force then they might become Subjects to her and the Doctor intimates that they did and ought to be justified in it and might swear to her and tye themselves as fast as she pleased for the Doctor says in Cases of force God's entail did not bind them But then how came they and as the Doctor says upon the account of that entail too to set up Joash and slay Athaliah why truely I doubt that is not a fair Question and the Doctor cannot answer it without contradicting himself again And this he does as plain as words can do it for he tells us The manifest difference between Kings set up by Divine Providence Vindic. p. 35. in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel subject to a Divine nomination and email and Kings set up by Divine Providence in other Kingdoms The first may be and are depos'd 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 But then what becomes of force or how does that take off the binding power of God's entails if assoon as the Right Heir appear such a Person who possess'd by force is depos'd and as the Doctor says sinks into the state of a Subject P. 3â—â— Why truely here is a very pretty business first force makes the Divine entail not binding and then the Dâ—vine Entail makes force not binding and so they alternately vacate each other according as the Dr. hath occasion But to do the Doctor Right he is here a little more consistent and he likes fâ—rce a little better than to part with it so for he tells us P. 27. Gods entails always oblig'd the Jews when they had power enough to take the King on whom God had entâ—â—l'd the Crown which was evidently their Case when Jehoiada anointed Joash and shew Athaliah but when they were under force as under the Babylonians c. no entail tho made by God himself could bind them so that force is the business still and then the châ—â—â—es run thus force on the side of Vsuâ—pation makes Gods Entâ—il not â—â—â—ing and force on the side of Gods Entail makes Usurpation not binding And so the People either have or they have not obligations to Gâ—â—'s Entail or â—o Vsurpation according as they have power if they are not able to fight with him and kill him the Usurper is their King and they are his Subjects but if they are then the Right Heir by God's Entail is their King and they are no bodies Subjects but his An admirable Scheme of Government and Obedience Men may talk what they will of Divine Entails and Covenants with God and Rights and Conscience but 't is all but words fâ—r force is the sum Total and Government is nothing else It makes it a duty to obey the Covenant with God and it makes it lawful to break it it makes Divine Entails binding and it makes them cease to bind And it seems this Brutal Principle of force is the Rule of the World and of Conscience too and Laws and Oaths Entails and Covenants with God vary their obligation and either bind or not bind either bind for or against them as they are back'd with power and according to the variation of Force Vindic. p. 17. The Doctor proceeds and tells us that all thâ—â— can be said 〈◊〉 thinks is that by submission which gives a Legal Right I mean the sumbission and acknowledgment of these in whom the Right is Well I do mean so Answ p. but that is not all I mean for I say joyn'd with the consent and submission of the People and therefore I except against the Doctors interpretation that is to say the submission of the People does not give a Legal Right but the submission of the King does whereas I had joyn'd them both together In answer to this as the Doctor calls it he has five Questions to ask and it might be eâ—ough to observe here that he does not deny it nor do any nor all of his Questions imply a denial of it the matter is plain before him does such a submission and acknowlegment of Fâ—rce and People given a Legal Right or does it not if it does 't is as much as I conâ—â—nd for if not let him disprove it And this would bring the matter into close dispute but the Doctor did not care for that be found where the shooe pinch'd and saw he could not deny it and if he own'd it then he must have prov'd that these Governments to which the Convocation say Obedience is due had not such a submission which he could not do neither and therefore instead of giving a direct answer he leads his reader about and through a maze of Questions to cloud and cover the defect of a plain and pertinent Answer And in truth to lead us quite beside the Question as we shall see in considering the particulars The plain Question between us is whether the submission of the Prince and People gives a Legal Right To which the Doctor Answers 1. In the first place I desire to know what submission of the King that is that gives a Legal Right That is to say the Doctor desires to make a new Question of it for whether submission dâ—â—â— give a Right and what that submission is that dâ—es it are different Questions suppose men should differ in opinion as to the nature degâ—â—es or forms of such submission does it therefore follow that submission it self does not give a Right because all men are not satisfied as to the kind or degree of submission this is an odd sort of arguing to deny the thing because we are not agreed about the Modus But since the Doctor is for asking of Questions he will give me leave to ask him one Vindic. p. 17. He says that the submission of the People gives a Right to Obedience tho not a Legal Right and I desire to know what submission of the People that is that gives such a Right is it a formal Recognition by the States and Representatives why possibly that may do something where there are such States and Representatives But what submission is that where are none as there were not in the Eastern Countries and about which is the present Question I suppose a Parliament was not call'd in Judaea nor the Sanbedrim neither if there were then any such Constitution to make a formal surrender of themselves to Nâ—buchadnezzar nor yet afterwards to the Romans The Doctor insists much upon the submission of Jaddus and if it were true what Convention of the People was there representing the Nation that formally submitted to Alexander Jaddus himself and the Priests and perhaps these at Jerusalem and what is all this to the great Body of the Nation which the Doctor makes necessary to a Settlement why truely nothing at all of this and what then is that submission of the People that gives a Right to obedience even a tacit
To this I answer This is no answer to the main point the Question is whether in the sense of the Convocation a thorough Settlement by what means soever attained did not oblige the Subjects of Judah to obedience as much as in any other Country and tho contrary to the Entail on David's posterity and it is plain they thought so for they urge the very same duties of Obedience and Non-resistance to the Babylonians and the Romans as they do to the Kings of David's Family The Babylonians and Romans when their Government was throughly setled among them their Authority was as sacred and irresistable as Joash's or any other of their Kings who were so by the Divine Entail and let the Dr. if he can shew me any one duty of Subjects which they require as due to the Kings of Judah by the Divine Entail which they do not also require as equally due to the Babylonians and Romans which is clear to a Demonstration that they thought of no such difference in this matter but that a thorough Settlement in the Kingdom of Judah was the same thing and every way as valid as in any other Country And the Inference is plain that therefore whatever possession of Power Athaliah had and whatever submission there was of the People to her â—for that the Dr. is resolv'd to suppose they did not mean that to be the thorough Settlement which has God's Authority and to which obedience is due for they urge obedience and non-resistance to the Babylonians and Romans but justifie the deposing and slaying of Athaliah But to this which is the main Question the Dr. says not one word and all that he says is that when they were at their own choice and had power they were bound to take the King on whom God entail'd the Crown but when they were under force no Entail tho made by God himself could bind them And what is all this to the Convocation speaking of a thorough Settlement without any respect to the difference between Divine and Humane Entails what if the Dr. to save a better answer has found a difference between choice and force The Convocation takes as little notice of this distinction as it does of the other But the Dr. hath an extraordinary faculty at distinguishing when the case of Athaliah and Joash presses him then he is for distinguishing between Divine and Humane Entails and Athaliah might be depos'd and slain because She was an Usurper against a Divine Entail and her Government was a nullity when the Right Heir appear'd when he is press'd with the instances of the Babylonians and Romans who according to him were likewise Usurpers against the same Divine Entail then he is for distinguishing between choice and force when they are at their own choice and have power they are oblig'd to take the King by God's Entail when under force God's Entail does not bind them So that this last distinction hath eaten up the former and the whole matter is resolved into force if they had power then the Government of the Usurper was at an end and a nullity and they were bound to prosecute and depose the Usurper But if they had not Power the Usurpers was a very good Government and ought to be obeyed for Conscience sake And so we are furnished with admirable measures of Obedience and Government if they have Power they are bound in Conscience to resist and depose if they are under force they are bound in Conscience to submit and obey so that either way the Rule of Conscience is not a Divine Entail but only force But then I wonder what the Dr. will say to that manifest difference that was between the Usurpation of Athaliah and the Government of the Babylonians and Romans They were plainly under force all the six years of Athaliahs Usurpation and how came it to pass that that would not make them Her Subjects and her Authority as irresistable as that of the other if force would do it Vindic. p. 13. why would not Athaliahs force effect it as well as Nebuchadnezzars or the Roman force Athaliahs force indeed was the force of the Kingdom and the Babylonians was a foreign force but I suppose the Dr. does not care to make that a difference and he expresly affirms the contrary for private Subjects when the Prince and Government of the Nation is violently changed and they are under force force will justifie submission and then it is much the same thing from what quarter the force comes And why then would not the force coming from Athaliahs quarter do the same thing and take off the binding Power of the Divine Entail as well as when it came from the Babylonish quarter And why were not they Athaliahs Subjects as well as to the Kings of Babylon and her Authority as irresistable The Nation the Laws the Entails were the same and there was force in one Case as well as the other why truly there was this difference that Athaliah was an Usurper and the Kings of Babylon were none And if the Dr. can find any other difference he would do well to shew it Well! however that be let us see what kind of Subjects this Doctrine makes of the Jews to the Babylonians and Romans He tells us Kings set up by providence in Kingdoms P. 35. subject to a Divine Entail may be and are deposed whenever the Right Heir appears though they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before Now the Doctor owns that the Babylonians and Romans were set up by Providence over Judah in a Kingdom Subject to a Divine Entail and therefore according to this Doctrine they might be and were deposed upon the appearance of the Right Heir as well as Athaliah I speak it with the Doctor 's limitation supposing they had power enough to depose them for we are not to suppose the Subjects of Judah could do more than they had power to do But then wherein lay that dreadful guilt of Perjury and Rebellion of Zedekiah so severely taxed and threatned in Scripture not with respect to the Rights and Settlement of Nebuchadnezzar for the Doctor tells us Kings set up by providence may be and are deposed though they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before not with respect to the Oath which he had taken to Nebuchadnezzar for the Doctor tells us again p. 37. that no Oath can oblige against a Divine Entaiâ— and therefore it was only for the want of Power and the dreadful account the Scripture gives us of the Perjury and Rebellion of Zedekiah and which was followed with such a remarkable vengeance and likewise those frequent Rebellions of the Jews and that Pharisaical spirit of Rebellion so justly taxed by the Convocation and by the Doctor too though ridiculously applied it seems the only fault and guilt of them was their foolish attempting without sufficent Power for if they had power enough they might not only lawfully but
and ought to have been depos'd and the reason of this difference is manifest because the Crown of Judah was entail'd but the Crown of Israel was not and the possession of the Throne by Athaliah was in prejudice of the right Heir but the Possession by Baasha in Israel was not for no person had a better right to it than himself And this is a plain Answer to that tedious Account the Doctor gives in the two next Pages of the difference between the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel after the division of the ten Tribes whereas the plain difference is that the one was hereditary and not the other and therefore in Israel possession of the Crown gave a Right to it for there was no better Right against it but in Judah it did not and this seems the true reason why the Convocation mention'd the right Heir of that Kingdom being then living i. e. there was a plain and visible Right in being against the Possessor and which they were bound to own and stand by what possession soever an Usurper hâ—d got of the Throne And this is a sufficient Answer to what he says in the next pages but there is one thing more deserves to be taken notice of and that is the Reason he gives of the different behaviour of David and Jehu because Saul was a King by God's nomination and Joram only a providential King His words are This is the Reason of the different behaviour of David and Jehu Vindic p. 35. David was anointed as well as Jehu but he never pretended to the crown while Saul lived because there was then an anointed King on the Throne but this was not Joram 's Case he had no more than a providentiâ— Right which in the Kingdom of Israel must give place to God's anointing and therefore Jehu was King of Israel as soon as he was anointed and Joram was his subject This is a pure Reason as if God by his nomination of a person had divested himself of the Right of nominating another in his life-time if he had so pleased and if the mere nomination is a Reason against another nomination why is not the setting up a King by providence a reason of not setting up another by providence in the life-time of the first King for there is no more difference between Nomination and Nomination than there is between Providence and Providence I know the Doctor says that when God nominated any King it was always for life but that is said without proof for where does he find such a Clause in the gift that they should be Kings during life But the true Reason of the different behaviour of David and Jehu was not because Saul was an anointed King and Joram a providential King nor yet from their being both anointed for the Doctor may find that long before this time of Elisha's commanding the anointing of Jehu that God had commanded Eâ—ijah to anoint Hâ—zael King of Syria and Jehu King of Israel which if Elijah obey'd as there is no great doubt of it both Hazael and Jehu were anointed 20 years before they were actual Kings tho Benhadad of Syria and Ahab of â—srael were according to the Doctor providential Kings and therefore they did not immediately enter into possession by vertue of their being anointed or because the Kings into whose places they were to succeed were providential Kings but David was anointed not as King in present Convoc p. 46. but as Successor to Saul as the Convocation intimate and Jehu at this second anointing if he was anointed before as the command of God to Elijah seems to import and as many learned men believe was anointed King at present and appointed so for a particular end to destroy the family of Ahab And the Text is express Thus saith the Lord 2 Kin. 9. I have anoinied thee King over Israel and thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy Master c. So that together with his nomination and anointing at that time he had a command from God and which he was immediately to put in execution and God gave him accordingly Power and Authority to fulfill it but not the least intimation of the Doctor 's fancy because Joram was a providential King or because a providential Right in the Kingdom of Israel was to give place to God's anointing for whatever Right there was in the Kingdom of Judah or any other Kingdom it was to give place to that But if men without any warrant from the Text and of their own heads will be framing Schemes from Scripture to serve a wretched Hypothesis it is no great wonder if humane Writings such as the Convocation Book do not escape their corrupt Interpretations and Applications of it to serve the same end But to return The Doctor adds And what does he prove from this That according to the Doctor 's Principles Athaliah was placed in the Throne by God by his Council Decree Order and peculiar Order That is what I prove Now Athaliah says he had the actual administraâ—ion of sovereign 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 To this the Doctor replies Grant all this and what then Why then the Doctor 's Arguments are lost by his own confession for but fifteen lines before he says that I say his Arguments will equally serve Athaliah as any other King or Queen de facto and he says if they will he will give them up for lost But says he Why then this justifies tht submission of the Jews to Athaliah while she was possess'd of the Throne and no right Heir appear'd But 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 what need was there for me to have concluded that I was disputing against the use the Doctor then made of this Distinction and for that purpose it was sufficient to shew that his Arguments equally concluded for submission to Athaliah as for submission to any other Usurper for whatsoever he says now he had said before from his Distinction that N thing would justifie their Submission to an Usurper Case oâ— Alleg. 35. and they were bound never to submit to their Government when the right heir was found I know he seems in many places of his Vindication to lay some stress upon the Kings son being found and known but in truth he means nothing by it for he equally supposes and justifies the submission of Jehoiada who knew of the right heir's being alive as well as the rest of the Subjects who he supposes did not know it But I suppose the Doctor would have had me to conclude against his Vindication
and the Ordinance of God for otherwise it could not be said that an intruder into the Office Royal could never usurp or continue his power otherwise then by resisting some higher power or the Oâ—dinance of God and as he afterwards expresses it with respect to a Government by succession He the Usurper resists power much higher than his own And if the Right Heir or King out of possession be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God then he is the Person within the Precept of the Apostle in the 13th to the Romans and not the Usurper And therefore whatever may be due to an Usurper in the exercise of Royal Power in indifferent cases nothing can be due to him in prejudice of the Right Heir for our duty to the place and power the Usurper holds which is the utmost Dr. Jackson allows can never be interpreted to the wrong and injury of the Person to whom that place and power of Right belongs and whose it is For I hope no duty to Usurpers will excuse us for resisting the Higher Powers and the Ordinance of God and if the Right Heir be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God then whosoever resists him resists the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God And I would fain know if the Usurper by resisting the Rightful Prince resists the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God why also every man else that resists the rightful Prince does not likewise resist the Higher Power the Ordinance of God And the Dr. may trie if he has a distinction that can make it a duty to obey Usurpâ—rs in opposition to St. Paul who commands us to obey the Higher Powers and who are ordained of God And thus Dr. Jackson himself expresly determines it in the very case of Richard the Third He tells us 3. Tom. p. 881. They were not Traitors that and yeild obedience to the Laws made by him or submit themselves unto the Magistrates of his appointment save only in Cases wherein the Laws made by him might prejudice the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom or cut off the Right of Succession to the Crown But in case the Magistrates Earls or Barons created by him should have commanded their inferiors to taâ—e arms against the known and lawful heir to the Crown to have yeilded obedience to them in this case had been Treason as Rieh himself during all the time of his Reign was no better than a Traitor I have one thing more to observe from hence and that is that the Rightful King out of Possession is not only the Higher Power but that he has the Power actually annex'd to his Person for thus Dr. Jackson expresses it the Usurper openly resists Power much higher than his own whether the Power be yet actually annexed to some known Persons that have Right or Title to the Kingdom by succession which overthrows at least one half of his two books and all his Arguments about actual Authority c. And besides fully answers his little exception about receiving Commissions from them for it is ridiculous and a contradiction to talk of Power being actually annexed to the Person of a Prince when he cannot exercise any Acts of Power and Authority The Dr. comes to examine another citation I produced out of Dr. Jackson And ushers it in with this laudable preface But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out then to have betrayed so much dishonesty in his quotations These are hard words and the Dr. is bound in honour to make them good for it is shameless with a witness to charge a man at this rate and have nothing to say to justifie it And let us see what it is he does say He says he will give the Reader the entire passage 1. Jehoiada in that he was High Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the Power of Jurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This saith the Dr. our Author leaves out Right I did so and what reason was there to transcribe more than was necessary and concerned the question I wonder he did not charge me with dishonesty for not quoting the whole Sermon But he says it is very material because it shows by what Authority he did it as the ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne then it seems the Throne was vacant and I would desire the Dr. to tell me when according to his Principles when Athaliah was on the Throne it was fill'd with God's Providential Queen when Joash was crown'd it was fill'd with a King by Divine Entail but according to the Dr. it was never vacant and consequently according to him Jehoiada never had any such Authority But the truth is the Throne was vacant all the time the Usurper possessed it i. e. it was not legally fill'd And Jehoiada as a Prime Peer of the Kingdom was to take care and to exercise his Authority that the Right Heir might be restored as Dr. Jackson says 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 did by force and violence depose her And not as the Dr. seems to insinuate that he had any power to make a Decision of a controversie between the Right Heir and the Usurper and which way soever he determined it the People were bound to acquiesce for Dr. Sherlock adds that is not merely in his Right of Priesthood as the Papists pretend 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 what have we got here can the Prime Peer of a Kingdom judge authoritatively and judicially of Kings if the Dr. could persuade Dr. Jackson to say this it might do his Hypothesis of the Peoples consent in Parliament some service but his Doctrine about providence would suffer as much by it on the other hand for then there would be a Tribunal on Earth for the decision of differences between Kings and Usurpers Vindic. p. 46. and then the Events of Providence would make no difference between private injuries and usurpations of Government Let that go as it will he tells us Dr. Jackson had observed this before Now indeed Dr. Jackson did observe that an Usurper's Acts are of validity c. till he be declared to be an Vsurper by some Higher Power or Authority now transfer this to Athaliah and Jehoiada and see what wise work we shall make on 't that is to say all the time of Athaliahs Usurpation Jehoiada was the Higher Powers and then Athaliah's power must be inferiour to his and so at last he has made a pure Queen of her to have a Power inferiour and under the Authority of her own Subjects for he tells us Jehoiada submitted to her and ought to be justified in it
for it Case of Alleg. p. 6. Vindic. p. 9 Convoc p. 46. They are these they teach that the Lord in advancing Kings to their Thrones is not bound to those Laws which he prescribeth others to observe And therefore commanded Jehu a Subject to be anointed King over Israel of purpose to punish the Sins of Ahab and Jezebel But the Doctor seeing that this was by Gods express nomination and therefore nothing at all to his purpose he adds And what he did by Prophets in Israel by an express nomination of the Person he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms set up Kings when he sees fit without any regard to the Right of Succession or Legal Titles Convoc p. 53. For as they tell us elsewhere 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 And can the Doctor say that by these words the Convocation means God's making Kings by Providence or that they make any such inference from them that a Person possessed of the Throne without Right and contrary to it is made a King by God and ought to be obeyed If the Doctor can say this I have done wondring at any interpretations he makes either of the Convocation Book or of the Scripture in favour of his Hypothesis For the Convocation in this very place does not only not refer to God's making Kings by Providence but is as express against the Doctor as any thing can be For the Convocation speaking of and justifying the facts of Jehu and Ahud in killing King Joram and Eglon as having an express warrant from God and being made Kings by God's express nomination they immediately add Both which examples being but in number two throughout the Histories of all the Princes Judges and Kings either of Judah or Israel do make it known to us that altho the Lord 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 yet foreseeing in his Heavenly Wisdom and Divine Providence what mischief private men under colour of these Examples might otherwise have pretended or attempted against their Sovereigns as being either discontented of themselves or set into fury by other malitious persons he did so order and dispose of all things in the Execution of these such his extraordinary Judgments as that thereby it may plainly appear to any that should not wilfully hoodwink himself never to be lawful for any person whatsoever upon the pretence of any Revelation Inspiration or Commandment from his Divine Majesty either to touch the Person of his Sovereign 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 And what they thought of such advancement with respect to other times is evident in the Canon to this Chapter where they say with respect to the same matter Except which is impossible he should first prove his credit in so affirming to be equal with the Scriptures and that men were bound as strictly to believe him in saying that God called and stirred him up to the perpetrating that fact as we are bound to believe the Holy Ghost by whose instinct the Scriptures were written when he telleth us that God raised up Ahud for a Saviour to his people And more to the same purpose Convoc p. 48. If any man shall affirm that it is lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whosoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign or to lay violent hands upon his Sacred Person by the example of Jehu nothstanding that any Prophet or Priest should incite them thereunto by Unction or any other means whatsoever except first that it might plainly appear that there are now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself with sufficient and special authority in that behalf and that every such Captain and Subject so incited might be assured that God himself had in express words and by name required and commanded him so to do he doth greatly err From whence these Two things are obvious 1. That these words The Lord both may and is able to overthrow Kings c. notwithstanding any Right c. plainly refer to the facts of Ahud and Jehu and have an immediate respect to God's setting up Kings by his express nomination and in the Kingdom of Israel also and therefore very improperly alledged to prove that what God did by Prophets in Israel by express nomination he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms For that that is the sense of the Convocation the Doctor proves for that they tell us elsewhere that the Lord may and is able c. And yet this very elsewhere has the same reference with the other and respects the Kingdom of Israel and God's express nomination And where is the Consequence God by express nomination made Jehu and Ahud Princes and authorized them to kill the Kings whose Subjects they were before and he may do so again if he please therefore if any person can by Providence get the possession of another Princes Throne he is a King of God's making as much as Jehu or Ahud and has as good authority to act as they had 2. They limit and confine the practice upon this Doctrine to God's express Nomination They do not mention them either to allow or establish a general practice upon them but to prevent it And it seems as if they designed to prevent that very Inference the Doctor draws from them The Doctor infers That therefore whoever is possess'd of Power by Providence hath God's Authority And they infer the clean contrary that notwithstanding a special and express Warrant from him is necessary and granting that the Lord may and is able to overthrow Kings c. notwithstanding c. yet no man had any Authority from him except he was expresly and by name appointed by him And the Convocation is so far from substituting Providence in the place of Gods nomination that in the very Case upon the account of which they mention these words they say there can be no Authority without God's express warrant and that such a warrant is now impossible So that the Doctor 's Interpretation and Inference is directly contrary to that of the Convocation And by this time I suppose the Doctor may be satisfied there was no such need to call for an Answer and to tell me I did not think sit to take notice of these Passages And I do think fit yet further to take notice that he hath plainly alter'd the state of the matter with respect to these passages In his Case of Allegiance he produc'd this passage to prove Case of Alleg. p 6. That what God did by his Prophets in Israel by an express nomination of the Person
he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms set up Kings as he sees fit without any regard to the Right of Succession or Legal Titles Vindic. p. 9. But now in his Vindication we have another account For says he 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 Throne of those that have the Right there is no sense to be made of them And what is this to Providence which is the main thing in controversie and for the proof of which the Doctor cited those passages Suppose they do prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most Rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no Right Do they prove likewise that a Providential possession of the Throne is God's giving his Authority or that which he did by his Prophets in Israel he does by his Providence in other Countries God's Sovereign Authority is no Question between us The Convocation allows the Doctrine but says withal that no man in those cases can act upon it without God's express warrant The Doctor expresses this oddly And give his Authority to those who have no Right and place them in the Thrones of those that have the Right If this is to be understood Grammatically and which is the Doctor 's Hypothesis That when God has given Authority and Government to a Person he hath no Right to it and when he hath taken them away That Person hath still the Right This is neither the Sense of the Convocation nor yet Sense For the Convocation says God may overthrow Kings notwithstanding any Right they can challenge which intimates not the continuing but the determining their Right as Jeram after God had given his Kingdom to Jehu had no longer Right to it but was as the Convocation says Jehu's Subject and there is nothing more absurd than to say that a man hath no Right to what God gives him and that he hath yet a Right remaining to what God takes away from him The Doctor goes on P. â— 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 c. What hard shifts we are put to to obscure what will not admit of a plain answer What is this to the purpose the Doctor cited those passages or to the Question before us And where I pray did I ever say that no Prince can have God's Authority without such Rights No doubt he may have it if God gives it him And that is the only Question Jehu had God's Authority without these Rights But then God expresly and by name gave it to him Let the Doctor prove that possession of the Throne by Providence is equivalent to an express Nomination or that it is a sufficient Evidence that God hath given such a Possessor his Authority and till then all his Arguments from God s Sovereign Authority signifie nothing To argue from Gods power of disposing Kingdoms without Legal Right to his actual disposing them so and because he can give his Authority to one who hath no Right therefore he that is possess'd of the Throne without Right has that Authority is neither Logick nor Sense And how insignificant then is all this that follows Then says he God is bound to thâ—se Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribeth to others then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just Right or 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 â—â—rss he unmake himself by resigning his Crown He can set a man upon the Throne but cannot make him a King w◠〈◊〉 the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription And after having made me say all this frightful stuff he adds Where ever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure the Convocation never taught it him And is not this an admirable way of disputing to make his Adversary say what he please and then Expose it But I tell him I learnt that Doctrine neither from the Convocation nor from any body but himself But the Doctor is so warm in this wild Rant that he utterly forgets that what he says is equally against his own Notion and Interpretation The consent of the people is that which according to him settles a Government and makes it a duty to obey and without such a consent 't is no duty And cannot God set up Kings without consent of the People then he cannot make a King for a King without Subjects is no King He may set a man upon the Throne but cannot make him a King without leave of the people And so the Doctor may take his Rebuke again wherever he learnt this Doctrine I am sure the Convocation never taught it him For they have taught over and over that the people of all sorts have no interest in nor any thing to do with the Government and it should seem that one main end of their Book was to confute and shew the falsity of such Opinions into which notwithstanding the Doctor 's fine Principle of the Consent of the People is finally resolv'd But such Arguments as these will prove any thing in the world the Papists may prove all their fabulous Legends God may and is able to work Miracles now as he did by Moses the Prophets and Apostles and therefore St. Rumbald and a great many other of their Saints did all those wonderful things they ascribe to them And the Doctor knows such things have been urged to justifie very ill things and by men who have own'd the same Principles as he does God may now give the Land to his People as he did of old Canaan to the Israelites and therefore they may cut off the Malignants as a Company of cursed Canaanites to possess their Estates God may now give the same liberty he did to the Israelites to spoil the Aegyptians and therefore whatever we can get from the Aegyptian Church of England is our own I do not say the Doctor concludes so but his Arguments do and every one of these Consequences are as good as the Doctors And if Providence comes in the place of Prophecy and what God did of old by his Prophets he does now by his Providence and Providential Events convey the same Right and Authority as God's own immediate and express direction then this is very good arguing and the Doctor 's Principles will justifie such Practices tho He does not But yet further to shew the unreasonableness of the Doctor 's Inference and
Power over Israel But the mischief is the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments c. that God had called him to murder the King de facto under whom he lived c. which says the Doctor is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de facto in the jugdment of the Convocation And I suppose our Author knows what a King de facto signifies in opposition to a King de jure one who is King without a Legal Right I answer yes I do know that but the mischief is the Convocation does not speak of a King de facto in opposition to a King de jure but barely of a King de facto and I suppose the Doctor knows that a King de facto when it is not spoken in opposition to a King de jure does not mean a King without a legal Right And this is plainly the case for 1 it is barely and nakedly expressed without any opposition to a King de jure either mention'd or suppos'd 2. The matter plainly proves that it cannot be spoken in opposition to a King de jure which is that the King de facto may not be murdered by his Subjects but if a King de facto was spoken in opposition to a King de jure then a King de jure may be murdered by his Subjects 3. The Doctor tells us that this is spoken with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon and therefore King Eglon was but a King de facto But then this is a reason that the Convocation did not speak it in opposition to a King de jure for in the Chapter to this Canon they speak with reference to the same That the Lord may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countries Kingdoms or Empires These words were plainly spoken with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon and the Convocation prefaces thus Both which Examples i. e. of Jehu and Ahud do make it known to us that although the Lord may and is able to overthrow c. And the Doctor tells us but the page before P. 9. that there is no sense to be made of these words if they do not prove God's sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings c. and this was spoken with reference to God's pulling down King Eglon by Ahud But then Eglon was so far from being a King de facto in opposition to a King de jure that he was not only a rightful King but a most rightful King And therefore the mischief the Doctor speaks of that the Convocation in express words owns the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites to be only Kings de facto is no other mischief but that the Doctor contradicts himself but that is no mischief with him otherwise he would not use it so often And here we plainly see the Doctor 's admirable dexterity in interpreting the Convocation to his own purpose The Convocation says King de facto and no more but it seems that would not do and therefore the Doctor says they say only King de facto and but King de facto but these Additions which perfectly alter the sense are no bodies but his own and yet it seems it was not enough to put them in but he must tell us also the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto when the Convocation hath not any such word or any thing like it The Doctor proceeds Vindic. p. 11. Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author hath found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies and that is the submission both of Prince and People Well that is one of them but not all which says the Doctor he says I grant gives a legal Right Postscripâ— p. 2. 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 Very good let it differ as little or as much as he please it is nothing to me for if he will look again he will find that I only said the Doctor tells us that the submission of the Prince c. And I think also that saying he tells us differs a little from saying he grants So that I think this might have been spared But the Doctor had a mind to charge me with a fault and he hath thereby shew'd himself to be only guilty of it However I take this opportunity to tell him that it is indifferent to me whether or no he grants that the submission of the Prince and People confer a legal Right all the world besides grant it and that is sufficient for any ordinary Principle tho the Doctor should not think fit to like it nor any thing else tho never so plain if it contradicts his Hypothesiâ— But now the Doctor tells me The truth is our Author is here blundered for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous terms This is a terrible business if the Doctor could but shew us where this blundering and these ambiguous terms were I had told him as plain as I could speak that besides lineal descent a Right to a Government might be acquir'd by the death or cession of the right heir joyn'd with the consent of the People and by Prescription and when such a Right respectively was attain'd the Government was then a legal Government I think this is distinct enough and the Notions are clear enough and if the Doctor would have given a direct Answer he should have shewn that either a Right to a Government by these ways is not attain'd or if it be that the Governments the Convocation speaks of and requires Obedience to had not attain'd such a Right but instead of that he runs on with a company of distinctions about legal and learnedly shews how many several ways Powers may be said to be legal And what is all that to me and to the purpose By legal Powers I understand what he understands by them if he understands any thing by them and that is legal Powers in opposition to usurped Powers Usurped Powers are such as have no Right legal Powers are such as have a Right as well a Right acquir'd as by lineal descent and such Powers by the consent of all mankind are legal Powers and Usurpers the contrary And the Doctor knows well enough this is my sense and hath quoted it too but two or three pages before but the truth is Vindic. p. 6. the Doctor is blunder'd for an Answer and to avoid giving a clear and distinct Answer falls a
distinguishing to no purpose at all and on pretence of truly stating confounds the Question and runs from it which is blundering with a witness Has the Convocation any thing to do with his distinctions When they call the Roman Governors the lawful Magistrates of the Jews do they mean lawful by the law of Nature And this I had before mentioned Postscript p. 3. and he will not directly answer but hides himself under distinctions and tells us fine things of a state of nature when all men are free and may dispose of themselves as they will and of Conquest and a prevailing force when they have the same liberty as in a state of nature And what is all this to a King by Providence and to the Convocation book If the Doctor has a mind to put the matter upon that issue let him give his reasons and I will submit to them or answer them But for my part I love to end one Controversie before I begin another and do not much care to be drawn from the matter in hand by impertinent Distinctions which are nothing to the purpose Well! but the Doctor tells us That Legal as it respects the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation or Kingdom is understood by all men who understand themselves in this controversie of Legal Powers This is the reason of the distinction between a King de jure and a King de facto a King de jure is a rightful King by the Laws of the Land a King de facto whatever Right he may have is not rightfully and lawfully possess'd of the Crown by the Laws of Succession proper to that Kingdom And this says he is all the mystery I intended That is to say the Doctor hath written two books to prove that a person who is not next Heir may be King and have God's Authority a wonderful discovery I had told him so over and over and shew'd him in what Cases when a Right was acquir'd by Death Cession or Prescription But this it seems is blundering ambiguous and a man does not understand himself But to say that the same thing is by the Consent and Submission of the People this is very clear and distinct and the Doctor understands himself tho no body else except some Commonwealths men are able to understand it But this is nothing but shifting the Question and the Doctor I 'll warrant you does not understand the force of my Argument and yet he tells us here Let us see what Legal Right and Title our Author hath found for the Kings of the Aramites and the Moabites and for the four Monarchies and that is the submission both of Prince and People Very well and why did not he give a direct Answer to that Does the submission of the Prince and People make such a Government a legal Government and no Usurpation And the next Question is Had not the Aramites Moabites Babylonians and all the Governments the Convocation justifie Obedience to such a Consent and Submission and if they had then they were legal Kings and not Usurpers And this was the substance of my Answer and to which I had added for Confirmation that the Convocation mentions but two Usurpers Athaliah and Antiochus and justifies the Resistance of them both And what does the Doctor say to this Why first of all I am a bold Undertaker secondly 't is blundering and ambiguous and last of all there are several sences of Legal and if there were as many hundred senecs of Legal what is that to the purpose I use it but in one sense and that is in opposition to Usurpation and so all men else use it in the dispute between legal and usurped Powers whether the Doctor thinks they understand themselves or no. But here is a tender point the Doctor cannot deny it and yet is unwilling to own it it would be ridiculous for a man that talks so much of the Consent and Submission of the People to deny that the Submission of the Prince and People together did not transfer a Right to the Government and if he should own it then he must own likewise that all the Governments the Convocation require Obedience to had acquir'd such a Right And therefore it was far better to make Distinctions and ask Questions to obscure the business than to bring the plain matter in controversie on foot by a direct and categorical Answer But the Doctor tells me such legal Rights as I have found for these Princes will quickly transubstantiate all Usurped Powers into Legal Governments P. 10. Not all sure for I expresly limit it to the acquisition of Right by the Death or Cession of the right Heir and by Prescription and if the Doctor please I except one and he may prove it if he can that is a Government by the Consent and Submission of the People in opposition to the actual claims and pretences of an undoubted rightful King which is as directly contrary to the Rights I have mention'd as the Doctor 's thorough Settlement is to that of the Convocation In answer to the Doctor 's saying that the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites could have no legal Right to the Government of Israel I had said they had a legal Right if the Submission of the Prince could transfer a legal Right which the Doctor said it might be thought to do P. 12. Now the Doctor tells us all the mystery he intended was that That could not be according to the Constitution of the Jewish Commonwealth c. And what then Could it not be by the Submission of the Governors and People That was the thing which I asserted and which the Doctor was to disprove But to this I made an Objection Postscript p. 3. If it be said that God was at that time their Sovereign and he did not submit 't is true he did not but the Text says expresly that God delivered them into their hands This the Doctor says made him smile for I had started an Objection which I knew not what to do with And the Answer is as extravagant as the Objection for says he he has found out something which he thinks equivalent to God's Submission to the Aramites and Moabites and that is that God had delivered them into their hands What then Did God resign his Government of Israel into the hands of the Aramites and Moabites and quit his Right and Claim to the Government of them Spectatum admissi Let the Doctor 's friends smile as well as himself Now I do not know what force there may be in smiling but I have seen that used when men have nothing to answer And whether that be the case I shall refer to the Reader And here I shall do two things 1. I shall vindicate the Answer I have given and 2. Consider what the Doctor offers to justifie the Submission and Subjection of the Israelites to them 1. To vindicate the Answer And the first thing I have to observe is that
there is no incongruity in the Expression as ridiculous as the Doctor represents it to say that God may resign his immediate Government over a People as their political King This was done in fact upon the ceasing of the Theocracy in the Kingdom of Judah Now in the present case the Text saith expresly that God delivered them into the hands of the Moabites and Aramites And what does that intimate but that God had so far parted with his immediate Government as their political King for if God was at that time their political King how came the Israelites to be the Subjects of these Kings Might they transferr their Alleg. from God too when he insisted upon his Right to govern them But if God appointed them for the punishment of their sins to be Subjects to those Kings and delivered them as such into their hands and the Israelites knew that he did so it is plain that God so far consented that they should be their Subjects And tho the Doctor will not allow that the presumed consent of the Prince signifies any thing I hope he will not think so of the express consent of God Now the Convocation plainly asserts that the Israelites were the Subjects of these Kings and the Doctor 's Argument proceeds upon the supposition of it And the Question is how they became so Either God at that time was their political King or he was not if he was Which way should they become Subyects of another Prince I doubt for all his laughing it will puzzle the Doctor to give another account of it If God was not their political King then those in whom the Right of the Government was together with the People had submitted and had thereby made the Governments of the Aramites and Moabites over them Legal Governments But of this more presently 2. To consider what the Doctor hath found out to justifie the Submission of the Israelites and their becoming Subjects to these things And here we are got into a field of Distinctions and nothing at all to the purpose And the Doctor will grant Legal Powers may be understood in a larger Notion and that may be said to be legal which is agreeable to the Laws of Nature and Nations and Submission may make a legal King of him who according to the Laws of the Land can be only King de facto And this he tells us is worth considering and then goes on In a state of Nature wherein we must suppose all men free from any Government but that of Parents and so might give up the Government of themselves to whom they pleased c. But what is this to the purpose Was that the Case of the People of Israel whom God himself had framed into a Commonwealth and especially at such times when he was their political King But says he If we fall into a state of Nature and Liberty again P. 13. or something like it as in the case of a new prevailing force when Prince and People are conquer'd for then the Government is at an end and they are as much at liberty to submit to a conquering Prinâ—e as they were in the state of Nature Now this is perfectly a new Question and I see no reason to meddle with it but if the Doctor is weary of his Hypothesis as he hath laid it and will quit it as not defensible and will fix the controversie upon this bottom he shall hear what I have to say to it But the Doctor I suppose thinking it not much to the purpose hath himself enlarg'd this point And with respect to private Subjects he says When upon a violent change of Government they are as much under the force and power of a new Prince or a new Government as they could be under a conquering Prince Force will justifie Submission and then it is the same thing from what quarter the force comes And agreeable to this he says in matters of Government it is an unalterable Right of Nature to submit to Force 〈◊〉 14. And this is that which he gives as a Reason to justifie the Submission of the Israelites to the Aramites and Moabites for it follows All men will grant that no humane Laws and Constitutions are so sacred as the positive Laws of God that Government and Polity which God himself prescribed to the Children of Israel which they were religiously bound to observe by vertue of their Covenant with God which certainly was as sacred as any oath Now those Laws did not admit of the Authority and Government of Strangers but expresly forbad it that had they chose to be governed by any foreign Prince they had greatly sinned in it but this very Law as sacred as it was gave way to necessity and when they were conquer'd by the Aramites or Moabites or any other Nation it was no fault to submit to them And if force would justifie this in the Israelites who had God for their King and were oblig'd by their Covenant with him to accept of no foreign Prince to govern them it is hard if it will not justifie the Subjects of humane Governments most of which were at first founded in mere force whatever their Oaths and Obligations be to submit to a new and greater force This is the Doctors state of the matter and I shall consider it immediately For the Doctor says This gives a sufficient Answer to what our Author adds in the place last quoted Postscript p. 3. That God's being King of Israel would be an Argument against their submission for the Doctor tells us that where God entails the Crown the People were not to submit to any Usurpâ—r if the right Heir was alive and therefore much more where God himself was their King and then sure they might lawfully resist those Kings whose Subjects they were not nor could be and they needed no especial direction to destroy the Usurpers as Ahud did King 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 transferr'd a legal Right or their Submission was a sin To this the Doctor replies Vindic. p. 15. This looks like something very deep but it is so very a nothing that I cannot devise what he would be at that is because the Doctor has nothing to say to it For now he comes to another of his shifts just before instead of giving a direct Answer he brings a company of impertinent Distinctions to blind the business and in the mist drops the Question and now instead of answering one Question falls to asking I know not how many Would he prove that God was not the King of Israel â—gaiâ—st the Scriptures oâ— would he prove 〈◊〉 the Israelites ought not to have subâ—â—tted to the Moabites and have â—ad all tâ—â—ir Throats out or would he prove against â—he Convocation that they were not 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—jects of King Eglon No
no neither so nor so And what now if after all this bustle the Doctor knew well enough what I would be at if nor what does he mean by that which he says immediately before these words And this i. e. what he had said before gives a sufficient Answer to what our Author adds in the place last quoted Well the Doctor has the best faculty at answering that ever was heard of he can answer and give a sufficient answer too to he does not know what I perceive understanding a Question and anâ—â—â—â—ing it are two things as for the understanding what the Author would prove by these Words the Doctor does not know whether the Author understands that himself and why should the Doctor understand another mans proofs better than himself But then for answering let the Doctor alone he can give a sufficient Answer to it let who will understand it Well I do not dispute whether he understands it or no but I am sure he hâ—th not answer'd it at all much less sufficiently answer'd it and to gratifie him I shall tell him what I meant by it and if it does not stare him full in the face I never saw the like on 't â—â—e of â—ller p. 3â— The Doctor had found out a curious distinction of Entails by God himself and Entails by Providence the main pillar of his Book and if it fails his whole Book fails with it by vertue of which he would persuade us that nothing can justifie Submission to an Usurper when the Kings Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a divine Entâ—â— and Subjects are bound to adhere 〈◊〉 â—â—ir Prince of God's chusing when 〈◊〉 is known and to prosecute all Uâ—â—pers to the utmost and never submit to their Government But in other Kingdoms where God makes Kings and entails the Crown by Providence the placing a Prince in the Throne and setling him there in the full Administration of the Government is a Reason to submit to him as to Gods Ordinance and Minister with reference to this I said as above and I think the consequence is plain enough tho the Doctor will not understand it if nothing would justifie the Submission to an Usurper when the Right Heir was alive and known where God entails the Crown then much more so where God himself was their King and I would fain see a Reason why God's Entail should be of more force to oblige them to prosecute all Usurpers to the utmost and never submit to them than his own immediate Government This I think is as clear against the use the Doctor makes of this Distinction as any thing can be and all his little shifts of the heir being known of anointing him Vindic. p. and of his actual Possession will signifie nothing here with respect to God's immediate Government But this the Doctor did not understand and therefore would give no Answer to it But any man that considers the Answer he hath given will be apt to suspect that he did not only understand it but understand also that there was no fence for it for it hath made him perfectly alter the state of the Question and utterly forsake his distinction for he now tells us roundly they may submit i. e. becomes Subjects to force That while the Israelites were under no foreign force but had liberty to live by their own Laws they were bound to make him their Prince on whom God had entail'd the Crown while they were under force they might do as they could and submit to the Conqueror which Submission could not give these Usurpers a legal Right according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Jewish Commonwealth but according to the Law of nature which allow submission to a Conqueror it did Very well then pray what becomes of Nothing can justifie the Submission to an Usurper when the Kings son was found and Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of God's chusing when known and to prosecute all Usurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government I had thought that nothing and never would have excluded Force as well as any thing else and I thought likewise that submitting to Usurpers had not been prosecuting them to the utmost and never submitting to their Government and I desire the Doctor in his next to shew me how to reconcile them But to leave the Doctor to reconcile his Contradictions as well as he can let us a little consider his new state the sum of which is That Force will justifie Submission from what quarter soever it comes that in matters of Government it is an unalterable Right of Nature to submit to force that Force justified the Submission of the Israelites tho they had God for their King and tho they were oblig'd by their Covenant with him not to accept such Kings to govern them and that by parity of reason it will justifie the Subjects of humane Governments whatever their Oaths and Obligations be Now from hence I have these things to observe 1. That this is nothing to his Hypothesis for what is submitting to force to a providential King and God's Authority Is all Force God's Authority and may it claim a divine Right to Obedience c. This therefore is a new Hypothesis set up to answer Objections which were made against the old one and which that would not do But if possible 't is more extravagant and dangerous than that for 2. This makes Force the supâ—eme Rule of Right and Wrong of Good and Evil it impowers men to joyn with and become Parties to what they know to be wrong and to resist to the uttermost what they know to be right It cancels and dissolves the most sacred Obligations and warrants the entring into other Obligations in direct opposition and contradiction to what they stand in the most holy and solemn manner bound to God and Man For by Submission to Force the Doctor does not mean a passive Submission which no body disputes but an active concurrence and conjunction with it to own and support it to become Subjects to it and swear an Oath of Alleg. to defend it against all men Now this is the single Question Will all the Force in the world justifie the maintaining and defending it against Right The Doctor hath an instance p. 13. If we happen to fall into the hands of Thieves and Robbers where the Government can't protect us we may very innocently for our own preservation promise and swear to them such things as are against the Laws of the Land and which it would be unlawful for us to do in other circumstances Very well But may we by vertue of being under such force and for our own preservation swear to joyn our selves to them to uphold and support them to our Power to secure to them their unjust gotten Goods against the Pretences and Prosecutions of the right owner and to assist them to get more These things I doubt Force and Self-preservation will not
justifie And therefore the Case of the Israelites under the Aramites and Moahites does not come up to the Question Whose Rights did they oppose What Injury did they do to a third Person and What hinder'd but they might make a dedition of themselves There was neither Oaths nor Claims nor Titles in their way to hinder them and what Force would justifie in them it will justifie in any man or in any Nation besides p. 14. But the Doctor sâ—â— this was agaiâ—â—t a paâ—â—â—â—â—w of Câ—â— the Government and Polity of Israel which they were religiâ—â—sly bound to observe by vertue of their Covenant with God which was as sacred as any oath And how does he prove this These Laws did not a â—it of the Government and Authority of Strangers â—o it expresly forbid it But that I think is a mistake There is a â—aâ— indeed that obliged them not to set a Stranger over them Dâ—ut â—â— 15 But that I think was a temporary Law and had an immediate respect to the change of their Government when they were to have a King like other Nations and did not respect the times before nor after for the Text says they shall set him King over them whom the Lord thy God shall choâ—se which respects God's express Nomination and the plain meaning seems to be When they should come to desire a King like other Nations and the state of their Government should be chang'd they should take such a King as God should appoint and one of their Brethren But suppose this was a standing Law it makes no difference as to the present matter for what if by their Laws they could not choose a King that was a Foreigner might they not therefore submit to such a King when there is no wrong done The truth is by that Law thâ—y were oblig'd not to choose a King at all but to take him whom the Lord shall choose They had no more to do to set up one of their Brethren than they had to set up a Foreigner The Doctor would limit this Law to Strangers only and says Had they chose to be governed by any foreign Prince they had greatly sinned in it whereas it was the very same with respect of their Brethren and had they of themselves choâ—e one of their Brethren to govern them as in the case of Gideon they had likewise greatly sinned Sâ— that the plain intention of that Law was to forbid them making a King of their own heads and the mention of their Brethren seems either to prevent thâ—ir hankering after the Kings of the Nations or to shew that God intended to set over them a King of their own Brethren but does not at all concern their Submission to other Princes either when they had no King as was the Case of the Israelites under the Aramites and Moabites or when their own King of God's setting up had himself submitted to foreign Force Vindic. p. 53. when it was lawful for them so to do and the Doctor himself tells us The Jews were not forbid by the standing Law of the Kingdom to submit to Athaliah while she was possess'd of the Throne and Joash conceal'd And I wonder where is the consequence God forbids them to chuse a King of their own heads therefore they must not submit to another Prince when they have no King or when the King of God's chusing hath himself submitted It had been a little more pertinent to the Doctor 's purpose if he could but have prov'd it to have urged that when God had given them a King and they were under an Usurper That Force would have justified their deserting their King of Gods choosing and engaging to maintain and defend the possession of the Usurper against him The Doctor adds If Force would justifie this in the Israelites who had God for their King and were oblig'd by their Covenant with him to accept of no foreign Prince to govern them Now this I take to be strange Doctrine for as the Doctor hath stated the matter with respect to the Submission of the Israelites it contains this admirable Proposition That Force will disengage Men from their Covenant with God and justifie them to covenant directly and expresly against it For if by vertue of their Covenant with God they were oblig'd to accept of no foreign Prince to govern them yet when they were under the power of such a Prince they might covenant with him to stand by him and maintain him against all Opposers which is the import of swearing to him and becoming his Subjects then by virtue of force they may make new Covenants of themselves in direct opposition to the Covenant they stand in to God And so I perceive that the Covenants God makes with his People are no better than Oaths of Allegiance the Dr. in the next Page asks me a curious Question would he prove that the Israelites ought not to have submitted to the Moabites but have had all their throats out by a vain opposition No by no means sure let them first break their Covenant with God and a thousand Oaths rather than have their Throats out 3. This makes the Drs. distinction of Divine Entails and Humane Entails of Crowns vain and frivolous and in truth no distinction at all upon the account for which he useth it For if men may become Subjects to force notwithstanding one Entail as well as the other where is the difference what the Dr. says here with respect to Gods Entail is the veâ—y same as to Humane Entails P. 15. while the Israelites were under no foreign force but had liberty to live by their own Laws they were bound to make him their Prince on whom God had entail'd the Crown And this it seems is the utmost of the business and then what do Divine Entails signifie more than humane Entails The Dr. owns over and over P. 41. that Subjects under no force are also bound to make him their Prince on whom the Laws of the Land have entail'd the Crown So that for any thing I can see men are oblig'd to and disoblig'd from both upon the same reason for without force both are oblig'd and force dissolves the obligation let the Entails be made by whom they will the Dr. says expresly in such a Case Vindic. p. 27. no entail tho made by God himself could bind them And that I think is as much as the Dr. himself can say of a Humane Entaâ—â— 3. This is irreconâ—â—â—ble with the Doctors Argument of the deposing Athaliah and setting up Joash and indeed if this Doctrine be true 't is impossible to give any justifiable account of it Was not Jehoiada and the Subjects of Judah under force all the six years of Athaliah's Usurpation if not what can be said for Jehoiada and the rest for not doing their duty when they were at liberty and as the Doctor says were bound to make him their King on whom God entail'd the Crown if they were under
thus the Drs. Argument is lost if to have it perfectly confuted from his own words is to have it lost But no matter for that let the Drs. Argument suffer never so much by it he will have me say that Athaliah was throughly setled and makes me believe he does me a great kindness to admit it for says he to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly setled in the Throne â— 36. and a little after he tells me I will suppose that Athaliah was throughly setled in the Throne whereas I suppose and prove the clean contrary and if to suppose that Athaliah was not throughly setled be to suppose She was throughly setled then I do suppose it but the Dr. I thank him has a mind to make me to contradict my self as fast as he contradicts himself But the Dr. gives a reason why I have not given the true notion of a full and setled Possession for saith he he hath left out the principal part of it as I state it when the Estates of the Realm and the great body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Now it is true I have left it out and how should the Dr. expect I should do otherwise for he knows I do not believe that is the true notion of a Settlement and I do not believe that the Dr. can prove that it is But I suppose the Dr. means that because I said that Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne and did not say likewise that the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation submitted to her therefore my Argument does not affect him And what the Convocation says of deposing and slaying Athaliah does not relate to a setled Government except it appears that according to the Drs. notion of it the Estates of the Realm c. had submitted to her and therefore a setled Government may have God's Authority and ought to be obey'd tho Athaliah had not God's Authority and might be depos'd because she was not setled according to the Drs. account by the submission of the Estates of the Realm c. This I take to be his meaning tho he has not express'd it but I know I must be careful of giving his meaning least he be angry and tell me again he will answer for none of my senses And therefore if this be not his sense Vindic. p. 71. I desire him in his next to tell me what is for I can make no other sense of it But methinks a man that is so very humoursom and touchy should be careful to deliver his sense a little plainer and not leave men to guess and to make it out for him But if that be his sense then I make this Answer 1. I do own that the People of Judah at least the more conscientious part of them did not submit to Athaliah so as to become her Subjects and Parties to her Government But I do believe notwithstanding that a great part of them and perhaps the greatest did side with her and abet her For it is plain that She had a Party enough to maintain her Government and those that would not own it were not able to oppose her Had Jehoiada been strong enough I think there is no doubt but he would have deposed her and established Joash long before But at the end of six years he had a great accession to his Party which probably he had at that time been preparing and working them into a sense of their duty to their lawful King and there can hardly be given any other account why he permitted the Usurpation so long for if the mere shewing the King would have done it and have turned the hearts of the People that might as well have been done some years before and the Kingdom have been set upon the Right bottom and the mischiefs of continued Usurpation have been prevented But it is no wonder that power and interest should prevail against Duty and Conscience Men in those days as well as others might have their Principles corrupted and their morals poysoned what Arguments they had to justifie themselves by does not appear the Drs. two Books would have stored them with abundance but a little Argument with a great Interest will go a great way And it is plain it was six years before they came to a sense of their duty and there is little doubt to be made but Jehoiada travail'd all that time with them to reduce them and probably upon just Conviction they deserted the Usurper and joyn'd themselves to Jehoiada But the Question is not What they did but what they ought to have done That a great part of the Kingdom did submit to her I think there is no dispute and it is as little that a great many did not and the Question is Who of these according to the Principles of the Convocation ought to be justified and who ought to be condemn'd 2. The Dr. himself asserts they did submit and so Athaliah was setled according to his Notion of a Settlement and then my Argument affects him 3. The Question is not What is the Drs. Notion but what is the Convocation's Notion of a Settlement and I readily grant that according to that Athaliah was not setled nor that they thought she was But the Reason is because she was an Usurper and the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive and not because the People had not submitted For if they did submit as the Dr. says they did that made no alteration in the Case they were bound notwithstanding to return to their Lawful Ki g and to Depose the Usurper whether they had or not submitted And the truth is there is scarcely any thing the Convocation more obviates than the Notion of Peoples Consent contributing any thing to the Government or to their own Duty They express it Civil Power Jurisdiction c. deduced by their Consents depend upon their Consents did receive any such vertue and strength from the people P. 3. P. 8. P. 28. Now 't s true these are spoken with reference to Lawful Governments But then I would fain see a good Reason why the Peoples Submission and Consent which signifies nothing with respect to Lawful Governments and their Duty to them should signifie so very much against the Lawful Government or if the Peoples Consent does not make Allegiance a Duty to Lawful Governments how comes it to make it a Duty to Usurpation in opposition to Lawful Governments 4. Altho the Dr. here tells us that the Principal part of a Settlement is the Submission of the Estates and the great Body of the Nation as he does also in his Case of Allegiance yet when he comes to prove this he himself hath left this Principal part quite out for the Answerer had said that Settlement is a Term of Law and in the notion of it denoted a Rightful and Peaceable Possession and in Reply to this
not commence from his anointing nor cease to Athaliah if ever they pay'd any to her upon his being in Actual Possession in the Doctor 's sense and as he would have it and immediately it follows which dutiful office of Subjects being perform'd that is the dutiful Office of Crowning and Anointing This it seems was the Office of them that were Subjects and not of such as by that act were to become so And to this purpose I had answer'd this matter before Postscr p. The Doctor knows well enough that his Anointing and Proclaiming did not make him King but that according to the Rules of Succession in that and other Kingdoms he was King all the while of Athaliah's Usurpation and Allegiance was due to him and uppon the account of that they restor'd him But saith the Doctor If the Convocation had not thought that there was some difference between killing Athaliah before or after the anointing of Joash they would not have laid so much stress upon the time when she was slain Now it is true the Convocation does mention the time and seem to lay some weight upon Joash's being in Possession and not without Reason this Example of Jehoiada and which the Doctor observes was urg'd by the Papists to justifie the Pope's Power of Deposing Princes and to refute this that Chapter and Canon seems especially to be directed And if we consult the Protestant Authors of those times we shall find the most insisted on these Two Answers the first respected the Character of the Person deposed Consult B. Robert Abbot de Suprem Potestat Reg. p. 32. Roffensis p. 913. the second the Authority by which it was done As to the First they say Athaliah was an Usurper and no Queen without Right and Title and what Jehoiada did any other private man might have done But not a word of the Doctor 's fine limitation of her sinking into the state of a Subject when Joash was anointed for they never thought her otherwise only they thought her a great deal worse The Doctor indeed sprucely calls her a Queen and is very tender as to the Point of slaying her but they bluntly called her a Robber and never troubled themselves about the Punctilio and Ceremony of killing her Bishop Robert Abbot says roundly Vt non hic ex auctorata Regina quae nulla fuit c. p. 33. This is not to be called a deposing a Queen who was no Queen but the taking vengeance of a cruel Robber and the discharge of the Allegiance of Subjects to their own King The other Answer respects the Authority by which she was deposed and slain And upon this they say that any man hath Authority to kill an Usurper And Bishop Buckeridge is very express P. 923. If Athaliah was not a true Queen but an Vsurper c. in this all are agreed that she may be killed by any Subject because no body is a Subject to an Enemy Furthermore saith he the order of that management is this Jehoiada shews and declares their true lawful and natural King the Princes and People accept him and then Jehoiada Crowns him and after all that they take Athaliah and slay her c. And now observe what follows If they had first deposed Athaliah and afterwards Declared and Inaugurated King Joash videri fortasse poterat perhaps it might seem that something had been done by the Authority of the Priest or Nobles or People but seeing that the true King was declar'd in the first place and in the second place punishment was taken of the false Queen and Vsurper those facts are known to be done by the Kingly Authority and not by any Priestly Authority or that of the Nobles or People From whence 't is plain there is not so much stress laid upon the anointing of Joash as if Athaliah could not have been lawfully killed before or without it as the Dr. fansies for they say any body might do it but being done after it was a clearer proof against the Pâ—pists that it was done by the Authority Royal and not Sacerdotal or Papal And upon this account it seems the Convocation was so punctual in reciting the order of it Bellarm. that the Proof might be yet clearer against the Papists For they urg'd that both the Deposing and Killing Athaliah and the setting up of Joash was done purely upon the Authority of Jehoiada as High Priest and the order of it as being done after Joash was Anointed and Crown'd was a proof without exception against them And hereby an Objection is prevented for if it had been done before it might have been pretended as some Papists and Common-wealths men pretend and the Dr. has given no small Countenance to it that Joash was not King and that he had no Authority 'till he was Crown'd and therefore it must be done by the Authority of Jehioada But it being done after refutes all such Cavils and therefore there was reason enough for their mentioning and insisting upon his being Crown'd before Athaliah was slain tho they might believe that Joash had sufficient Authority to perform all Acts of Government as well before as after such Anointing and Crowning And that they did so is as plain as words can express it For speaking of the Kingdom of Judah this they say expresly After that the Kingdom was held by Succâ—â—sion Convoc p. 52. the very being of the Kings Son the True Heir Apparent after his Father's death gave unto them all thâ— Actual Intere t Right and Possession as Possession in those Cases is to be expounded of their several Governments to do any act or acts as well before as after any subsequent Formalities and Ceremonies So thâ—t they never tâ—ought of Anointing as giving Possession or thaâ— they were thereby impow'red to do any Acts of Government and the Usurper might have been slain as justly by the Authority of Joash as well before as after his Anointing But all this is meer trifling and signifies nothing to the main Question For whether Anointing gives Possession or no whether Joash was in Possession before or not is all one in the Present Case For if he was out of Possession they put him in Possession if Anointing was so material they Anointed him and all this from a sense of their Duty and Allegiance and ev'n when the Government was actually administred by an Usurper Postscr p. 9. And then it follows as I said that Allegiance is due to a Prince tho his Throne be possessed by an Usurper So that let Anointing give as much Possession as the Dr. please and let him make what Inferences he thinks good from Athaliah's being slain after Joash's Anointing I am not able to see what he would prove from them And if they were granted him he cannot from thence prove that Allegiance is not due to a Rightful Prince dispossess'd or while an Usurper is upon his Throne or that the Jews did not pay Allegiance to Joash before he was
anointed or at the same time that Athaliah was on his Throne But the Dr. starts a new Question and that is Whether a Private man may kill an Usurper and expatiates upon it and has it in I know not how many places in his Book tho it be nothing at all to the purpose Perhaps he would have me give some Answer to that because he can dispute about it I can tell him that Bishop Buckeridge and other Learned men have asserted it and if he have a mind to it he may try his faculty and dispute the Point against them But I do not know any reason to mix it in the Present Controversie which is about Submission and Swearing Allegiance to Usurped Powers And I think there is some difference between Killing and Swearing Allegiance to an Usurper I now come to his Second Answer which relates to his distinction of God's Entailing the Kingdom of Judah to David's Posterity of other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Providence and to this I had given several Answers 1. This Distinction is not in the Convocation Book Postscr p. 5. Vindic. p. 24. and so does not affect their sense To this the Dr. replies I grant it And then it seems there may be a fair account given of the Deposing and Slaying Athaliah without having recourse to the Drs. Distinction for the Convocation have done that and the Dr. grants his Distinction does not affect their Sense But then I would fain know how it comes to affect the Case of Joash and Athaliah so much that it can by no means be solv'd without it I know the Dr. says he did not concern the Convocation Book in the Story But I think that makes no great matter the Convocation concern'd themselves in the story and that may do as well as if the Dr. himself had concern'd them in it and very punctually declare and justifie Jehoiada's setting up Joash the Rightful King and slaying Athaliah the Usurper And that it seems may be done without the help of the Drs. Distinction for that does not affect their Sense But saith he tho the Convocation takes notice of the Story yet they neither make nor answer this Objection which the Dr. raised from the Story in direct terms But if the Objection be concerning the Anointing Joash and the Deposing and Slaying Athaliah they had made it sufficiently and as for answering it in direct terms if by that the Dr. means they have not answer'd it as he hath done it is true enough but for all that they have answer'd it directly enough and the whole Chapter and Canon were design'd for an Answer to it But still the Dr. tells us they had another design in mentioning it and fitted their answers wholly to that That no Priests in the Old Testament did ever Depose from their Crowns any of their Kings Convoc p 41. how wicked soever or had any Authority so to do And because the Example of Jehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose they shew that no such thing can be proved from it Very well and so they do And do they not also tell us that Jehoiada the High Priest set up Joash and slew Athaliah and therefore tho it cannot be proved as the Convocation says that any Priests in the Old Testament did ever depose from their Crowns any of their Kings yet it can be proved that Jehoiada restor'd the Rightful King and slew the Usurper And if the Convocation had been of the Drs. mind and had thought that an Usurper now might not be deposed and that Subjects did not owe Allegiance to a Rightful King while his Throne was possess'd by an Usurper it is credible that they would not have intimated it to prevent the inconveniences that might arise from this Example In other Cases we see how very Nice and Cautious they were and there was but reason In the Case of Jehu they say Convoc p. 47 48. If any man shall affirm that any Prophets Priests or other Persons having no direct and express Command from God might lawfully imitate the said facts either of Samuel or Elizeus in anointing and designing Successors to Kings which otherwise had no Just Interest Title and Claim to their Kingdoms or that it is Lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whatsoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign or to lay violent hands upon his Sacred Person by the Example of Jehu notwithstanding that any Prophet or Priest should incite him thereunto by Unction or other means whatsoever except first that it might appear that there are Now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf and that every such Captain and Subject so incited might be assured that God had in express words and by name required and commanded him to do He doth greatly err So likewise they say P. 53. with respect to the fact of Ahud killing King Eglon and of Jehu Both which Examples being but in number two throughout the Histories of all the Princes Judges and Kings either of Israel or Judah it seems they thought Athaliah was none of them what a Queen soever the Dr. hath made of her do make it known to us that altho the Lord may and is able to overthrow any King c. yet foreseeing what mischiefs private men under colour of those Examples might have pretended or attempted against their Sovereigns he did order c. as that it might plainly appear to any that would not wilfully hoodwink 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 Sovereign c. And this yet more fully and largely insisted on in the Canon Conyoc Can. 27. p. 54. which is level'd to prevent the drawing of that fact of Ahud into example and which I beg the Reader to peruse and he will soon be satisfied how wonderful careful the Convocation was when any extraordinary Examples came in their way and which were not to be followed in latter Ages to prevent all mistakes and abuses that might by corrupt minds be drawn from them And now let us compare with these the Case before us here is a plain Example of Setting up a Rightful King and of Deposing and Slaying an Usurper and that Example justified by the Convocation Is it possible for the Dr. himself or for any man else to believe that if the Covocationn had thought that in these days an Usurper ought not to be deposed or that men were not bound to pay Allegiance to the Rightful King when his Throne is in the Possession of an Usurper that they would not have taken the same care in this as they do in the other Examples and plainly and clearly have said that the practice of Jehoiada and the People was not Now to be drawn into president for certainly there is not less but a great
according to the Rule and Standard of Right in the Kingdom of Judah and the Dr. urges it to prove the unjustifiableness of acting in the same manner in the like case in any other Country at this rate the Dr. if he please may prove from the Convocation that Rebellion and Resistance is lawful in other Countries tho not in Judah for the Convocation refers to Gods Entail when it speaks of the obedience of the Jewish Subjects and therefore according to the Dr. Kings that are so by Gods Entail must not be resisted but Kings that are so by Humane Entails may And I wonder what reason he can give why the Convocation when they speak of Divine Entails to justifie the adhering to the lawful King and deposing an Usurper is to be understood any more in opposition to Humane Entails than when they speak of the very same to justifie the Duties of Obedience and Non-resistance but the truth is this is nothing else but shameless fallacy and howsoever it might look in another it is not very pardonable in Dr. Sherlock All that the Dr. proves is that the Convocation and Jehoiada himself when they justifie his adhering to his Rightful King and deposing the Usurper refer to the Divine Entail which was the foundation of the Regal Right in the Kingdom of Judah and upon the account of which he was the lawful King and the other an Usurper And from hence would make his Reader believe that they taught that in other Kingdoms where the Entails of the Crown are made by Humane Laws the Subjects ought not to stand by the Rightful King nor depose the Usurper but stand by him and assist him against the Rightful King which is a wild and extravagant as well as a sophistical conclusion and any man but the Dr. would conclude the direct contrary that because in the Kingdom of Judah the Subjects were bound to own their dispossessed King and assist him in the recovery of his Rights and depose an Usurper that wrongfully possessed his Throne because God by Entail had six'd and setled the Crown in one Family and by that had made the Right to the Government to be in them therefore in other Countries because the Laws had entail'd and fix'd the Crown in a certain Family the Subjects are bound to do the same to their Rightful King For tho the Entails be differing the Reason and Equity of both is the same the King of Judah had a Right to the Government by Divine Entail and the Kings in other Countries by Humane Entails but they both have right and the Laws of doing Right are eternal and immutable however the fixing and determining that Right may be various And I believe the Dr. is the first that from hence made a negative argument for tho there have been those who have said the examples of Government and Obedience in the Scriptures do not affect us because the Polity and Constitution of the Jewish Commonwealth was differing but to say that because the Jews were bound to observe their Laws of Government because they were appointed by God himself therefore the Subjects of other Governments are not bound to observe the Laws of their respective Constitutions is a strein beyond the Moon and fit only for the Dr. when he maintains paradoxes Upon the Restoration of Edw. 4. the Parliament and Kingdom did as Jehoiada had done before they had recourse to the Laws of the Land which were the Standard of the Right to the Crown and they did the same upon the Legal Entail as Jehoiada did upon the Divine Entail they establish'd the Rightful King and depos'd the Usurper and I believe it was never question'd but they acted as warrantably and justifiably as Jehoiada tho he did it by virtue of a Divine Entail and they by virtue of a Humane Entail but it must be confessed that the Drs. distinction tho it was then known yet the corrupt and perverse use of it was never known before 'till he hath now found it out to support an Hypothesis every way as absurd as the use he makes of this distinction I had further said with respect to the Convocation as the Dr. observes That they do not speak of this the distinctio between Divine and Humane Entails 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 entail'd and go by Succession To this the Dr. replies that I make very bold with the Convocation for saith he they do not offer to justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying that the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by that She was an Vsurper 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 Vsurper and whether he may be deposed and murthered In answer to this I have only these things to observe 1. That here is one point gained and that is that according to the Dr. The sense of the Convocation is that the Death of the Right Heir makes a Legal Right to the Crown to him that Possesses it for he says that they prove from the Right Heirs being living that Athaliah was an Usurper and had no Legal Right to the Throne plainly implying that if he had been dead she had not been an Usurper and would have had a Legal Right to the Throne and he tells us that an Usurper is such a one as hath no Legal Right to the Throne And so the Dr. must grant me that a Legal Right may be conveyed as well by the Death as by the Cession of the Right Heir But then all his impertinent distinction vanishes when he talks before of Legal with respect to the Law of nature Vindic. p. 11. the Law of nations and the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation and saith he in this last sense 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 Now I suppose the Dr. will take it ill if I should say he does not understand himself and therefore by Legal he means Legal according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom then I hope whatever he had said before he will not now think it so great a blunder for me to assert that a Right to a Government may be acquir'd by the Death or Cession of the Right Heir for we are to suppose the Dr. understands himself Vindic. p. 11. and has clear and distinct notions of what he writes tho he will not allow it to his Answerer when he says the same things that he does But
then I doubt half the former part of his book will come to nothing for I had asserted that all the Governments the Convocation requires and justifies obedience to had acquir'd such a Right which the Dr. does not disprove but falls a distinguishing between the Laws of Nature Nations and a new Law never heard of before the Law of force which it seems does more than all other Laws for it cancels the obligation of them all And then tells me upon these terms he may agree with me Vindic. p. 16. whereas now he hath agreed the point upon my own terms and so hath confuted all that he said before for if a Legal Right to a Government by those means may be acquir'd if all the Governments the Convocation justifies obedience to had such a Right if all the Governments they justifie the resistance of had not such a Right then the distinction is between Right and no Right and then by a thorough Settlement they do mean the acquisition of a Legal Right and cannot mean usurped Powers which according to the Dr. himself have no Legal Right if men understand themselves tho perhaps they may have something or other no body knows what by the Laws of Nature Nations or Force 2. The Dr. says the Convocation does not offer to justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying that the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive Now the Dr. tells me that because I had said this I make very bold with the Convocation and I shall leave it with the Reader who makes more bold with the Convocation I that had said they give that as a Reason to justifie the proceedings or the Dr. who says they do not In this Chapter after having recited the Usurpation of Athaliah the preservation of the Rightful Prince the Subjects owning anointing him and deposing and slaying Athaliah add 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 And to this they add immediatly Joash their late Kings Son being then their only natural Lord and Sovereign altho Athaliah kept him for six years from the Possession of his Kingdom And if they do not give this as the reason of the whole I wish the Dr. would tell me what they give it for But says the Dr. they only prove by this that She was an Vsurper who had no Legal Right to the Throne the Right Heir being living Now it is certain that this proved her an Usurper but did not the Divine Entail prove her an Usurper also that surely is the direct proof of it and the ground and reason why the other proves it The same Law that declared the Right to be in Joash declared Athaliahs to be Usurpation And why I wonder should the Right Heirs being living any more declare that She had no Legal Right to the Throne than the Entail of the Crown did and when his being alive and being their natural Prince declared it so only by virtue of that Entail And I desire the Dr. to tell me how Joash's being alive prov'd Athaliah to be an Usurper any otherwise than that the Crown of Judah was entail'd on David's posterity But then what means this trifling nicety why truely the Dr. was afraid least his beloved Usurpation should suffer And therefore adds that he believes I will own that they are two very different Questions whether such a Prince be an Vsurper and whether he may be depos'd and murdered murdered is a very hard word and I do not care to meddle with it the Convocation calls it slaying and I think with the Drs. leave there is some difference between slaying and murdering and a little more than there is between the Right of an Heir and the Entail that makes that Right But to gratifie him I do own that whether a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be deposed and slain are two different Questions but I say likewise that whether an Usurper may be deposed and slain when the Right Heir is living is but one Question and such a Question too as the Convocation makes no difficulty to answer nor any Auâ—hor of note that I have met with besides in any Age who as far as my reâ—ding serves Civilians Historians Divines have all unanimously asserted that an Usurper may be deposed and let any man consult Barclay Roffensis Bishop Abbot Sulitiffe Widdring ton or any other Author that answers Bellarmin with respect to this instance and he will find that â—he Reason they all give to justifie Athaliahs deposing was that She was an Usurper And here I shall renew my request to the Dr. and desire him to shew me any one approved Author of any Age that ever asserted that Tyrannus sine Titulo might not be depos'd or if he cannot do it himself that he will request that learned Pen he tells me of that is to inform me of the sense of the Primitive Christians for it is no great credit to this Doctrine that it hath had no better Patrons than Goodwin Jenkins c. and only trump'd up to serve the vilest purposes and from that time to this hath not had one single Assertor 'till it is now transmigrated to Dr. Sherlock I had further said that the Convocation thought of no such difference but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and tho attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Judah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Jews was not attained by honester means than Athaliahs 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 of her and therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power for what the Dr. hath left out Athaliah had as full Possion of Power in the Kingdom of Judah 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 Judah by the Babylonians was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now saith the Dr. all this is answer'd in one word The Entail God made upon David 's posterity did always oblige the Jews when they were at their own choice and had power enough to take the King on whom God had entail'd the Crown which was evidently their case when Jehoiada anointed Joash 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 cannot do it
they were bound to do it for he tells us elsewhere p. 41. 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 and kill them That is as he says before p. 36. whenever God is pleased to put it into their Power to place him the Right Heir on the Throne so that it seems the Jews were rare Subjects all this while and this an admirable Scheme of Obedience may men swear Allegiance to a Prince and tye themselves to him by all the sacred Bonds possible and then so soon as they have Power depose and kill him nay are as much bound in Conscience to kill him when they have Power as they were to swear to him when they had none which is an extraordinary account of Fidelity and Allegiance and very fit for an extraordinary Hypothesis But here the Dr. is hard put to it and wofully contradicts himself in the Case of Athaliah the Divine Entail is set up and is to answer all Arguments and then when the Right Heir appears the Reign of such providâ—ntial Kings is at an end Vindic. p. 41. and the Subjects may and ought to depose and kill them And he says it yet further with this Circumstance P. 35. tho they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal power before c. So that in that Case neither Rights nor Settlements nor any thing else is valid against a Divine Entail but the Usurper is to be deposed and killed But now in the Case of the Babylonians the Drs. Usurpers too to all intents and purposes as much as Athaliah and a little more for according to him they were Usurpers both against a Divine Law and a Divine Entail force is to do the business and the Divine Entail it self signifies nothing at all nor is of any validity against that For says he when they were under force as they were under the Babylonians P. 27. Macedonians and Romans no Entail tho made by God himself could bind them I have but one thing more to add that this again is as flat a contradiction and in express terms to what he says in his Case of Allegiance as ever I met with For he tells us upon this very matter Case of Alleg. p. 21. That the Prophet Jeremy's argument is prophesie or an express command from God to submit to the King of Babylon and there was great Reason for an express command from God at that time and I pray observe his reason Because himself had entail'd the Kingdom on David 's Posterity and therefore without an express command from God they could not subject themselves to any other Prince while any of that Family were living So that it seems then force nor any thing else would justifie their submission without an express command but the Drs. business now is to answer objections and if that cannot be done without contradicting himself who can help it that is the fault of the objection 2. My second Reason against the use the Dr. makes of his distinction was Answ p. 5. that the Drs. Arguments will equally justifie submission to Athaliah in the Kingdom of Judah notwithstanding such Entail as to any Usurper in any other Nation To this the Dr. replies Well and suppose he can prove it what then why then I have proved what I intended to prove and that is that the use the Dr. makes of this distinction in the present case is impertinent and trifling as we shall see presently But saith the Dr. Did I ever deny that it was lawfull to submit to Athaliah while She was possessed of the Throne and the true Heir concealed Now I do not know what the Dr. means by denying perhaps he may have some distinction in reserve to salve the business and if he have let us see it in the mean time he hath expresly affirm'd the contrary and that I think is denying it In his Case of Allegiance he tells us that God himself had entail'd the Kingdom of Judah Case of Alleg. p. 35. and therefore nothing could justifie their submission to an Vsurper when the Kings Son was found and he further says in the same place that Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of Gods chusing when he is known and to persecute all Vsurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government And this I think is denying it with a witness for if nothing could justifie their submission to an Usurper and if they were bound never to submit to their Government then I think it is plain enough that it was not lawful for them to submit to Athaliah while She was possessed of the Throne The Drs. limitation here and the true Heir conceal'd and when the Kings Son was found and when the Right Heir was known signifies nothing for he plainly says here If any one should be condemn'd for it Jehoiada was the man who knew that Joash was living and yet for six years together while he thought fit to conceal the secret he submitted himself to Athaliah and acted under her Authority and neither blames himself nor any of the Nation for doing so Now I hope that when the Kings Son was found and when the Right Heir was known what force soever it might have with respect to the rest of the Subjects it could have none with respect to Jehoiada for he that hid him need not be told where to find him And then it follows if nothing would justifie their submission to an Usurper when the Kings Son was found then nothing would justifie the submission of Jehoiada to Athaliah if Subjects when the Prince of God's chusing was known were bound never to submit to the Usurpers Government then Jehoiada who knew that Prince was bound never to submit to Athaliah but then what becomes of the submission that he now talks on and in the next Page says it is certain they ought to be justified in it i. e. it is certain the Dr. contradicts himself for that nothing can justifie submission and they ought to be justified in their submission is as flat a contradiction as words can make But the Dr. had forgot what he said before and who can help that Vindic. p. 79. But methinks he that is more afraid of other mens inventions than their memories may a little fear his own memory and not say he never deny'd that which he hath flatly deny'd in the present controversie and in the present case But saith the Dr. Does he find in Scripture that the Jews are condemn'd for submitting all this while to Athaliah No truly I do not find it and does the Dr. find in Scripture that they did submit to her so as to become her Subjects When the Dr. finds that it is time enough
himself King whether God will or no. This I had apply'd to Athaliah and said If all Kings then surely Athaliah among the rest and I only suppos'd that Athaliah could not do what was impossible nor if she had never so much mind to it could she make her self Queen whether God would or no. But I add then it follows that Athaliah was a rightful Queen with respect to God nay she was as equally rightful with respect to him as Joash himself or as David or Solomon for he says That all Kings are equally rightful with respect to God But then I wonder how Athaliah who was a rightful Queen with respect to God should be otherwise with respect to God's Entail or that she who was rightful Queen with respect to God might justly be deposed and slain with respect to his Entail But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice of the mention I made of this Proposition and I suppose by this time the Reader is satisfied of the reason But says the Doctor This he knew did not follow from my Principles i. e. the Doctor did not say it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah And it would be pretty strange if he should But this follows from his Arguments and that is enough to shew their faultiness But I pray mark his Reason For saith he I expresly distinguish between Gods 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 that is to say the Doctor defends his Distinction by his Distinction I was here arguing against the use he made of his Distinction and he tells me he expresly distinguishes so and therefore it did not follow from his Principles Very logically answer'd The next Argument I had mention'd of the Doctor 's and which he says Vindic. p. 36. There will be no great occasion to take notice of was from the necessity of Government to the preservation of humane Society for saith he I readily grant what he contends for That these Arguments will equally conclude for submission to Athaliah as to any other Usurper Well! that is as much as I can desire and then if I mistake not he must grant too that his Distinction is frivolous and his Arguments weak and not concluding for what Submission is that which the Preservation of humane Societies will justifie to be paid to an Usurper why truly according to him a full and entire Submission the very same to all intents and purposes that is due to the most rightful Prince in the World For Bishop Sanderson Case of All. p. 38. and the zealous Loyalists as he says own it lawful for Subjects to pay some kind of submission and complyance to usurped Powers but not to own their Authority But this will not satisfie the Doctor and therefore in Answer to Bishop Sanderson he tells us plainly That nothing can preserve Society without Authority in the Usurper and Duty in the Subject And if humane Societies must be preserved then the necessities of Government give Authority to the Prince and lay an obligation of duty on the Subject if God will preserve humane Societies we must conclude that when he removes one King out of the Throne he gives his Authority to him whom he places there i. e. He took it away from Joash and gave it to Athaliah For if we must conclude so from the necessity of Government to preserve humane Society I wonder why the Jews upon the same Reason were not to conclude so as well as we and then it concludes too much and that is it concludes that the Doctor 's Argument is naught But the Doctor goes a little further and says he Case of All. p. 39. I would ask whether the care of my own preservation c. does oblige me in conscience to obey and submit to the Government and the Prince who governs and to wish and pray for and do my utmost to endeavour their Prosperity if it does I see no difference between this and Alleg. and what I am bound in conscience to do I may swear to do if it does not then I am at liberty to disturb the Government notwithstanding all my gratitude when I can nay am under an Obligation by my Alleg. to the dispossessed Prince to do it when I can And how does this contribute to the safety and tranquillity of humane Societies This is pretty well and if it was but true one would have thought Athaliah as well establish'd in the Allegiance of the Subjects as any Prince in the World and a little better than Joash himself But the Doctor hath yet one step further P. 40 Suppose saith he the Government does not think it safe to leave all men at liberty to disturb it when they please and when they have a promising opportunity but should require an Oath of Fideâ—ity which is the universal practice of all Governments what shall Subjects do in this Case which question concerns as much the Subjects of Judah as any other and they must e'en swear for he tells us should every man refuse and the Prince had power enough to compel what must be the effect of this but the utter ruine and destruction of the Nation The Land indeed would remain where it was but the people must either be destroyed â—r imprison'd I suppose a million or two in a Jail or transplanted from the Temple to some other habitation or into some foreign parts as the Ten Tribes who were carryed away captive I suppose not as a just Judgment for their Rebellion and Idolatry but for their not taking an Oath to an Usurper However 't is a plain Case they must swear and tye themselves to the Usurper if he has a mind to it by all the obligations possible For the Dr. believes it will be hard to perswade any considering man that that which in such Cases is necessary to preserve a Nation is a sin and that which will infallibly destrâ—y it is a duty or vertue And so he plainly resolves that the Preservation of Humane Societies does of necessity force us to own the Authority ev'n of Vsurped Powers And to the same purpose is what he says concerning the presum'd consent of the ejected Prince that if the Princes leaving his Kingdom for his own safety will justifie him why will it not justifie Subjects when their King has left them to submit and comply with the prevailing Powers as far as it necessary to preserve themselves that is ev'n by Oaths of Allegiance if that be necessary that is when Joash was hid to save his life the Subjects of Judah to save their interests and preferments might joyn themselves to Athaliah espouse her Cause and Interest become her Subjects to all intents and purposes and take an Oath of Fidelity to her to defend her against all men ev'n against him whom
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 Here the Doctor tells me I mistake the 〈◊〉 of his Distinction and the substance of what he says is Which was not to prove that the Subjects mi ht not submit to any other providential Kings when there was no King by such Entail or no such King was known but it wâ—â— to shew that when God nominated a new King or discovered the right Heir the Reign of such providential Kings was at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them that is to say they ought to be kill'd for being God's providential Kings for that is the Crime and I would fain have the Doctor tell me how Gods gift becomes a criminal and capital Offence God makes them Kings and they ought to be knocked on the head for being so for what are they to be kill'd for but their Usurpation and it is a pretty odd reason that a man ought to be put to death because God hath made him a King and given him his Authority Their knowing the right Heir makes no difference for tho that may justifie the deposing the Usurper because there is a better Right to the Crown yet what justifies the slaying him for so long as he possesses the Throne long or short as God pleases as the Doctor says Case of Alleg p. 26. yet so long as he possesseth it he has a Right from God and a providential Title But then why would not God's Right as well save his life as justifie his Government Vindic. p. 30. The Doctor says indeed that Whatever Authority Athaliah had before when Joash was anointed she sunk into the state of 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 Right but was it not to kill her for having been a Queen de facto i. e. for having a Right and Authority from God to govern Judah for six years but saith the Doctor and therefore no Fidelity add Allegiance was due to her And what then May every Subject be kill'd because no Fidelity and Allegiance is due to them According to him they ow'd her Fidelity and Alleg. when she administred the Government And it is a strange Reason that they ought to kill her for that very thing for which they ow'd her Fidelity and Alleg. Will the same thing deserve Death and Alleg. too nay will it deserve Death for the same Reason for which it deserv'd Alleg. i. e. the possession of the Throne But to return The â—octor pretends to make a mighty difference as to the use of his distinction in their having no King by God's Entail or their not knowing of such a King whereas this neither concerns the Case of Joash and Athaliah Joash was their King by such Entail and the Doctor justifies the submission of Jehoiada who knew of such a King notwithstanding his Distinction and the use he would make of it Nor does it affect the Case in dispute for who doubts but Subjects may submit to the Possessor if they have no legal King or know of none but the Question is Whether they may lawfully do the same when they have a rightful King and know it and whether a humane Entail does not make a rightful King in other Kingdoms as well as a divine Entail did in the Kingdom of Judah and consequently whether Subjects in other Kingdoms can lawfully submit and own the Authority of an Usurper when the right Heir is living and known any more than they could do so in the same circumstances in the Kingdom of Judah And that they cannot I think I have sufficiently prov'd and let us see what the Doctor says to disprove it My reason was For 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 Judah were theirs All humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles those 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 entail'd 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 Country Thus far the Doctâ—r hath repeated but there is something else that I added which is both a proof and illustration of this matter and which iâ— seems the Doctor did not care to meddle with And it is this Postscript p. 10. King Charles the Second had as good a Right to the Crown of England as Joash had to that of Judah and Cromwell 's Usurpation was no more a bar to him nor gave him by his pâ—ssession of the Throne any more Right to our Alleg. than Athaliah 's was against Joash or than her possession gave her a Right to the Alleg. of the People of Judah This I thought was a pertinent Example to illustrate and confirm the truth of what I have said and perhaps the Doctor thought so too and therefore let it alone This to my Understanding which the Doctor is satisfied is not very good would have brought the controversie home Vindic. p. 71. and if the Doctor would have answered directly he must either have asserted that King Charles had not as good a Right to the Crown of England as Joash had to that of Judah or else he must have forsaken his Distinction and I now give him notice of it and desire him in his next to give me a plain and categorical Answer to it In the mean time let us consider what Answer he hath made to so much as he hath taken notice of but here he is at the old trade again of asking twenty Questions instead of answering one But saith he 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 Judah and did I ever deny it No Sir you did not deny it in direct terms but you have done as good as deny it for you allow he hath a legal Right still but then it seems it is such a Right as those Persons who next to himself are most concern'd in it are bound to keep him from it for what legal Right hath a King of any Kingdom but by the Laws of that Kingdom and whom do the Laws of that Kingdom respect but the People of that Kingdom and if the People who are under the immediate direction of those Laws are bound to do him no Right nay are bound
to oppose it then he can have no Right done him by vertue of the Laws that give him his Right and that I think is equivalent to no Right at all The Doctor in his Case of Alleg. gives a pleasant account of this matter P. 26. He tells us That God's Providence in setting up an Usurper does not divest the dispossessed Prince of his legal Right nor forbid him to recover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligations to the Prince in possession to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his legal Right That is to say a Foreigner who is not concern'd in the Laws of the Country may do the Prince Justice according to the tenor of these Laws when the Kingdom whose Laws they are are in Justice and Conscience bound to the contrary The Prince hath his legal Right by the Laws of the Land and the People are under the direction and obligation of the Laws of the Land And if the Laws have any effect in all reason it must be on the People whose Laws they are and it is unaccountable how a Stranger may justly give the Prince his Right according to the Laws of the Land and yet the People whose Laws they are cannot in justice do it nay are bound in conscience to hinder it as much as they are able it is as much as to say that a Judge and Jury whose proper business it is ought not to do Right to the oppressed but the Mob or any body else may justly do it I know an injur'd Prince may crave aid of a Foreigner and he may justly assist him but it is in those cases only where his Subjects are bound to do him Right but will not But I would fain know how it is righteous in a Foreigner to do Right according to the Law of the Land and yet unrighteous in the People to do it nay very righteous to oppose it But the Doctor hath given us such a Legal Right that never was heard of A Right in Fiction and in nubibus which neither hath nor can be executed by vertue of the Laws nor the Provisions it makes The Law makes a Right and every person within the compass and extent of those Laws is bound to oppose it but any body else who is out of the bounds and power of the Law may honestly effect it in short it is such a legal Right which is under the cognizance of foreign force but out of the notice power or obligation of the Laws that make it it is such a legal Right which justifies any person who is not concern'd with the Laws to establish it But those who are under the direction of the Laws by which the Right is are bound to prevent it And that is it is a legal Riddle which no body can expound The Doctor goes on with his Questions Or would he prove that the standing Laws of every Country are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own Act and Choice and who denies this too Now I am not very well satisfied with the wording of this Free Act and free choice in setting up Kings is not very suitable to hereditary Kingdoms and in the same manner he expresses it a little after No man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. But supposing he means innocently however he hath express'd it This I say if it be the Duty of Subjects and they are bound to own their legal King then how comes the contrary to be their duty and they are bound to disown and reject him Force I grant may suspend a Duty and hinder the performance but can never make it none or alter the nature of moral duties This is a pure account of a moral duty it is the Subjects duty to own the King by legal Right when they are free but when they are under force it is their duty to kill and destroy him If it be a duty when they are free how comes the contrary to be a duty when they are under force The being free and being under force makes some difference as to t e actual performance but none as to the habit and obligation while the force continues the Act is suspended but the habit remains and the obligation continues and if it be a duty when they are free 't is a duty also when they are under force And the free choice and voluntary Acts the Doctor speaks of is no d fference in the duâ—y tho it may be in the performance of it Alleg. was due to Joash and to Charles the Second all the time of their dispossession tho their Loyal Subjects who were under the force of the Respective Usurpers could not perform it The Dr. says his Hypothesis is not concern'd in this Question But I think it is and that considerably for if the Question be admitted that the Subjects are bound to own and adhere to the King by Legal Right when they are free I would fain know how they become bound to the clean contrary to disown him and reject him when under force how it is their duty in Conscience to set him up when free and their duty in Conscience also to destroy him and kill him when under force But of this before As to what the Dr. says that no man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act I shall leave him to dispute the Point with the Convention And because we are upon Questions he may answer these Two when he please 1. Whether the setting up King William and Mary were not their own free and voluntary Act And 2. Whether it were agreeable to the Laws of the Land or in the Drs. own words Whether they made the Law their Rule If he answers the First affirmatively and the Second negatively 't is plain Satyr and Invective against them and the Convention I suppose will not take it well from him as he says the complying Nobility and Gentry will not take it well from me p. 65. if he answers both affirmatively His Hypothesis of Illegal and Vsurped Powers is a meer trifle and shews only how the Dr. can dispute about nothing to the purpose The Dr. hath not done with his Questions but hath three or four more which I am not concern'd to repeat nor can I guess for what end he made so many Questions or any at all He asks indeed what I would prove and then fills a whole Page with Questions But he understands it well enough for immediately after his Questions he adds The summ of his Argument is this that a Humane Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Country 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 meer Providence did not make them binding so neither does meer Providence destroy their obligation And how extravagant does this Doctrine look when apply'd to other instances of Legal Right All the Laws of a Country are made by Providence as well as the Entail of the Crown And he that usurpâ— another mans estate is the providential possessor and to urge the Laws of property against the Possession is to oppose providence against providence providence that made the Law against an after providence that put him in Possession The Drs. Evasion which he uses afterwards P. 46. that private injuries are reserv'd by God to the Redress of Publick Government does not reach the case for besides that injuries to Princes ore to be redress'd by the Laws as well as private injuries and the Law is the Rule in one case as well as the other the dispute now is about opposing providence to providence a former providence to a latter and tho the Laws will dispossess a providential Possessor and so they will in all cases if they might take place Yet the Question is whether according to this Doctrine the present wrongful Possessor hath not the same Title with the first occupier or last Proprietor For it is all but providence the one hath it by the Law that is by one Act of providence the other hath it by Possession that is by another Act of providence And Possession is to prescribe to the Law as being the later providence and not Law to the Possession as being the former providence And to talk of redressing injurious Possession by the Law is to redress providence by providence a later providence by a former and that is almost as absurd as to oppose providence against providence a former Providence to a latter For it is all but providence still And the Dr. desires 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 The rest of the Proofs and Inferences that the Dr. makes use of in this particular are wild things and mean nothing and as to what he says that They will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter c. This is proving the Question backwards for the Question is not whether they will allow providence of God to change and alter his methods for that he may do and his Laws too if he please but whether God wi l allow us to change alter and transfer our duties merely upon the acâ—â—unt of his providence And what he says that what God has once done that they are reâ—â—â—ved to abide by we say yes 'till God himself discharge us and the Question returns whether acts of providence release us when the Rule holds us And as to limiting providence what Authority hath he to extend providence any more than we have to confine it and this is the Question whether we who say it is no Rule of practice nor ought to determine us against a Rule do limit providence or he who makes a Law and a Rule of it and makes the bare acts of it to dissolve all the obligations of Laws and Oaths does extend providence beyond the true meaning of it and beyond all the Accounts which from Scripture or sound reason can be given of it What follows in my Answer the Dr. tells us is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the twelve Tribes by Gods express command And this saith the Dr. answers to Gods entailing the Crown on the posterity of David the Possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a Humane Right and Title to the Crown well saith he there is something of likeness between them and what then and then repeats my words And therefore according to the Drs. way of reasoning Postscript p. 11. every man who wrongfully possessed himself of another mans 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 neighbours estate he must have it for the event is Gods Act and 't is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it To this the Dr. replies The fundamental mistake which runs through all those kind of arguments is this that they make the events of providence in private injuries thefts encroachments to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects Now whose arguments are these that make the events of providence the very same in both cases why truly the Drs. own does he not tell us in his Case of Allegiance that the Scripture never speaks of God's bare permissiâ—â— of any Events p. 12. but makes him the Author of all the good or evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies The Events of all things are in his hands and are ordained and disposed by his Wil. and Council as they must be if God governs the World Now if this be the Case then all Events are the same with respect to providence The Event of Usurpation and the Event of unjust Possession differ as to the matter but as to the Will Counsel Order and Decree of God they are both the same for the Dispossession of a priva e man is the same Providential Will Order Counsel and Decree as the Dispossession of a King And if this be a mistake then the Drs. Doctrine is a mistake and his Fundamental Doctrine is a Fundamental mistake and I cannot help that And to mend the matter the Dr. hath gone one step farther and to have the same effects And why not I pray The reason and ground why Usurpation is to take effect and draw the Allegiance of the Subject after it is because it is God's Counsel Decree and Order And if these be the same in all other Events why do not they take effect also when the reason and ground is the very same and I would fain see a good reason why the Providential Counsels and Orders are not as valid against the Legal Right to a private Estate as the Legal Right to the Crown The Doctrine of Providence affords us no difference and God's Government equally extends to all Cases and Persons The Scriptures give us none but equally attribute the depression and exaltation of private men to the Providence of God as they do the setting up and pulling down Kings and not one of the Drs. Arguments so far as they concern Providence but what are equally applicable to private property as to Thrones and Kingdoms And let him disprove this by shewing any one if he can But the Dr. tells us that 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 Now this is true and
be sold for no longer time than till the year of Jubilee when all estates were to return to their old Proprietors again Right and this was the Law of Canaan and by virtue of that they did so return but had there been no such Law would the Land-once sold have then by virtue merely of a Divine Entail return'd to their old Proprietors But in other Countries men may part with their Estates for ever Right again because the Laws permit them so to do But if the Laws of other Countries had provided that all Estates should return to their old Proprietors at such a year they would have done so too tho the Provision had been made only by a Humane Law Thus saith he in the Kingdom of Judah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but whenever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at Liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Vsurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an inheritance sold for ever Thus that is just as an Estate in Judah and other Countries might or might not be sold but according to the Laws of each Country in like manner as in the Kingdom of Judah the Inheritance of the Crown was not alienable tho the Estates for a time were even so in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an inheritance sold for ever And that is to say again that as in other Kingdoms an inheritance may be sold by the consent of the parties interessed even so a Government may be lost without and contrary to the consent of the Proprietor and right owner For such Parallels as these otherwise or quite contrary might have served as well as Thus The Dr. tells me what I say in this Case is pretty because that between the Divine Entail and Gods express command concerning Canaan and the Possession by providence and a Humane Entail there is some likeness I am sorry I cannot return all his Complement this is very pretty indeed but there is no likeness at all We are come to the Drs. Answer to the objection P. 48. that the Laws of the Land are the measure of duty and Rule of Conscience c. and the sum of the Answer is they are so when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule but their obligation must give place to Divine Authority and suppose the Law should forbid owning any King but the Right Heir and the Law of God should command obedience to him that actually possesses the Throne we must obey the Law of God To this I answered where is this Law of God Postscript p. 11. that commands us to obey Usurpers where is it affirm'd in express terms or deduced from thence by evident consequence He replies he hath shewed it before and it is in his book still and there I may see it As if I had not at all consider'd what he had said in his Book in my Answer But to say that he would examine that presently would not have been so sharp nor half so magisterial as to say it is in my book still and there he may find it But by his favour I cannot find that he hath shewed it either in his former or in his new book and that he hath only said it but not shewed it will appear presently But I had said that this Law had need be very clear and evident and the Dr. 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 He replies 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 justifie it I don't know what he means by confessing but if to maintain that a Person possessed of the Throne contrary to Law is to be owned and obeyed as King if to write a Book in justification of that Doctrine and to call that Book his Reasons be to confess it then the Dr. hath confessed it to the purpose And I don't know how I should prove this except I should reprint his Case of Allegiance with a new Title and call it his Confessions For there is not a page nor an argument but confesses it bating only some part of the Answer to this objection But the objection it self and the first answer as plainly confess it as words can do The ground of the objection is that it is contrary to the Laws of the Land and therefore contrary to our duty and the substance of the Answer is that what he hath said i. e. what he had said before concerning Providence and Usurped Powers is an Answer to it And it is so when the Laws do not contradict the Laws of God And yet he never confessed it and all for this poor shift because in answer to an objection and a second answer too Foreign to his whole Book he had said that according to the opinion of Learned Judges and Lawyers the Laws do allow it now the Question is whether his Hypothesis or his Arguments to prove it proceed upon any such allowance or have any manner of respect to it And I wonder what the Question of providence as he handles it has to do with his opinion of Judges and Lawyers or the Laws themselves for he debates the matter in direct opposition and contradiction to humane Laws And to say he never confessed what is the subject matter the whole scope and drift of his Book because ex abundanti and what does not in the least relate to his Hypothesis he had mention'd the Judges and Lawyers for the Laws is a mean Evasion and if the Dr. likes his own words better a childish piece of Sophistry and argues great contempt of his Readers p. 43. The Dr. tells us as to the evidence of this Law commanding obedience to Usurpers That the Scripture is plain in the Case and that he is pretty sure of it But saith he he proves the Scripture cannot be clear in the point my Words are that it is not clear is evident not only from the Controversies about it in the late dismal times of Vsurpation that saith the Dr. is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of controversie 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 a 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 what and is Dr. Sherlock come to take up with these sordid and scandalous arts to hunt his Adversaries by a cry of Popery I
one at least of the Church of England on his side but such a one it seems was not to be found and therefore he gives us two Forreigners both learned men indeed but against one there is just exception and the other is not for him Mr. Calvin for any thing I know may be of the Drs. opinion and any man that considers the turbulent State of Geneva at that time and the Revolution there will be able to give a Reason for it and I think there is no great Question but as he suited his Church Discipline so he did his Doctrines about Government to the circumstances of that State And his Doctrine of a power reserved to inferior Magistrates Calv. Inst l. 4. c. ult to restrain and coerce Kings is another instance of it And the one hath just as much Authority as the other And to say no more the Judgment of Mr. Calvin in point of Government hath always been exploded by the Church of England and it is a great evidence the Dr. is very much streightned for Authors when no body but Mr. Calvin can be found to concur with him He might if he had pleas'd have nam'd Dr. Goodwin and it would have done as well But as for Grotius the Dr. interpâ—ets him as he does the Scripture Grotius does say indeed Grot. in Rom. 13.1 That God rules and changes Governments not only by his common Providence by which he leaves many things in their natural order but with Wisdom suited to the advantage or the punishment of the Subjects c. And what then therefore he believ'd the Apostle meant usurped as well as legal Powers or that it is the Law of God that every person possessing himself of the Throne by Providence is a King of God's making and ought to be own'd as such I wonder how he will draw this out of Grotius's words And Grotius himself plainly asserts the contrary De jure belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. Restat ut de invasâ—re Imperii videamus non postquam longa possessâ—ne aut pacto jus nactus est sed quamdiu durat injuste possidendi causa quidem dum possidet actus imperii quot exercet vim latere possunt obligandi non ex ipsius jure quod nullum est sed ex eo quod emnino probabile sit cum qui jus imperandi habet c. Nec minus licebit invasorem imperii interfâ—ere si diserta auctoritas accedat ejus qui jus verum imperandi habet and that when he speaks to the Question ex professo He tells us that an Usurper not after he hath acquired a Right by long possession or agreement but so long as the Reason of his unjust possession remains While he is in possession the acts of Government which he exercises may oblige but not from any Right derived from him which is none but from the presumptive consent of the Right Heir and then puts the Question Whether it be lawful to depose or to kill such an Usurper and in some cases affirms it and among those this is one If it be with the Authority of him whose the Right is whether that Right be in a King Senate or the People And to these saith he we are to reckon the Tutors and Guardians of young Princes as Jehoiada was to Joash when he deposed Athaliah And it is yet more remarkable what he adds Besides these cases I do not think it lawful for a private person to depose or kill an Usurper And for what reason not one single word of the Doctor 's Hypothesis nor any thing like it of his havinâ— God's Authority or being God's providential King but truly from the old beaten reason the presumptive consent of the true King It may so be saith he that he who has Right to the Government had rather leave the Usurper in possessiâ—n than give occasion to dangerous and bloody troubles c. And again likewise speaking of Contracts personal and real the latter of which he says are Leagues and Contracts made with Princes which bind their Successors and People as well as themselves and then adds A League made with a King remains in force altho he or his Successor be driven from his Kingdom by his Subjects and his reason is For the right of the Government is with him tho he hath lost the possession Sane cum Rege initum fâ—edus manet etiamsi rex idem aut successor regno sâ—â—â—itis sit pulsus Jus enâ—m regni pours ipsiâ—m manet utâ—â—â—que posse sâ—mâ—m amiserit contra si alieni regni invasâ—r volente vero rege aut oppr ssâ—r c. beâ—lo impeâ—atur nihil en siet contra foedus c. ibid. lib. 2. cap. 16. And on the contrary if an Usurper or an Oppressor of a free People before he hath a sufficient consent of them be invaded by War the true K. consenting this is no breach of the League because they have only possession but they have no Right And this is the meaning of that which F. Quintius said to Nabis Livy lib. 34. We made no friendship and society with you but with Pelops the just and lawful King of the Lacedemonians And here by the way we have not only the sense of Grotius but a very good Argument likewise for if in real Contracts made with a King as sustaining the person of a supreme Governour if these bound to his person out or Possession and not to the Usurper in Possession it is plain the Prince out of Possession is the King and the Usurper is none for the Contract or League was made with him as King of such a Country and if he ceases to be King the binding power of the Contract ceases as to him for as the Dr. phraseth it the Man is in being but the King is gone and the Contract goes away with it and being real and not personal passes to him that is King But now if such a Contract does not pass to the Usurper nay if it be no breach of it to fight with and to invade him and if it remains with the dispossessed â—rince then he is the King of that Country and the Usurper that possesses his Throne is not And Grotiâ—s says The Qualities in Leagues of Kings and their Successors and the like properly signifie Right and the Cause of an Usurper is odious This Argument will reach a great way and any man may improve it to deâ—ect the fallacy both of the Doctor 's and of some other Arguments But it may be sufficient here to observe that tho the Dr. ciâ—es Grotius and seems to triumph in it yet that he is not for him but directly against him What follâ—ws is extraordinary What saith the Dr. thinâ—s he of Bishop Overal's Conversation were there no learned men in it and yet they 〈◊〉 this Doctrine before John Goodwin was thought of What kind of Argument does the Dr. call this This is the thing in controversie and the Dr.
removeth Kings and setteth up Kings Dan. 17.2.21.37 Now saith the Dr. the whole of his Answer is That Usurpers are no Kings and therefore tho God removes and sets up Kings he does not set up Usurpers and the whole of his proof is that Athaliah was an Usurper and no Queen Now the Dr. who talks so much about the honesty of altering his Order should himself one would think have dealt more justly and not have mention'd only part of my Answer and in downright terms affirm'd it was the whole Now my Answer was this Postscript p. 12. These the Expressions of the Prophet Daniel are certainly true but nothing to his purpose for God did always set up and remove Kings but this was no evidence that God would have Usurpers obey'd as Kings as is evident in the case of Athaliah And God did as much remove and set up Kings in the Kingdom of Judah as in any other Kingdom and therefore it cannot from these Expressions be necessarily concluded That every person that gets possession of the Throne is a King and ought to have the duties belonging to a King paid to him And is this no more than saying an Usurper is no King or need the Dr. be told wherein the force of this Answer lies which is That these Expressions are no Evidence that every person possess'd of the Throne is a King or that God would have them obey'd as Kings and that is not as the Dr. is pleased to say only that an Usurper is no King but that which the Dr. cites to prove his Hypothesis does not prove it and the reason of that is for that the Prophet Daniel delivers a general Doctrine not peculiar to Times and Seasons or Countries but what was always so and God gives Kingdoms to whomsoever he will and removeth and setteth up Kings in all Ages and Places and particularly in the Kingdom of Judah as well as any other Kingdom Now if this general Doctrine did not prove that God had given the Kingdom of Judah to every one that possess'd the Throne and took it away from him that was dispossessed if it did not prove in particular that God had given it to Athaliah and took it away from Joash then it is as clear as the Sun that it cannot necessarily be concluded from this passage in Daniel that Possession of the Throne is an evidence that God gives and Dispossession an evidence that God takes away the Kingdom for God gave Kingdoms remov'd and set up Kings as much with respect to the Kingdom of Judah as to any other Country But this it seems is no Answer and yet however it comes to pass it answers all that the Dr. hath reply'd as we shall see presently Well but I said that Usurpers were no Kings I did so and I thought I had given a good reason for it and that is That all learned men deny that an Usurper is a King But that it seems is no Reason with the Dr. Let all learned men or all the world say what they will if it does not serve the Doctor 's tuâ—n it is Nonsense For that is his whole proof that an Usurper is a King To say saith he that a King without a legal â—itle or an Usurper who has a setled poss ssion in the Doctor 's sence of a Settlement of the Regal Power is no King is Nonsense yes iust as much Nonsense as to say that a Man who cohabits with a Woman and is not lawfully married is not her Husband For saith he Regal Power and Authority makes a King as S. Austin Regnum à Regibus Reges à Regendo Certainly proofs are mighty scarce when scraps of Poets and the derivation of Words are brought for proofs Doctor à docende and therefore every man that teaches is a Doctor And yet S. Austin must be quoted for this too and the Book and Chapter punctually on the Margin He might as well have cited Calepin or Robert Stephens and their Authority in such casuistical points as these would have been a little more than S. Austin's however he goes on and tells us it is certain i. e. the Dr. confidently affirms it tho he does not prove it that 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 i. e. Cromwell was a King tho he was not call'd so and King Charles the Second the first twelve years of his Reign was no King tho he was call'd so And this makes our Laws Nonsense with a witness which own him as King all the time of the Usurpation and yet the Dr. adds If this be not so i. e. his proposition before our Laws are Nonsense which distinguish between a King de jure and de facto if a King de facto be no King â—ho it signifies one who is actually King Now this is Sophistry and it lies in the Ambiguity of the Expression a King de facto signifies one that is actually King but if it be spoken in opposition to a K. de jure then it signifies one that is in the place of King but is in truth no King and a King de facto in that sense is no more a King than a Counterfeit is the real thing it self because it is called by the same name And the Law it self 1 Edw. 4. cap. 1. where this distinction is made plainly expounds what is meant by a King de facto by calling the same Persons most commonly pretenced Kings i. e. Persons who had that name but in reality were no Kings at all And a pretenced King is no more a King than a Hypocrite is a Christian he is one in name and shew but in reality no such thing Altho I believe there is some difference between a King de facto and a meer Usurper as there is a difference between administring the Government sub ratione juris and without any pretence of Right at all But I shall not engage in this Controversie the Dr. already being so well answer'd by a learned pen. But saith he 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 pulleth down rightful Kings and setteth up rightful Kings Now as for setting up rightful Kings our Author likes it very well but how does be like pulling down rightful Kings which is as much against Law and Right as to set up Kings without Right and that it seems he does Very well and so he does and does this contradict any thing that I have asserted God removed Saul and set up David he remov'd Joram and set up Jehu he removed Jehoiakim and set up Nebuchadnezzar and all rightful Kings and where is the harm or absurdity of
this The Dr. says that to reconcile it to our Author's Hypothesis the removed King must signifie an Vsurper and the King set up a Rightful and Legal King Now if the Dr. can make this out from my Hypothesis I will give him the Cause He tells me He doubts not but our Author would be asham'd to say this And he is in the right I should be asham'd to say that and a great many other things too but it seems he is not asham'd to charge that upon my Hypothesis which is a direct contradiction to it My Hypothesis as he repeats it and disputes against it is that an Vsurper is no King and therefore the Removing a King cannot according to that Hypothesis signifie the Removing an Usurper but of a Rightful King i. e. a true King not a pretended one but then I think it follows that the setting up of Kings must signifie the setting up of true Kings likewise and not Usurpers who are not Kings And this I do insist upon and it is not a strife about words and let the Dr. prove if he can that an Vsurper is a King either in the sense of Scripture or in any good Author or by the general consent of mankind And if he cannot then for him to interpret what the Scripture says of Kings in favor of Usurpers is purely arbitrary and he may as well apply the Directions and Precepts of Scripture concerning Husbands to him that commits a Rape For an Usurper is no more a King than a Ravisher is a Husband And here is the plain state of the Case The Scripture asserts and if the Scripture had been silent the Doctrine of Providence sufficiently evidences that God removes Kings and sets up Kings And this proves that what Kings are remov'd they are remov'd by God and what Kings are set up they are set up by God But this does not prove that those are Kings which are not Kings or that Vsurpers are within the intention of those words or that every Providential Dispossession is God's unmaking a King or every Providential Possession of the Throne is God's making a King for this was manifestly otherwise in the Case of David and Absalom Joash and Athaliah and if the Dr. please in the Case of King Charles the Second and Cromwell And â—his Answer the Dr. had before if he would but have minded it However when Persons have Possession of the Throne Postscript p. 12. who have a Legal Title either by Descent or other Acquisition and who are Kings by the consent of all mankind it is plain that God sets them up And it cannot necessarily be concluded that any more is meant by God's setting up Kings and if it cannot necessarily be concluded then there is not from thence any sufficient warrant to call every Vsurper God's King and to pay Duties to them accordingly But saith he this is evidently the Prophet's meaning to attribute all the Changes and Revolutions of Government not to Chance or Fate but to the Divine Providence Well this is true enough whether the Prophet meant it or no. The Dr. adds That whenever we see one King removed and another set up whoever they be they are removed and set up by God And this is true enough as the words lye but in the Drs. sense it is manifestly false for the people saw David remov'd and it was by God also but God by that Removal did not give away his Kingdom they saw Absolom set up too and this also in a sense was by God but God by that setting up did not make him a King and give him the Kingdom But saith he who God 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 it to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those whom the Laws give it Do we use to say a man may give his Estate to whom he will when his Estate is entail'd 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 signifie his giving the Kingdom to the Right Heir Now here are as many Sophisms as there are lines and first of all I do readily acknowledge that whomsoever does not signifie those only who have a Legal Right but the fallacy is evident for God gives all the World as well as Crowns to whomsoever he will But for all that no body hath a right to private Estates but by the Laws of the Land And it would be a fine Plea in Westminster-Hall to argue upon God's Donation by Providence Another man hath a Legal Title but God gives the World to whomsoever he will and tho he hath no Legal Title what then Does whomsoever signifie those only who have a Legal Title Thus likewise giving in the notion of it does not suppose an antecedent Right but with respect to God's giving and a Right by Humane Laws it does for God gives Property to them who have such a Right and he does not give it them who have no such Right tho they may possess it by fraud and injustice But here the fallacy lys in dividing what ought not to be divided for what is given by just Laws God gives and the antecedent Right is the Gift of God and what God gives by Laws which he hath made a Rule is not to be defeated by Providence which he hath not made a Rule He asks again Does giving to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it I answer no it does not signifie so neither does it signifie Possession only But this I can tell him it signifies every jot as much so in Kingdoms and Governments as it does in private Possessions and Estates And the Proposition in Scripture is as universal that God gives every thing all the Profits Honors c. in the World to whomsoever he will or if it was not in Scripture it is a Doctrine plain enough and every man that owns Providence must own it And it is a pure consequence that every man who is unjustly possessed of an Estate hath a Divine Right to it tho not a Legal one because forsooth giving it to whomsoever he will does not signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it It is in vain here for the Dr. to answer as he does often in his Vindication Vindic. p. 58. That those matters are refer'd to the Redress of publick Laws but these God reserves to his own cognizance and disposal For the Question here is about the importance and signification of these Expressions And here his Questions turn upon him Does whomsoever signifie those only who are redress'd by Publick Laws Does giving signifie only a Sentence of a Judg or the Verdict of a Jury
thoughts Why did not be produce any one Doctrine or oâ—e Expression of mine that tended that way There is one small reason for it because he could not I have nothing to say to the ingenuity of such a practice let the Dr. satisfie himself about that as well as he can But when he is so hard put to it to discharge his account of Providence from justifying an unreasonable and impious Doctrine when he hath not answer'd any one of my Arguments nor so much as offer'd at them as we shall see presently in the very same case to â—all a recriminating and crying out of disâ—â—â—â—ving and riâ—iâ—uâ—ing Providence is a strain of Bâ—llinâ—gaâ—e Logick and nothing else but out-facing an Argument instead or answering it And this will be yet more plain when we see his Reason For says he let me ask him this God in the Kâ—â—â—s in England or not But how comes this Question to prove that 〈◊〉 or â—iâ—â—cuâ—â— Providence For it is brought â—or th t â—â—â—son if his Particle For means any thing And if the proof depends upon answering this Question the Dr. should have â—â—id a little before he had told me what some people will suspect except those people would suspect also what I would answer And then I do not know how far a previous suspition may justifie the charge of a future fact or because the Dr suspected that I would give an â—pâ—curean Ignorant or Atheistical Answer therefore to fave further trouble and to dispatch the business all at once he might charge â—â—e with not understanding or ridiculing Prov dence by way of anticipation He goes on iâ— He does God makes Kings in England 〈◊〉 which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the Jure Divino with a witness and is that such a business Why may not a man renounce the Jure Divino as well as Legal Powers Pref. to Case of Alleg. if there be occasion is any man forbid to grow wiser and to alter his mind when he sees good reason for it Methinks be might let renouncing alone but if God does make Kings in England how does he make them he sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings But to save him the trouble of any more Questions I answer tho God sends no Prophets he sends Laws among us to tell us whom he hath appointed to reign over us God doth not govern mankind like Beasts in a Desert where every thing is Prey and Possession but by the Rules of Society which confine and determine Property and fix the bounds of it And it would be a wise Question to ask How does God make a man a Right Possessor of an Estate in England He does it by his Providence but it is according to Laws How did God make Kings in Judah after he had entayl'd the Crown why he made them by his Providence but it was according to that entail and so in other Kingdoms God makes Kings and private Proprietors by his Providence but it is according to the standards of Right and Justice that are fix'd and setled among men and authoriz'd and confirm'd by God himself and by the express declarations of his will And whatsoever exceeds and is contrary to these is Invasion and Wrong Robbery and Rapine expresly disallow'd and forbid by God himself And to say God gives by his Providence what he forbids by his Revealed Will is an Impious Doctrine and justifies my charge against the Drs. interpretation that it makes Providence a Rule of Practice against Right and Justice And a man may as well say that God gave to Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit tho he forbid them upon pain of Death to eat of it because all Events are by Providence and they were permitted by Providence to take it And this answers what follows Suppose says he a Prince ascends the Throne by the most unjust force and ungodly arts P. 59. 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 what he please it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God rules in such a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne I say yes God does govern by his Providence but not by communicating his Authority to the Usurper And what does the Dr. think of those times of Usurpation in this Kingdom between 48 and 60 Did God govern in the Kingdom of England all those 12 years or not And therefore what he says for indeed will any man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not govern'd by his Authority or Minister is perfect fallacy by his own Principles for he himself says it and I ask him had the Rump or Cromwell God's Authority or not If they had then four or five Leaves of his Book and his account of their not being settled and all that he says on that Head is meer trifle and contradicts what he says here For if they had God's Authority they ought to be obey'd and no pretences of Loyalty could excuse it But if not then God may govern a Kingdom when those persons who actually govern for many years have not his Authority nor yet are his Ministers otherwise than as the Devil and wicked men are Ministers to execute the designs of his Providence but not as deriving any Authority from him or thereby claiming any Right by vertue of their Actual or Providential Government And thus his following Question is answer'd Does Providence and Government signifie only his permission that God looks on and sees men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is universal Lord of the world never gave them Now here is a large compass and if the Drs. Argument signified any thing it would prove that all the Sinful Events that ever were or shall be in the world have God's Authority respectively annex'd to them for if it does follow that because Providence and Government do not signifie permission that because God does not meerly look on the affairs of the world therefore whatever Authorities and Powers men snatch and exercise and keep God who is the universal Lord of the World gives them Then it plainly follows that whatever Powers men have and whatever Possessions or Goods they snatch or keep tho never so unjustly they are all the Gifts of God and there is a Right and Property in them deriv'd from the Universal Lord of the World But to our Instance And then the Rump and Cromwell and the High Court of Justice exercis'd God's Authority and Charles the First was murder'd and his Son rob'd of his Crown by God's Authority For Providence and Government signified the same in those days as they do now And I wonder what the peoples consent signifies
Jackson afterw rds expresses it Tyrants by Title but I think the clean contrary in the former Paragraph he had said that the Rule of the Apostle held as well of the Magistrate as of the Magistracy and they must not be resisted But in this Paragraph he plainly tells us that the Apostle's Rule doth not so punctually hold of tâ—e means or acquisition of power 'T is true indeed he says that Magistracy is always God's positive and primary Ordinance but the means of acquiring this power is not so but sometimes the award of his consequent Will which the Doctor hath put into great Letters as if they were much for his purpose whereas all the meaning of that is as Dr. Ja k on himself explains it that the one is always an eâ—fect of his gracious Providence always a blessing towards a Land or People but the other is sometimes an act at least permissive of his punitive Iustice But what is this to Obedience or Resistance I hope God's punishing people by an Usurper is not an argument that therefore they ought to obey him in conscience and the truth is Dr. Jackson in this Parâ—graph does not at all concern himself with any thing that relates to Obedience to Usurpers but speaks to that in the next Section and there plainly affirms that Usurpers may be resisted and that will be consider'd presently In the mean time befâ—re I take leave of Bishop Andrews I shall give the D another Quotation out of him and shall leave it to his consideration and Distinctions 't is in a Sermon preach'd 16.0 on 1 Chron 16.22 Vnxit in Regem Royal Vnction gives no Grace but a Right Title onâ—y in Regem to be King that is all and no more it is the administration to govern not the gift to govern well the Right of ruling not the ruling right it includes nothing but a due Title it excludes nothing but Vsurpation who is anointed on whom the Right rests who is inunctus he who hath it not suppose Nimrod who cared for no anointing thrust himself in and by violence usurped the Throne came in like one steeped in vinegar than anointed with oyl rather as a Ranger over a Forest than a Father over a Family he was not anointed nor any that so come in But on the other side David or he that first beginneth a Royal Race is as the head on him is that right of ruling first shed from him it runs down to the next and so still even to the lowest borders of his lawful issue Remember Job 36 7. Reges in solio collocat in perpetuum it is for ever God's claim never forfeits his character never to be wiped out nor scraped out nor Kings lose their right no more than Patriarchs did their Fatherhood My next Testimony was from Bishop Buckeridge another Learned Member of that Convocation Vind. p. 76. And the Dr. says He speaks exactly the sense of the Convocation And I say so too but here we differ for I affirm that he does not speak the Doctor 's sense And if he would have repeated what I have cited out of him it would have plainly appeared But he did not care to do that and therefore I must be forc'd to do it Answer to the Pamphl p. 27. and we shall soon see the difference I had cited out of him that he had lay'd this down as a general Doctrine There is a great difference between a Tyrant reigning by a lawful Title Dispar vero est ratio Tyranni legitimo jure regnantis c. Roffens p. 919. and a Tyrant withâ—ut Right and Title and invading the Kingdom by force if a Lawful King exercise Tyranny he cannot be compell'd by the Bishops Nobles or People c. such a Tyrant being in the Throne by a just Title is ordained of God and he who resists him resists the Ordinance of God But if any man snatcheth the Kingdom by force and Tyranny he is not a King but an Enemy and it is lawful for any of the people to do the same to him as they may do to an enemy And what did the Doctor say to this why truly not one single word nor so much as vouchsafe to take the least notice of it And let any impartial and unprejudic'd Reader judge if the Doctor 's Hypothesis and Interpretation of the Convocation be not as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it The Bishop makes a manifest difference between a Prince by Right and Title and an Usurper with respect to the Peoples Obedience that a lawful King tho he rules tyrannically must not be resisted that an Usurper is no King but an Enemy and may be resisted as an Enemy Nay he adds further Communis opinio est quod in hoc cast licet unicuique subdito talem Tyrannum invasorem occidere ib. That it is the common opinion that in such a case it is lawful for any Subject to kill such a Tyrant and Usurper and which opinion he himself expresly approves pag. 922. And now does not every body see what Agreement there is between the Doctor 's Hypothesis and the Doctrine here deliver'd by Bishop Buckeridge The Doctor tells us as the sense of the Convocation That those who have no Title to the Throne may have God's Authority The Bishop by necessary implication intimates that those only who are in the Throne by a just Title are ordain'd of God and consequently those only have God's Authority The Doctor says that such Princes in possession of the Throne without Title ought to be obey'd for Conscience sake the Bishop says they may be resisted and kill'd But this the Doctor did not think fit to meddle with tho it directly affects him and the whole design of his book but instead of that falâ—s upon another citation and makes some Cavils upon it for they are no better as we shall see upon the examining it He tells me I did well to cite the Passage honestly but not so to corrupt it with my comment for says he he turns a disjunctive into a conjunctive The Bishop says neither by the consent of the People nor by the prescription of six years which supposes that either the consent of the People or a long prescription would give a Right and he expounds it of both together That a Right to the Government is acquiâ—'d by a Prescription and that is a long uninterrupted possession joyned with the consent of the people But why did not the Doctor go on my very next words are Answ to Pamph. p. 28. And so it follows a little after when in answer to Bellarmine 's objecting c. And what does and so it follows mean I prove this last part therefore not from the disjunctive before but from the Answer that follows which is to Bellarmines instances of Tyrannical Government that became lawful by the Consent of the People as the Caesars P. 921. Goths and Lumbards accedente populorum
Vindic. p. 27. But the truth is Dr Jackson observ'd nothing at all of this by the Higher Powers he means the Right Heir and Lawful King as I have shewed before and in this very place the Dr. cites out of him he says Jehoiada was invested with the Power of Jurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power and I suppose next to the Higher Power is not the Higher Power it self And therefore Jehoiada deposed and killed Athaliah not meerly in right of his Priesthood nor merely in Right of his Peerâ—ge But Dr. Jackson says expresly in the Right of this Prince i. e. the Infant Joash unto whose Person The Power Royal was by Right annexed And to whom by virtue of his high Station and his Relation to him as being the Kings Uncle he might be Guardian and therefore the fittest to preside and manage that undertaking but it does not therefore follow that if he had neglected it or took part with the Usurper but any other Peer or Subject might have undertaken it in the same Right and by the same Authority and Dr. Jackson plainly intimates it by the inference he draws from hence which the Dr. conceals tho he told us he would give the Reader the intire passage Is it then all one in these mens Divinity for a Subject or Peer of any Realm to stand for the Right of his Leige Lord against a Stranger or Vsurper c. So then it seems a Subject or Peer and I hope or is a Disjunctive a Subject that is not a Peer may stand by the Right of his Leige Lord against an Usurper as well as a Prime Peer The Dr. here charges me with shamefully mangling this passage of Dr. Jackson and I shall leave it with the Reader whether he hath not shamefully interpreted it He adds This is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Jehoiada 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 Judah Now the Dr. deals with the Convocation just as he hath done with Dr. Jackson and to shew what a fair interpretation he makes I shall cite the passage Now after six years that Joash the true and natural Heir apparent to the Crown had been so brought up Convoc p. 41. He the said Jehoiada being the Kings Uncle and the chief Head or Prince of his tribe sent through Judah for the Levites nd chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come unto him to Jerusalem who accordingly repairing thither and being made acquainted by him with the preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lords will that he should reign over them they altogether by a covenant acknowledged their Allegiance to 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 slew her as before it was by the said States resolved In all the process of which action nothing was done either by the High Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah which God himself did not require at their hands And what is all this to Jehoiada's being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged where is any judicial or authoritative Act of his he conven'd them indeed and which he might do as High Priest and Prince of his Tribe and acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and the Convocation attributes no more to him in particular but the acknowledgment of their Allegiance and the business of deposing and slaying Athaliah was resolved on by common consent by the said States There is nothing of Authority ascrib'd to Jehoiada in this and they express it yet plainer in their Canon Or that Jehoiada the High Priest was not bound as he was a Priest both to inform the Princes and People of the Lords promise that Joash should reign over them and likewise to anoint him Now as I take it informing is not commanding them nor directing them by an act of Authority And if Jehoiada had not done as he was bound if he had not informed them nay if he had informed them otherwise yet if they had been informed any other way I suppose they might have done their duty and have acknowledged their Allegiance to their natural Prince and have resolved together to depose and slay the Usurper what Authority soever Jehoiada had or how much soever he had informed or commanded them to the contrary was it their duty to adhere to their natural Prince or not if it was the interposition of Jehoiada's Authority either way could not influence that the great Authority of the High Priest might indeed facilitate and expedite the setting him on the Throne but could not make that a duty which was not nor make that cease to be a duty which was so before And now let me ask the Dr. where is the shameful mangling and dishonesty in my not citing this passage of Jehoiada's being a Prime Peer and invested with Power of jurisdiction next to the Higher Power For what is that to the purpose for which I cited Dr. Jackson The single question is whether it be lawful to obey an Usurper in possession of the Throne in opposition to the Right Heir out of possession and what was the heigth of his Station and the power of his Jurisdiction to that as high as he was it was not lawful for him and his fact plainly declares it His high dignity indeed made it reasonable for him to interpose his Authority in behalf of the Right Heir and was the fittest to conduct and manage an affair of that nature but it made no difference in the lawfulness of the thing for if it be unlawful for a Prime Peer to joyn himself to an Usurper in opposition to the Rightful Prince 't is unlawful for a private Subject And that was all that I was concerned in it was foreign to the question to meddle in the dispute with the Papists to whom this was an Answer for they urge this fact of Jehoiada as an Act of Authority annexed to the Priesthood And the Dr. says in express terms That this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction I will not return his scurrilous inuendo of looking kindly towards Rome but he hath given the Papist greater advantage in this Controversie than any Protestant ever did For if it be granted that this was an Act of Jurisdiction and Authority in Jehoiada the Question hath a new face and 't is splitting an hair whether that was the Authority of the High Priest or of the Prime Peer whereas all Protestants have fix'd it upon a clearer bottom and say that what he did was in the Right of his Prince and not by any Authority of his own and remove the controversie off of that bottom and admit that Jehoiada acted in a