Usurpers can have had a right to the submission and obedience of the Iews while it was not known that the King's Son was living but Iudah was an Hereditary Kingdom by God's entail and therefore as soon as the true Heir appeared she fell from her Power as much by the express Ordinance and Command of God as Ioram did when Iehu was anointed for a Divine Entail as the Convocation asserts is equivalent to an express nomination This shews a manifest difference between Kings set up by the Divine Providence in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel which were subject to the Divine Nomination or to a Divine Entail and King 's set up by the Providence of God in other Nations where God makes Kings only by his Providence The first may be and are deposed when ever God nominates a new King or the Right Heir appears tho' they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before in other Nations those Kings who are placed in the Throne and setled there are and continue Kings till the Providence of God displace them again for where Kings are made only by the Providence of God they can be unmade by Providence too Had our Author considered this he would not have said That it is meer trifling to talk of God's entailing the Crown as if God was tied any more to the entails of his own making than he is to humane Entails and his own Decrees and Orders would not cut off his own Entails as well as those of Men. For tho God may cut off his own Entails if he pleases yet Men can't and the meer Events of Providence can never prove that God has done it for we must never interpret providential Events to contradict an express Revelation And therefore tho the Providence of God in placing a King on the Throne in Iudah or Israel who neither was anointed by God's Command nor had an Hereditary Right by God's Entail justified their Submission to him yet whenever God was pleased to anoint a new King or to discover their Hereditary Prince and to put it into their Power to place him on the Throne the Right and Authority of these Providential Kings was at an end And now there will be no great occasion to take much notice of what he answers to my second Argument From the necessity of Government to the Preservation of Humane Society for I readily grant what he contends for That these Arguments will equally conclude for Submission to Athaliah as to any other Vsurper and what then The Iews did actually submit to Athaliah and this Argument from the necessity of Government justifies their Submission But our Author disputes as if it were manifest that the Iews did not submit to Athaliah but it is evident from the Story that they did and yet are not blamed in Scripture for so doing but I suppose his mistake is that because they owned Ioash for their King when he was anointed by Iehojada and slew Athaliah therefore they never submitted to Athaliah's Government as if they could not very innocently and lawfully submit to the Government of Athaliah while they knew of no other King they had and yet own their King who was their King by a Divine Entail when they knew him but indeed here is the fundamental mistake of all That he supposes the Iews all this while knew that Ioash the true Heir to the Crown was living and therefore out of Loyalty to their Prince they did not all this while submit to Athaliah whereas it is evident from the Story that they knew nothing of this matter till Iehojada sent for the Princes and Levites and discovered the King's Son to them and I would desire him to consider how Athaliah should be ignorant of this for six years when all the People of Israel knew it and yet if he was not guilty of this mistake I know not what sense to make of what he says p. 8. about swearing an Oath of Fidelity to her to defend her against all Men even against him whom they owned and acknowledged had a Right to the Throne that is against Ioash who was their Rightful King but they could not own and acknowledg him to be so without believing him to be alive and safe And yet if they knew nothing of Ioash and did believe that the Royal Line was extinct I desire to know of our Author by his own Principles had it been customary in those Days what should have hindred them to have sworn Allegiance to Athaliah for he allows possession to be something when there is no better claim against it And yet though they had sworn Allegiance to Athaliah they might without Perjury have owned their lawful Prince when Iehoiada had discovered him to them for no Oath can oblige against a Divine Entail and therefore such Cases are always supposed to be excepted I asserted in the Case That Government and Allegiance are such relatives as do mutuò se ponere tollere the one cannot subsist without the other if the Prince can't govern the Subject can't obey and therefore as far as he quits his Government he quits their Allegiance and leaves his Subjects as he does his Crown to be possessed by another and must recover them both together This Our Author says is as plain a fallacy as ever he met with and proves from the Example of Ioash that it is so but I have said so much already to that case that I will trouble my Reader no further with it Divine and Humane Entails give very different rights to Princes as will appear more presently and yet even in Divine Entails it was lawful for Subjects to submit to and obey Usurped Powers either when they were under force or when they knew not their Rightful King that is whenever their King could not govern them He says By Government I mean the actual administration of it and then Government and Allegiance are so far from being such Relatives that they are no Relatives at all they are only the Acts of Relatives and to say the Acts of Relatives are Relatives is so far from being as certain as any Proposition in Logic that it is Logical Non-sense Well! Logical Non-sense I hope is the best sort of Non-sense however But my meaning is plain enough and certainly true which is as much as any Proposition in Logic can be By Government I do mean the Actual Administration of Government not as that signifies the particular Acts of Government but the actual possession of Power and Authority to govern by Allegiance I mean that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government and if our Author will be so severe as not to allow me to call these Relatives yet they are the Relations which make the Relatives and do mutuò se ponere tollere for what is the relation of a King to a Subject His Dominion and Government What is the relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection then
in such a Case commands us to pay all the Obedience and Duty of Subjects to a Prince in the actual Possession of the Throne and the Law of the Land forbids it which must we obey the Law of God or the Law of the Land To this our Author answers Where is this Law of God that commands us to obey Vsurpers Where is it ever affirmed in Scripture in express Terms or deduced from thence by evident Consequence This I had shewed before and it is in my Boek still and there he may see it But this Law had need be very clear and evident and the Doctor had need be very sure of it when he builds not only his Book but his Practice upon it in plain Contradiction by his own confession to the Laws of the Land But I never confessed this was contrary to the Laws of the Land but on the contrary that the Laws of the Land if we will believe Learned Judges and Lawyers do allow and justify it and I think the Scripture is very plain in the case and if he would give me leave to be sure of any thing I think I am pretty sure of it But he proves the Scriptures cannot be clear in the point from the Controversies about it in the late dismal Times of Vsurpation that is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Controversy and thus we must either be Scepticks in Religion or seek for an Infallible Interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Articles of Faith thus Papists dispute against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith and whither these Arguments will carry our Author I cannot tell but they look very kindly towards Rome and if that be his Inclination I can pardon his Zeal in this Cause But no Learned Men could ever espy this Law before the time of John Goodwin What then does he think of Mr. Calvin and Grotius who have both passed for learned Men And they espied this Law before the time of Iohn Goodwin as he may see if he pleases in their Commentaries on Daniel and the Romans or that he may not seek for it I have given him a tast of their Judgment in the Margin What thinks he of Bishop Overal's Convocation Were there no Learned Men in it And yet they espied this Doctrine before Iohn Goodwin was thought of what Iohn Goodwin thought of this matter I cannot tell for I am not much versed in his Writings but if some Men abused a true Doctrine to wicked purposes must we therefore deny the Doctrine or rather vindicate it from such Abuses But what thinks he of the Primitive Christians whose Sense he may guess at from what Grotius has cited and their practice in all the Revolutions of the Empire does more fully declare it for they always submitted to the Reigning Emperor by what means soever they gained the Throne and that is an argument that they owned the Doctrine because they practiced it as our Author will quickly be informed by a Learned Pen. I grant indeed That the Resolution of Conscience ought not to depend on such Nicties of Law and History as Learned Men cannot agree about and that is a reason why Legal Rights and Titles should not be the Rule and Measure of our Obedience to Princes who are possessed of the Throne but is this a reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too because some Men will dispute the plainest Texts This has nothing but either Scepticism or Infallibility at the bottom Our Author proceeds to consider the Scripture-Testimonies which I cite in this Cause And First from the Old Testament That God giveth Kingdoms to whomsoever he will that he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings 4. Dan. 17. 2. 21 37. Now the whole of his Answer to this is That Usurpers are no Kings and therefore tho God removes Kings and sets up Kings he does not set up Usurpers and the whole of his proof is that Athaliah who was an Usurper was no Queen As for Athaliah I suppose our Author has enough of her already She was God's Providential Queen tho an Usurper as much as Baasha was God's King And to say That a King without a Legal Title or an Usurper who has a setled Possession of the Regal Power is no King is Nonsense For Regal Power and Authority makes a King as St. Austin tells us Regnum à Regibus Reges à Regendo that a Kingdom is so called from Kings and Kings from Governing it is certain he who has the Exercise of the Regal Power and Authority is King whether we will call him so or no and he is no King who has no Regal Power whatever his Title be If this be not so our Laws are Nonsense which distinguish between a King de jure and de facto if a King de facto be no King tho it signifies one who is actually King But pray what Sense does this make of what the Prophet Daniel says That God changeth times and seasons removeth Kings and setteth up Kings By Kings here according to our Author the Prophet means not Usurpers but Rightful and Lawful Kings and then the meaning is that God removeth or pulleth down Rightful Kings and that he setteth up Rightful Kings Now as for setting up Rightful Kings our Author likes it very well but how does he like pulling down Rightful Kings which is as much against Law and Right as to set up Kings without Right And that it seems God does He will not allow us to pay Allegiance to a King who is set up without Right will he then allow us to withdraw our Allegiance from a Rightful King whom God has removed and pulled down If he won't as it is plain he won't then God can no more remove a Rightful King than he can set up an Illegal Usurper but when the Prophet says God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings to reconcile it to our Author's Hypothesis the removed King must signifie an Usurper and the King set up a Rightful and Legal King I doubt not but our Author would be ashamed to say this but whether he be or no he dares not say it for then he must allow that King may signify an Usurper as well as a Rightful King which overthrows all he says for then it is reasonable to expound the Text of all Kings whatever they be who are removed or set up And this is evidently the Prophet's meaning to attribute all the changes and revolutions of Government when ever they happened not to Chance or Fate but to the Divine Providence that whenever we see one King removed and another set up whoever they be they are removed and set up by God who ruleth in the kingdom of Men and giveth it to whomsoever he will Does whomsoever signifie those only who have a legal Right Does giving suppose an antecedent right in him to whom it is given Does giving to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law
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
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
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
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
of that Tyrant Antiochus being not then either generally received by Submission nor setled by Continuance though I cannot blame him for this because the Author whom he answers took no notice of it but I must blame him for affirming that the Convocation say That when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain for they say no such thing and though he may imagine this to be the Consequence of what they say he ought not therefore to affirm that they said it because he may mistake in his Consequence and that he has done so shall presently appear The Convocation says not one word of the thorough Settlement of Athaliah in the Throne but if we may learn the Sence of the Convocation as this Author concludes we may from what Bishop Buckridge a Member of that Convocation has written in his Defence of Barclay they did not think her settled in the Throne for when Bellarmin had objected the quiet Possession of Athaliah for six Years the Bishop as this Author cites him answers How quiet soever it was it was violent for she was guarded with Souldiers and affirms that Athaliah had not acquired a Right to the Crown I suppose he means only such a Right as a thorough Settlement gives neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six Years Six Years were not long enough for a Prescription which he says must be a hundred Years and the Consent of the People it seems she had not and therefore being a meer Usurper and no Queen she might be Deposed And thus his whole Argument is lost And here I must observe that the Bishop allows as the Convocation does that either the Consent of the People or a long Prescription gives a Right that is such a Right as makes Obedience due to Princes thus settled without a legal Title and therefore our Author greatly prevaricates when he pretends to give the Bishop's sence of a thorough Settlement that is when a Right to the Government is acquired by a Prescription and that is a long and uninterrupted Possession joyned with the Consent of the People The Bishop distinguishes between the Consent of the People and a long Prescription and says that either of them will give a Right And our Author though he pretends to give the Bishop's sence makes both of them together necessary to give a Right a long and uninterrupted Possession which is what the Bishop calls Prescription joyned with the Consent of the People so that he leaves out neither and nor as insignificant Particles and likes with better as more agreeable to his Design and at this rate he may make Convocations and Bishops speak his sence when he pleases But to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly settled on the Throne as any Usurper can be while the right Heir is living and then the Consequence is That the Convocation teaches that Kings and Queens de Facto who have all the Settlement that can be had without Right may be Deposed and Murthered by their Subjects And will this Author say that this is the Doctrine of the Convocation Do they not expresly warn us against believing any Person who shall affirm 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 It seems then the Convocation made a great difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who had no better Title nor more thorough Settlement than she had if they thought her settled in the Throne without which Supposition our Author's Argument is lost for they justifie the killing Athaliah and condemn the murder of a King de Facto and this I gave two accounts of in my Case of Allegiance 1. All that this Story amounts to is no more than this That when the legal and rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne Subjects may return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King prosecute the Usurper for Ioash was first Anointed and Proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah now this is a very different Case from raising a Rebellion against a Prince who is in possession of the Throne to restore an Ejected Prince 2. But this was a peculiar Case for God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and therefore nothing could justifie their Submission to an Usurper when the King's Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine Entail and by this Iehoiada justifies what he did Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David Now when God has Entailed the Crown by an express Declaration of his Will and Nomination of the Person or Family that shall Reign as it was in the Kingdom of Iudah Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of God's chusing when he is known and to persecute all Usurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government But in other Kingdoms where God makes Kings and Entailes the Crown not by express Nomination but by his Providence the placing a Prince in the Throne and settling him there in the full Administration of the Government is a reason to submit to him as to God's Ordinance This our Author answers with great Triumph in his Postscript p. 4 5. but with how much Reason I shall now examine and I must begin with his Answer to the second This Distinction That God himself had Entailed the Kingdom of Iudah upon David's Posterity he says is not in the Convocation Book and so does not affect their Sence I grant it and therefore did not concern the Convocation-Book in the Story nor make any mention of it but only raised this Objection from the Story and gave that Answer to it by which Iehoiada the High-Priest justified what he did For tho' the Convocation takes notice of this Story yet they neither make nor answer this Objection in direct Terms They had another Design in mentioning it and fitted their Answers wholly to that viz. to prove against the Papists That no Priest in the Old Testament did ever Depose from their Crowns any of their Kings how wicked soever or had any Authority so to do And because this Example of Iehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose they shew that no such thing can be proved from it But tho' the Convocation does not answer a Question which they never proposed yet this is a good Answer to it and agreeable to the Sence of the Convocation in that place for they take notice that Iehoiada when he had sent to the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lord's will that he should Reign over them which plainly refers to that Divine Entail of the
Crown upon David's Posterity as Iehoiada expresly told them Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David So that it is evident the Convocation itself answers the Difficulties of this Story by the Divine Entail and it is as true and proper an Answer to that Question Whether we may Murther a King de Facto to place the right Heir on his Throne since Iohoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah To say That the Divine Entail of the Crown made a vast difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who are settled in their Thrones as it is to that Question Whether the High-Priest have not Authority to Depose one King and set up another since Iehoiada actually did so anointed Ioash and killed Athaliah To say that this was done not by any ordinary Jurisdiction which the High-Priest had over Kings but in Obedience to God who had Entailed the Crown on David's Posterity He proceeds They do no not speak of this when they call Athaliah an Usurper and justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against her but the reason they give is general The right Heir of the Kingdom being alive which extends to all Kingdoms that are Entailed and go by Succession This Author who would confine me so strictly to the Sence of the Convocation even where I don't appeal to it makes very bold with the Convocation himself For they do not offer to justifie the Proceedings of Iehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying That the right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by this that she was an Usurper who had no legal Right to the Throne the right Heir being living But if our Author will think again I presume he will own that they are two very different Questions Whether such a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be Deposed and Murthered The Convocation I 'm sure makes them two Questions when they will not allow of the Murder of a King de Facto But on the other hand the Convocation justifies Iehoiada from the express Command of God In all the process of which Action nothing was done either by Jehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Joash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him for six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom How did God himself require this at their hands Was it only by the Principles of Reason and Natural Justice in setting the right Heir upon the Throne No by its being God's Will and God's requiring it at their hands they plainly mean GOD's entailing the Crown upon David's Posterity which made it the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes Levites and People to yeild their Subjection to their lawful King and having done so and their King being in possession of the Throne to joyn together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper and that Jehoiada the High Priest was bound as he was a Priest to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's purpose which can refer only to this Entail that Jehoiada should Reign over them and likewise to Anoint him Which contains a particular Justification of all that was done and all resolved into the Will and Purpose of God that Ioash should Reign which was no otherwise declared but by God's Entailing the Kingdom upon the Posterity of David It was the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes c. to yeild Subjection to their lawful King who was Heir by Succession for that they expresly make equivalent in the Kingdom of Iudah to being Elected and Named by God himself Can. 17. p. 28. And therefore Ch. 19. p. 30. affirm That they should receive such Kings as sent to them by God himself which proves that this cannot extend to Heirs meerly by Humane Succession which is not equivalent to God's Nomination Iehoiada sent thro' Judah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come to him to Jerusalem Ch. 23. p. 41. and therehe discovers the King's Son to them Thus the Convocation says by the Constitution of that Government it ought to be that the Prince whom God had appointed should be made known to the People and they should chearfully submit to him Ch. 17. p. 27. and they add Afterwards also the like course was held upon the Death of every King to make his Successor known to the People Iehoiada who was High Priest gave this notice to the People and took a Covenant of them and Anointed their King and this also the Convocation says was his Duty As we have said of the People That when the Kings of Judah were to succeed one another their Duty was to come together with Ioy and Gladness to receive them for their Kings as sent to them by God himself and accordingly to submit themselves unto their Authority and Government So at such times the Priests for the most part besides their general Duties as Subjects had some further Service to be then by them performed the parts of which Service are all of them manifest in the Advancement of King Solomon to the Royal Throne of his Father David where the Priests by King David's direction did give Thanks to God and prayer for King Solomon and Zadock the High-Priest did himself Anoint him I suppose our Author may by this time be satisfied that the Convocation resolves all into the Authority of a Divine Entail and makes a great difference between a Divine and Humane Entail He adds And it is plain they thought of no such Difference as to this Matter but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and though attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Iudah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Iews was not attained by honester Means than Athaliah's and was as much contrary to the Entail upon David's House as hers and yet they justifie and require Obedience to them but justifie the slaying her And therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power in the Kingdom of Iudah as had the Babylonians Macedonians or Romans nor do they reckon God's Entail upon David's Posterity any ground of difference in this Matter for the Government of Iudah by the Babylonias was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now all this is answered in one word from what I have before discoursed The Entail God made upon David's Posterity did always oblige the Iews when they were at their own Choice and had Power enough to take the King on whom God had entailed the Crown which was evidently their Case when Iehoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah but when they were under Force as they were under
the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans no Entail tho' made by God himself could bind them and then I hope it will be granted that no Humane Entails can bind any People who are under Force if a Divine Entail can't do it And thus our way is prepared to answer what he objects against the first Account I gave of this Case of Athaliah viz. That all that this Story amounts to is no more than this That when the legal and rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne Subjects may return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King prosecute the Usurper Our Author answers The Story amounts to a great deal more and that is That Subjects may set the rightful Heir upon the Throne altho' it be in the actual possession of the Usurper for so Iehoiada and the People did It is true it does signifie something more with reference to Ioash but I had regard only to the Case of Athaliah but yet it does not signifie so generally as he puts it but it signifies only this That Subjects by the express Command and Authority of GOD as the Convocation teaches may place the rightful Prince upon his Throne though it be possessed by an Usurper And this will do our Author no service for it will not reach to all Hereditary Kings but to those only of God's Appointing and Nomination or where God himself has made the Entail as it was in the Kingdom of Iudah I shewed this was the Case here that the rightful Heir was actually possessed of the Throne for Joash was first anointed and proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah To this he answers But is the Doctor sure that Joash was actually possessed of the Throne He was anointed indeed but is anointing actual possession And it will not be easie to prove it according to the Doctor 's Notion of Possession of having the whole Administration of Affairs and all the Authority of the Kingdom in his hands I reply The Convocation arffims That King Ioash was in possession of his Crown before Athaliah was slain and I believe if our Author thinks of it again he will confess that Anointing gives actual Possession to a rightful King thô a thorough Settlement of his Government is necessary to the full Possession of an Usurper and the reason of this difference is manifest for where there is Right nothing more is necessary to give Possession but that Subjects actually own and recognize that Right and accept him for their King for his Right makes their Obedience a Duty when he is in Possession how weak and unsettled soever his Government be But when a Prince has no legal Right to the Crown nor consequently to the Obedience of his Subjects it is only a thorough Settlement which makes Obedience a necessary Duty And yet if that will satisfie our Author the whole Administration of Affairs and all the Authority of the Kingdom was then in Ioash's hands and Athaliah had none of it for all the Princes and Levites and People that is all who had the Administration of Affairs and the Power of the Kingdom in their hands yeilded their Subjection to Ioash as to their lawful King and that put the whole Authority and Administration into his hands and what Authority Athaliah had left appeared in her Tragical End He proceeds But howevâ—r who Anointed and who Proclaimed him and who put him in Possession Why truly no body else but his own Subjects and those very Men that had lived six Years under the Usurper And then I perceive that Subjects may stand by the rightful Heir against an Usurper though possessed of the Throne for some Years But then where is that Fidelity Allegiance and Obedience that the Doctor says we are bound to pay to usurped Powers Answ. Truly just where it was before in the Convocation Book and in the Scriptures which requires our Subjection to the present Powers and in the reason and necessity of things but this was an exempt Case upon account of a Divine Entail and where God himself has made the Entail no Usurpation can cut it off nor absolve Subjects from their Duty to him whom God himself has made their King but it is not so with humane Entails of which more presently Now I said that for Subjects to return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King to prosecute the Usurper when the rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne is a very different Case from raising Rebellions against a Prince who is in the possession of the Throne to restore an ejected Prince To this he answers Was not Athaliah in possession of the Throne when Jehoiada anointed Joash I answer as I have before done She was in the actual and visible possession of the Throne but against a Divine Entail and therefore her possession was a nullity and when they knew the King's Son was living to whom by the Law of God they were to submit they were bound to look upon it as a nullity and not to consider her as their Queen but this is not the question the question is Whether Athaliah were possessed of the Throne after Ioash was anointed when Iehoiada gave Orders to kill her and that I suppose our Author will not say that she was in possession of the Throne when the rightful Heir was actually possessed of it But he says the question is concerning Allegiance to an Usurper in the possession of the Throne and as to that there is no difference For these pay as little Allegiance to an Usurper who anoint a King and then depose him as those who do it to restore an ejected one and I would fain know what difference there is as to Allegiance to an Usurper between anointing a new King and upon his Authority dispossessing an Usurper and doing the same thing upon the Authority of one already anointed Now I grant there is no difference between anointing a King and upon his Authority dispossessing an Usurper and doing the same thing upon the Authority of one already anointed in such Cases wherein it is the Duty of Subjects either to anoint a new King or to restore an old anointed King in opposition to the Usurper who is setled in the Throne but this is a Duty only where the Usurpations how thoroughly setled soever it be is against God's Entail which was the peculiar Case of Ioash and yet even in this Case the Convocation thought it very considerable that the Princes Levites and People yielded Subjection to their lawful King and having so done and their King being in possession of his Throne joyned together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper if the Convocation had not thought that there was some difference between killing Athaliah before or after the Anointing of Ioash they would not have laid so much stress upon the time when she was slain that having so done and their King being in possession of his Throne they joyned together for the overthrowing
of Athaliah the Usurper And I wonder our Author should perceive no difference between these two for though it had been the same thing to Athaliah whether she had been killed before or after the Anointing of Ioash yet it greatly altered the nature of the fact and that upon two accounts both with respect to the Authority whereby it was done and to the Character of the Person who suffered The Convocation will not allow a private Man to kill a King de Facto and that was the Case of the Iews during Athaliah's Reign before Ioash's Title was recognized and he anointed and placed on the Throne but when this was done they had the visible and actual Authority of their King to slay the Usurper which is a parallel Case to that of Ahud and King Eglon. Before Ahud was made by God the Judge and Saviour of his People they teach that it was unlawful for him or any one else to have killed King Eglon but the Case was altered when God himself immediately had made him Iudge and had given him a full and absolute Authority independent upon any but upon him that gave it to undertake any thing that by God's direction appertained to his place Thus whatever Authority Athaliah had before when Ioash was anointed she sunk into the state of a Subject and then to kill her was not to kill a Queen de Facto but a Subject who had been an Usurper but now was a Subject again and therefore no Fidelity or Allegiance was due to her This is the Case of Iehu who was a Subject but commanded by God to be anointed King over Israel and accordingly Elizeus the Prophet caused Jehu to be anointed and God's Message to be delivered unto him who presently upon the knowledge of God's Will and the submission of the Princes and Captains of Israel to him as to their lawful King did put in execution the said Message by killing Joram before that time his Soveraign but then his Subject c. Now I suppose our Author will confess that there is a difference between killing with Authority and without and between killing a Soveraign Prince and killing a Subject by the Authority of the Prince and this was the Case of Athaliah when Ioash was anointed The Convocation was very careful not to encourage Subjects to rise up against their Prince though he were but a King de Facto and therefore from these examples of Ahud and Iehu expresly observe that God foreseeing in his heavenly Wisdom and Divine Providence what mischief private Men under the colour of these Examples might otherwise have pretended or attempted against their Soveraigns as being either discontented of themselves or set into some fury by other malitious Persons he did so order and dispose of all things in the execution of these such his extraordinary Iudgments as that thereby it might plainly appear to any that should not wilfully hood-wink himself never to be lawful for any Person whatsoever upon pretence of any Revelation Inspiration or Commandment from his Divine Majesty either to touch the Person of his Soveraign or to bear Arms against him except God should first advance the said Person from his private Estate and make him a King or an absolute Prince to succeed his late Master in his Kingdom or Principality If our Author will not yet I hope all impartial Readers will think this a sufficient Answer to the Case of Ioash and Athaliah But however he will not give it over thus but undertakes to prove that my Arguments will equally justifie submission to Athaliah in the Kingdom of Judah notwithstanding such Entail as to any Usurper in any other Nation Well! and suppose he can prove it what then Did I ever deny that it was lawful to submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and Ioash the true Heir concealed Does he find in Scripture that the Jews are condemned for submitting all this while to Athaliah If any one should have been condemned for it Iehoiada the High-Priest was the Man who knew that Ioash was living and yet for six Years together while he thought fit to conceal this Secret he submitted himself to Athaliah and acted under her Authority and neither blames himself nor any of the Nation for doing so Surely Iehoiada had not the same Notions of Loyalty which our Author has for then he durst not have submitted to Athaliah when he knew Ioash was living and was in his own keeping For says our Author while the Government is as unjust as the Rebellion and Encroachment a Man cannot justly become a Party to the Government no more than to the Rebellion for they are both equally unjust unless the stealing of a Purse is very unjust but the keeping it after it is stolen is very just He that partakes with Injustice as he certainly does that joyns with it partakes with the guilt too And if the Power be unjust then to abet to defend support and maintain that Power must be unjust likewise And I add to do this for six Years is unjust likewise and yet this Iehoiada did and is no where condemned for it So that our Author mistakes the question It is not enough for him to prove that my Arguments will justifie submission to Athaliah while she was in the possession of the Throne and of the Power of the Kingdom for let the Entail be what it will a Divine or Humane Entail it is always lawful to submit to Power but the question is whether my Arguments give as irresistible Authority to Athaliah who usurped the Throne contrary to a Divine Entail as they do to other Kings de Facto who are throughly setled in their Thrones contrary to meer legal Rights and humane Entailes if they proved this I should confess my Arguments were naught as proving too much but if they only justifie the present submission of the Jews to Athaliah while Ioash was concealed and they thought all the King's Sons had been cut off I see no hurt in this The Scripture does not condemn them for it and it is certain they ought to be justified in it and I desire to know how our Author will justifie them according to his Principles For we must observe the Convocation does not meddle with that question when it becomes lawful to submit to usurped Powers but when it becomes our Duty It is lawful to do it when we are under a Power which we can't resist but when such Usurped and Illegal Powers are throughly setled then it becomes our Duty to submit and to pay all that Obedience which Subjects owe even to the most rightful Powers Now we know the general submission of the People is necessary to a thorough settlement of such new Governments and therefore if such Governments may be setled without the sin of the Subjects it must be lawful in some Cases to submit before the Government be setled for the Government cannot be setled without their submission but
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
first Case tho the Subject is taken Captive yet the foundation of the Relation is not destroyed for his Prince is on his Throne still in the actual administration of the Government tho he be violently torn from him so that this Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related but when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the foundation of the Relation is at present destroyed the Kingdom is translated to another Prince and the Subjects and their Allegiance translated with it Our Author proceeds to argue from the Case of Ioash The Doctor 's distinction that is about a Divine Entail is against him 'T is true God did entail the Kingdom of Judah on the Family of David and for that reason they ought not to submit to an Vsurper But this is so far from being a reason why they may submit to one in other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Laws that it is a reason and a very good one why they ought not But before we hear his Reason I must observe that he mistakes the use of my Distinction which was not to prove That because God had entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and had reserved to himself a right in the Kingdom of Israel to nominate their King and entail the Crown when he pleased that therefore the Subjects of those Kingdoms might not submit to any other Kings whom the Providence of God placed in the Throne without such a Divine Nomination and Entail for it appears from what I have already discoursed that they both actually did and lawfully might submit to such providential Kings when either there was no King by God's Nomination or Entail or no such King was known but the use of the Distinction was to shew that in such Theocratical Kingdoms where God challenged a peculiar right to make Kings by his express Nomination or Entail though God may see fit sometimes to set a providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them and own the King of God's nomination so that if he will prove any thing from my Distinction with reference to other entailed Kingdoms he must shew that my Distinction proves that in such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence a Humane Entail of the Crown will justifie Subjects in deposing and murthering a new King who is placed and setled in the Throne by Providence while the Legal King or Legal Heir is Living as much as God's express Nomination or Entail would justifie the deposing a Providential King in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel And now let us hear his Reason For says he God's entailing the Crown of Judah was the Law of that Kingdom in that respect and the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Iudah were theirs All Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles these Laws were made by God's Authority So that the Doctor mistakes the Question we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule When God entailed the Crown upon David's Posterity they had then a Legal Right to it and so hath every Family in other Kingdoms upon which an Entail is made by the respective Laws of the Countrey But what would our Author prove from this That in every Hereditary Kingdom the Legal Heir has a Legal right to the Crown as well as in Iudah and did I ever deny it or that the standing Laws of every Countrey are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own free Act and Choice and who denies this too There is a Dispute indeed whether the Laws of England do oblige Subjects in all cases to make the next Lineal Heir to the Crown their King but no man ever denied but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. I am sure my Hypothesis is not concerned in this Question and therefore be it how it will it can prove nothing against me Or would he prove that when an Entail is setled either by Divine or Humane Laws God never interposes by his Providence to set up a King who has not this Entailed Legal Right This was manifestly false both in the Kingdom of Iudah and Israel which God had reserved for his own Nomination or Entail and yet He set up several providential Kings Athaliah in Iudah and Baasha and Omri and Ahab and Ioram and others in Israel and in all other Kingdoms at one time or other Or would he prove that when God by his Providence has setled a Prince in the Throne without a Legal Right Subjects ought not to obey him and submit to him as their King This is confuted by the Examples of Iudah and Israel who submitted to Athaliah and their providential Kings who had no Legal Right by a Divine Nomination or Entail and are yet never blamed for it Or would he prove that a Human Entail of the Crown does as much oblige Subjects in Conscience to pull down a King who is setled in his Throne by God's Providence with a National Consent and Submission but without a Legal Right to set the Legal Heir on his Throne again as Iehoiada was by virtue of the Divine Entail to anoint Ioash and slay Athaliah This is the single Point he ought to prove but I do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it The sum of his Argument is this That a Human Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Countrey does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too For the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs The Dispute in general about the Authority and obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denies it But yet we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws tho they are made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe our Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God But the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature though they be both the Laws of the Countrey for which they are made as will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a providential settlement of them
in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and though God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence would not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a providential King when it is in their power to set the right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Human Entail is only a providential settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is setled only by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by his Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Human Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws that are made by God's Authority and which are a Rule to us to Providence which is no Rule Now I would ask our Author Whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws If they be I ask Whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence for do they not refuse to obey a King whom the providence of God has placed and setled in the Throne upon a pretence that he is not King by Law And then I think they give greater Authority to the Laws of the Land than to God in making Kings which is to oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority To avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by Gods Authority but the Question is Whether they are Humane or Divine Laws It is a childish piece of Sophistry and argues a great contempt of his Readers to call Humane Laws Laws made by God's Authority because Sovereign Power which makes these Laws is God's Authority as if there were no difference between Humane and Divine Laws because they are both made by God's Authority though the one are made by the immediate Authority of God the other are made by men who receive their Authority from God whereas in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God which therefore are said to be made by God's Authority in the other case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws Sovereign Princes have their Authority from God but their Laws are the Laws of Men and the difference between them is this that Divine Laws which are made by God himself have a Superior Authority to Men and to all Humane Laws though made by a delegated Authority from God for God grants Authority to Men only in subordination to himself and the Authority of his own Laws He might as well have said That all the By-laws of a Corporation are the King's Laws because made by his Authority granted to them by Charter and therefore there is no difference between the private Laws of the City and the Laws of the Kingdom as being both made by the Authority of the King This may satisfy our Author That though Humane Laws in some sense may be said to be made by God's Authority yet when men oppose a legal Entail of the Crown to the Authority of God in making Kings they oppose Humane Laws to the Authority of God Well! but these Law are our Rule they are are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superior Authority but that they may be by the Authority of God And the Providence of God is no Rule to us If by this he means that we must not make Providence the Rule of Good and Evil to us i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do whatever the Providence of God does I grant it for the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence but if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our Duty cannot lay some new Obligations on us and discharge our old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand Instances every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some new Duties and lays some new Obligations on us I shall instance only in the Case before us If the Providence of God can remove one King and set up another tho this does not alter the Duty of Subjects to their Prince yet it changes the Object of their Allegiance as it changes their Prince the Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him And now let us consider the opposition he makes between Humane Laws of Entail and Providence for he confesses they do oppose Laws made by the Divine Authority that is the Laws of the Land which entail the Crown to Providence or to the Providence of God in making Kings that is they think themselves bound in Conscience to adhere to that King tho out of possession who by the Laws of the Land has a legal Right to the Crown against that King who is actually setled in the Throne by the Providence of God Now if we will consider the sense of things and not the words this is no more than to say that they oppose the Providence of God against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence that is they will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever Reasons the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done that they are resolved to abide by whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and confine Providence that it shall not alter its usual methods in the Government of the World or when it has disposed of the Crown once shall never be at liberty while that Family lasts to dispose of it again to any other For what are these Laws which he says are made by the Divine Authority and are our Rule They are the Laws of Succession which entail the Crown And how does God settle the Crown on any Family by such Laws No otherwise but by his Providence so over-ruling the hearts and counsels of Men as to consent to such an Entail which gives a humane Right to the Crown and bars all other humane Claim So that an Hereditary King by a humane entail of the Crown with respect to God is only a Providential King as much a Providential King as the first of the Family was who obtain'd it by Election or Conquest or worse Arts not by God's express nomination of the Person So that to opppose the Laws of Entail made not by God's immediate Authority as they were in the Kingdom of Iudah but by the over-ruling influence of Providence against God's setting up a new King on the Throne by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence God's Providenee in
setling the Crown in such a Family by a legal Entail against his Providence in setling a new King upon the Throne It is all but Providence still and I desire to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other Act of Providence which gives a Setled possession of the Throne What follows is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the Twelve Tribes by God's express Command and this answers to God's Entail of the Crown on David ' s Family the possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a humane Right and Title to the Crown Well! there is something of likeness between them and what then And therefore according to the Doctor 's way of reasoning every Man who wrongfully possessed himself of another Man's Estate in that Land Canaan must be made to restore it for God had expresly given it to the other and to his Family But in all other Countries if a Man by Providence get his Neighbour's Estate he must have it for the event is God's Act and it is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it Now the fundamental mistake which runs through all these kind of Arguments is this That they make the events of Providence in private injuries Thefts Robberies Encroachments of one Subject on another Subject's Rights to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects whereas all private injuries are reserved by God himself to the correction and redress of Publick Government and Humane Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights but the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a legal decision or any humane Courts for the decision of which God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires and here the final determinations of Providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Soveraign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases as he can best serve the Wise and many times the unsearchable designs of his Providence by it which shows how much our Author is out in applying what I said of God's making Kings to God's disposal of private Estates It is to say that God as well as Men is confined to humane Laws In making Kings I said In disposing of Estates saith our Author as if disposing of Estates and making Kings were the very same thing whereas God has erected humane Judicatures to Judge of the first but has reserved the second to his own judgment and when God himself judges he judges with Authority with Wisdom with Justice superior to all humane Laws Our Author might as well have said That we must not resist private Men or Inferior Officers when they are injurious because we must not resist a Sovereign Prince when he illegally oppresses us as that we must not dispossess a private Subject who has injuriously possessed himself of our Estates because Subjects must not pull down a Prince who is setled in the Throne without a legal Right The Poet would have taught him the difference between these two Cases Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Iovis Subjects are under the Government and Correction of Princes Princes under the Government of God And besides this according to my Principles Kings must be thoroughly setled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them and then if he will make the Cases parallel He who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly setled in it before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the possession of his Estate given him by Law and when he has whether right or wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again but in Causes superior to Laws as the revolutions of Government and the translations of Kingdoms are there may be a thorow settlement by a setled possession without Law and must be so where Laws cannot determine the controversy that is where there is no superior Tribunal to take cognizance of it So that as our Author has stated the Case it signifies nothing to the present purpose for whether private Mens Estates be setled by a Divine or Humane Entail it is the same case if they suffer any Injury from their Fellow-Subjects they must seek for Redress from publick Government but I could have told him a way how to have applied this case to the purpose but then it would not have been to his purpose but to mine In Canaan where God allotted every Tribe and Family their Inheritance none could pretend a Right to any Portion of Land but what was allotted them but in other Countries which were left in common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Thus in Iudah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those who were nominated by God or had the Crown descended on them by a Divine Entail but in other Countries Possession and Occupation gave a Right to the Allegiance of Subjects In Canaan when God had setled such an Inheritance in a Family it could never be perpetually alienated but tho it were sold it could be sold for no longer time than till the year of Iubilee when all Estates were to return to their old Proprietors again but in other Countries Men may part with their Estates for ever Thus in the Kingdom of Iudah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but when ever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Usurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an Inheritance sold for ever In Answer to that Objection That the Laws of the Land in such Cases as these are the measure of our Duty and the Rule of Conscience and therefore we must own no King but whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is in an Hâ—reditary Monarchy the right Heir I granted That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to a Divine Authority Suppose then there were an express Law that the Subjects of England should own no King but the Right Heir and notwithstanding this Law as it will sometimes happen and has often happened in England a Prince who is not the right Heir should get into the Throne and settle himself there if the Divine Law
gives it Do we use to say a Man may give his Estate to whom he will when his Estate is entailed and he cannot alienate it from the Right Heir We should think this a very absurd way of speaking among Men and yet thus our Author must expound God's giving a Kingdom to whomsoever he will to signify his giving the Kingdom to the Right Heir He may if he please call this Expounding Scripture but I doubt every body else will give it some other name and I hope he himself upon second thoughts will be ashamed of it But it is more absurd still if we apply it to the occasion viz. those great Revolutions and Changes of Empires which the Prophet foretold and which he attributes to God and when Kingdoms and Empires are overturned by violence it is nonsence to talk of God's setting up only Rightful Kings not Usurpers when all those Revolutions were nothing else but force and Usurpation Men may talk of Law and Right of Succession in a setled Government but Kingdoms are not transferred nor Kings removed nor set up by Law and therefore when the Prophet tells us with respect to such violent Revolutions That God changes times and seasons that he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings an ingenious Man must be hard put to it to say This is not meant of Usurpers but of Rightful and Legal Kings whereas if but one of these must be meant we must expound it of such Kings who ascend the Throne by Force and Usurpation and if when God is said to remove Kings he will allow this to be meant of Rightful Kings who were legally possessed I wonder how he should fancy that those Kings who dispossess the rightful Kings and place themselves in their Thrones should in his sense be legal and rightful Kings too My Testimony from the New-Testament is Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers for all power is of God Now by Powers our Author says I understand Vsurped as well as Lawful Powers I do so by Powers I understand the Powers in a setled Government whatever their Claim and Title be He says this is contrary to the current of all good Interpreters That I deny I have shewn him already that I have Mr. Calvin and Grotius on my side and the Convocation and if that will not satisfy him it is no hard matter to produce more My Reason he says is Because the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings and Vsurpers One of my Reasons is That the Scripture has given us no directions in this case but to submit and pay all the obedience of Subjects to the Present Powers It makes no distinction that ever I could find between rightful Kings and Vsurpers between Kings whom we must and whom we must not obey These last words he conceals because they Spoil all his Argument For he adds I thought the Case of Athaliah had been a distinction and had this precept been given in those days I wonder whether any body would have doubted of whom it ought to be understood of Athaliah or Joash But the Answer is plain There was a distinction between Athaliah and Ioash That She was an Usurper and He the Rightful King and I hope our Author had not that mean opinion of me to think that I made no distinction between an Usurper and a Rightful King with respect to their Usurpation and their Right but I say the Scripture makes no distinction between a Rightful King and an Usurper with respect to the Obedience of Subjects while they are setled in the Throne the Scripture does not tell us that there are some Kings whom we must obey and other Kings viz. Kings by Usurpation whom we must not obey And with reference to this the Case of Athaliah is no example of such a Distinction for the Iews were not forbid either by the standing Law of the Kingdom or by Iehoiada to submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and Ioash was concealed but they actually submitted to her and are no where blamed for it That Iehoiada afterwards anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah was owing to the Divine Entail of the Crown and was peculiar to Iudah and affects no other Providential Kings who are setled in their Thrones So that had this Law been given to the Iews at that time while Ioash was concealed it must have been expounded of Athaliah who had possession of the Throne when Ioash was known and anointed it must have been expounded of him as having a Divine Right to the Throne of Iudah He proceeds But saith the Doctor if the Apostle had intended such a distinction he ought to have said it in express words and why so I pray I gave him a reason for it which he is pleased to conceal Why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown to Scripture had there been any such Rule before given to submit to Lawful Powers but not to submit to Vsurpers there had been some pretence of understanding St. Paul's All Power of all Legal Power but there being nothing like this any where else in Scripture if he had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of subjection to the Higher Powers only of Powers that had a Legal Right This I thought a very good reason and did not expect to have been asked for more till this had been answered But says our Author does not the nature of the thing sufficiently distinguish it The nature of the thing distinguishes between a Legal King and a Usurper but the nature of the thing does not prove that Usurped Powers are not the Higher Powers and ought not to be obeyed but I think proves the quite contrary But are there not several Rules about Right and Wrong which extend to all Persons and Cases Yes there are such is the Apostle's Rule in this Chapter to give to every one their due but then the Question returns What is their due Whether Obedience and Subjection be not due to the Prince who governs not to the Prince who does not and cannot govern whatever his Legal Right to the Government be But because this Argument of Right and our obligations to do right to every man especially to Princes is that whereon this Controversie turns I shall particularly but briefly consider it The Argument is this He who by the Laws of the Land has a right to the Crown has a right to our Allegiance and whether he be in or out of possession to own any other King to submit and pay Allegiance to any other though actually possessed of and setled in the Throne is great injustice to our natural Prince and a violation of that precept To give to every one their due And whatever force and necessity we are under we must not do so wicked and unjust a thing to preserve our selves nay to preserve the Nation
fruitless and insignificant Authority But to proceed our Author proves by a parallel Case that St. Paul by the Higher Powers could mean only Lawful Powers for the Apostle exhorts 13. Hebr. 17. Obey them that have rule over you meaning the Ministers of the Gospel now the Apostle makes no distintion between lawful Ministers and Intruders and yet we must understand it of lawful Ministers and by the same reason though St. Paul makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful Powers yet he means only lawful Powers for this is the force of his Argument though he has not expressed it But these Cases are by no means parallel For the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such distinction which yet was necessary for St. Paul to have done had he intended his Precept of Obedience should be understood only of lawful Powers The Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the rule over them at that time that they were lawful Ministers and exhorts the Hebrews to obey them and had he added such a distinction it would have insinuated that he knew some among them who were not lawful Ministers and such a Suggestion without naming the Persons would have made them jealous of them all and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them The Hebrews knew whom St. Paul meant by those who had the Rule over them St. Paul knew they were such as ought to be obeyed and therefore there was no need here of any distinction between lawful Pastors and Intruders But St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the higher Powers and generally affirms that all power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it of all Powers however they came by their Power he should have limited it to legal and rightful Powers He adds In short the Dr's Reason is against him There has ever been a distinction in the World between Legal and Usurped Powers and 't is probable enough that St. Paul who was so learned a Man knew it and if he had intended to enjoin Obedience to Usurped Powers 't is probable he would have said so in express terms but since be never said so we have reason to conclude he never intended it Now I doubt not but St. Paul did know this distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers and knew also that the Pharisees made this Objection against their Submission to the Romans and for that reason he affirms that all power is of God and that they must be subject to the Higher Powers without any distinction which he would not have done if any distinction ought to have been made when he knew the dispute was about the Romans whom they looked upon as Usurpers over Israel who were God's peculiar People and Inheritance and yet though there was a distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers there was no distinction made in point of Obedience to them but only by the Pharisees and therefore with respect to the rest of the World he ought to have made this distinction in express words if he intended any distinction should have been made I have insisted the longer on this because it gives a full Answer to his next Objection that the Interpretation I give of the Convocation Book justifies an unreasonable and impious Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Iustice. Now this I confess is a very unreasonable and impious Doctrine and were I sensible that any thing I have said would justifie this Doctrine I would immediately renounce it but I hope when our Author considers again that I have evidently proved that the Interpretation I have given is the true Sense of the Convocation he will be more favorable to it for their sakes But I have already stated this matter about Right and Justice and have shewn the difference between the Right of private Men to their Estates and of Princes to their Thrones and to the Allegiance of Subjects between a Thief 's taking a Purse and an Usurper a Crown by the Providence of God between the Providence of God in such matters as he refers to the Correction and Redress of publick Laws and publick Government and what he reserves to his own cognizance and disposal as he does the Revolutions of Government the removing Kings and the setting up Kings The truth is our Author writes at that rate that it is to be feared some People will suspect that he does not believe a Providence or does not understand it or has a mind to ridicule it For let me ask him does God make Kings in England or not if he does which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the jure divino with a witness how does he make Kings He sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings and to tell us whom he has nominated to Reign over us and therefore he can make Kings no other way among us but by the Events of Providence and how does God make Kings by his Providence truly this can be done no other way but by placing them in the Throne and setling them there with the general Consent and Submission of the People does then this Providential Settlement in the Throne which makes a King invest such a King with God's Anthority if it does not then it seems God makes a King without giving him his Authority makes a King without any Authority to govern which is a Contradiction if he does does not this make it the duty of Subjects to obey such a King Are not Subjects bound to obey such Kings as have God's Authority Again suppose a Prince ascends the Throne and obtains the Consent and Submission of the People by the most unjust force and the most ungodly Arts that can be thought on who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's Permission he Usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making Well let him call him King or Usurper or what he pleases but it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years it may be a hundred years for so long a Prescription our Author requires to give a Just Title to an Usurper without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God Rules in such a Kingdom while an Usurper fills the Throne The reason of the question is plain because the Prophet Daniel pronounces universally that God ruleth in the Kingdom of men and as a proof of it adds and giveth it to whomsoever he will and then it should seem that God does not Rule in these Kingdoms which he does not dispose of by his own Will and Counsel which he does not give to whom he will but suffers Usurpers to take the Government of them For indeed will any Man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by his Authority or Minister Does
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
great question still remains whether Subjects may lawfully take Commissions from the dispossessed Prince to fight against the Prince who is settled in the Possession of the Throne this Dr. Iackson does not say and therefore he can do our Author no service His next citation from Dr. Iackson is the case of Jehoiada ' s Deposing of Athaliah urged by the Papists for the power of the Pope to depose Kings But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out than to have betrayed so much dishonestly in his quotations I shall give the Reader the entire passage First Jehoiada in that he was High-Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the power of Iurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This our Author leaves out though very material because it shews by what Authority he did it as the Ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne that is not merely in right of his Priesthood as the Papists pretended nor merely as a Subject but as being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged as he had observed before And this is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Iehoiada did this being the Kings Vncle and the chief Head and Prince of his Tribe that is not a private Subject but a chief Prince in the Kingdom of Iudah The Doctor proceeds Secondly The Power Royal or Supreme was by right by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God annexed unto the Infant Prince whom Jehoiada ' s Wife had saved from the Tyranny of Athaliah as being next Heir now alive unto David In the right of this Prince and for the actual annexion of the Supreme Power to his person unto whom it was de jure annexed Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy did by force and violence Depose her who had Usurpt the Royal Scepter by violence and cruel Murder of her Seed Royal. All these words in a different Character are left out by our Author and some of them very material ones especially those by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God and the next Heir now alive to David which plainly refers to the Divine entail on David's Family and distinguishes this from the case of other Usurpers which is the very account the Convocation gave of it as I shewed before and overthrows all that our Author has said about the case of Athaliah and for that reason he suppressed them as any one will easily guess Thus he leaves out Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy which shews this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction which private Subjects must not pretend to and therefore would not serve his purpose and I believe by this time he thinks he had better have let it all alone He concludes his Postscript with rage aud venom and I have no answer to that I have indeed changed my Opinion about the Authority of Usurpers who are setled in the Throne by the general consent and submission of the People and of the Estates of the Realm and I have Scripture and Reason the Authority of the Church of England and the Laws of the Land for any thing our Author has said to the contrary to justifie this change and I assure him I will change my Opinion in any thing else upon the same terms and despise his censures of my Honesty for doing so and as for Authority I never pretended to any my self and will never own any mans Authority much less my own Opinions in opposition to Scripture and Reason the Church of England and the Laws of the Land But what a charitable Opinion our Author has of the present Government and of all that comply with it we may see in the Parallel he makes between my case and that of Hazael as if swearing Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary were as great as notorious as self evident an impiety and wickedness as all the villanies which the Prophet Elisha foretold Hazael that he would be guilty of I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the Children of Israel their strong holds wilt thou set on fire and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword and wilt dash their children and rip up their women woth child But let our Author consider who are most likely to be guilty of these Villanies those who quietly submit to the Government which is now setled among us or those who are for overturning all by bringing in a French Power to devour and consume with Fire and Sword and to enslave their Native Country if this be Allegiance and Passive Obedience I am sure what our Author calls Perjury and Rebellion are the greater vertues As for his parting Request I do affirm it again That I never was factious against taking the Oaths nor made it my business to dissuade men from it when my Opinion was asked I declared my own thoughts but never sought out men to make Proselytes and in this Profession I am not afraid of his or any other mens memories so much as of their inventions for there are some great Wits among them Let them produce the man if they can whom I endeavoured to dissuade by word or writing from taking the Oaths where my Opinion was not first asked and if my Opinion had any Authority with them then our Author knows it is more than it ought to have had and that was none of my fault unless he means that my Authority was considerable against taking the Oath but none for it which is the way that all Parties and Factions judge of mens Authorities But though our Author seems very well acquainted with the thing called Faction yet he is not willing to understand the word and therefore I must tell him that when I say I was never factious against the Oath I do not mean that I was never hearty and zealous against taking the Oath for I hope there may be Zeal without Faction or that when I was pressed to discourse the matter I did not talk with as much Warmth and Concernment as other Men. But Faction is quite another thing it shews it self in Separations and Schisms in Rancour and Bitterness Envyings and Emulations in violent Oppositions to Government in changing and confining Friendships with a Party in Censures and Reproaches in stigmatizing all Persons of another Perswasion as perjur'd Knaves whereas tho there had been a material Perjury a different Opinion may excuse from formal Perjury for no Man is formally perjured who does not know it I shall not explain this by Instances for if our Author is for writing Secret Histories I am not so at present And now I am at leisure to attend his motions and to consider his threatned examination of all my arguments whenever his due time for it comes and if he will promise to examine them well before he answers I shall