nature of Right or Justice that there is in Private Estates tho the Inheritance of Kingdoms be forfeitable to God only For as God now makes no Kings by his express Command and immediate Designation but according to the Methods of Law and Right amongst men so he deposes and devests them of their Power in such a manner as does not interfere with the ordinary course of justice The Lord shall smite them or their day shall come to die or they shall descend into Battel and perish 1. Sam. 26.10 V. Tho by the Law of Nations Foreign Princes may transact with any Conquerour as Rightful King Yet by the Law of Nature Conquest can give no just Title unless the Claim before Conquest were just that is indeed it gives no Title at all but only recovers what before there was a just Title to For even a just cause of War will not justifie a Conquest unless there be a precedent Right to the Dominions of the conquered Prince as a Debt of 5 l. tho it will justifie a Suit at Law yet gives no Title to a mans whole Estate And if a Thorough Settlement can give the Conquerour any Right which he had not at first it can be no less than such a Settlement as the Laws and Customs of Nations allow which is an undisturbed and uncontested Possession for a term of years exceeding the Memory of man Jeptha alledged against the King of the Ammonites the Prescription of 300 years Judg. 11.26 and the time for Prescription to Kingdoms is generally set at 100 years Duck de Usu Authorit Jur. Civil l. 1. c. 1. S. 19. and yet the Civilians genetally maintain that the longest Precription can give a right to none but to those who are Possessores bonae fidei not to those who came in by Fraud or Violence but who thought they had a just Title or knew of no better Claim And if it should be granted necessary for the Peace of the World that some certain time be fixt when after a quiet and unmolested Possession all Pretensions should expire Yet men must not be allowed to judg every thing setled that is uppermost or that can brave it for a while for this would in reality let nothing be setled but would open a Gap to perpetual Disturbances and Confusions For every thing that can be called a Government is setled or may appear to be so to Private Men till it is overpowered Thus David fled from Jerusalem and went
has been before observed and as for the Promise made to David they imagined that it might have been as punctually fulfilled to his seed tho himself had been set aside as if he had been actually dead and probably they supposed that this was the Evil that God had threatned viz. to dethrone him and set up his Son in his room when he told him by his Prophet Behold I will raise up Evil against thee out of thine own House 2. Sam. 12.11 Manasses and Nebuchadnezzar were as great Tyrants to their Subjects as great Enemies to the true Religion and as great Offenders in all respects against God as any Christian King can be supposed to be Yet when God caused Manasses to be carried away captive to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar to be driven from amongst men to eat Grass with the Beasts of the Field he brought these Afflictions upon them not to deprive either of them of their Kingdoms but only to humble them and then to restore them to their Thrones And his dealing with Nebuchadnezzar is most of all considerable in this matter because the Judgment upon him was purposely designed to the intent that the living may know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men Dan. 4.17 and yet v. 26. it is told him Thy Kingdom shall be sure unto thee after that thou shalt have known that the Heavens do rule and in the 31. verse There fell a Voice from Heaven saying O King Nebuchadnezzar to thee it is spoken the Kingdom is departed from thee which was taken from him for the space of seven years until he should know that the most highest ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will v. 32. This then being an Example purposely set for the Admonition of Kings and to acquaint the World that God raises them up and deposes them as he pleases we may from hence conclude that tho they be dispossessed by his Appointment whether secret or express yet we can have no certainty that he has utterly rejected them but rather that upon their Repentance he will again restore them to the Enjoyment of their Dominions which they have still a Right to against any Usurper or Possessour of them Thirdly What Danger soever Religion may seem to be in yet it is manifest that throughout all Ages of the Church Religion never flourished more than in times of Persecution and Religion itself forbidding us to defend it by any Disloyalty if by any such unseasonable and unwarrantable means Subjects undertake the Preservation of Religion they may expect for their Reward no better than uzzah's Fate who put forth his hand to support the Ark of God when he saw it shaking and like to fall God can preserve it without our help against all the Power and Stratagems of the greatest Kings or he can turn the hearts of Kings and of Enemies make them become its Defenders So he turned the hearts of Nebuchadnezzar and Manasses and there is no Reason to suspect that God will not grant Princes space for Repentance now he rules the World by his Providence as he did in those Ages of Prophecy and Revelation It may be alledged that where there is an express Revelation men must follow the directions God is pleased to give and proceed no further than he appoints But when we have only his Providence to guide us we must not neglect to make use of the present occasion but must take all the opportunities which Providence puts into our hands as so many indications of what God expects and requires of us I answer this is a plain Argument that we ought not to make God's Providence the Rule of our Actions but his Law Because this principle would have misled those of ancient times contrary to Gods design and purpose in an immediate Revelation as well as it may now make us transgress his revealed Will recorded in Scripture and his Laws ingraved in our Nature I mean the Laws of Justice and of Obedience to Governors For from hence it appears that his Providence is not a sufficient Interpreter of his Will in what he requires of us if it were they might have rely'd upon it then and since it is not we must not depend upon it now Because the Scripture is our Guide as much as an immediate Revelation was theirs and we have as little warrant to follow Providence without a Revelation in Scripture for it as they could have to follow it without an immediate Revelation For as Prophecys and Revelations are long since ceased so we are no where told that God's Providence shall be instead of them to us but the Scriptures are to us instead of all other Revelations and we are to interpret God's Will by his Providence no further than they direct us to do And from the Scriptures we may be assured that God by his Providence often offers men opportunities of doing things only for their Tryal and when he gives them no license to do them If ever any circumstances of Providence could justifie an Action otherwise sinful they must have been those which David was in when Saul was twice at his mercy He was before by Gods appointment anointed to succeed in the Throne and Saul the first time came unexpectedly into his Power the second time a deep sleep from the Lord was fain upon Saul and his whole Army God had promised David to deliver his Enemy into his Hand and David's Followers both times did not fail to put him in mind of it So that if Providence could be at any time a sufficient warrant David must have had as full a Commission to have slain Saul as Ahud had to kill Eglon or John to kill Joram and David must have concluded that God who had before rejected Saul from being King had now actually devested him of all his Authority and according to his Promise had delivered Saul to him to execute the divine Vengeance upon him But because this would have been to act against a known Duty he still owns Saul for his Master and the Lords anointed and repented of the cutting off but the Skirt of his Garment All this probably was designed as a Tryal to David as well as to propose him for an example of Fidelity to all Ages and perhaps nothing can be more reasonably concluded from our late Revolution than that we are now cal'd to the practice of that Loyalty which we have made such high professions of I shall add no more but only transcribe some Passages out of Dr Sherlock's Case of Resistance to shew that the Authority of that very great Man can signifie little in this Controversie whatever his Arguments may do We know what use some men have made of this Argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a mind to act p. 29. But David it seems did not think that an Opportunity of doing evil
approve of every Event so as to command us to acquiess in it any more than of every Means but he approves or disallows of them as they are either just or unjust good or evil and because the last Events of things will be perfectly good therefore they are approved of by him and in the mean time he orders and disposes all lesser and precedent Events whether they be good or evil to the attainment of these The evil Events God neither approves in themselves nor gives any Right or Authority to the Persons whom he suffers to bring them about but whilst the Authors of them are disliked and disowned by him he permits the Events for the sake of that good which he has decreed to produce out of them and for that relation and subserviency which they have to the last Events of things which he has determined and ordained from Eternity 4. If there be no difference between what God permits and what he does as to the Events of things this will justifie all Events whatsoever as being of God's doing and therefore Robberies and all the Wickedness in the World besides that is successful and ends in the desired issue must be ascribed to him for these are as properly Events as any besides can be and the success of things respect not their Nature but their End and Actions attain their End not as they are of less or greater moment of publick or private Concernment but because they answer the Designs of the men that perform them And this will make it impossible as the Doctor says expresly That there should be any King who is not Rightful with respect to God which overthrows the Distinction he makes between the Kingdom of Judah and other Kingdoms For Athaliah must have been as Rightful Queen as Joash was Rightful King and both must have had God's Authority alike and so the Subjects must have been obliged to Contradictions that is to assist Athaliah against Joash and Joash against Athaliah at the same time because she had God's Authority by Providence and he by Promise and therefore both must have been obeyed and yet both resisted and the Subjects must have owed Allegiance to both and yet they must have owed Allegiance to neither of them Thus it would have been likewise in the Case of David himself to whom God first assigned the Kingdom of Judah and Ishbosheth who was possest of the greatest part of it for Two Years For either Ishbosheth and Athaliah had God's Authority or they had not if they had not then it is possible there may be a King who has not God's Authority and that there may be some Events which are only by his permission If they had then God must bestow Two Opposite Sovereign Authorities and Rights at once to Two several Princes over the same People and to the same Kingdom and both must be equally valid and obligatory upon the Subjects Consciences For by what way soever God conveys the Authority it is his Authority and God's Authority is always the same to whomsoever and in what manner soever it be conveyed 5. Since therefore God concurs with the Thoughts and Actions of Men in the Means and Causes as well as in the Ends and Events of Things and disposes all alike it follows that he can be no more the Author of Evil Events than of Evil Means or Actions or Thoughts But God may be said to do all that is done in the world because nothing can be done without him for his Providence concurs with Men in the performance of the worst Actions though not in the Wickedness of them Men contrive and practice Evil and God concurs with them in their Actions but only permits the Evil of them for every Action being a positive thing necessarily requires God's Concurrence and could not be done without it and every Action as such is Good But Evil is an Accident it is a Defect or a privation of Good and therefore this proceeds from the Imperfection and Wickedness of Man only and needs no Cause to produce it since it has no other Being but the want of Rectitude and Goodness in the depraved minds of men Thus to think is always the same Action of the mind whatever it be that we think about And Evil Thoughts differ from Good ones not in the Nature of the Act but only in the Object which employs the Thoughts and therefore though God never suggests Evil Thoughts yet he leaves the Will free to determine it self in the choice of the Evil Object and sustains the Mind in the Exercise of its Faculty of Thinking whatever the Object be about which it is conversant And so in all other Actions of the Body or Mind God concurs to the Action not as it has such or such an Object but as it is produced by its proper Faculty that is he concurs to it as it is a Natural not as it is a Moral Action 6. As God permits Wickedness to come to pass so he orders it for the Good or Evil that is for the Beward or Punishment of private Men or publick Societies yet still he does not approve of the Event but of the Consequences and Effects which his Infinite Wisdom and Power produces out of it And the Event gives no Right to the Persons who are permitted to bring it about For then a Thief would have a Right to stol'n Goods because it may be a just Punishment from God upon the Person from whom they are stol'n to suster him to have the possession of them I shall not venture to say That though God permits Wickedness in the Counsels or Designs of Men yet when it comes to Action he either disappoints what they intended or gives Success to them when he can serve the Ends of his Providence by their Wickedness For I believe there is no wickedness either in Thought or Action but God's Infinite Power and Wisdom can over-rule it to accomplish his own Counsels and Decrees And the difference between Evil in the Action and in the Design seems to be this That whilst it is designed and contrived in the minds of Men it can have no such Influence towards the Production of that Good which God causes to proceed from Evil as it certainly shall have one way or other when it is reduced to practice For though Evil Thoughts are over-ruled by God as well as Evil Actions and either suffered to proceed to Action or hindred and if suffered then upon this or that Occasion at this or that Time with respect to certain Persons and Accidents yet Thoughts as such have no Effect but upon the Mind it self whereas Actions have a further Effect upon divers Objects for the tryal of Good Men for their Admonition or Amendment or for the prevention of that Sin which they would otherwise run into or else perhaps for the Punishment and Correction of wicked men And therefore there can be no Evil in a City and the Lord hath not done it He concurs
ought to conclude on the other side that since the Apostle gives no intimation that he uses the word in an improper and unusual sense therefore we are to understand it only of those who have legal Titles and the rest are excepted against plainly enough because they are not mentioned nor is the least intimation given of them when in the other places of Scripture it is manifest at first sight that the word is applied to a different sense than that which it commonly has in Scripture or in any other Book 2. If the Sriptures make no distinction between Kings who have a Right Title and those that are Usurpers who have only the Name and Title of Kings it is because there needs no other distinction than the Reason of the thing which sufficiently declares the difference The Scripture had never declared any distinction of Husbands yet the Woman of Samaria well enough understood that there must be one and therefore replied that she had no Husband though she had one who was called so and our Saviour answers her Thou hast well said I have no husband for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband in that thou saidst truly John 4.17 18. And if it should now be asked any Man who is not prepossessed with the Notion of a thorough Settlement whether St. Paul by the higher Powers ordained of God meant Rightful Kings only or Usurpers likewise he would scarce be able for some time to imagine what reason there could be to doubt whether Rightful Kings only were meant by those expressions or to conceive what interest Usurpers could have in that Text. And this Dr. Sherlock seems to own Pref. when he says That the Apprehensions of novelty and singularity had cramped his freedom and liberty of thinking Pag. 3. and that his Scheme of Government may startle some Men at first before they have well consider'd it So that it is evident that this Interpretation is a Novelty and Singularity which will startle most Men and that this Text in its most plain and obvious sense is to be understood of Rightful Kings and if others are to be comprehended in it this must be proved not from the words themselves but from other Reasons for the words do not naturally include them the utmost that can be said is that they may possibly comprehend them because they are not always used in a strict sense but that they are not so used here is the thing to be proved if usurped Powers are ordained of God the Text plainly commands subjection to them but if they be not ordained of him it as plainly commands subjection to Rightful Kings in opposition to them And it cannot be concluded from the different sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon different occasions that Usurpers are ordained of God but it must be first proved that they are ordained of him and then and not before it must be allowed that the signification of that word i◠to be so extended in the Text as to be understood of them as well as of other Kings 3. Besides if this Argument from the Scriptures making no distinction between Kings who have a Legal Title and those who have none prove any thing it must prove too much to make at all to this purpose For the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings who have both a Legal and a Divine Right and those who have neither but are Usurpers both against God and Man Thus Abimelech is stiled King Judg 9. without any manner distinction or explication though he was set up not only by the most wicked and bloody means but in opposition to the Authority of God himself who then governed the People of Israel by raising them up Judges to Deliver and to Rule over them and for this Reason when they would have made Gideon King he rejected it as a thing which would be agreat offence against God and a notorious contempt of him Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon rule thou over us both thou and thy son and thy sons son also for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian And Gideon said unto them I will not rule over you the Lord shall rule over you Judg. 8.22 23. And since that God was afterwards so displeased with the Children of Israel for desiring a King and said that in asking a King they had rejected him that he should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8.7 The People of Shechem in setting up a King of their own chusing without leave from God or asking counsel of him must be guilty of a much greater affront against God for they rejected him in a more insolent and provoking manner not contenting themselves with those whom God used to raise up for them and not regarding his choice Convoc Ch. 13. Can. 1 or expecting his pleasure in it they presumed to chuse them a Prince of their own Abimelech therefore could be King by no Authority from God but by his Permission only and yet the Scripture gives the Title of King to him as well as to Saul and David because he was in full Power and exercised all outward Acts of Supreme Authority though he had really no Authority but by Force only and fuccess in his wickedness assumed to himself the name of King Isbbosheth likewise was set up by Abner against David whom God had nominated and caused to be anointed King to reign over all Sauls Dominions after his death yet the Scripture says in the same words in which it speaks of all other Kings that Ishbosheth was made King over all Israel and that he reigned two years 2 Sam. 2.9 10. And Athaliah is said to have reigned over the Land six years 2 Kings 11.1 tho she had no manner of Right either from God or Man as the Doctor himself confesses and maintains because Joash was alive on whom God had entailed the Crown as being descended from David She is notwithstanding said to have reigned over the land in the same terms that are used in Scripture concerning the most Rightful Kings nominated and appointed by God himself The examples then of Abimelech Ishbosheth and Athaliah abundantly shew that Usurpers tho' they exercise the Supreme Authority and are in full Possession of it are not therefore the ordinance of God and that it is not impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no for Abimelech and Ishbosheth were Kings and Athaliah was Queen without any Authority at all and yet not whether God would or no but by his Permission And from hence it is evident that the word King or Queen doth not always signifie in Scripture a Person invested with God's Authority though it be used without distinction and that the sense of the same words in particular places of Scripture must be known not always from any distinction annexed to them but from the Circumstances and Reasons of things
the Posterity of Jehu 2. For Baasha who slew Nabab was set up by God himself according as God had threatned Jeroboam by the Prophet Ahijah Moreover the Lord shall raise him up a King over Israel who shall cut off the House of Jeroboam that day 1 Kings 14.14 The Lord shall raise up to himself a King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby entitleing him in a more especial manner to his Authority and stiling him his King the King whom he would raise up to himself to vindicate his Honour and to execute his Judgments upon Jeroboam which Prophecy is expresly said to be fulfilled in Baasha when he killed Nadab and destroyed all the House of Jeroboam 1 Kings 15.29 So that though Baasha were not directly nominated yet he was immediately appointed by God himself and the beginning of his Reign in the destruction of Jeroboam's Family was exactly foretold and therefore God's exalting him out of the dust and making him Prince over his People Israel 1 Kings 16.1 cannot be understood of his Providence but of his Appointment It may be objected That God did not authorise Baasha to slay Nadab because this is alledged against him as the Cause of his own Destruction 1 Kings 16.7 And also by the hand of the Prophet Jehn the Son of Hanani came the word of the Lord against Baasha and against his house even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands in being like the house of Jeroboam and because he killed him To which I answer That by him in this Verse cannot probably be meant Nadab of whom there is no mention after the 31st Verse of the foregoing Chapter Nor can it be meant of Jeroboam who was not killed by Baasha unless Jeroboam be said to be slain by him not in his own Person but because he had destroyed all the Family of Jeroboam Which kind of Interpretation seems never to be admitted where there is no evident Necessity for it or not however when there is another more easie and natural The words then are a Repetition of what had been before related in the first and second Verses God had raised up Baasha and so blessed him that he reigned Twenty Four Years but he was guilty of great Ingratitude towards God and did that which was evil in his sight which is expressed twice before by his walking in the ways of Jeroboam 1 Kings 15.34 and 16.2 and here by his being like the house of Jeroboam for this God threatens That he will take away the Posterity of Baasha and the posterity of his house and will make his house like the house of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat ver 3. Which implies That God designed to continue Baasha and his Posterity after him in the Throne of Israel if he had not thus provoked God with his sins Bat in neither of the Two other Verses is there the least intimation that the killing of Nadab was imputed to Baasha as a sin and here after the Death of Baasha God's Message formerly sent to him by his Propher is again repeated and the mention of Jeroboam is added as it had been twice before for the further aggravation of his Guilt It is said the word of the Lord came against Baasha and against his house even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to an ger with the work of his hands and because he killed him or as it may be translated for which he smote him that is God smote Baasha for his sins The Prophet was sent to denounce God's Judgments against him and God at last took away his Life and his sins were the Cause of it So that the words are not to be understood with relation to Nadab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as slain by Baasha but to Bausha himself as killed by God's just Judgment upon him for his sins And with this agrees the Version of the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and concerning the smiting him And thus Malvenda says most understand this place of Baasha's being slain of God for his sins Plerique eum Bahasam propter quod percussit eum Dominus id est propter sua prava opera Malvend in loc Ob hanc causam occidit eum hoc est filium Hanani Prophetam The Vulgar Latin renders it ob hanc causam occidit eum that is God slew Baasha for the Cause abovementioned viz. for provoking God with his sins as Jeroboam had done though there is a Clause added which applies the words to the Prophet Jehu as if Baasha had killed him for delivering the Message but this is omitted in some Copies Sixt. Senens Biblioth lib. 2. in Jehu and Sixtus Senensis thinks that it was only an Annotation put by some body at first in the Margin which afterwards got into the Text. Cajetan says Ob hanc causam occidit eum Juxta Hebraeum habetur pro quo percussit eum Pronomen eum demonstrat Jeroboham cum domo ejus Narratur enim quod Jehu Propheta manifestavit Regi Bahasae pro quâ causâ percussit Deus Domum Jeroboam ut vel ab exemplo disceret recipiscere Cajet in loc the Prophet declared to Baasha the Cause for which Jeroboam's House was destroyed that Baasha might take warning by his Example and for which he smote him that is the Evil of the House of Jeroboam for which God destroyed it But if we should grant that this Verse is to be understood of Baasha's killing Nadab the meaning seems then to be not that he sinned in killing Nadab but that his having killed him proved the aggravation of all his other sins that when he had been raised up by God purposely to destroy the House of Jeroboam he should notwithstanding be guilty himself of the same sins for which it was destroyed and therefore no mention is made of Nadab but of Jeroboam the Prophet having declared That God's Auger was kindled against him because he walked in the way of Jeroboam which yet he knew to be so abominable before God that he was exalted out of the Dust and had the Kingdom given him to reduce Israel from that sin which Jeroboam had led them into and therefore this is added at last as the most aggravating Circumstance that he should follow the Wickedness of that very Man whom he had by God's appointment slain And the Word of the Lord came against him for all the Evil that he did in being like the house of Jeroboam and because he killed him that is because he was the Man who had killed him for the same sins which he now became guilty of himself But if we should further grant That Baasha was raised up by God's Permission only and that he sinned in killing Nadab yet when he had destroyed the House of Jeroboam and there was none left who had a Right to the Kingdom he then became Rightful King and
God made him Prince over his People Israel So that he could not be of the Number of those whom the Prophet Hosea mentions that were made Kings but not by God for in those frequent Conspiracies and Murthers of the Kings of Israel which we read of it might often happen that the Right Heir was alive and excluded which alters the Case 3. It is precarious to say That God had reserved to himself the Nomination and Appointment of the Kings of Israel He gave indeed the Ten Tribes to Jeroboam and entailed the Crown of Israel upon his Posterity in the same manner as he had entailed that of Judah upon the Line of David on condition That he should serve God as David did 1 Kings 11.38 And he settled the Kingdom upon Jehu's Posterity to the Fourth Generation 2 Kings 10.30 But these were extraordinary Cases and therefore can be no Evidence That God did reserve to himself the constant designation of their Kings though he did sometimes nominate and appoint them God's Promise to David and his House was ultimately and principally to be understood of the Messiah who was to be the Son of Davia and it was absolute with respect only to him David and Solomon c. were Types of Christ and the Kingdom of Judah was Typical of Christ's Kingdom and the Scepter was not to depart from Judah till the coming of Christ So that God had a more immediate Care and Regard to the Kingdom of Judah than to that of Israel and yet the Entail of the Kingdom of Judah is scarce ever mentioned but with such express Conditions annexed as shew that upon the Violation of them it might by the very Terms of that Promise whenever God had pleased have been taken away from them in the same manner that other Kingdoms are alienated and transferred And there is no intimation That upon the Forfeiture of their special Favour and Privilege either Israel or Judah were to expect that God would afterwards nominate their Kings After the sin of Jeroboam wherewith he made Israel to sin and at once lost God's Favour both to himself and his Posterity and forfeited the Hereditary Right to the Crown God seems to have lest the Succession of the Kings of Israel to the Care of his ordinary Providence excepting only when he interposed upon particular occasions to put down one King and set up another For if it had been sinful for any King to ascend the Throne without God's express Order it is incredible that the rest of the Prophets should be so silent in a matter of so high a Nature who reproved and rebuked their Kings so freely and so severely too upon all other occasions A sin so notorious and so long continued in would probably have been taken notice of by all the other Prophets as well as by Hosea The Kings then whom this Prophet mentions that were set up but not by God must be such as were set up not only without God's appointment but without his Approbation or Authority And indeed if God had reserved to himself the Appointment of the Kings of Israel his permitting them to Reign without his Appointment and suffering them to settle themselves in the Kingdom by his Providence could be no evidence that he had bestowed upon them any Authority because this had been contrary to that Order of Government which God had instituted among them and in derogation from that Prerogative which he had determined to exercise over them and when God has declared his Will in any Case we must not conclude from any Events of Providence that he allows or authorises the contrary Pag. 35. This we are told in the Case of Joash and Athaliah and there is the same reason in this for God may as well be supposed by his Providence to set aside the next Heir to the Crown of Judah which was entailed by himself as to forgo the Theocracy which he had retained over the Kingdom of Israel so that either we must say that he confirmed Athaliah in the Throne by his Providence or else that the Kings of Israel whom he did not appoint could have no Authority from him notwithstanding any success or continuance of their Reigns It appears therefore from the Prophet Hosea that the People of Israel did set up Kings who had no Authority from God and made Princes when God knew it not or did not approve of it and who by consequence could be none of his Ordinance And how many or how few soever these Kings were it cannot truly be said that there was no Histinction to be found in Scripture between Kings who are invested with God's Authority and those who are not and therefore St. Paul could not be understood to mean all Kings whatsoever under the Denomination of the higher Powers ordained of God and since all are not set up by him there needed no distinction in express words to inform us that he meant only Lawful Kings for if he had intended by this Precept subjection to unlawful Kings too there would have needed a further distinction to know what unlawful Kings we were to obey since the Scripture speaks of some unlawful Kings whom we are not to obey unless we must obey such as are not set up by God or those Kings can be God's Ordinance whom he does not set up wherefore it would have been necessary for him to have distinguished between Usurpers that are set up by God and those who are not if he had not spoken only of Rightful Kings But it is urged that this sence of the Text would involve Mens Consciences in great perplexities for the Titles to Crowns being oftentimes very uncertain great skill in History and Law is required to sind out the Right Title and after all their search the most learned Men cannot agree about it and it is not to be imagined that all Mens Consciences should be concerned in such niceties which wise and learned Men are not able to decide especially the Titles of the Roman Emperours at that time and after wards for many Ages together being either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful the Apostle cannot be imagined to oblige every Christian of that and of succeeding Ages to examine the Titles of Princes Pag. 20. and this the Doctor takes to be little lefs than a demonstration that this Precept of Sr. Paul cannot be understood only of subjection to Powers that had a Legal Right I answer 1. I have proved that there may be Kings who are not God's Ordinance and the only way we have now to distinguish Kings that are set up by him from those who are not is to enquire into the Justice of their Cause and the Legality of their Titles And St. Peter speaks of the Ordinance of Man or of human Establishment according to which Kings are advanced to the Throne 2. If the Title be doubtful yet the Consciences of Subjects will not be so ensnared and perplext with niceties and difficulties
the several Provinces assigned them but all the Kingdoms and Principalities were reserved to the Emperors share Serabo lib. ult in sin and thus they continued Strabo says at the time of his Writing which was in the Reign of Tiberius 2. As to the Objection of the Pharisees against Submission to the Roman Powers it did not respect the Title of the Emperor but their own Privileges and Immunities For they pretended That because they might not voluntarily make choice of a Stranger to set over them Deut. 17.15 for that Reason they might not submit to Strangers who had conquered them and to whom they had been in subjection near an hundred years which was a most unreasonable and absurd way of arguing and fit only for Scribes and Pharises to use for what could be more ridiculous than to conclude That because they might not chuse a Stranger their King therefore so many years after the whole Nation had submitted and sworn to Strangers they might not pay Tribute to them Our Saviour then when they proposed that ensnaring Question to him whether they might pay Tribute or no gives them such an Answer as determines nothing indeed concerning the Title of Tiberius to the Empire which was not the thing in Question but was owned by all as good and lawful but he shews them they ought to pay Tribute to the lawful Emperors for such Tiberius was acknowledged to be and this he did by requiring them to shew him a peice of that Money in which the Tribute was wont to be paid and seeing that that had Caesar's Image and Superscription upon it he tells them they ought to render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's Mat. 22.21 Whereby he assures them that they were forbid by no Law of God to pay Tribute or perform any other Instances of Obedience to the Princes under whom they lived but were in this left under the common Obligations of all other Subjects and that which they were bound to above others concerned not things of this Nature but their Obedience to God and the Observation of his Laws so as to keep themselves from the false Worship and Idolatry of the Heathens whilst they obeyed their Edicts and submitted to their Government They were obliged both to render unto Casar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's to submit to Caesar in Civil Affairs and to reserve for God his own Honour and Worship The Title of the Emperor was not the Question but supposing him to have a Rightful Title the Pharisees denied that Tribute ought to be paid him by the Jews who they pretended were to be Subjects to no Strangers whatsoever but were exempt from his Jurisdiction how just and lawful soever it might be over all the rest of his Subjects Our Saviour answers That the Privilege and Duty which was peculiar to the Jewish Nation was not such as to require them to submit to no Foreign Power but it consisted in the Worship of the True and Only God and that all other Subjection to Caesar was lawful but that which was repugnant to their Duty to God They might not pollute themselves with Idolatry nor worship the Heathen Gods nor pay Divine Honours to the Emperors themselves nor do any other sinful thing at their command This was not Caesar's due and therefore he could not require it of them nor must they obey him if he should They must not render to Caesar that which is due only to God nor deny him that which is his own but must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's Our Saviour speaks not of the Legal Authority of the Emperor's but supposes it as the Pharisees themselves did who put that insidious Question to him he only determines what was the Duty of the Jews under a Prince who was not of their own Nation II. The Doctor now comes to produce his Arguments from Reason by which he endeavours to shew that hereby is given the only true Account of the Original of Government and that upon any other Principles there can be no such thing as a Divine Right of Kings nor can they be irresistible but their Authority will be precarious and uncertain so that upon his Principles only the Doctrin of Passive Obedience can be maintained I shall first shew That Kings are irresistible according to the Principles contrary to his and then consider his Objections 1. Kings are irresistible upon the contrary Principles That Government was originally in the Fathers of Families who by Nature and by God's Institution had supreme Authority over their own Children and Servants is evident from Scripture and how this Paternal and Patriarchal Authority was preserved among God's own People but degenerated into other Forms among the rest of the World has been sufficiently explained from the Convocation which determines That when these other Forms are so setl'd as that there is none who can claim any Right to the Paternal or Patriarchal Authority then however Irregular or Degenerate they may be they are throughly setled and require our Submission it being evident that God has ratified them when there must be either such kinds of Government or none at all over us because it cannot be imagined that he will place Societies of Men in such a condition as to have no Lawful Government or that none should have a Right to Rule over them So that it is not the Consent of the People nor Length of Time or Prescription and Continuance of Usurpation that gives a Right but these are either only accidental Means of attaining to a rightful Title as in continued Usurpations upon the Failure of the Royal Blood or Conditions and Qualifications which prepare and capacitate Men for it as in other Cases For when the Throne becomes vacant either by Death or Cession in an Elective Monarchy or by the Extinction of the whole Royal Line in an Hereditary Kingdom the People may and in most Cases are obliged to submit to the present Possessor by what means soever he got into Possession and then it is not the Submission or Consent of the People that gives the Right but God himself who concurs with their Act and ratifies it As in Matrimony it is not the Consent of the Parties which joyns them together but God himself upon their Consent and the Contract is irrevocable because whom God hath joyned together no Man may put asunder A mutual Consent cannot separate them much less can either Party revoke their Consent when they please but whosoever shall put away his Wife except it be for Fornication and shall marry another committeth Adultery Matth. 19.9 And if the Consent of the Parties in Matrimony be so firmly ratified by God there is no reason to doubt but that God may so confirm the Agreement or Compact between a King and People as that nothing but a mutual Relaxation shall be able to disingage them from
Subjects All this proves nothing but is only the Consequence of what is supposed to be already proved His Sixth Argument is from the Necessity of Government p. 38. to preserve Human Societies p. 39. For if God will preserve Human Societies we must conclude That when he removes one King out of the Throne he gives his Authority to him whom he places there for without Authority Human Societies must disband He supposes here that every thing is just which is necessary to the preservation of Human Societies nay that God empowers and requires Men to do every thing that is necessary in order to that End Which is true if it be meant of Society in General because nothing that is sinful and derogatory from Authority can really tend to the Peace and Preservation of Mankind For though such Practices may give some sort of Ease and Protection to particular Societies for some Time in a particular Case yet this is accidental and proceeds not from the Nature of Things and these Practices usually end in the Destruction or great Galamity of such Societies Or however the Examples and the Effects are mischievous and of pernicious Consequence to Societies in general The Laws therefore of God and of Nature are in General Terms and we have no Liberty to interpret them so as to fit them to some particular Occasions and to determin that they do not oblige when they seem in some particulars not to serve the Ends which they were designed for because God foresaw all Inconveniencies and Emmergencies whatsoever and yet he appointed them We are not to measure our Duty from the Usefulness of the Practice of it in particular Cases but from its General Usefulness and God can provide for extraordinary Exigencies But though God has appointed Society and will always preserve Societies of Men and Government in the World yet we have no Assurance that he will preserve any particular Society How many Nations do we read of in Scripture which God did quite root out and destroy for their Sins and how many other Nations of the World have there been besides whose Memories are quite lost to us The Sins of a Nation may provoke God to destroy it and therefore it can be no good Argument that God gives Authority to every Usurper and commands obedience to him lest a particular Society should be destroyed For God may design its Destruction and then no submission can avail to preserve it or he may by other Means unthought of by us deliver it from Destruction though we do not submit God having instituted Society commands by consequence every thing that is necessary to Society but it is not necessary because Man is a sociable Creature and must live under Government that any particular Society must always continue and that whatever is done to maintain it is for that reason lawful Self-preservation is a necessary Duty implanted in our Nature but it does not from thence follow that all necessary Means of Self-preservation is lawful For a Man may be obliged not to preserve himself but to sacrifice his Life when the Glory of God or the Wellfare of his Country requires it Societies in lik manner are established by God himself in the World and we are obliged to the Preservation of them but we must preserve particular Societies only by such Means as are agreeable to the Laws of God designed for the Benefit of Society in general To endeavour to preserve any particular Society in such a way as naturally tends to the Destruction of Society in general is to act against the Nature and Institution of Society and by consequence sinful though the immediate Act should be never so beneficial to a particular Government Now for Subjects to pay Allegiance to Kings and for both Prince and Subjects to perform their mutual Duties to each other as far as they are able is the only Security of Human Society and to say that we owe no Allegiance to an absent Prince because God will have Human Societies preserved is to say That God will have particular Societies preserved by the Violation of that which is the alone Support and Security of Society in general when yet we cannot be sure whether God will have this or that particular Society preserved or no. We must distinguish between the Reason of Obedience to Governours and the end of it The formal Reason of Obedience is the Ordinance of God or the Divine Authority in him to whom it is due but the End of it is the Good of Societies If the Reason of Obedience were to be resolved into the End of it the End would justifie any means whatsoever by which it could be attained but since God who has proposed the End to us has likewise directed us to the Means we must make use only of such means as he has appointed and if at any Time they should fail of their End as to any particular Society we must conclude That God has some further End to serve and that is always best which he has commanded not that which for the present may seem more beneficial or expedient For we have an Eye only upon one Time or Place or Government but he has an Universal Care and Regard for all Times Places Persons and Governments in the World and sees their several Relations and Dependences and Effects upon one another and has provided for all Mankind by standing Laws and has not proposed an End only to them and then left them to come at it as they can themselves The Prince's Right and the Subjects Allegiance being reciprocal and necessarily supposing each other for if the Prince have a Right to any thing it must be to the Subjects Allegiance it is difficult to determine what may be done by Subjects for the Preservation of Government in Cases of Necessity when both King and People are reduced to these Circumstances that they lye under an Incapacity of actually performing those mutual Obligations and what Obedience to an Usurper may be consistent with the Allegiance due to a Rightful Prince There is some Difficulty I say in determining precisely in such Cases just how far Subjects may comply and no further But this is nothing to the present purpose and so I pass by all that the Doctor has said of it It is enough for me that the Necessity of Human Society does not imply That God has transferred the Allegiance of the Subjects to an Usurper And when all lawful Compliances have been made if the Government be ruined the Fault must lye only upon the Usurper and his Party His next Argument is p. 43. that these Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the Security of the Prince and Subjects because they secure the Prince in Possession by putting an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and binding his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience and a Reverence of God's Authority And they secure the Subjects by obliging them not to hazard and Ruin
themselves in behalf of the Rightful King when he is out of the Throne To which it may be replyed That there are perhaps no Principles so ill but they may at some Times and upon some Occasions give some Accidental Advantage and Security for a while nor any so good as to afford a perfect and absolute Security against all Events But those are the best and truest which give the most constant and lasting Security Now the Doctor 's Principles seem to be fitted only for Revolutions and then they teach men to submit to the uppermost Party as having God's Authority but there are many Inconveniences arising from them which more than over-ballance this Advantage For they encourage Attempts upon the Crowns of Princes and expose Subjects to all the Miseries which usually follow from such Attempts before a thorough Settlement which commonly is a long Time And after such a Settlement they set up a Divine Authority against a Legal Right to encounter and fight each other and engage a Nation in a War perhaps for many Ages for the Rightful King may wage War for the Recovery of his Legal Right and the Usurper in Defence of his Possessory Right which he holds in Donation from God and both may do this with a good Conscience and the War must be just on both sides so that nothing of Law or Equity but the Sword only can decide it And because all that abide in their own Country must joyn and assist the Usurper against their Lawful King he is put upon a Necessity of relying wholly upon Foreign Forces and upon some few Subjects perhaps p. 29. That are out of their Wits and will follow him into Banishment or venture being hanged at Home and upon these Terms if ever the Lawful King return it must be by conquering his own Kingdom for he can have no assistance from his Subjects who must all withstand and oppose him to the utmost till he is again setled in his Government which cannot be but by Conquest or Miracle Now these Inconveniences are too great to be incurred for the sake of that little Ease and Quiet which may happen from these Principles just upon the Settlement of an Usurper before the Rightful King can recruit his Forces and make a vigorous Attempt to recover his Throne for 't is only during that Interval between the lawful King's Defeat and his Reinforcement that these Principles can be of any use to the Subjects afterwards they expose them to all the Dangers and Miseries of a long War of frequent Invasions and of a foreign Conquest and it must be remembred that these Principles give no security to any Princes but Usurpers for lawful Kings when they are in their Thrones are as safe without them and when they are dispossessed they are not much beholding to such Principles as will never suffer them to regain it but upon the most unequal and most improbable Terms in the World Whereas though that immoveable and unalterable Allegiance due only to a Legal Right and Title may expose Men to Hardships and cost some Lives in Times of Rebellion and Revolutions yet this is abundantly recompensed in that it is a constant Security at all other Times and will as much as it is possible prevent Revolutions and Rebellions and will make them less hurtful and mischievous when they do happen It is not pretended that this Doctrin can give a full and infallible Security against all accidental Calamities but it gives all the Security that the State of this World is capable of and all the Security we can have besides that of God's Providence to relv on And we have no Reason to think that God by his Providence transfers the Allegiance of Subjects but that he will protect them in the performance of it It is objected 1. p. 44. That if this Principle of adhering to Legal Right would prevent all Revolutions of Government it is a Demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle because it is against God's Prerogative of removing Kings and setting up Kings 2. It is evident that this Principle was either unknown to the World before or else that it cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government 3. Since then such Revolutions will happen such Principles as must dissolve human Societies when such Revolutions happen or expose the most innocent and conscientions Men to the greatest Sufferings without serving any good End cannot be true 1. I answer Though it be God's Prerogative to set up and to remove kings yet we can at no time know without a Revelation that it is his Pleasure to do it as to this or that King in particular And therefore while the Legal Right remains we may not conclude that he has transferred our Allegiance And those who are of Opinion that God is now pleased to depose and set up Kings in such a manner only as is consistent with human Right and Justice derogate no more from God's Sovereign Prerogative than those who believe that he has no respect to human Laws in the disposal of Kingdoms For the difference between them is not concerning God's Power which both equally acknowledge but concerning his Will only whether he is now pleased to act according to the Absoluteness of his Power and not rather with regard to the Laws of Men since we have no way to know when he has transferred any Kingdom but by the Constitution of it or by Revelation 2. That this Principle was and is still known to the World is evident else why should the Doctor say That his Scheme of Government may startle some Men at first p. 3. before they have well considered it His Notion could startle no Body if the contrary to it were unknown it is indeed so well known that the Doctor 's Principle is new to himself and he informs us that he could not have got over the Difficulties Pref. that lie against it if the Convocation had not freed him from his Prejudices and given him a Liberty of thinking But it does not follow that every Duty which is known is practised Nor is it pretended That this Principle will prevent all Revolutions it is sufficient that it will prevent them as far as it is possible for them to be prevented And this Dilemma will do as good Execution against any other Opinion that can be named as against this for all pretend that their own Notions are the best Security against the Mischiefs which they charge upon others and therefore all may argue in the same manner against any Opinion whatsoever that is contrary to their own This Principle was unknown to the World before or else this Principle cannot prevent Rebellion it was unknown or it cannot prevent Heresies or Schisms c. And the Consequence of this is That either this way of arguing is to no purpose because it will serve all Causes alike tho they be Contradictions to each other or that there is no true Principle in the World But
force as all Moralists allow such a mixt choyce and election to be But Flight is no Consent at all but a declaration of the contrary and therefore whether Forced Submission will transfer Allegiance or no 't is certain Flight cannot and that is all we are now to enquire after He argues P. 20. that Jaddus begged God's Directions not whether he should submit to Alexander or not for he was already resolved to submit but about the manner of his Submission that he might do it so as that Alexander would accept it after the Provocation he had given him by his denyal before Josephus does indeed say that Jaddus dreaded how he should meet Alexander who was provoked by his former Answer but what he means by his meeting him and to what intent and purpose he designed to meet him is not said much less that he was resolved to make an entire surrender of himself and the whole City unto his power and meeting an Enemy is a very different thing from making such a Submission to him He appointed publick Prayers and Sacrifices to be offered up for their Deliverance but whether they should be delivered by their Submission or by any other way we must suppose they left it wholly to God Almighty to determine And whatever Jaddus might think with himself it cannot be imagined he would come to a Resolution and would openly declare it too but since he sought to God for his direction and assistance in so extraordinary a way he would in all humility and devotion refer the whole matter and not only the manner and circumstance of it to his Determination Thus Jaddus ought to have done and thus probably he did and there is nothing in Josephus that contradicts it If Jaddus stood to his first Answer he could not be resolved to submit and it is most unlikely that he would appoint solemn Supplications and Sacrifices to be made to God about the Circumstance only and overlook the thing it self resolving with himself before he knew Gods pleasure in it to submit when he had so lately answered peremptorily that he might not do it so long as Darius lived this must be a great and sudden and a very improbable change and very rash and unwarrantable and not to be drawn into example if true For suppose that Jaddus was resolved to submit suppose he was resolved to do the thing which he but just before professed he ought not to do this makes no difference in the thing nor in the Judgment of the Convocation about it who mention his first resolution but take no notice of this new own nor of his Submission it self neither and perhaps for this Reason because they might not give much credit to the Account in Josephus of the Revelation and without this his Surrender could not be justified either by their Principles or his own But we are concerned only for the matter of Fact and for the Authority he had to act upon not for the opinion with which he acted He first refused Submission and that the Convocation approves he afterwards submitted and this the Convocation takes not the least notice of but if there were a Revelation for it his Submission was lawful if not it was contrary to that Duty which he so lately owned to Darius and to the Judgment of the Convocation The Doctor says if they believed any of the story upon Josephus 's Authority P. 19. they must believe all But why so some of it may be probable and that they might believe and other parts of it so improbable that his Authority might not be sufficient to give it Credit with them and it is likely they rejected what they did not mention when it was so very material to the Subject before them that if they had believed it they would scarce have omitted it The Doctor is forced to own P. 35. that Athaliah if she were throughly settled had God's Authority till the Right Heir was known to be alive though if she had it may be not only Lawful but a Duty to resist Gods Authority since he maintains that Jehoiada supposing her throughly settled was nevertheless bound in Duty to Joash to depose her and set him up But assoon as the true Heir appeared P. 35. she fell from her Power as much by the express Ordinance and Command of God as Joram did when Jehu was anointed for a Divine Entail as the Convocation asserts is equivalent to an express Nomination I Answer the Appearance of the true Heir respects only the Peoples Duty but the Question is concerning Jehoiada and what could the Appearance of Joash signify to him who all the while knew that he was alive and acted all along for his Right and Interest and was obliged at the first fit opportunity to make the true heir known and if so he must be found to do it by vertue of an Hereditary Right which was in Joash and by consequence he could not be bound to obey Athaliab though she were never so well settled for it is a contradiction to say that he was bound to obey her at the same time that he was bound to depose her or which is all one when he was bound to make the Right Heir known in order to depose her It may perhaps be said that Jehoiada was not bound in Duty to Athaliah it was only lawful for him to submit as the Doctor now distinguishes But if so then a Providential Right may oblige some Subjects to Obedience and not others which is as strange as any thing besides for sure Gods Authority must oblige all Subjects alike and if she were invested with Gods Authority or to use the Doctors word if she were God's Providential Queen I cannot see how any Subject in her Dominions could be exempted from Gods Authority nor consequently from Obedience to her while it remained in her Besides how did she fall from her Power assoon as the true Heir appeared According to the Doctor 's Principles she could never have fallen from it till she had fallen from her Actual Dominion and her Authority was at an end not because the Right Heir was known but because she was dispossessed for the Doctor tells us that Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power make a King P. 36. that it is certain he who has the Exercise of the Regal Power and Authority P. 38. P. 50. P. 56. is King and he is no King who has no Regal Power whatever his Title be and that it is certain no Prince can have Gods Authority who is not in Possession of the Throne and then no Allegiance can be due to him and the Doctor cannot guese how these Princes who whatever the Right be have no Authority of Government should have Gods Authority And if this be so very certain from the nature of the thing that Sovereignty is founded in the Actual Administration of Government or in the Actual Possession of Power and Authority to govern P. 37. if Possession of Power be of the very
has to this Estate who has thus unjustly got it Providence has given it him he is fully possessed of it the Courts of Judicature have all determined for him there is no higher Appeal upon Earth and God if he be the Author of all Events and does not only permit them has bestowed it upon him The Doctor says P. 47. that when a private Man has the Possession of his Estate given him by Law whether right or wrong be must not be violently dispossessed again But has he a Divine Right to this Estate or no Providence has as evidently declared for him as ever it did for any Usurper and he wants nothing but human Right that according to these Principles makes no difference But he has the Colour and Formality of that too having the Decision of the Law on his side Suppose again that a Man finds a Summ of Mony which he knows the Owner of and that the Owner has no proof of his having found it and the Laws of the Land cannot force him to restore it must this Man restore this Mony which is the Gift of Providence or may he keep it Or has the Owner lost his Right by losing the Possession when it is beyond all possibility of Recovery And is an Usurper after a thorough Settlement obliged to resign his Throne to the Rightful King Or is not he and his Party as much obliged in Conscience to make Restitution and Reparation to the Rightful King as private Men are obliged to make Reparation for those Wrongs and Damages which no human Courts may be able to take Cognizance of He says P. 62. that all which he undertook to prove is that when a Rightful King is dispossessed Subjects may own and submit to the King who is settled in the Possession of the Throne But when the Arguments from the late Usurpation come to be answered he makes a Distinction between what is lawful to be done P. 66. and that which is a necessary Duty confessing that it was lawful to submit to Cromwel though he never was throughly settled but asserting that it was not a Duty and that he never was throughly settled he proves because he never was settled by a National Submission and Consent which he makes necessary to a thorough Settlement I answer 1. The Distinction was no Rule of Practice to the Loyalists of those times who never owned that they might lawfully comply but always professed that they were bound in Conscience not to do it And the Doctor himself sets it down in the Objection that the Loyal Nobility Case of Al. P. 46 47. Gentry and Clergy thought themselves bound in Conscience to oppose that Vsurpation at their utmost Peril And in his Answer says that there was then such an Invasion on the Rights and Liberties of their Country which are as sacred as the Rights of the King as required the utmost Opposition that could be made 2. They must have been obliged in Conscience to Submission by the Dr's Principles though Cromwells Government had been never throughly settled For the Doctor lays down several Duties Ib. P. 17. which in Reason we ought to pay to an Vsurper before a thorough Settlement As to live quietly and peaceably under his Government and to promise or swear or give any other security that we will do so if it be demanded And we must pay Taxes to him for these were due to the Administration of Government as St. Paul observes For this Cause pay ye Tribute also c. We must give the Title of King to such a Prince when we live in the Country where he is owned for King Nay we must pray for him under the Title of King for we are bound to pray for all who are in Authority All this is as applicable to a Protector as to a King Ib. P. 18. and thus far the Doctor thinks the doubtful Possession of the Throne obliges us He supposes indeed that the generality of the Nation have submitted to the Usurper and that his Possession is doubtful upon the account of the formidable Power which the lawful King yet retains but I would know why all Settlements of Usurpers if they be in the same Degree do not oblige to the same Duties since it is the Settlement in it self considered and not the manner or kind of it which lays the Obligation upon the Subjects and therefore if there may be the same Settlement in Degree without the Consent of the generality of the People when the Forces of the Rightful King is quite broken that there may be with their Consent when he has yet a formidable Power the Subjects must in both cases stand obliged to pay the same Duties to an Usurper and upon these grounds no Duty could be justly denyed to Cromwel which is oweing where the Possession is doubtful when by the Doctor 's confession no man could have foreseen how King Charles 2d should have returned Ib. P. 33. and God alone was able to effect it 3. The Doctor is not consistent with himself in his account of a Thorough Settlement Ib. P. 9. when the whole Administration of the Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in the hands of the Prince when every thing is done in his Name and by his Authourity when the Estates of the Realm and the great body of the Nation has submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crushed by him whenever he pleases if this be not a settled Government he despairs of every knowing what it is And in his Vindication he says Vind. P. 22. that in this place he has stated what a Thorough Settlement is yet here he has not determined what is necessary to it nor whether all these things must meet together or whether some one or more of them may be sufficient Case P. 13. Soon after he observes there are very different ways whereby Princes ascend the Throne sometimes by the Election of the People sometimes by Conquest but all these waies or any other that can be thought of are governed and determined by the Divine Providence and the Prince thus advanced is as truly placed in the Throne by God as if he had been expressly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at Gods command as Saul and David were Here is all ascribed to Gods Providence in placing a King upon the Throne and therefore the Submission of the People cannot be necessary unless God cannot do it without their Submission or unless Saul and David were not Kings upon Gods Nomination till the People had accepted them or would never have been Kings if the People had refused to admit and acknowledge them Ib. P. 14. Upon these Grounds he asserts in his Fourth Proposition that it is impossible there should be a wrong King c. but it is very possible there may be a King without a National Submission to him and therefore either this Submission is nor necessary to a thorough Settlement or a thorough Settlement is