cession of the Person in whom the Right was and this he says is the case In this Chapter the Convocation mentions several Variations of Government as to the Forms Aristocracy and Democracy and as to the ambitious encroaching of Kings upon their Neighbours and particularly the Four Monarchies and the King of Babylon upon the Jews All which respective Governments tho they were begun by Rebellion Ambition and unlawful means which the Convocation condemns yet afterwards they became lawful Governments and had such a right to the respective Governments they did possess and this is to be thoroughly setled To the death and cession of the person in whom the Right was he adds in another place when the right to the Government is acquired by prescription and that is a long and uninterrupted possession joyned with the consent of the people that is a possession of an hundred Years as he has learnt from Bishop Buckeridge So that to make a legal settlement of a Government illegally begun the rightful Prince and all his Heirs must die or resign up their Government to the Usurper or the Usurper and his Heirs must reign about an hundred Years and then he may come to be a legal King though this settlement by prescription I do not well understand For suppose the Usurper should have an uninterrupted possession of an hundred Years will this make him a rightful King without the death or cession of the whole Royal Family If it will how does the Royal Family come to lose their right by an usurped possession of their Throne for how long soever it has been it is an usurpation still and the right is still in them and if an usurpation will destroy their right why not a short usurpation as well as a long one for it is all but usurpation still and how will our Author justifie the people in consenting that such an usurper should reign while their rightful King is living or how long must the usurper reign before the people must consent to it and how long must he reign afterwards with their consent before he comes to be thoroughly setled as a lawful King or if the lawful King must die or resign his Crown to settle the usurper what need of so long a prescription since he tells us that a possessory Right is something and where there is no better that ought to carry it and the conclusion from hence is this That any person by what means soever gaining the possession of the Throne if there be no better claims against him then he hath a right to it and then and not till then he is throughly setled So that according to my understanding this presciption signifies nothing If there be no body that has a better claim to the Crown possession gives a right if there be I desire to know of our Author whether an hundred years possession is a good right against a better claim or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred years usurpation But however we will take it all together and see what can he made of it Now I observe 1. That all the Convocation says relates to the visible and actual alterations of Governments and Governours and translation of Kingdoms brought about by the wickedness of men but disposed by the divine foresight and providence to accomplish his own wise counsels Now this is matter of fact not of right unless all alterations of Government are rightful and legal and therefore the settlement of such alteratious is an actual not a legal settlement of them And this brings the Dispute to matter of sense for if such alterations of Government and translation of Kingdoms may he made and setled without the death or cession of the rightful King and without the prescription of an hundred years then the death or cession of the King or a long prescription cannot be necessary to the settlement the Convocation speaks of for there may be an actual and visible settlement without it which is all that is required to an actual and visible translation of Kingdoms and that is all the Convocation intended And he who will venture to say that a new Prince can't be actually and visibly setled in the Throne while the old rightful King is living and makes his claim shall dispute by himself for me 2ly The Convocation expresly teaches that the Authority which is God's Authority and must be reverenced and obeyed when such Alterations are throughly setled is the Authority which is unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor and then 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 God's 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 The words are these 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. Now let any man who understands Grammar construe this otherwise if he can What Authority is that which must be obeyed and reverenced It is says the Convocation the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor and therefore not a new legal Authority gained by death or cession or a long prescription What is God's Authority which we must obey It is no other than the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force c. which can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it By what wickedness their wicked and ungodly and violent means of getting and having it for the Convocation speaks of no other wickedness but the wickedness of Usurpation so that we must obey the Authority because it is Gods even when men have it wickedly and therefore before they have acquired any new legal Title to it And this I think plainly proves that the settlement the Convocation speaks of is not a legal settlement for that would make the Authority legal whereas these Alterations may be throughly setled whilest the Authority exercised in such new Governments is unjustly and wickedly got and possessed This I think if our Author be not very unreasonable is enough to justifie my first Assertion That the Convocation speaks of illegal and usurped Powers and yet affirms the Authority exercised by them is God's Authority and therefore those Princes who have no legal Right may have God's Authority I proceeded to prove the same thing from other testimonies out of the Convocation Book For they teach that the Lord in advancing Kings to their Thrones is not bound by those Laws which he prescribeth others to observe and therefore commanded Iehu a subject to be anointed King over Israel to punish the sins of Ahab and
reason of it which they thought visible enough in the force he was under But I will take no advantage of this if he will but remember it when we come to the Case of Iehoiada and Athaliah But the Answer to all this is plain For as Iosephus tells the Story Iaddus never questioned whether it were lawful for him to submit to Alexander when he was coming with a great Force to Ierusalem but his care was how he might atone for his former contumacy by an early submission and the Prayers and Sacrifices he commanded the People to offer were not to beg God's direction whether he should submit to Alexander or not for that he was determined to do but that God would be favourable to his People and deliver them from the imminent danger they were in from a provoked Conquerour and when God is said to appear to him in his Dream he answered no question about the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander but directed him how to do it in such a manner as should prevent the threatned danger that he should appear in his Pontificial Attire in which it seems God himself had formerly appeared to Alexander and promised him success over the Persians by which Alexander knew that he was the Priest of that God to whom he owed his Victories and this made him worship the High Priest and shew all kindness to the Iewish Nation So that Iaddus had no Revelation of the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander nor have we need of any but we have the Judgment of the Convocation upon this which they intended as a common and standing Rule But the great instance our Author depends on and doubts not to carry the Cause by it is the Case of Ioash and Athaliah The Story as it is related by the Convocation is this After the death of Abaziah King of Iudah his Mother Athaliah finding his Children all to be very young kill'd them all but the youngest and reigned by Usurpation six Years over the Land The said youngest Child whose name was Ioash was secretly conveyed away by his Aunt Iehosabeth his Father's Sister and Wife to Iehoiada the High-Priest who kept him so secretly in the Temple as that Athaliah the Usurper could never hear of him Now after the said six Years that Ioash the true and natural Heir apparent to the Crown had been so brought up he the said Iehoiada being the King's Uncle and the chief Head or Prince of his Tribe sent through Iudah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Iudah and Benjamin to come unto him to Ierusalem who accordingly repairing thither and being made acquainted by him with the Preservation of their Prince as is aforesaid and that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them they altogether by a Covenant acknowledged their Allegiance unto him as unto their lawful King and so disposed of things as presently after he was Crowned and Anointed which dutiful Office of Subjects being performed they apprehended the Usurper Athaliah and shew her as before it was by the said States resolved In all the Process of which Action nothing was done either by Iehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes or People of Iudah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Ioash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom This is the Story and their Canon upon it is this If any Man therefore shall affirm either that Athaliah did well in murthering her Son's Children or that Jehoiada and his Wife did amiss in preserving the life of their King Joash or that Athaliah was not a Tyrannical Usurper the right Heir of that Kingdom being alive or that it was neither lawful for Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes and Levites and People to have yielded their Subjection to their lawful King nor having so done and their King being in Possession of his Crown to have joyned together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper or that Jehoiada the High-Priest was not bound as he was a Priest both to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's Promise that Joash should Reign over them and likewise Anoint him or that this Fact either of the Princes Priests or People was to be held for a lawful Warrant for any afterward either Princes Priests or People to have deposed any of the Kings of Judah who by right of Succession came to their Crowns or to have killed them for any respect whatsoever and to have set another in their places according to their own Choice or that either this Example of Jehoiada or any thing else in the Old Testament did give then to the High-Priest any Authority to Dispute Determine or Iudge whether the Children of the Kings of Judah should either be kept from the Crown because their Fathers were Idolators or being in Possession of it should be deposed from it in that respect or in any other respect whatsoever he doth greatly err I have transcribed this because we must have a little dispute about it and it was fitting the Reader should have both the Story and the Canon before him Our Author ' s Argument from this Story is this It is plain the Convocation does not conceive that the Enjoyment of the Crown with all its Dignities c. is that thorough Settlement to which is due Subjection and Obedience as to God's Authority Athaliah personally enjoyed the Crown with all its Dignities c. and all Places of Trust and Power c. were in her hands and at her disposal and this also for no less a time than six Years and in as full and ample a manner as any Usurper or any rightful King ever enjoyed them but for all that the Convocation is so far from urging Obedience to her as to God's Authority that they expresly justifie the resisting nay the slaying her And this is a clear Demonstration that by a thorough Settlement the Convocation does not mean a full Possession of Power meerly for they say when a Government is fully settled it ought to be obeyed as God's Authority not only for Fear but for Conscience sake But they say also that when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain And the Conclusion from these Premises is That to be fully possessed of the Throne is not of it self to be so throughly settled as to make it God's Authority and Obedience to become a Duty Now it were sufficient here to observe that he has not given the true Notion of a full and settled Possession for he has left out the principal part of it as I state it viz. When the Estates of the Realm and the Great Body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Which in the Case of Antiochus is one thing the Convocation expresly makes necessary to a thorough Settlement The Government
Jezebel p. 46. And the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires These Passages our Author has thought fit to take no notice of for if they do not prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no right and place them in the Thrones of those who have the right there is no sense to be made of them Our Author's hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it for if no Prince can have God's Authority nor must be obeyed unless he have a legal Right either an old Hereditary Right or a new Acquired Right by the death or cession of the Royal Family or by a long prescription then God is bound to those Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribes to others that is to adhere to Humane Rights then God may not overthrow any Kings or Emperors who challenge their Countries Kingdoms or Empires by any just Claim Right Title or Interest Then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just right and claim For he cannot unmake a rightful King if he cannot absolve Subjects from their Allegiance nor make a King without a legal Right if he cannot give him his Authority and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects to him God can remove the Man by death but cannot unmake the King unless he unmake himselfe by resigning his Crown He can set a Man upon the Throne but cannot make a King of him without the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription Whereever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure this Convocation never taught it him To confirm this I observed that the Convocation teaches that Obedience was due to such Kings as never could have any legal Right to the Government of Israel as the Kings of the Moabites and Aramites of Aegypt and Babylon and yet says that the Israelites 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 though indeed they were Tyrants And that it had not been lawful for Ahud to have killed King Eglon had he not first been made by God the Iudge Prince and Ruler of the People On the other hand our Author affirms that all these Kings had a legal Right and were legal Powers and that it appears in all and every one of the Instances the Convocation gives of Government to which they say obedience is due that these Governments had such a Right This is a bold Undertaker unless he only play with equivocal words and that I believe is the truth of the matter for such legal Rights as he has found for these Princes will quickly transubstantiate all usurped Powers into legal Governments But our first Inquiry is What the Convocation thought of these Kings as for instance the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites who ruled over and oppressed Israel whether they thought them the legal and rightful Kings of Israel they call indeed the Israelites their Subjects as our Author observes and from thence proves that these Kings had a legal power over Israel but the mischief is that the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any man shall affirm that any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments which Wit or Learning could devise that God had called him to murther the King de facto under whom he lived yea though he should first have procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did and should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master ought therefore to be believed of any that feared God he doth greatly err Which is spoke with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de Facto in the judgment of the Convocation and I suppose our Author knows what a King de Facto signifies in opposition to a King de Iure one who is King without a legal Right and yet the Convocation asserts that such Kings de Facto must not be murdered by their Subjects which is an express Determination against our Author Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author has found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies which were successively Erected with the most manifest Violence and Usurpation And that is the Submission both of Prince and People which he says I grant gives a legal Right whereas I only said That the Submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so The truth is our Author is here blunder'd for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous Terms which if they were truly stated would clear all these Difficulties Legal Powers signifie such Powers as are according to Law but then there are different kinds of Laws and when we speak of legal Powers unless we agree by what Law we call them Legal we shall never understand one another Now we may understand Legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Laws of Nations or the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation or Kingdom and in this last sence Legal is understood by all Men who understand themselves in this Controversie of legal Powers that those only are legal Powers who have the rightful Authority of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom which they govern This is the reason of the Distinction between a King de Iure and de Facto which relates to the particular Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom a King de Iure is a rightful King by the Laws of the Land a King de Facto whatever other Right he may have is not rightfully and lawfully possessed of the Crown by the Laws of Succession proper to that Kingdom And if our Author will take the Controversie off of this Bottom and dispute only about legal Powers in general we will then admit his Plea of Submission and joyn issue with him upon that Point And this is all the Mystery I intended when I affirmed that the Moabites and Aramites Aegyptians and Babylonians could not have a legal and natural Right to Govern Israel that is that by the Constitutions of the Iewish Commonwealth they could not give the Power of the Government to a Stranger nor set up a Prince over them who was not of their Brethren and therefore no Strangers neither Aramites nor Moabites could be their legal Kings As for their Submission when under Force it shall be considered presently This made me smile to see how he was concerned to ward off a Blow which was
no means allow that the Providence of God can make a King against the Laws of the Land can remove a rightful King and set up a King without a legal Title at least not without the death or cession of the rightful King or a hundred years Prescription but to say that the Providence of God gives his Authority to a King de facto who is setled in the Throne this is an impious Doctrine So that had I left out Providence I might have had fairer quarter on all hands though in effect the thing had been the same and I had taught the same thing viz. that when a rightful King is dispossessed Subjects may own and submit to the King who is setled in the possession of the Throne which is all I undertook to prove Had I only said that Conquest in a just War by the Law of Nations gives a Right to the Conqueror though the former King be alive and has made his Escape Had I only said that unjust Force and Violence makes it lawful for Subjects to submit when the Prince cannot protect them and such Submission and Consent of the People settles a Prince in the Kingdom I might have escaped very well as others have done Or had I only said that the Laws of the Land allow and require Subjects to pay Allegiance to a King de facto in possession of the Crown most of our Non-swearers themselves would have allow'd this a good Plea could I have persuaded them it was true for the Laws of the Land they must allow to be the rules and measures of our Allegiance But now to add that God by all these ways and means makes Kings and settles them on their Thrones and gives his Authority to them this spoils all and is an impious Doctrine that is any of these waies will make very good Kings without God but it is a very wicked thing to say that God makes them Kings or gives his Authority to them For it is a dangerous thing to allow that God makes Kings or that Kings have his Authority or that the Providence of God does not barely permit but Govern all the Changes and Revolutions of the World But I had learnt from Scripture and B. Overal ' s Convocation Book proves that those learned Men were of the same mind that Kings are made only by God and that it is God's Authority which makes them Kings and therefore I could not think it enough to say by what visible means Princes are advanced to the Throne without adding that the Providence of God by these means settles them in the Throne and gives his Authority to them on which the true resolution of Conscience depends in all such Revolutions And if this be my only fault that I assert the Right and Prerogative of God in making Kings and the Wisdom and government of Providence in all the Revolutions of States and Empires I am contented to suffer obloquy and reproach for maintaining such Impious Doctrines Our Author in his Answer has another Argument to prove that we misrepresent the Sense of the Convocation which he has thought fit to leave out in his Postscript viz. That the Interpretation we give of it is inconsistent with the main and Fundamental Doctrines of the Convocation Book viz. Passive Obedience and Non-resistance But if the Convocation taught both as they certainly did it is a sign that whatever our Author thinks or whatever he can prove the Convocation did not apprehend any inconsistency between them I observed in the Case that the Doctrine of Obedience and Allegiance to the Present Powers is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience viz. That God makes Kings and Invests them with his Authority which equally proves that all Kings who have received a Sovereign Authority from God must be Obeyed and must not be Resisted And therefore all setled Governments as the Convocation asserts having their Authority from God must be obeyed for the same reason for which we must not resist Sovereign Princes viz. because they have their Authority from God but this our Author thought fit to pass over For it is a plain Case that Non-resistance and Passive Obedience can be due only to him who is our King and if God can remove one King and set up another Non-resistance must be Due not to the King whom God has pulled down but to the King whom God has set up and therefore he may harangue as long as he pleases upon this Argument to no purpose unless he can prove that God hath not pulled down one King and set up another His next Argument against this Interpretation of the Convocation Book is this That it reproaches the Virtue and Loyalty of those admirable Men who Suffered between the Years 42. and 60. And therefore this cannot be the Sense of the Convocation for no doubt the Convocation in 603. had great regard to the Loyalty of those who Suffered between 42. and 60 by a Spirit of Prophesie I suppose And here our Author grows very angry both in his Answer and Postscript and gives many hard and spightful Words to his Adversaries but be that to himself I am resolved not to be angry This I answered at large in the Case of Allegiance p. 46. c. and shall now take a brief review of it I said it is a great Prejudice but no Argument for if these Principles be true and according to these Principles they might have complied with those Usurpations that they did not is no confutation of the Principles He answers I thought an Argument from Example had been an Argument though not always a very good one Right but Example is only a Prejudice not an Argument against plain Reasons which cannot otherwise be answered let Reasons be first answered and then when there is no Reason against a thing the Examples of great and wise Men without any other Reason carry some Authority with them especially when we have other good Reasons for doing any thing Example gives some new strength to them and thus the Example of Iaddus may be an Argument when other Examples are none though he knows the Example of Iaddus was alledged by me only to prove the sense of the Convocation and how Iaddus himself understood his Oath of Allegiance to Darius which is a very different Case from what he urges But to let pass his transport of Zeal and to forgive the froth and folly of it when he urges the Examples of these great Men there are many things he ought to have considered As 1. He should have considered whom he reproach'd in all this as well as whom he commended He reproaches all those who in those times of Confusion submitted to the Usurped Powers and lived quietly and peaceably under them and yet the King found a great many true Friends and Loyal Persons at his return among those Men He reproaches all those Loyal Persons both of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy
Imprimatur Jan. 14. 1690 1. Z. Isham R.P.D. Henrico Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris A VINDICATION OF THE Case of Allegiance DUE TO Soveraign Powers In REPLY to an ANSWER To a late Pamphlet Intituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government demonstrated from Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book with a Postscript in Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance c. By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1691. A VINDICATION OF THE Late CASE OF ALLEGIANCE c. IN a Postscript to an Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government demonstrated from Bishop Overal ' s Convocation Book the Author is pleased to Examine what I have said relating to the said Subject in my Case of Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers He writes with great triumph and assurance which it seems Men may do who are resolved never to own a Mistake though he thinks it unpardonable in me who have been so weak as to confess that I am not Infallible ever to believe my own Senses again He threatens an Answer to my Arguments in due Time and I will patiently expect till his due Time comes and apply myself at present to his Postscript and Answer as far as I am concerned in it but shall beg leave to follow my own Method and justifie what I have said in the same Order I have said it in his altering of which has more Art than Honesty in it The Mighty Place as he truly calls it is Chap. 28. Pag. 57. where the Convocation having given an Account of the Various and Irregular Revolutions of Government brought about by the Providence of GOD who for the Sins of any Nation or Country altereth their Governments and Governours transferreth setteth up and bestoweth Kingdoms as it seemeth best to his heavenly Wisdom they add these remarkable Words And when 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 Soveraigns they have established any of the same degenerate Forms of Government among 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 settled to be Reverenced and Obeyed and the People of all sorts as well of the Clergy as of the Laity are to be subject unto it not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake This I then thought and think so still though our Author thinks not a very plain Testimony that all Usurped Powers when throughly settled have GOD's Authority and must be Obeyed And while I was transcribing this Passage there came to my hand the New Observator of Friday Dec. 5 1690 Vol. 3. Numb 12. containing a Letter written by King Iames the First with relation to this very Convocation which he says he transcribed Verbatim from the Original communicated to him by an eminent Person in whose hands it is the four last Lines of which are written with King Iames's own hand and the rest as he guesses by the then Secretary of State The Letter was written to Dr. Abbot I shall not transcribe the whole but such Passages as may satisfie us how King Iames himself understood the Convocation You have dipt too deep in what all Kings reserve among the Arcana Imperii And whatever Aversion you may profess against GOD's being the Author of Sin you have stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the matter That even Tyranny is GOD's Authority and should be reverenced as such If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom you leave me to seek for others to Fight for it for you tell me upon the matter before hand his Authority is GOD's Authority if he prevail This makes so much for our Author indeed that King Iames did not like the Doctrine of the Convocation no more than he does but then it proves against him that K. Iames understood the Convocation not in his but in my Sence For when he charges them with saying upon the Matter that is in sence tho' not in express words that Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenced as such it is the very Interpretation I there give of it That those Princes who have no legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority for by Tyranny the King meant such Princes as are Tyranni sine Titulo or Illegal Kings for as for Tyrants Exercitio who are Rightful Kings but govern Tyrannically neither K. Iames nor this Author would dispute whether they have God's Authority And if they may have God's Authority whilst they are in the first sence Tyrants or have no legal Right to their Thrones then their Government may be thoroughly settled as the Convocation speaks without a legal Right for till a thorough Settlement according to the Doctrine of the Convocation they have not God's Authority and when the King charges them with saying upon the matter That Tyranny is God's Authority he must conclude that they taught that such Tyrants might be throughly settled in their Government for if they cannot be settled till they obtain a legal Title they must cease to be such Tyrants before they have God's Authority And it is evident that K. Iames did not apprehend that the Convocation meant by a thorough Settlement as this Author expounds it a Settlement by the Death or Cession of the rightful King and all his Heirs or by a long Prescription of an hundred Years of which more presently for he was afraid that by this Doctrine the King of Spain should he claim by his Pontifical Right and prevail in it might while he himself lived be so thoroughly setled in the Kingdom of England as to have God's Authority and then his Subjects must not Fight for him their old rightful King against the King of Spain who by a thorough Settlement and Possession of the Throne of England would be invested with God's Authority and must not be opposed by the Subjects of England The King disliked this Doctrine so much that he thought fit to suppress it and to reserve it among the Arcana Imperii which was a much wiser course then to palliate it with such forced Interpretations as no impartial Reader can think to be the sence of the Convocation If I have mistaken the sence of the Convocation I have done no more then King Iames did who was nearly concerned to know what they meant if I err in following the Convocation I err with as great and learned Men as any Age of the Church has bred I err with the Church of England if we may learn the Sence of the Church from a Convocation But let us set aside the King's Letter and try if we
the right Heir was alive and therefore much more where God himself was their King as if God were not the King of Israel when he set Kings over them and then surely they might lawfully resist these Kings whose Subjects they were not nor could be and they needed no especial Commission or Direction to destroy the Usurpers as Ahud did Eglon but they might nay they were bound to do it as Jehoiada slew Athaliah For I hope God s Entail is not of greater force than his own immediate Government So that either their submission transferred a legal Right or else their submission was a sin This looks like something very deep but it is so very a nothing that I cannot devise what he would be at Would he prove that God was not the King of Israel against the Scriptures who say he was Or would he prove that the Israelites ought not to have submitted to the Moabites but have had all their Throats cut by a vain opposition Or would he prove against the Convocation that they were not the Subjects of King Eglon but any Israelite might have killed him without any such Commission from God as Ahud had Whatever he intends to prove if he knows that himself yet as far as I am concerned it is no more but this That while the Israelites were under no Forreign Force but had liberty to live by their own Laws they were bound to make him their Prince on whom God had entailed the Crown while they were under Force they might do as they could and submit to the Conqueror which submission could not give those Usurpers a Legal Right according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Iewish Common-wealth but according to the Laws of Nature which allow submission unto a Conquerour it did Now if the Laws of Nature when we are under the Protection of no Government allow us to submit to Force and Power then call it Conquest or what you will when I am under no Protection and under Force I am at liberty to submit whatever my former Obligations were and I become as firmly and entirely bound to such a new Power as ever I was to the most Legal Prince Thus far the Laws of Nature go towards making a Legal King and this is confirmed by the Laws of Nations which are nothing else but received Customs and Usages agreeable to the Laws of Nature and right Reason Now though different Nations have different Laws of Succession to the Crown yet they seem all to agree in this That he is the King who is in possession of the Throne with the consent and submission of the People The consent and submission of the People turn that which was originally no more but Force into a Civil and Legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince By this means Kingdoms and Empires are transferred and Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedent Right When God intends to pull down one King and set up another he gives success to the rising Prince puts the Nation into his hands and so orders it that by Force and Power or other Arts he obtains their consent and submission and then he is their King and is invested with God's Authority especially when he is visibly setled in the Throne by the united strength and power of the Kingdom Upon these terms I suppose our Author and I may very well agree that the Convocation does allow such Governments as were begun by wicked means when they are throughly setled to become legal and rightful Powers not by the Laws of the Land but by the consent and submission of the People and the Authority of God wherewith they are invested This I owned before that the distinction between Kings de Iure and de Facto related only to the Laws of the Land for upon other accounts those Kings who are set up by God and have his Authority are rightful Kings that is so rightful that our Obedience is due to them But this is all shuffling and playing with words for the single Question is Whether the Convocation by throughly setled means that such Governments as are begun by Usurpation or Rebellion or other wicked means cannot be throughly setled till they acquire a legal Right by the Laws of the Land which he says must be by the death or cession of the rightful King or by a long Prescription now this I say the Convocation could not mean as appears by the Instances they give of such Powers For the Aramites and Moabites could never by the Constitution of the Iewish Commonwealth be the legal and rightful Kings of Israel and a Common-wealth where there is a perpetual Succession of Persons in whom the ordinary Power resides can never die nor lose their claim to that Power which is given them by God though they might submit when under Force so that here was neither Death nor Cession and they were far from having such a Prescription as our Author makes necessary to give such Powers a Legal Right and this answers all his other instances where he argues only from the term lawful Now if submission in such Cases will give a Right to our Obedience in contradiction to the Laws of the Land that which justified the submission of Israel will justifie the submission of any other People to a prevailing Power and will give such Powers as good a Right as the Aramites and Moabites could challenge to Israel All that can be said here I think is this That by submission which gives a legal Right our Author means the submission and acknowledgment of those in whom the Right is That is to say the submission of the People does not give a legal Right but the submission of the King does 1. But for answer to this in the first place I desire to know what submission of the King it is that gives a legal Right Is swearing Allegiance a submission and acknowledgment What became then of the Right of the House of York when the Duke of York swore Allegiance to Henry IV. is yielding to Force and Power quitting the Administration of the Government and leaving the Throne tho' with an intention to recover it again when he can a submission If it be does not a King so far submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince Is not this as much a submission as if he had stayed at home and laid aside his Crown and submitted to a private Life without renouncing his Right and future Claim but if nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power I desire to know how our Author will prove that the Israelites thus submitted to the Aramites and Moabites Or what other submission they made but a bare yielding to Force and Power What other submission did the King and Princes and People of Iudah make to the
when the Government is setled by such submission then submission which necessity justified before becomes a Duty and those who would not submit at first or might have refused to do so without sin when the Government is setled by a general submission are then bound in Conscience to submit themselves The Question then between us is or ought to be this if he intends to oppose me Not whether the Iews might lawfully submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne for this I grant they might lawfully do but whether they having sosubmitted and she being thoroughly setled in her Throne for that our Author will suppose it were not as unlawful upon my Principles for the Iews to set up Ioash and to kill Athaliah as it is for any other People to Depose and Murther a King de facto whose Government is throughly setled among them And here he takes notice of two Arguments I make use of the Argument from Providence and from the necessity of Government for the preservation of human Societies which he says will equally serve Athaliah as any other King or Queen de facto and if they will I will give them up for lost 1. As for Providence the sum of all he says is this That according to my Principles Athaliah was placed in the Throne by God by his Counsel Decree and Order and peculiar Order Well! I must own it for I know none but God who can advance to the Throne and I know no more hurt in owning that God exalted Athaliah to the Throne than that he exalted Baasha who slew Nadab the Son of Ieroboam and Reigned in his stead and yet God himself by his Prophet tells Baasha I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my people Israel 1 Kings 16. 2. And what does he prove from this Now Athaliah says he had the actual administration of Soveraign Power and therefore according to the Doctor she was Queen by God's Authority tho' not by the Law of the Land and Allegiance must be due to her as well as to any other And all the Doctor 's Arguments are as conclusive and valid for submission to Athaliah as for submission to any body else Grant all this and what then Why then this justifies the submission of the Iews to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and no rightful Heir appeared And what hurt is there in this Will our Author condemn them for this submission or does the Scripture or Convocation do it If he would have concluded any thing to the purpose he should have said And therefore it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah But this he knew did not follow from my Principles for I expresly distinguish between God's making Kings by a particular nomination as he made Kings in Jewry and entailed the Kingdom of Judah on David ' s Posterity and his making Kings by his Providence as he does in other Nations Now what I say about the Rights and Prerogatives of Kings advanced to the Throne and setled there by the Divine Providence concerns only such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence not such Kingdoms where God ordinarily makes Kings by a particular nomination of the Person or by a Divine entail which is equivalent to a particular nomination For this greatly alters the Case To make this plain let us consider the state of the Kingdom of Iudah and of the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes were divided from the House of David God first made Kings by an express nomination of the Persons as he did Soul and David and afterwards entailed the Kingdom on David's Posterity when the Ten Tribes were divided from Iudah he still reserved to himself the Prerogative of nominating their Kings when he pleased but yet he did not so strictly confine himself to nominate whom he would have to be King or to an entail of his own making but that he sometimes set up Kings by his Providence without a particular nomination or any successive right as he did in other Nations let us then consider what the right of these providential Kings was in Iudah and Israel Now these Kings when they were setled in their Thrones had all the rights of other Soveraign Princes of Iudah or Israel excepting this that they were liable to be divested of their Kingdom by God's nomination of a new King or by the revival of an old Entail When God nominated any King and gave command to his Prophets to anoint him it was always for life and tho' during his Life he might nominate another to succeed him after his death as he did David to succeed Saul yet he never nominated another to take his Life and his Crown from him and when he had made a perpetual Entail tho' he might for a time interrupt the Succession he did not cut it off but it was otherwise with meer providential Kings as it must necessarily be in such Kingdoms which were under the immediate disposal and nomination of God A new nomination or the appearing of the right Heir put an end to their Reign As for example Ieroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by God's nomination and Reigned as long as he lived but for his sins God would not entail the Kingdom on his Family but Baasha slew his Son Nadab and succeeded in the Kingdom and was the first providential King of Israel without a Divine nomination or entail Elah Baasha's Son was slain by Zimri and the Children of Israel without any Divine appointment made Omri King Ahab his Son succeeded Omri and Ioram Ahab who were all advanced by the Divine Providence without God's nomination but now their sins being very provoking God commands his Prophet to anoint Iehu King over Israel to destroy the Family of Ahab and Iehu as soon as he was anointed immediately takes possession of the Kingdom kills Ioram and destroys the House of Ahab For tho' Ioram was advanced by the Providence of God and was the third successive King of his Family and therefore had a good right against all human claims yet he could have no unalterable right in the Kingdom of Israel because that Kingdom was at God's immediate disposal when ever he pleased to nominate a King And this is the Reason of the different behaviour of David and Iehu David was anointed as well as Iehu but he never pretended to the Crown while Saul lived because there was then an anointed King on the Throne But this was not Ioram's case He had no more than a Providential Right which in the Kingdom of Israel must give place to God's anointing and therefore Iehu was King of Israel as soon as he was anointed and Ioram was his Subject And this was Athaliah's case She took possession of the Throne by very wicked means but must be allowed to be placed there by the Providence of God and if she had as thorow a settlement as other
Providence and Government signifie only his Permission that God looks on and sees Men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is the universal Lord of the World never gave them To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such vast Consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World But it is objected that to say that Prosperous Usurpers when they are setled in the Throne are placed there by God and have his Authority is to make God a Party to their Wickedness Now this is another Argument not merely against God's making Kings but in general against God's Providence and Government of the World for if God cannot direct and over-rule the Wickedness of Men to accomplish his own Wise Counsels and Purposes without being the Author of those Sins whereby such Events are brought to pass there is an end of the Providence of God or of his Holiness and Justice for the most glorious designs of God's Grace and Providence have been accomplished by very wicked means even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself But to confine my self to our present Case of transferring Kingdoms and Empires as it was in the four Monarchies It is possible this may sometimes be done by very honest means but it is commonly done by great Injustice and Violence in Men and yet God very just and righteous in doing it No Man I suppose will deny but that God as the Supreme Lord and Sovereign of the World may give the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases without doing Injustice to any Prince who can have no Right but by his Gift No Man will deny but that God may be very just and righteous in removing some Princes from their Thrones and in setting up others And then the Translation of Kingdoms the pulling down one Prince and setting up another is no act of Injustice with God but is his Prerogative as the King of Kings and when it is done for wise and holy and just Reasons as we ought always to presume of what God does is a plain Demonstration of the Wisdom and Holiness and Justice of his Providence The only dispute then can be about God's bringing such Events to pass by the Wickedness of Men and what hurt is there in this if God can so over-rule the Ambition of Princes or the Faction and Rebellion of Subjects as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts which God for wise and holy Reasons thinks fit to have done It cannot be denied but that God does permit Men to do very wickedly and if he can permit the Wickedness of Men without being guilty of their Sins I hope to direct and over-rule their Wickedness to wise purposes to bring Good out of Evil and Order out of Confusion can be no blemish to Providence indeed I should be much puzzled to justifie the Divine Providence in permitting the Sins of Men especially such Sins as do great mischief to the World were I not very well satisfied that God over-rules all to wise and good Ends. Let us suppose an Ambitious Prince spurred on with Fame and Glory to grasp at an Universal Empire our Author will not say but that God may permit this Man to ravage and depopulate Countries to pull Princes from their Thrones and to bring their Kingdoms into Subjection to himself such Men there are in all Ages did not God think fit to restrain them and to fling Difficulties in their ways to make them tame and quiet Now I would ask any Man which most becomes the Divine Wisdom to suffer such Men when they please to overturn Kingdoms and to bring horrible Desolations on the World only to gratifie their own Lusts or to give the Reigns and to give prosperous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World to pull down such a Prince or to chastise and correct such a Nation I am sure this much more becomes the Wisdom and Justice of Providence than a bare permission of such Violence without any farther design which does not become the Wise Governor of the World And if God may permit such Wickedness and Violence without contributing to their Sin or being a Party to their Wickedness much more may he over-rule their Wickedness for wise Ends make them the Executioners of his Justice in punishing a wicked Age and transferring Kingdoms and then why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them for I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to a violent Usurper as to suffer a wicked impious tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title and yet this God often does witness many of the Roman Emperors whom I know our Author will have to be legal Princes and those who will not allow them to be legal Princes need not want Examples of this nature in Hereditary Kingdoms But our Author says that to own an Usurper who is setled in the Throne by Providence and to obey and submit to him as our King justifies an unreasonable and wicked Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice as for his Right and Iustice it has been considered already let us now consider how far the Providence of God may be the Rule for practice It is indeed an impious Doctrine to justifie every Action and every Cause which has success God many times prospers very evil Designs when he can serve a good End by them and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success to conclude that is God's Cause which the Providence of God prospers confounds the difference of good and evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice but yet it is so far from being an impious Doctrine that it is a necessary Duty to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those Duties and Obligations which the Providence of God lays on us according to the Nature and Intention of the Providence and thus the Providence of God in some sense may be the Rule of our Practice and may make that our Duty which was not and that cease to be our Duty which was our Duty before and thus it always is when the Providence of God changes our Relations or Condition of Life as to mention only our present Case when he removes one King and sets up another for he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King The truth is as far as I can perceive the great if not the only fault of my Case of Allegiance is this unreasonable and impious Doctrine of Providence for some Men cannot endure to hear that God makes Kings by his Providence for that argues there is a God others cannot bear the thoughts that Kings Reign by God's Authority for then they cannot make and unmake Kings as they please others will by