therefore Jehoiada said to the Congregation Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David 2. Chr. 23 2. and the Convocation observes that he acquainted them that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them and that God himself had required all that they did at their Hands For when God has given his Promise we must interpret no occurrences of Providence in contradiction to in and therefore we see that when the Kingdom was taken from David's Posterity it was not done without an express Revelation But where God has made no Promise to a King and his Successors that they shall enjoy the Kingdom he may by his Providence take it away from them To this I answer That the whole design of the Convocation is as I have shewn to explain the Duty of Subjects by the example of God's own People and therefore if in this place they suppose something so peculiar in the Constitution of their Government that it could be no precedent to other Kingdoms this must be a manifest contradiction to their whole design They tell us that Government in its Original and by its first Institution was immediately from God and was the same throughout the World and tho it were corrupted in other Nations God preserved it amongst his own People and yet still the same Obedience was due under those alterations from the said mild and temperate Government at first instituted that was to be paid under this itself and by consequence there must be the same obligation to the Right Heir in all other Hereditary Monarchies and therefore they call Joash here the true and natural apparent Heir to the Crown and their only natural Lord and Sovereign which would be very unfit expressions if they did not think that he had an unalterable Right by the Law of Nature as well as by God's Promise In was enough indeed that Jehoiada should remind the People of God's own choice of Davids Posterity to rule over them and nothing more needed to be said by him and it was very fit that this should not be omitted by the Convocation But if this were the only Title which Joash had it would have been improper to call him a Natural Heir a Natural Lord and Sovereign and it would have overthrown all their Arguments from the Pâ—…ce of the Jews if they had said thâ—… Joash ought to be plac'd upon the Throne of his Ancestors after that six years interval only by vertue of a Divine Promise For a Divine command concerning any of their Kings or Judges for the time of their Lives is equivalent to a Divine Promise concerning David and his Posterity and so it might be said by parity of Reason that the Duty which they owed their Kings was due by vertue of a revealed command from God and could not be the same in other Nations where there is no such revealed Command Thus David would not stretch forth his Hand against Saul for this Reason because he was the Lords anointed that is he was so chosen and appointed by God himself as no King now can pretend to be And so in all other instances if we must argue from no example where Gods command or promise intervenes in vain does the Convocation explain the Duty of Subjects from the sacred History and yet we must argue from no such examples if Gods revealed will alters the case and makes it different from Cases of the same Nature which fall out in other Governments concerning which God has not revealed any thing It is true indeed when God so interposes as to invert the ordinary course of Government as in the case of Ahud and Jehu this can be no Precedent for any to imitate without the same command to authorise them that they had but then it was no more a Precedent to the Jews themselves than to any other Nation But when God only regulates the Jewish Government according to the first institution at the Creation and settles it upon the Right of Succession which is common to that with all other Hereditary Monarchies and makes choice of the Person to whom and to his Posterity he grants a Donation of the Kingdom or when he reforms abuses and puts things into their due course and order again and enjoyns nothing but what without a Divine warrant is of itself lawful to be done we may conclude that all these things are written for our instruction and must be a Rule to all other Nations in the like Cases The Convocation therefore proceeds all along upon this Principle Ch. 2.6 Can. 2.6 that from the first institution of Government there is both a Natural and a Divine Right in all Sovereigns which is Natural as it is founded on the Laws of Nature and Divine because Government is Gods Ordinance and owes its Original Form and Constitution to Gods own immediate appointment and therefore that when God by his express direction and command afterwards settled that sort of Government which he at first instituted to all the World among his own People he did not thereby make any alteration in the Duty of Subjects or Rights of Kings but did only oblige both to perform their several Duties in that way and manner which he had enjoyn'd them The Children of Israel asked a King to judg them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5.20 And God chose Saul to be their King but what ever variations there might be in some circumstantials of Government they owed just the same Duty and Subjection to him which was due to Adam and Noah c. And according to the Convocation every other Sovereign Prince has the very same Right that he had neither they in asking nor God in giving them a King made any distinction between the Authority of their King and the Kings of other Nations but the manner or Royal Power of their King is described to be just the same with that of the Kings round about them God entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David and his Seed but the Right of Succession was still the same in that which it is in all other Hereditary Kingdoms only they had a Secondary Obligation to the performance of their Duty from an immediate and positive Command whereas others are oblig'd to the same Duties but by Virtue only of the Law of Nature and of the first Institution of Government The Jews then were bound to set up Joash in that Kingdom upon two accounts that is both as he was their Natural Sovereign and as he descended from David to whom God had made a peculiar Promise and had given the Kingdom to him and to his Posterity but the first obligation had been of itself sufficient and those Kings who hold by no Divine Promise but only by Right of Inheritance have the same Right which he had who held by a Twofold Title because either of them had been alone sufficient For a single Title is enough to convey a Right and an Additional
has been before observed and as for the Promise made to David they imagined that it might have been as punctually fulfilled to his seed tho himself had been set aside as if he had been actually dead and probably they supposed that this was the Evil that God had threatned viz. to dethrone him and set up his Son in his room when he told him by his Prophet Behold I will raise up Evil against thee out of thine own House 2. Sam. 12.11 Manasses and Nebuchadnezzar were as great Tyrants to their Subjects as great Enemies to the true Religion and as great Offenders in all respects against God as any Christian King can be supposed to be Yet when God caused Manasses to be carried away captive to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar to be driven from amongst men to eat Grass with the Beasts of the Field he brought these Afflictions upon them not to deprive either of them of their Kingdoms but only to humble them and then to restore them to their Thrones And his dealing with Nebuchadnezzar is most of all considerable in this matter because the Judgment upon him was purposely designed to the intent that the living may know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men Dan. 4.17 and yet v. 26. it is told him Thy Kingdom shall be sure unto thee after that thou shalt have known that the Heavens do rule and in the 31. verse There fell a Voice from Heaven saying O King Nebuchadnezzar to thee it is spoken the Kingdom is departed from thee which was taken from him for the space of seven years until he should know that the most highest ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will v. 32. This then being an Example purposely set for the Admonition of Kings and to acquaint the World that God raises them up and deposes them as he pleases we may from hence conclude that tho they be dispossessed by his Appointment whether secret or express yet we can have no certainty that he has utterly rejected them but rather that upon their Repentance he will again restore them to the Enjoyment of their Dominions which they have still a Right to against any Usurper or Possessour of them Thirdly What Danger soever Religion may seem to be in yet it is manifest that throughout all Ages of the Church Religion never flourished more than in times of Persecution and Religion itself forbidding us to defend it by any Disloyalty if by any such unseasonable and unwarrantable means Subjects undertake the Preservation of Religion they may expect for their Reward no better than uzzah's Fate who put forth his hand to support the Ark of God when he saw it shaking and like to fall God can preserve it without our help against all the Power and Stratagems of the greatest Kings or he can turn the hearts of Kings and of Enemies make them become its Defenders So he turned the hearts of Nebuchadnezzar and Manasses and there is no Reason to suspect that God will not grant Princes space for Repentance now he rules the World by his Providence as he did in those Ages of Prophecy and Revelation It may be alledged that where there is an express Revelation men must follow the directions God is pleased to give and proceed no further than he appoints But when we have only his Providence to guide us we must not neglect to make use of the present occasion but must take all the opportunities which Providence puts into our hands as so many indications of what God expects and requires of us I answer this is a plain Argument that we ought not to make God's Providence the Rule of our Actions but his Law Because this principle would have misled those of ancient times contrary to Gods design and purpose in an immediate Revelation as well as it may now make us transgress his revealed Will recorded in Scripture and his Laws ingraved in our Nature I mean the Laws of Justice and of Obedience to Governors For from hence it appears that his Providence is not a sufficient Interpreter of his Will in what he requires of us if it were they might have rely'd upon it then and since it is not we must not depend upon it now Because the Scripture is our Guide as much as an immediate Revelation was theirs and we have as little warrant to follow Providence without a Revelation in Scripture for it as they could have to follow it without an immediate Revelation For as Prophecys and Revelations are long since ceased so we are no where told that God's Providence shall be instead of them to us but the Scriptures are to us instead of all other Revelations and we are to interpret God's Will by his Providence no further than they direct us to do And from the Scriptures we may be assured that God by his Providence often offers men opportunities of doing things only for their Tryal and when he gives them no license to do them If ever any circumstances of Providence could justifie an Action otherwise sinful they must have been those which David was in when Saul was twice at his mercy He was before by Gods appointment anointed to succeed in the Throne and Saul the first time came unexpectedly into his Power the second time a deep sleep from the Lord was fain upon Saul and his whole Army God had promised David to deliver his Enemy into his Hand and David's Followers both times did not fail to put him in mind of it So that if Providence could be at any time a sufficient warrant David must have had as full a Commission to have slain Saul as Ahud had to kill Eglon or John to kill Joram and David must have concluded that God who had before rejected Saul from being King had now actually devested him of all his Authority and according to his Promise had delivered Saul to him to execute the divine Vengeance upon him But because this would have been to act against a known Duty he still owns Saul for his Master and the Lords anointed and repented of the cutting off but the Skirt of his Garment All this probably was designed as a Tryal to David as well as to propose him for an example of Fidelity to all Ages and perhaps nothing can be more reasonably concluded from our late Revolution than that we are now cal'd to the practice of that Loyalty which we have made such high professions of I shall add no more but only transcribe some Passages out of Dr Sherlock's Case of Resistance to shew that the Authority of that very great Man can signifie little in this Controversie whatever his Arguments may do We know what use some men have made of this Argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a mind to act p. 29. But David it seems did not think that an Opportunity of doing evil
true and lawful Possessor being always Gods Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of these that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly settled to be reverenced and obeyed From whence the Dr. P. 8. argues that it is plain it is not a legal Authority by the Death or Cession of the Rightful King for we are to obey it as Gods Authority though it be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor and though the present Possessor should have no other visible Title to it but such unjust Force But why may not the Authority be said to be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor when he is forced to resign his Right or quit his Claim May not Consent be extorted and Oaths extorted and may not a Prince be reduced to that condition as at last to resolve for ever to relinquish his Right when he has no hopes left of recovering it and does not History furnish us with such examples However that which is wrung from a lawful Possessor by Death is to be sure wrung by Force from him and the words do not import that the Possessor is supposed to be living after this injustice and violence And by these ways Authority may be said to be unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor though the Authority it self properly and strictly speaking cannot be so obtained For in the Doctor 's opinion it is conferred by God upon a Thorough Settlement and in the opinion of others it is conferred by him upon the Death or Cession of the Person in whom it before was but whensoever it is transferred it is certainly given by God and cannot be torn or forced from the true and lawful Possessor but the external Power and Exercise of Authority may and when it is thus gotten it may afterwards be an accidental means of attaining to the Authority it self And this is that the Convocation speakes of that men by wicked Arts and Practices may arrive at Power and at last when there is no better Pretence or Claim may become invested with the Authority it self as well as exercise the outward Acts of it This the Instances subjoined of the Authority of the Egyptian and Babylonian Kings over the Jews shew to be the meaning of the Convocation for it would be absurd to take their words in such a sense as all the examples immediately added for the explication of them doe not explain but rather confute and contradict and if the literal Sense and Grammatical Construction as the Doctor urges seem to import this we must certainly reject it or else we shall make the Convocation argue as wise and learned men never did and then it will be to little purpose to enquire after their meaning be it what it will But indeed no Grammar nor Logick I think can prove from their words that the true and lawful Possessor is supposed to be alive and to assert his Right The Doctor 's observation concerning the mention of a King de Facto in the Convocation Book I cannot think will prove of any service to him and I believe he thought so himself too when he wrote his Case of Allegiance or else he would never have omitted it though now he makes great use of it But the plain meaning of a King de Facto there is no more than any Rightful King under whom a man lives whether he be his natural Sovereign or any Foreign Prince to whom he is become Subject justly and lawfully but not with prejudice to the Right of his own Sovereign For as the Doctor observes this is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon to whom the Israelites had been in Subjection eighteen years without any Competition of another Prince to their Allegiance Now Ahud was not their natural Prince but only the King under whom they then lived and who had then a Right to their Obedience so that if here is not the least intimation that a King de Facto is opposed to a King de Jure but the King de Facto under whom he lived is no more than the King under whom he de Facto lived that is whose Subject he actually was whether he were his Natural Sovereign or a Foreign Prince But it must be observed that this is not spoken only with respect to Ahud's killing Eglon but with respect likewise to Adonijah's Usurpation in the Reign of David his Father Can. 27. For they say that though a Subject should make never so specious and solemn pretences that God had called him to murder the King de Facto under whom he lived and should have first procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did yet this would not justify him nor his Adherents if he should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master which is just the same thing that was before expressed in other words by Murthering the King de Facto under whom he lived So that a King de Facto in this place cannot be opposed to a King de Jure unless David himself were only a King de Facto The Doctor moves a Dispute P. 17. what kind of Submission of the Rightful King may be sufficient to transfer his Right and whether a King does not submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince or whether nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a Formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power To this I answer that it is of the Nature of Right that it cannot be transferred without the consent of the Person whose Right it is unless it be by some person who has a superior Right to the thing disposed of for what is a mans own cannot be given away from him against his will but by one who has a Superiour and better Right to it than that which he holds it by And it is sufficient if any Submission or Consent of the Rightful King be necessary to transfer Allegiance and if it cannot be proved that God the Supream Lord and Proprietor of all things is pleased to dispose of the Right to Kingdoms otherwise than he does of the Right which private men have to their Estates it must be nenessary that such Acts intervene as are required among men to convey a Right which can be no other than such as imply a Consent But what kind of Consent is necessary and how it ought to be expressed is quite another question which depends upon particular Cases and Circumstances and it is sufficient in the present case to say that a forced Submission is a forced Consent and that is some sort of Consent and not an involuntary Act though not so voluntary as if there had been no Force The Doctor cannot but acknowledge that such a Submission of men with respect to themselves P. 13. gives a Right for it is a voluntary Consent though extorted by
gave him license and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and it makes a Murtherer No men can do any Wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into mens hands justifies the wickedness they commit no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin as Rebellion and the Murther of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence at least this must be a setled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids There is another Objection against what the Apostle affirms p. 127. that there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God For is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Usurpers from God Did Oliver Cromwel receive his Power from God then it seems it was unlawful to resist him too or to conspire against him Then all those Loyal Subjects who refused to submit when he had got the Power in his hand were Rebels and Traitors To this I answer that the most prosperous Rebel is not the Higher Powers while our Natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore though such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who resists them does not resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of men In Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of one King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood and therefore he who rebelleth against the Father and murthers him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there possession of Power seems to give a right Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance for the possession of Supreme and Sovereign Power is Title enough where there is no better Title to oppose against it c. But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Judah P. 131. which God himself had intailed on David's Family as appears from the Example of Joash who was concealed by his Aunt Jehosheba and hid in the House of the Lord for six years During this time Athaliah Reigned and had the whole power of Government in her hands but yet this did not make her a Sovereign and irresistable Prince because Joash the Son of Ahaziah the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive And therefore in the Seventh Year Jehoiada the Priest set Joash upon the Throne and slew Athaliah and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so 2 Kings 11. Which shews That no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural Prince Such Usurpers though they have the possession of the Supreme Power yet they have no Right to it and though God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision The Tree is cut down but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after that they shall know that the Heavens do rule Dan. 4.26 Hitherto I had written before Dr. Sherlock's Book was published and upon the most impartial consideration of it can now find no cause to change my Opinion but having proceeded thus far I shall as exactly as I can examine all that relates to this matter in his Book which I could not foresee and have not already given an account of His Two first Sections I cannot think my self much concerned about having already given both the full State of the Case and the plain meaning of the Convocation One thing indeed I omitted which he remarks in the Second Section He observes That whereas in the 30th Chapter it is said P. 8. That Jaddus returned Answer to Alexander That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived the Convocation in the Canon following it takes no notice that he owed Allegiance to Darius during the Life of that King And it is plain says he that Jaddus himself could mean no more by it than that he could not make a voluntary Dedition to Alexander not that he never could submit to him till Darius was dead for when he was in Alexander 's power he made no scruple to submit to him But I think it is not much material whether they mention this in the Canon or no since they set it down in the foregoing Chapter and then approve of the Behaviour and Conduct of Jaddus in the Canon For if this part of Jaddus's Answer which was the most considerable thing in it had been disliked by them it must have been excepted but when they give a general Approbation of what Jaddus did and except against no Particulars they must be supposed to approve of it in all its Circumstances before set down in the Chapter at least they must approve of that which was the principal thing in Jaddus's Answer for when the thing that Alexander required of him was to bear Arms himself against Darius or to solicite others thereunto and Jaddus answered That he might not do it because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived and the Convocation in their Canon determine That if any man affirm that having so sworn he might have done it he doth greatly err they can mean no less in the Canon than they expressed in the Chapter That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived And the Doctor doth not deny that they approved of these words in the sense in which Jaddus meant them and that Jaddus meant them in the strictest sense is evident for the words will admit of no Latitude and what Jaddus afterwards did was by an immediate Direction from Heaven and therefore it can be no Argument that Jaddus had any thoughts of submitting to Alexander whilst Darius lived when he sent that Message but on the contrary That he was resolved not to have submitted and ought not to have done it unless a Revelation had warranted him to do it and thereby absolved him from his Oath to Darius In his Third Section the Doctor lays down some Propositions upon which his whole Discourse depends and indeed to grant him these Propositions is to give up the Cause to him for they plainly imply and suppose the whole Question without any more to do His First Proposition is That all Civil Power and Authority