learned Man's Judgment Who yet judges That even here it may be not only Lawful but a Duty to obey him that is in possession when the Legal King is reduced to that pass that he can no more do the Office of a King to his people For saith he the Kingdom cannot be without Government and if the Usurper preserves the Kingdom a Lover of his Countrey ought not as things are to give any further cause of trouble by his unprofitable Contumacy But then put case the Usurper hath sworn the people to him and doth the Office of a King which it seems in his Judgment doth not take away the duty that is owing to that former King how one can pay his duty to both the expell'd Legal King and to such an Usurper This our Author says is a most difficult Scruple and so it seems both by his and our most Learned Casuist's handling the Question where they shew how far one ought and how far one ought not to comply with such an Usurpation p. 56 57 58. But these Difficulties are only in case the possession is obtained by a War that was certainly unjust for if the cause of the War was but doubtful and a Conquest follows upon it there is no place for these difficulties Much less where the cause of War was certainly Just for if a Conquest follows upon this it gives a Right and then there is no Usurpation It has been commonly judg'd by the Law of Nations That the Right goes along with the Possession Of this we see Examples in every Revolution that happens in this or any other Kingdom When a King is driven out with any colour of Right the Neighbouring Princes and States make no great difficulty of applying themselves to him that comes in his stead wherein though perhaps they too much follow their own Interest yet it cannot be said that what they do is against the Law of Nations But what should Subjects do in this Case Of this we have an Example in the People of God when they pass'd successively under the Yoke of those Four great Monarchs that were formerly mention'd It is likely that each of those Kings that got the Power over them first declar'd the Cause of the War that he made upon the former Lords In that Case though they could not judge of the Cause whether it was Just or Unjust yet no doubt they did well in adhering to him that was in present Possession p. 60 61. To a People that are in such a case it is no small Comfort that whatsoever doubt they may have of the Cause of the War yet there is no doubt at all concerning their Duty There is nothing more certain than this that they ought to preserve themselves if they can do it lawfully But it is lawful for them to forbear fighting when they are unsatisfied of the Cause And if their own prince is not able to protect them it is lawful for them to take protection elsewhere Therefore in case of Invasion for a Cause which is just for ought they know it is lawful for them to live quietly under the Invader nay it is not only lawful but their duty as hath been already shewn to acquiesce in his Government when he cornes to be in Possession But when they are certain that a War is made upon their Prince for just Cause that is when they plainly see he hath drawn it upon himself by making it not only lawful but necessary for another Prince to invade him for his own Preservation What are the People to do in this Case No doubt they ought first to have a care of their Souls and not to endanger them by being Partakers of other mens Sins They cannot but see that by engaging in the War they abet their own Prince in his Injustice though not in his doing the Injury yet in continuing what is done and in his not giving Reparation And therefore they are subject to the same punishment with him Nay their Condition is worse than his For he may shift for himself and leave them and all they have to be a Prey to the Enemy Who by right of War may do with them and theirs what he pleases It is therefore certainly their wisest Course to keep themselves free from all offence both towards God and towards Man That having had no part in the Cause of the War they may not be involv'd in the ill Consequences of it And this they have reason to expect from a Generous Enemy that he will not use the Right of War against them that desire to live peaceably Much more if he hath declar'd he would not hurt them that should not resist him they have reason to trust a just Prince upon his Declaration And if he went so far as to declare That upon their Submission they should enjoy the benefit of their own Laws then although it should come to a Conquest they may reasonably expect to be in no worse condition under the Stranger than they were under their own Prince They have his Faith engaged to them for this But if the Stranger declares he makes War in defence of another King's Subjects as we have shewn he may lawfully do when he finds himself in danger of suffering by that King's Oppression of his own People in this Case they are first to consider whether it is a mere pretence or whether there be a real ground for his Declaration If they find there is a just and sufficient ground for it they see in effect that it is through Them that he is struck at and therefore the War is not so much His as their own It is true according to our Doctrine they are united to their Prince as a Wife to her Husband so that they can no more right themselves by Arms than she can sue her Husband while the Bond of Marriage continues Yet as When her Husband uses her extremely ill she may complain of him to the Judge who if he sees Cause may dissolve the Marriage by his Sentence and after that she is at liberty to sue him as well as any other Man So a People may cry to the Lord by reason of their Oppression and he may raise them up a Deliverer that shall take the Government into his hands a Foreign Prince may lawfully do this as hath been already shewn and then they are not only free to defend themselves but are oblig'd to join with him against their Oppressor p. 62 63 64 65. In this Case if another Prince having a just Cause of War is so far concern'd for such a People as to take them into his Care and to declare that he makes the War for their Deliverance The effect of this War though we may call it a Conquest because it has resemblance of it yet it cannot be properly so in any respect whether we consider the Prince on whom it is made or the People that have their Deliverance by it As to him it is properly an Eviction
he brings them in from Foreign Countries Whistling for the Fly out of Egypt or the Bee out of the land of Assyria In plain words stirring up a Pharaoh or a Nebuchadnezzar against them God may employ such if he will tho none is too good for this work to execute his righteous Judgments And when God doth his work by their hands whatsoever the Instruments may be the Cause being so just and so evident as we have supposed All men that see it will say Doubtless there is a God that judges on the earth In the way of Justice But the Pr. of Orange was not a Sovereign Power being dispossest of his Principality God acts as a judge between Two Sovereign Powers when they bring their Causes before him that is when they make War upon one another And when he seeth his time that is when he finds the Cause ripe for Judgment if it proceeds so far then he gives Sentence for him that is injur'd against him that hath done the Injury The effect of this Sentence is a just Conquest and that is the other way in which God proceeding judicially pats down one and sets up another That this may be the better understood there are four things to be consider'd particularly First That War is an Appeal to the Justice of God Secondly That none can be Parties to this but they that are in Sovereign Power Thirdly That to make it a just War there must be a just and sufficient Cause Fourthly That Conquest in such a War is a decisive Judgment of God and gives one a Right to the Dominions that he has conquered from the others That War is an Appeal to God this appears in the nature of the thing p. 25 26 27 28. The Parties to this Appeal are properly such as have no Superior but God For them that have an earthly Superior their Appeal lies to him as God's Minister attending continually on this very thing p. 29. Subjects have no Right to make War without the leave of their Princes For as God has given Princes the power of the Sword so he forbids it to Subjects under a great Penalty They that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword And if he has not admitted them to be Parties in his Court then it is certain that they cannot sue there or if they do they can acquire no Flight by it There is an Original Nullity in all their Proceedings As none have right of making War but they that are in Sovereign Power so neither is it given to them that they may make what use of it they please Particularly they must not make War for the satisfying of their Lusts Ambition Covetousness Vain-glory or the like Nay the righteous God will not hold him guiltless that hath Justice in his Cause and yet in his Heart hath no such thing Lawful things must be done lawfully This Princes must look to as they will answer it to God But as far as man can judge it is a Lawful War that is made for a just and sufficient Cause p. 32. 33. One Prince may make War in defence of another King's Subjects if they see themselves in extreme danger of suffering an intolerable Injury by his Oppression of his own people And in these cases if one Lawfully may then it is certain he ought to do it p. 36. They are so much the more obliged to this when it is evident that the threatning mischief is like to fall upon others as well as themselves and them such as they are bound in Honour and Conscience to protect and support When by fitting still they should certainly expose not only themselves to be ruined but also their Friends and Allies to perish with them in that case Saevitia est voluisse mori it is a sort of bloody Peaceableness it is cruelty to Mankind to go to that degree of suffering Injuries But especially when the Cause of God is concern'd to whom we owe all things and ought to venture all for his sake Surely 't is his Cause when it touches Religion which is all that is dear to him in this world And tho Religion it self teaches us if it be possible as much as in us lies to live peaceably with all man yet as 't is there supposed there may be Cause to break the Peace so it adds infinitely to that Cause when it comes to concern our Religion p. 36 37. There is yet a greater Cause for this when the Suffering-Religion is that which is establish'd by the Laws of that Kingdom and yet the King that is sworn to those Laws and therefore bound to support that Religion is manifestly practising against it and endeavours to supplant and oppress and extinguish it What should other Princes or States that profess the same Religion do in this case They see that such a King is set upon the destroying of their Religion He hath declar'd a hostile mind towards the professors of it in judging them not capable of enjoying their Temporal Rights If he deals thus with his own People what are Foreigners to expect at his hands Can they think themselves secure because they are at peace with him They cannot unless Treaties are more Sacred than Laws Or can they rely upon his Oath But they see he hath broken it And therefore they have reason to judge That either he makes no Conscience of an Oath or he thinks Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks or he hath a Superior that can dispense with him or that will absolve him from the guilt of Perjury in such cases where Religion is concerned In short they are sure of his Will to destroy them and cannot be sure of his Oath to the contrary Wherein them can they be safe But in his want of power to do them hurt But he will not want power if they let him go on for he is getting it as fast as he can He is now strengthning himself by those ways that he takes to be absolute Lord of his own people And he is now weakning Them by oppressing all those among his people whom he knows to be their Friends and Well-wishers He doth both these things together He daily lessens their party and makes them as many more Enemies as he gains Men over to his Religion And if that be such a Religion as pretends to a Right of destroying Men of other Religions knowing this they know what they are to expect When this pretended Right is armed with power it will certainly fall upon them So that they must begin before he is ready for them or else it will be too late to do any thing for their own preservation But as it is necessary for them to do this for themselves so they ought to do it much the rather for the sakes of their oppressed Brethren That by a timely asserting of their own Right they may also deliver them from the Evils they suffer at present and save them from that Destruction which is coming upon
them As it was just and necessary on those former Accounts so this makes it a pious Cause and therefore the more worthy of a true Christian Prince It has been judg'd so by them whose Names we have in great Veneration We have the Examples of our own Princes here in England in the best of Times since the Reformation These the Reader may sind collected to his hand in an excellent Book that hath been lately published But this may as well be shewn in the Example of them whom our Princes chose to follow as their Paterns namely of the Christians in Primitive Times and especially at the time of the first Nicene Council In these times we find that Constantine and Licinius having shar'd the Roman Empire between them had passed a Decree together at Milan for Christianity to be the Established Religion And when afterward Licinius in his part of the Empire would have oppress'd it contrary to Law for that cause Constantine the Great made War upon him and in prosecution of that War thrust him out of his Empire For which he was so far from being blamed by any Christian in those times even by those that had been Licinius's Subjects as most of those Bishops were that sate in the Nicene Council that they all gave him the highest Praises and Encomiums and blessed God that had sent them that happy Deliverance by his means Eusebius was Licinius's Subject and he afterwards writ the Life of Constantine the Great in which they that please may read whole Chapters to this purpose As that is a just War which is made upon just and sufficient Cause so the Effect of such a War being a Conquest is Just Conquest being the way by which a Kingdom or Dominion is taken from a Sovereign Prince against his Will and by which another Prince gets it into his Possession as often as this happens there arises a Question between the two Princes whether of them hath a Right to that Kingdom or Dominion For the deciding of this Question it must be by such a Law as is common to both the Parties whose Rights are to be judg'd by it That cannot be the Law of the Kingdom for tho the Prince that is disseiz'd was obliged by that Law while he was in possession yet now it seems he is not and it never was a Law to the Prince that is now in his place It must therefore be a Superior Law such as is common to all Sovereign Princes in their Affairs with one another and that as hath been already shewn is ordinarily the Law of Nations I say ordinarily because there is yet a Superior Law namely the Law of God whether written in our Hearts which we commonly call the Law of Nature or whether an express Revelation from God such as was sometimes given to Men in Ancient Times either of these may derogate from the Law of Nations For this being made up of Customs observ'd by Princes and States among themselves is always subject to the will of him that is Lord of lords and King of kings But whether or how far this may alter the case will be considered afterwards at present we are only to consider what Judgment can be made of it according to the Law of Nations By this it seems to be plain That the Right should go along with the compleat possession So as that wheresoever this is once settled whether by length of time or even sooner by a general Consent of the people there it ought to be presumed there is a Right at least there ought to be no farther Dispute of it There seems to be the same reason for this that there is for the Law of Nations it self for if that Law was ordained for the peace of mankind this quitting of possession must be a part of it for there can be no end of Wars otherwise p. 45 46 47 to 51. This appears by Jephtha's Speech to the King of Ammon that had Chemosh for his God Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before as them will we possess p. 51. It is by way of Conquest that God puts down one and sets up another For so the Babylonian Empire was put down by Cyrus who set up the Persian in its stead The Persian Empire was put down in their last King Darius and Alexander set up the Macedon in its stead The Macedon Kingdom was put down in their last King Perseus and the Roman was fet up in its stead All these Kingdoms were changed by Conquests that they made one upon another And so it was by those Conquests that God removed Kings and set up Kings p. 53. I do not say but they would have opposed the making of one of those Conquests namely that of Alexander the Great because King Darius was then living But when they saw they could not Oppose the Conquest being already made then Just or Unjust they submitted to it and having submitted they were subject without any more Controversie Therefore also Just and Religious Kings have reckoned their Conquests among the great things that God wrought by their means and accounted them as much their Subjects whom they had gain'd by the Sword as them that were born in their Dominions Therefore also God hath commanded his people to give Obedience to the Kings that came in by Conquest without any other Title Nay to such as were capable of no other for they were forbidden to set a stranger over them which was not their brother And yet they were Subjects to strangers such as Cushan Eglon and Jabin c. And in Zedekiah's time God commanded them upon pain of death to become the Subjects of Nebuchadnezzar who had made a full Conquest over them and held their lawful King Jeconiab then in Captivity This is plainly the Doctrine of that Convocation which sate in the beginning of King James I. his time and therefore it cannot but be very unjust to charge any Man with Singularity or Novelty that goes in the steps of so many and so great Authors p. 53 54 55. But some Learned and Judicious Men think That whereas an unjust Conquest happens through the Judgment of God for the punishing of a sinful Prince or Nation it doth not appear that he that is the Instrument of this acquires any Right by it more than those Pirates or Robbers who are instrumental likewise in the punishing of inferior Transgressors And if God gives no Right to him whom he sets up then it remains still in him whom he has put down So that he is rightful King still tho he is out of possession and the other is but an Usurper that is in possession In this case if the Usurper has no pretence of Right no prescription of Time no Consent of the people but only an unjust possession how a Subject ought to behave himself towards him even this is a Difficult Question in a most
Disobedience and wilful Rebellion but it is no-where said That where the Right of Sovereignty is transferred by a Successful War there is no Allegiance due to those who possess it p. 2. Ours is only the Case of Just War ☜ Apage nugas which is allowed by all sorts of Casuists who do agree that Allegiance is due to the Party that prevails in it and if it be due to one it cannot be due to another at the same time although he be living and do not discharge Persons from their Oaths for the obligation of Oaths depends on the nature and reason of things and not upon the Pleasure of those to whom they are made But where there is a Right to govern there must be a Duty of Allegiance And that Success in a Just War doth give such a Right What Right do you mean I could produce so many Testimonies of all kinds of Writers as would make the reading of them as tedious as of those in the History of Passive Obedience Nay some go so far as to assert a Right of Sovereignty to be acquired by success even in an Vnjust War So 't is as much as by a Just War But we need none of these Testimonies But doth not all this resolve this whole Controversie into a Right of Conquest 'T is not a pin-matter whether it does or no. which is not so much as pretended in our present Case * It 's a fine thing to be a Schollar I answer That we must distinguish between a Right to the Government and the Manner of Assuming it The Right was founded on the Just Causes of the War and the Success in it But the assuming of it was not by any ways of force or violence but by a Free Consent of the People who by a voluntary Recognition and Their Majesties acceptance of the Government as it is setled by our Laws take away any pretence * But not to an Ecclesiastical Whimsie of an imaginary Right by the Choice of God to a Conquest over the People or a Government by Force The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers c. THAT which has perplexed this Controversie is the intermixing the Dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience or making the Legal Right of Princes to their Thrones the only Reason and Foundation of the Allegiance of Subjects That Allegiance is due only to Right not to Government though it can be paid only to Government It seems to me to be unfit to dispute the Right of Princes a thing which no Government can permit to be a Question among their Subjects p. 1. And therefore I shall not meddle with this Dispute as being both above me and * Then you 'll say nothing to the purpose nothing to my present purpose Subjects have a plain Rule of Duty without understanding Laws and Politicks the Intrigues of Government the Revolutions of States the Disputes of Princes which I am sure is both for the security of Governments and Subjects If then Allegiance be due not for the sake of Legal Right but Government If Allegiance be due not to bare Legal Right but * That is to Glergy-mens Crockets to the Authority of of God If God when he sees fit and can better serve the ends of his Providence by it sets up Kings without any regard to Legal Right or Humane Laws p. 2. If Kings thus set up by God are invested with God's Authority which must be obey'd not only for wrath but also for conscience sake If these Principles be true it is plain That Subjects are bound to obey and to pay and swear Allegiance if it be required to those Princes whom God hath placed and settled in the Throne whatever Disputes there may be about their legal Right when they are invested with God's Authority And then it is plain That our old Allegiance and old Oaths are at an end when God has set over us a new King For when God transfers Kingdoms and requires our Obedience and Allegiance to a new King he necessarily transfers our Allegiance too This Scheme of Government may startle some men at first From you it will startle no man of common sense before they have well considered it p. 2 3. The Church of England has been very careful to instruct Her Children in their Duty to Princes to obey their Laws and submit to their power and not to resist tho very injuriously oppressed and those who renounce these Principles renounce the Doctrine of the Church of England But she has withal taught That all Sovereign Princes receive their Power and Authority from God and therefore every Prince who is setled in the Throne is to be obey'd and reverenced as God's Minister and to be resisted which directs us what to do in all Revolutions of Government when once they come to a Settlement and those who refuse to pay and swear Allegiance to such Princes whom God has placed in the Throne whatever then Legal Right be do as much reject the Doctrine of the Church of England as those who teach the Resistance of Princes For the proof of which I appeal to Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book p. 4. I know not how it was possible for the Convocation to express their sense plainer That all Usurped Powers when throughly settled have God's Authority and must be obey'd So that here are the Two great points determined whereon this whole Controversie turns 1. That those Princes who have no legal right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority 2. That when they are throughly settled in their Thrones they are invested with God's Authority and must be reverenced and obeyed by all who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People If these propositions be true it is a plain Resolution of the Case that if it should at any time happen that the rightful Prince should be driven out of his Kingdom and another Prince placed in his Throne and settled in the full Administration of Government Subjects not only may but must for Conscience sake and out of reverence to the Authority of God with which such a Prince is invested pay all the Duty and Allegiance of Subjects to him As for the first the Case is plain That the Convocation speaks of illegal and usurped Powers and yet affirms that the Authority exercised by them is God's Authority and therefore those Princes who have no legal right may have God's Authority p. 5. The Moabites and Aramites never could have a Legal Right to the Government of Israel What not by a Conquest and yet the Convocation asserts That when Israel was in subjection to them they knew that it was not lawful for them of themselves and by their own Authority to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were Prove they were Tyrants tho indeed they were Tyrants The like they teach of the Kings of Egypt and Babylon p. 6 There is no Duty Subjects as