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
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
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
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
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