People have God's Authority and then rebellious Subjects and ambitious Princes who overturn a lawful Government by Force have God's Authority for it for in respect to that Force and Violence he affirms that Governments are destroy'd and set up by God Thus in the transport of his Anger the Doctor forgets his own Principles and the Convocation's 2. Suppose those Passages do relate to Usurpers and to the very Force and Violence by which Empires are overturn'd How does it appear that God's setting up Kings and giving of Kingdoms must be expounded of God's positive and not of his permissive Will of his giving of Authority and not of his concession of Power whereby Rebels and Usurping Princes are enabled to accomplish their wicked Enterprizes If those Passages relate to the very Revolutions of Governments and the wicked Force and Violence by which Usurpers are advanc'd then certainly they must be understood of God's permissive Providence unless we will make God the Author and Abettor of the highest Wickedness and Injustice The Doctor will not affirm that those Passages do prove that Usurpers are set up by God when they are making their way to the Throne nor when they actually place themselves in it for till they are settled in it by consent he himself does allow that they have not God's Authority and yet they will prove this if they prove any thing for Usurpers for they limit not God's setting up to Consent and Settlement they make no difference between Kings in sieri and in facto esse between their ascending to the Throne their fitting and their settlement in it they intimate that all the Gradations and Steps of such Revolutions are alike from God that he bringeth about the whole Change and that the Invasions and Rebellions by which Kings are removed are as much from him as the Advancement of a new King to the Throne and his Establishment in it And therefore if they prove that Usurpers have God's Authority they prove it for Rebels and Invaders also But perhaps the four Monarchies which we supose to be Usurpations were set up by God's Authority because they were set up by the Decree and Counsel of God and foretold by a prophetick Spirit I have observ'd before that some of God's Decrees are permissive and such are his Decrees about wicked Events among which I reckon unjust Violence and Usurpations But they were foretold by a prophetick Spirit And what then Have Usurpers therefore God's Authority because God who is omniscient and sees future things as present does behold them committing Wickedness and foretels it by a Prophet or is God's Prescience a Conveyance of his Authority Among other Changes and Revolutions foretold by Daniel in the Judgment of very learned Men the setting up of Antichrist is predicted and that under the name of a King Dan. 11. 36 37 38 39. and I see no Reason why the setting up of this King may not as well be asscribed to God's Decree and Counsel as any other King in Daniel However it is said expresly of the Beast in the 13th of Revelations which is supposed to be the Antichrist that Power was given him over all Kindreds Tongues and Nations Here we have his Commission for an universal Empire And Power was given him to continue forty two Months Here is a Settlement for a long Tract of Time And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him Here is the Consent and Submission of the People to establish him and if this King has not God's Authority upon the Doctour's Principles and by virtue of as express words of Scripture as any he produces for Usurpers I wonder who can have it Let us know whether this Power of Antichrist was not given him of God and whether he could have it without his Will and Appointment A Power over all Nations must certainly be given him by God and yet I think this giving of Power is no Conveyance of Authority upon this Usurper nor does it inferr any Obligation to Obedience and this Instance overthrows all his Arguments from God's giving Power and Kingdoms for here is a Power and Kingdom which is given by God to which we cannot be Subjects without Apostacy from him The Doctor observes That under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Christ was to be set up and Antichrist was to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in humane Governments Hence he infers That since God has declared that he will change Times and Seasons remove Kings and set up Kings to accomplish his own wise Counsels it justifies our Compliances with such Revolutions he shou'd have added for otherwise Antichrist could neither be advanced nor destroyed Thus it was once argued for Resistence That God's hiding the lawfulness of it from the primitive Christians was necessary to help Antichrist to his Throne and now Compliance with Usurpers is urged to be lawfull as necessary to set up and pull down Antichrist that so God's Counsels may be accomplished and may it not as reasonably be inferred that since God has declared he will make Revolutions remove and set up Kings that therefore Rebellions and unjust Invasions are lawfull because they are the ordinary ways of effecting Revolutions No says he we must not contrary to our Duty promote such Revolutions upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophecies but when they are made and settled we ought to submit to them What! Can it be contrary to our Duty to promote Revolutions which God decrees promotes and effects Is it lawfull for no one to promote them And how then shall they be accomplished But why is it lawful to submit to them when they are made and settled Why because God has decreed them that must be a Reason for it or his Decrees and Counsels are here impertinently urged But we are sure that God has decreed the Kingdom of Antichrist and when his Kingdom is settled must all Kindreds Tongues and Nations pay Subjection to him If God's Decree be a a Reason for Submission we have no more to doe but to fall down and worship when we see his Decree accomplished in the Advancement of Antichrist And if this be not Enthusiasm there is no such thing in the World How vain is it to distinguish between promoting and submitting in respect to the fulfilling of Decrees and Prophecies Does not he that submits promote And what Ground is there for that Distinction in Scripture It was God's Decree that Cromwell should have the Administration of Sovereign Power and he might have foretold it by Prophecy but it was impossible it should have been accomplished without a general Submission Was that therefore a general Duty and was the Nation bound to it to fulfill Decrees and Councils What have we to do with God's unsearchable Decrees Our Rule is Law the Laws of God and Nature for religious and moral Actions the Laws of Kingdoms and Commonweals for those that
Allegiance when he changes my King In another place he states it thus The Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil to us not his Providence but Providence lays new Obligations upon us by creating new Relations The Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him I Answer 1. That impious Doctrine which teaches that the Cause which Providence prospers is God's does seem the unavoidable Consequence of the Doctor 's Principle for he teaches that all Events are God's doing and that he positively decrees appoints accomplishes all Usurpations But if all Events are God's doing he is certainly the Author of that which he does and in such Events which are necessarily and inseparably accompanied with Iniquity he must be the Author of the Iniquity too And as to the Event of Usurpation if he decrees assists and accomplishes it if he does all this for Usurpers we must needs conclude that their Cause is Gods ' for it is impossible for God to do more than this for any Cause whatsoever 2. If the Laws of God and not his Providence are the Rules of Good and Evil to us then it follows undeniably that Providence of it self can never direct us how to distinguish between Good and Evil and therefore when the Question is whether an Action be lawful or not we must have recourse to Laws and not to Providence to determine it Thus when we dispute about Allegiance to Usurpers the Question must be whether there be any Law that requires it and if there be no such Law it is certain there is no such Duty It is true that the divine Providence does change our Condition and Relations and by introducing new Relations does oblige us to new Duties But it is also certain that all Changes which befall our Selves or the Persons to whom we are related do not extinguish our Relations and Obligations to them and therefore we must have some other Rule besides Providence to instruct us when they are extinguished When I am in Prison or my Father iâ— in Prison here is a providential Change but no Cessation of Relation or Duty When the Course of civil Government is interrupted by Rebellion and the Prince cannot actually administer here is a providential Change which affects my Sovereign but is no discharge of my Allegiance And how then shall I know when the Events of Providence do extinguish my Duty My Duty does not cease upon every Change in the condition of my Sovereign that is made by Providence and it is impossible that the Events of Providence should direct me when it is extinguished by any Event of Providence And therefore I must be directed by some other Rule which may inform me when any Duty is extinguished by a Change of Providence and that Rule can be nothing else but Law either divine or humane Law Thus it appears that though a Change is made sometimes in our Duties by the Events of Providence yet our only Direction is Law and thither we must appeal at last in all our Controversies about the Change of Duty and the result is that if there be no Law that requires Allegiance to Usurpers the Events of Providence cannot make it to be a Duty Providence 't is true does make Kings and God transferrs my Allegiance when he changes my King But the Question is whether Providence does not make Kings by Permission and whether when my lawful Prince is dispossessed my Relation to him is extinguished and the only way to determine those Doubts is by appealing not to Providence but to Law and Reason The Doctor tells us That we must conform our selves in the discharge of those Duties that Providence lays upon us according to the nature and intention of the Providence But how shall I know that it is the intention of Providence when an Usurper is advanced that I should pay Allegiance to him I know that God disapproves Usurpations and strictly forbids them and declares that he will punish them and I know also if Usurpation be so great a Wickedness that God's Providence does not assist or authorize it though he does not interpose his irresistible Power to hinder it this I am taught by natural and reveal'd Religion and I find no Precept in either to assist any Man in his Wickedness in the whole Progress of the Usurpation I find nothing but Injustice in the Rebellion or Invasion in setting the Usurper on the Throne and in supporting him on it and therefore I have reason to conclude that since my Assistance is unlawful neither the Nature nor the Intention of the Providence does require it There remain some other Objections and Evasions in the Vindication which relate to Providence and I will consider them as they occur He objects against our Principle that it opposes Providence to Providence the force of the Objection is this God does settle the Crown on any Family no otherwise but by his Providence and when an Vsurper is setled in the Throne he is advanc'd by Providence too and therefore to oppose an Hereditary Right which is made by the over-ruling Influence of Providence against God's setting up an Vsurper by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence Now there is no absurdity at all in opposing Providence to Providence A Divine Entail is nothing but an Act of Providence and yet the Doctor thinks that the Providential Advancement of an Usurper is of no validity against it and thus himself does oppose Providence to Providence God's Providence may make Kings by Nomination by the conveyance of a legal Right and by granting Possession without Settlement and Possession with it And if it be no Absurdity to oppose and prefer the first to all the others and the fourth to the third why is it absurd to prefer the second to the third and fourth It would be absurd indeed if the latter Providence were as clear a Declaration of God's positive Will as the former but that is the great Controversy between us All Men are agreed that when a lawful King is on the Throne he has God's Authority but not that an Usurper setled or unsetled is invested with it I am sure there is a Providence that is only permissive which conveys no Authority which we cannot possibly distinguish but by the moral nature of Events and I think it is no absurdity to distinguish Providence nor to oppose Wrong to Right a permissive Providence to a legal Right which is establish'd by God's Authoritative Providence And this single Observation that for all that yet appears an Usurper is advanc'd only by permissive Providence is a sufficient Answer to all the Reflections which he makes upon our opposing Providence to Providence He observes that this is to shackle and confine Providence and that we will not allow God's Providence to change and alter We only maintain that God's permissive Providence is no
most glorious Designs of Providence have been accomplished by very wicked Means even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself Now this is a great Truth but nothing to the purpose God can certainly over-rule Wickedness without being the Author of it But what then Does God's over-ruling Providence convey Authority to persist in Wickedness Or does it alter the nature of Good and Evil and make the unjust Detention of another's Right to be no Injustice We have no dispute about God's bringing Good out of Evil We maintain that it is unlawful to detain another's Right and that God cannot give Authority to do that which is unlawful because it is contrary to his Goodness and Holiness And to say that God authorizes no Man to be wicked I am sure is no denial of his Providence nor any Argument against it But the Doctor speaks particularly to the Case of transferring Kingdoms he supposes No Man will deny but that God as the supreme Lord 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 This I grant is his unquestionable Prerogative Then says he the only dispute can be about God's bringing such Events to pass by the wickedness of Men. I Answer we have no dispute about it no doubt it is God's Perogative to give Kingdoms and Riches to whomsoever he pleases but the Question is whether God does properly give them when they are unjustly Possessed and when it is a Sin to keep them if he does we think the Consequence is that he authorizes Wickedness and to this the Doctor Answers nothing but he laboriously proves what is nothing to the purpose that it is Just for God to bring Good out of Evil. God permits Robberies for good Ends but this proves not that Robbers have a divine Right to their Booty it is a Sin to keep it and as long as it is so we are sure they have not God's Authority for it He supposes farther that God may permit ambitious Princes to depopulate Countries to depose Princes and subdue their Kingdoms and then he asks Which most becomes the divine Wisdom to suffer such Men when they please to overturn Kingdoms only to gratifie their own Lusts or to give prosperous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World to pull down such a Prince or to chastise such a Nation And thus he Answers his own Question I am sure this much more becomes the divine Wisdom than a bare Permission of such Violence without any further Design which does not become it Thus he still disputes against his own Imaginations for no one else does imagine that God permits the deposition of Princes without any other Design than to gratifie the Lusts of Usurpers there are many good Ends for which he may permit it the Chastisement or the Punishment of the Princes themselves and of their Subjects the Disciplining of them by Afflictions the Tryal of their Faith and Patience the Illustration of his own Glory and many other Ends that are worthy of the divine Providence When Charles I. was deposed and murdered that execrable Violence was permitted for wise Ends but this was no Proof that God had authoritatively transferred his Kingdoms to his Deposers and Murderers And this is a plain Demonstration that it may become the divine Wisdom to suffer Princes to be deposed and Kingdoms to be subdued without any Design of transferring them to Usurpers But why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them Undoubtedly he may he may give them by the Conveyance of a lawful Right or by express Revelation but the dispute is not what God may do but what he does and whether he does properly give Kingdoms to Usurpers But the Doctor supposes again That it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to an Vsurper as to suffer a wicked Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title This he supposes but without Proof and against Reason God by Virtue of his absolute Sovereignty may give a Kingdom to any one as he can give any Man's Estate or Wife to any Man by the same Sovereign Dominion But First The Possession of an Estate Wise or Kingdom is no Evidence of God's Donation And Secondly When God does really give a Kingdom all former Rights are extinguished by a divine Right and it is no Injustice in him to whom it is given to possess and keep it But according to the Doctor 's Principle the Right of the former Prince is still valid and he may prosecute it by a lawful War and therefore it must be unjust in the new Prince to detain it from him and this does make a great difference between the Doctor 's Usurper and a Tyrannical Prince with a legal Title the later has lawful Authoririty from God which he can keep and exercise without Sin the Tyrannical abuse of it is yet wholly from himself and is only permitted by God for Ends agreeable to his Wisdom and Justice But the Doctors Usurper has Authority given him by God and yet the Possession and Defence of it against the lawful Prince is unjust and unlawful now this is a plain contradiction in the nature of the Thing and to God's Wisdom and Justice also for hereby God is made to authorize that which is formally unjust which is contradictory to his Justice and to give a Prince a Kingdom and yet oblige him to restore it which is disagreeable to his Wisdom But in short let the Doctor prove if he can that it is no Sin in an Usurper to possess himself of the Throne and that he is not bound to restore it and there shall be an end of this Controversie I will acknowledge that he has God's Authority and that his Principle does not charge God as being the Author of Wickedness but if that be impossible to be proved he may wash and varnish and lay on Colours till he is weary the Aethiopian will still retain his Skin and the Leopard his spots The next Objection he labours to remove is this That his Principle justifies an unreasonable and wicked Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice The summ of his Answer is this He acknowledges that it is impious to justifie Actions from Success or to conclude that is God's Cause which Providence prospers because it confounds the difference of Good and Evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice But yet it is a necessary Duty to discharge those Duties which the Providence of God lays upon us according to the Nature and Intention of the Providence and thus God's Providence may in some Sense be a Rule of Practice and may make or extinguish a Duty by changing our relations or condition of Life as in the present Case he must transfer my