Actions is Law either Positive Divine Natural or Humane but it is impossible that Providence abstracted from the Consideration of the moral Nature of Events should be a Law to us because it declares not the preceptive Will or that Will of God which must be a rule to our Actions Whatever Providence works or is the Will of his good Pleasure we must follow that Will which God has signified to us either in written or unwritten Laws God has never prescribed the Dispensations of Providence as a rule to us they are often Unsearchable and above our Comprehension but in no Case can we understand what God permits and what he effects and authorizeth but by the Moral nature of Events Providence it self must be measured by the rules of good and evil and therefore those must be the ultimate rules of our Practice To conclude Though Success which is but another word for providential Events be a good Argument of God's Approbation and Authority among the Disciples of the Alcoran I think it can be none among the Disciples of Christ I am sure it cannot be found in the Volumes of his Religion Thus I have considered what the Doctor has advanced about Providence now says he The necessary Consequence is this that by what means soever any Prince ascâ—nds the Throne he is placed there by God and receives Authority from him And let the Reader judge whether the Premises to this Consequence be sufficiently proved or confuted The summ of his Proof is this That God now governs the World only by his Providence which is false if it exclude his Government by Laws and however is no Proof that every Usurper does Reign by God's Authority that all Events are from God and especially great Events which is to charge God with all the Wickedness in the World that no one can usurp God's Authority unless God does give it him which is confuted by all Murthers and Rebellions and lastly that we cannot distinguish between Kings by Permission and Appointment unless all Possessours of Sovereignty have God's Authority which may as well be said of all other Possessours and contains no difficulty at all it being as easie to distinguish Permission and Appointment as lawfull Princes and unlawfull This is the summ of his Discourse upon the third Proposition and let the Reader judge how well he has demonstrated it I need not here reflect on his several ways of conveying God's Authority to Princes Election Succession and Conquest or Usurpation These will be considered hereafter suffice it here to observe that there are in general but two ways whereby Princes are advanced by God Permission and Appointment this the way of Rightfull Princes and that of Usurpers We are come now to his 4th Proposition viz. That all Kings are equally rightfull with respect to God which is just as true as this Proposition That all Men are equally righteous with respect to God or that with God there is no difference between good and evil or that with respect to God the Thief and the lawfull Proprietor are equally rightfull Possessors But let us consider how he proves it It is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. The same Assertion with that which is confuted allready That no one can take God's Authority but it must be given him And may it not be said with equal Reason that all Men must be made wicked by God unless Men can make themselves wicked whether God will or no Or is it impossible there should be a wrong Possessouâ— of any thing unless a Man could make himself a Possessour whether God will or no. He proceeds thus The whole Authority of Government is Gods and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull King for he has the true and rightfull Authority of a King But is not every Branch of Sovereign Authority God's if the whole Authority of Government is his Does not every Murtherer usurp the Power of the Sword the principal Branch of that Authority And is the Exercise of that Power rightfull with respect to God or is the Murther committed by God's Authority Having God's Authority is an equivocal Expression it may be had by Commission as rightfull Princes have it and it may be had by Permission as Assassines Rebels and Usurpers have it and such a manner of having will never make the Possession rightfull either before God or Men. To speak properly the Usurper has not God's Authority he has Power or Force and so has the Murtherer but that is not Authority and yet because they exercise a Power which it is not lawfull to exercise without God's Commission abusively and improperly they may be said to have his Authority Prop. 5. The Distinction then between a King de Jure and a King de Facto relates onely to humane Laws which bind Subjects but are not the necessary Rules and Measures of the Divine Providence This Distinction relates to humane Laws just as does the Distinction in all other Cases between Right and Wrong Humane Laws do declare and determine what is right and the Law of God does establish and confirm the Law of man about it Thus he who has a Right to an Estate by the Law of the Land has a Right to it by the Law of God and is the rightfull Proprietor with respect both to God and Man If it were not so the Invasion of another's Property could be no Sin it could not make a man guilty before God nor obnoxious to his Vengeance if it were no Transgression of his Laws In private Dominion therefore the Distinction of a Possessour de Jure and de Facto relates to divine as well as humane Law and why should it not then in the ease of politick Dominion and the Possessours of Sovereignty Shall private Injury be a Breach of Divine and Humane Laws and an Injury to God's Vicegerents be an Offence only against the Laws of Men Does not the Sanction of God establish the Rights of Sovereigns Or does his Law take care of Oxen and not of Men of private Men and not of Princes What can be the Reason of this Prerogative of private Rights above the Rights of Princes Is it because Humane Laws are not the necessâ—â—y Rules and Measures of Providence Does not Providence dispose of them And is it bound to humane Laws in respect to Property and free in respect to Sovereignty Humane Laws are not the adequate Rule of Providence for many things come to pass in God's Government of the World which cannot be regulated by them and yet God's Providence does govern political Societies by political Laws sometimes it makes a Law void by extinguishing the matter of it but it never directly abrogates it for as long as humane Laws are Laws they do continue to bind Subjects they are the necessary Rules and Measures of their Actions and have the Sanction of divine Authority to enforce them Let us
it conveys the unjust Possession of an Estate but when it conveys a Crown to an unjust Usurper it is an uncontrollable Evidence of his positive Will and Authority this Distinction cannot be deduc'd from Providence itself for in both Cases the Concurrence is the same he must go to something else to prove it either Reason or Scripture and all his Arguments from both I have examined already 2. The same difference that is assigned in the Reply between a Crown and an Estate may be applied to other Cases I will instance in a Bishop's Right to his Temporalty and to spiritual Jurisdiction to the former nothing is required besides a mere humane Right but to enjoy the later he must have God's Authority suppose now that both are usurped by an illegal and schismatical Intruder who is certainly in some sense Episcopus divina Providentia The Dr. will confess that Providence has given him no Right to the Temporalties the Question then is whether â—â— has a Right to the Spiritual Jurisdiction which is God's Authority It may be urged that there is indeed an ordinary lawful way whereby Bishops are invested with that Authority but God's Authority is not inseparably annexed to that ordinary Vocation he can make a Bishop without it and when he does so a mere lawfull Vocation is not a sufficient Reason to adhere to a Bishop deposed by God nor can the want of it â—ustisie the disowning of a Bishop whom God has advanced The plain Resolution of such a Case is this God can make a Bishop without an ordinary Vocation but this he never does and he that pretends to an extraordinary Call is bound to prove it by indubitable Evidence if he cannot we must reject the extraordinary and adhere to the ordinary Bishop and they that do otherwise are schismatical Dividers of Catholick Communion And thus it is in the Case of Kingdoms God can depose a lawful King and set up an Usurper without antecedent Right but before we can transfer our Allegiance we must be sure that God has done this The pretender to an extraordinary Commission must produce extraordinary Evidence but the ordinary Events of Providence are not sufficient to prove it for the Thief and the schismatical Bishop are in Possession by Providence as well as the Usurper and many things do happen under the Direction of Providence which God himself does condemn and punish which Men are bound by God to resist to the utmost of their Power 3. There is no such great Disparity as is pretended between Right to a Crown and Right to an Estate Right in general is a moral Quality whereby we may possess or doe any thing justly it extends to Government of Persons as well as possession of Things and when it is applied to the former it is called Authority the Rule and measure of Right is Law and the Obligation of all Law does proceed onely from the Authority of God A Right to an Estate is a moral Power of possessing and enjoying it justly a Right to the Government of a Family or Kingdom is a moral Power to command those Societies and where there is no Right to command there can be no Obligation to obey these Rights may be acquired by the positive Laws of God the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Civil Societies which are onely so many several ways of God's revealing his Will to Mankind and therefore all Right either to Government or Estates must be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God the only Lawgiver concerning the Right to govern there is no Question and as to Estates and other private Possessions it seems evident that no humane Law considered as merely humane can create any Right to any thing for humane Law is nothing but the Will of Men and the Act of one Man conveying a Possession to another cannot oblige a third Person to abstain from it and therefore cannot appropriate it as the Right of the other the Obligation must proceed from some Authority superiour to both which does bind the one by the Act of the other and that can be no other but God's Authority In short Right is the Effect of Law and Law hath its Obligation from God and hence it follows that as God's Authority is necessary to make a King so is it necessary likewise to create a Right to an Estate and therefore in this respect there is no difference between the one Right and the other for both are ultimately founded on God's Authority God by his Sovereign Dominion can dispose of Estates as well as Crowns against Law but humane Laws cannot dispose of either without God's Authority but the Power of God to doe a thing is no Proof that he does it and Providential Possession is still as good Evidence of God's Authority to an Estate as of his Authority to govern There remains yet another Reply to the Objection which must also be considered it is this That all private Injuries are reserv'd by God himself to the redress of Civil Government and Courts of Judicature and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights But the nature of the Thing proves that when such Disputes arise which are too big for humane Judicature which God hath reserved to his own Judgment as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring of Kingdoms here the final Determinations of Providence in settling Princes on their Thrones does draw the Allegiance of Subjects after it This contains the force of his Evasion and the first Answer to the former may sustice to this that though this difference be admitted between private Robbery and the Usurpation of a Crown yet there is no difference between them as to the concurrence of Providence for Robbery is a providential Event and if every Event is God's Will and Appointment the Robbery is confirmed by God's Will and if the Civil Magistrate does redress it he fights against God by contradicting his Order and Appointment But 2. There is often no such Difference between Robbery and Usurpation there is none when the Banditi are so strong and powerfull that the Civil Powers are not able to subdue them for then their Injuries are too big for legal Redress there is none in a state of Nature when there is no Civil Government there is none when Anarchy is introduced by Civil War and the Administration of Justice is obstructed by Rebellion and lastly there is none when the injurious Possession of an Estate cannot possibly be cleared by legal Evidence In all these Cases it is impossible that Oppressions Thefts and Robberies should be redressed by humane Judicature it is God alone that can redress them and therefore according to the Doctour's way of arguing the final Determination of Providence does in such Cases create a Right and the unjust Possessour is not bound to Restitution But faith the Doctor to make the Cases parallel he who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly settled in it
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS Drawn from Scripture and Reason In Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE And his Vindication of it LONDON Printed in the Year M DC XCI An EXAMINATION of Dr. SHERLOCK's Case of Allegiance IT is the design of this Treatise to examine all the Arguments in Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance that are drawn from Scripture and Reason and that the state of the Controversie may be clearly understood I begin with SECT 1. The Case plainly and briefly stated HEre he complains first of the perploxing this Controversie by intermixing the dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience but is it not as much perplexed by Separating them Is not this the great Controversie between us whether Allegiance be due to those who have no legal Right to it And thus the Controversie is perplexed because it is a Controversie Then he tells us it seems unfit to dispute the Right of Princes a thing which no Government can permit to be a Question but it seems to me unfit that Religious Oaths should be broken and if Allegiance be due only to those who have a Right the dispute of Right is unavoidable and if no Government can permit it that is no Obligation upon me to be Perjur'd But such disputes will carry Men into the dark Labyrinths of Law and History and therefore the Doctor leads them into the inextricable Labyrinths of Providence Now I think that Law and History are not such dark unintelligible and uncertain Riddles as he makes them they were not designed to maze and blunder our Understandings but to rectifie and inform us about Fact and Right If History cannot enlighten us in Matters of Fact then the Ages that are past are buried in Darkness and Oblivion and all History Sacred and Profane is no better than Romance If Law be a clear and safe Rule of Conscience only to a very few why is it publish'd and enjoyn'd and enforc'd by Penalties upon the many It is a contradiction to the very nature of Law to say it cannot be a clear and safe Rule of Obedience and if Law and History are clear in any thing it is very probable they are clear in things Fundamental and in Matters of greatest Importance and most universal Concernment I know there are great and intricate disputes about our Constitution and so there are about the most evident conclusions of Faith Sense and Reason but Doubts and Errors do not overthrow Truth and Certainty and if some Men shut their Eyes at Noon-day it is no good Consequence that there is no Sun in the Firmament or that Light is Darkness He gives a summary Account of the Difficulties which they who refuse the Oaths do labour under They think that a rightful Prince only has a Right to our Allegiance that though he be dispossessed of his Throne he has Right still and therefore our Duty is still owing to him and to no other and our Oaths of Allegiance to him still bind us and that no other Prince who ascends the Throne without a legal Right has Right to our Allegiance and that to swear Allegiance to him while we are under Obligation of a former Oath to our rightful Prince is Perjury This is indeed the Principle we proceed on though it is not the sum of all that can be said in this Cause our Principles I think may be more clearly and fully expressed and â— propose them thus We maintain that a lawful Sovereign cannot lawfully be Resisted on any pretence whatsoever and therefore cannot lawfully be Deposed nor consequently be lawfully Dispossessed that such unlawful Acts are null in themselves and can effect nothing that a rightful Prince does not cease to be so because he is wrongfully Deposed that his Right does remain after he is Deposed unless he renounce it by Resignation or lose it by Deâ—eliction that when this ancient Right is extinguished the Usurper of the Throne becomes a lawful Sovereign and has a Right to Allegiance and not before that the Dispossessed Prince as long as his Right to the Government continues has a Right to Allegiance that Allegiance includes all those Duties which are contained in the relation of a Subject not only Submission and Obedience in things lawful but most especially actual Defence and Assistance against all his Enemies That therefore Allegiance cannot be Sworn to an Usurper because it is an Obligation to assist him against the true and rightful Sovereign that such assistance is manifest Injustice and in them that are bound by Oath to assist the rightful Sovereign inexcusable Perjury And lastly That God's Authority is Delegated only to rightful Princes and that Usurpers while they continue such have no better Title to it than even Pyrates and Robbers and these I take to be the Principles of them who refuse the Oath But the Propositions which the Doctor opposes to their Principles are fairly reconcileable with them for 1. We may acknowledge that Allegiance is due not for the sake of legal Right but Government and 2. That it is due not to bare legal Right but to the Authority of God We may admit that Allegiance is due to God's Authority and for the sake of Government and yet a legal Right to Government may be still an evident Proof both of the Authority of God and of a Right to Allegiance 3. We may allow also That God when he sees fit sets up Kings without any regard to legal Right or humane Laws He may do it by express Revelation and he may do it by his Providence extinguishing the legal Right and so making the Possessor a rightful Prince though his Right be grounded on no humane positive Law but upon the Law of Nature And 4. It may be granted that a Prince so established Is invested with God's Authority which must be obeyed not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake and thus admitting these Principles to be true in some Sense it will neither follow That our old Allegiance nor our old Oaths are at an end nor that Allegiance is always due to the Powers in possession But here in short lies the Controversie between us whether an Usurper who has wrongfully Dispossessed a rightful Prince whose legal Right to the Throne does still continue in force has nevertheless the Authority of God on his side and by consequence a divine Right to our Allegiance The Doctor is for the affirmative and his Adversaries against it But first he endeavours to byass the Reader to his Opinion by obsering How much it makes for the ease and safety of Subjects in all Revolutions and therefore they have reason he says to wish it to be true and to be glad to see it well proved Whether this Principle be in reality for the ease and safety of Subjects may be debated hereafter suffice it here to observe That ease and safety are usually strong Arguments but only to Flesh and Blood Trouble and Danger do generally pursue Truth and Virtue and if
the side of Sovereignty which is the preserver of private Property and of much greater Importance and therefore in reason ought to be better secured and the right to it be more inviolable however if there be no distinction in Scripture about the Rights of Sovereignty so neither about the Rights of Property and therefore the Silence of Scripture is of itself no Argument against it Let us suppose the Throne to be vacant and two Competitours claiming it and claiming a Right to our Allegiance how shall the Conscience of the Subject be directed in this Dispute Here the Scripture is perfectly silent and gives him no particular Directions but the Laws of the Land and the Oath of Allegiance will direct him to pay his Allegiance to the true and lawfull Heir if he knows him and the Doctour acknowledges that the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God And he acknowledges also that in such a Case we are bound to oppose the illegal and to assist the lawful Title thus far the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience though the Scripture makes no distinction between a lawful and unlawful Heir But suppose farther that the false pretender does actually usurp the Throne and the lawful Heir does still demand our Allegiance Here again we suppose the Scripture to be silent and that there is no distinction in it between rightful Princes and Usurpers and then it is evident we can have no other direction but the Law of the Land and if the Law determines our Allegiance to the rightful Heir we are certainly bound to obey the Law because it contradicts not the Laws of God But the Doctour will not allow that the Scripture is perfectly silent in this matther for he objects That the Apostle generally affirms that all Power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it he should have limited it to legal and rightfull Powers This I have answered already there is no necessity of understanding the Apostle's words universally of all the Powers that ever were are or shall be in the World it is very probable he spake onely of the Powers then in being viz. the Roman Emperours the Words will fairly allow that Construction and it is impossible to confute it And therefore since there is no necessity of understanding the words so universally as to take in all Usurpers it is evident That Text is no sufficient Rule to direct us in that Difficulty and if there is no plainer Direction in the Bible we are left only to politick Laws and if these direct us to pay Allegiance to the lawful Prince they are a Rule to us and we must regulate our Actions by them In short the Scripture directs us to render to Sovereign Powers their due and not to resist them as it directs us to pay Obedience to Parents Masters and all that have Authority over us But which are the higher Powers and who are our Parents or Masters or are invested with any Authority over us the Scripture does not determine but when there iâ— any Competition we are left to Moral Evidence to Political Laws and to the Laws of Nature and Nations to direct us and it is no imperfection in Scripture if it does not determine such Controversies if it supposes us rational Creatures and embodied in Civil Societies and under the Direction of Laws sufficient to determine them 4. The Doctor urges That if the Apostle had intended such a Distinction between rightfull Princes and Vsupers to the fulfilling of his Precept it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to that end to be well skilled in the History and Laws of Nations and to be able to judge between a pretended and real Right and to know exactly what gives a real Right But thâ—se are great Disputes among learned Men and how should unlearned Men understand them And I cannot think that the Resolutions of Conscience in such Matters at all Mankind are concerned in should depend on such Niceties as learned Men cannot agree in The Force of this Objection as far as I can apprehend it is this That learned Men who are skilled in Law and History do often differ in their Opinions of a legal Right and it cannot then be supposed that unlearned Men who are the greatest part of Mankind should be able to judge of it and therefore it cannot be a Rule to them But is not this Objection as strong against the Law of God as against the Laws of Nations If nothing can be a sufficient Rule to the unlearned which the unlearned cannot agree in Does it not plainly follow that the Scripture cannot be a Rule of Faith to the unlearned who are the greatest part of Mankind because the most learned do differ in interpreting it Is not this to say they are his own words that nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Controversie and thus we mâ—st be either Scepticks in Religion or seek an insallible Interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Arâ—â—â—â—es of Faith thus Papists Dispute against the Scripture's being the Rule of Faith and yet I think it would be unjust and uncharitable to insinuate as he does against his Adversary that the Doctour has an Inclination to Rome because his Argument looks kindly towards it But the Doctor easily eludes this Consequence I grant indeed that the Resolution of Conscience ought not to depend on such Niceties of Law and History as learned Men cannot agree about and that is a Reason why legal Rights should not be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes but is this a Reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too because some Men will dispute the plainest Texts Well but are not Law and History in many things as plain as the plainest Texts in Scripture And if those can be no Rule of Conscience because learned men do raise Disputes about them does it not follow that the plainest Texts of Scripture can be no Rule of Faith if the learned raise a Controversie about them if nothing can be a sufficient Rule which has been disputed by the learned neither Law nor History nor Scripture nor even Sense or Reason are sufficient Rules for inextricable Difficulties have been raised about them by perverse Disputers He will say that legal Right depends on the Niceties of Law and History but Articles of Faith upon plain and evident Texts of Scripture and yet even those evident Texts are many of them perplex'd by the Niceties of Criticism and the subtile Interpretations of Hereticks The Scripture evidently teaches the Divinity of Christ but the Doctor knows and no Man better that the Socinians who deny it do elude the plainest Texts and by their Skill in Criticism do wrangle them into Niceties A Rule then may be plain and sufficient though learned men do pretend it is difficult
People have God's Authority and then rebellious Subjects and ambitious Princes who overturn a lawful Government by Force have God's Authority for it for in respect to that Force and Violence he affirms that Governments are destroy'd and set up by God Thus in the transport of his Anger the Doctor forgets his own Principles and the Convocation's 2. Suppose those Passages do relate to Usurpers and to the very Force and Violence by which Empires are overturn'd How does it appear that God's setting up Kings and giving of Kingdoms must be expounded of God's positive and not of his permissive Will of his giving of Authority and not of his concession of Power whereby Rebels and Usurping Princes are enabled to accomplish their wicked Enterprizes If those Passages relate to the very Revolutions of Governments and the wicked Force and Violence by which Usurpers are advanc'd then certainly they must be understood of God's permissive Providence unless we will make God the Author and Abettor of the highest Wickedness and Injustice The Doctor will not affirm that those Passages do prove that Usurpers are set up by God when they are making their way to the Throne nor when they actually place themselves in it for till they are settled in it by consent he himself does allow that they have not God's Authority and yet they will prove this if they prove any thing for Usurpers for they limit not God's setting up to Consent and Settlement they make no difference between Kings in sieri and in facto esse between their ascending to the Throne their fitting and their settlement in it they intimate that all the Gradations and Steps of such Revolutions are alike from God that he bringeth about the whole Change and that the Invasions and Rebellions by which Kings are removed are as much from him as the Advancement of a new King to the Throne and his Establishment in it And therefore if they prove that Usurpers have God's Authority they prove it for Rebels and Invaders also But perhaps the four Monarchies which we supose to be Usurpations were set up by God's Authority because they were set up by the Decree and Counsel of God and foretold by a prophetick Spirit I have observ'd before that some of God's Decrees are permissive and such are his Decrees about wicked Events among which I reckon unjust Violence and Usurpations But they were foretold by a prophetick Spirit And what then Have Usurpers therefore God's Authority because God who is omniscient and sees future things as present does behold them committing Wickedness and foretels it by a Prophet or is God's Prescience a Conveyance of his Authority Among other Changes and Revolutions foretold by Daniel in the Judgment of very learned Men the setting up of Antichrist is predicted and that under the name of a King Dan. 11. 36 37 38 39. and I see no Reason why the setting up of this King may not as well be asscribed to God's Decree and Counsel as any other King in Daniel However it is said expresly of the Beast in the 13th of Revelations which is supposed to be the Antichrist that Power was given him over all Kindreds Tongues and Nations Here we have his Commission for an universal Empire And Power was given him to continue forty two Months Here is a Settlement for a long Tract of Time And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him Here is the Consent and Submission of the People to establish him and if this King has not God's Authority upon the Doctour's Principles and by virtue of as express words of Scripture as any he produces for Usurpers I wonder who can have it Let us know whether this Power of Antichrist was not given him of God and whether he could have it without his Will and Appointment A Power over all Nations must certainly be given him by God and yet I think this giving of Power is no Conveyance of Authority upon this Usurper nor does it inferr any Obligation to Obedience and this Instance overthrows all his Arguments from God's giving Power and Kingdoms for here is a Power and Kingdom which is given by God to which we cannot be Subjects without Apostacy from him The Doctor observes That under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Christ was to be set up and Antichrist was to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in humane Governments Hence he infers That since God has declared that he will change Times and Seasons remove Kings and set up Kings to accomplish his own wise Counsels it justifies our Compliances with such Revolutions he shou'd have added for otherwise Antichrist could neither be advanced nor destroyed Thus it was once argued for Resistence That God's hiding the lawfulness of it from the primitive Christians was necessary to help Antichrist to his Throne and now Compliance with Usurpers is urged to be lawfull as necessary to set up and pull down Antichrist that so God's Counsels may be accomplished and may it not as reasonably be inferred that since God has declared he will make Revolutions remove and set up Kings that therefore Rebellions and unjust Invasions are lawfull because they are the ordinary ways of effecting Revolutions No says he we must not contrary to our Duty promote such Revolutions upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophecies but when they are made and settled we ought to submit to them What! Can it be contrary to our Duty to promote Revolutions which God decrees promotes and effects Is it lawfull for no one to promote them And how then shall they be accomplished But why is it lawful to submit to them when they are made and settled Why because God has decreed them that must be a Reason for it or his Decrees and Counsels are here impertinently urged But we are sure that God has decreed the Kingdom of Antichrist and when his Kingdom is settled must all Kindreds Tongues and Nations pay Subjection to him If God's Decree be a a Reason for Submission we have no more to doe but to fall down and worship when we see his Decree accomplished in the Advancement of Antichrist And if this be not Enthusiasm there is no such thing in the World How vain is it to distinguish between promoting and submitting in respect to the fulfilling of Decrees and Prophecies Does not he that submits promote And what Ground is there for that Distinction in Scripture It was God's Decree that Cromwell should have the Administration of Sovereign Power and he might have foretold it by Prophecy but it was impossible it should have been accomplished without a general Submission Was that therefore a general Duty and was the Nation bound to it to fulfill Decrees and Councils What have we to do with God's unsearchable Decrees Our Rule is Law the Laws of God and Nature for religious and moral Actions the Laws of Kingdoms and Commonweals for those that
will admit and reasonable Men will expect no more 5. Farther it is objected That the Reason the Apostle gives for Submission to the higher Powers is not a legal Right but the Authority of God that all Power or every one who exercises the supreme Power is of God and the Ordinance of God which seems plainly intended to wave the Dispute about the legality of the Powers But 1. This Objection does conclude as strongly against his own Principle as against his Adversaries he requires Allegience not to every one who exercises the supreme Power so did Oliver but to a Possessor throughly settled by the general Consent of the People But the Reason the Apostle gives for Subjection to the higher Powers is not a through Settlement or the Consent of the People but the Authority of God that every one who exercises supreme Power is the Ordinance of God which seems plainly to wave all Disputes about Settlement and Consent He can make no reply which will not serve his Adversaries if he says that Settlement and Consent are not the formal Reason of Allegiance but only the Signs of God's Authority to which it is immediately due we say the same for our Principle we confess that the Duty of Allegiance must be ultimately resolved into God's Authority we only affirm that a lawful Right is a Sign of that Authority we maintain that Allegiance is due to God's Authority and thus far we are agreed But how shall we know when a Prince is invested with this Authority When he is settled saith the Doctor when he has a lawful Right say others and here lies the difference between us If the Apostle had required Subjection to all Possessors for the sake of Possession there could have been no Dispute about the legality of Powers but since the Apostle's Reason of Subjection is not Possession but the Ordinance of God and he does not say that every one who is in Possession is ordained by God for every one who exercises the supreme Power is the Doctor 's saying and not the Apostle's it remains a Question what Powers in the meaning of the Apostle are ordain'd by God whether lawful only or also unlawful Powers and if he means lawful only the Dispute about Legality is unavoidable The Doctor in the Vindication of his Arguments from Rom. 13. demands How God does invest any Prince with his Authority whom he does not immediately nominate To this he Answers himself and confutes himself but my Answer is That God annexes his Authority to those Princes who have a lawful Right to govern or to execute the Regal Office And what says the Doctor If God's Authority be annexed to the Regal Office a Prince must be in the actual Administration of the Regal Office before he can have God's Authority as a Man must be actually Married before he can have the Authority which the Divine Laws give to a Husband By Regal Office either he means the Duty in the Abstract and whoever said that God's Authority was annexed to the Duty or he must mean a Right to execute it or the actual Execution of it if he means the former he asserts a manifest Absurdity That he who has a Right to an Office must be in the actual Administration of it if the later he only asserts That a Prince who actually administers the Regal Power must be in the actual Administration of it and thus this shew of Argument is nothing but an Amusement and so is the similitude of an Husband for the Relation of a Husband is subsequent to Marriage and no Man can have the Authority of a Husband before he is a Husband But the Relation of a King is not founded upon Possession but upon a Right to govern which implies a Right to Obedience and we acknowledge that a King must actually have that Right before he can have God's Authority but this very instance of a Husband is a convincing Proof that God's Authority may be given to those that cannot exercise it for that is the condition of many Husbands He urges farther That to call a Right to the Crown the Authority of Government is contrary to the Sense of Mankind when they speak of Sovereign Princes For he has actual Authority who actually administers the Government and it is actual Authority which is God's Authority not Authority in Fancy and Idea for God does not give Authority to govern without the Power of Government which is a very fruitless and insignificant Authority The Reply is very obvious a Right to the Crown is a Right to govern and that implies Authority to govern and a Prince may have actually this Authority and yet not actually administer it And this is so far from being contrary to the Sense of Mankind that nothing is more consonant to it for all Men know that there may be Power without Authority and Authority without Power and there is no Man in his Wits but can easily distinguish them and this is not an Authority which subsists only in Fancy for it has a moral Efficacy and obliges to Obedience and it might as well be said that all Duty Law and Right are nothing but Fancy and Idea but to say that God never gives Authority to govern without the Power of Government is an Assertion manifestly false Have not Parents Masters and Husbands Authority from God to govern when they cannot govern those that are ungovernable Had not David God's Authority to govern when Absalom forc'd him to be Abdicated Had not Charles I. Authority to govern the Parliament and the Regicides And have not all Princes the same Authority over their Rebellious Subjects But God's Authority without Power is fruitless and insignificant that I think is no fault of God or his Authority the Grace of God is fruitless much more than his Authority and his Authority in Parents Husbands and Church Governours is too often as insignificant as his Authority in Princes but woe to them who render God's Authority insignificant For their Damnation slumbereth not And this may suffice to his Objection about God's Authority But he endeavours farther to support it by observing 6. That the Pharisees made this Objection against Submission to the Roman Powers that they were bound by the Law of God not to submit to them as being unjust Vsurpations upon the Priviledges and Liberties of God's People and therefore the Apostle tells them that all Powers are of God and the Powers that be are ordained of God Let it be granted now that some such Objection was made by the Pharisees How does it appear that the Apostle intended to oppose or answer it Was that Opinion maintained by any of that Sect after they were converted to Christianity or by any of the Roman Converts or by any of the Christians at all That the Doctor will not affirm and if he does it it is impossible to prove it And why should we then imagine that the Apostle designed to confute an Error which
or to any other Man in the World and therefore when it is asserted that God never gives a Kingdom without a lawful Right to it this is very well consistent with that Assertion of the Prophet though it be understood of God's Authoritative Gift and in the utmost comprehension of the Words for though God's Authority be annexed to Right yet he gives that Right to whomsoever he will But farther he instances in the giving of an Estate and that instance will lead us to a Resolution of his Questions God giveth Estates to whomsoever he will this Proposition is contain'd in Scripture and is undeniably true it is nevertheless certain that no one can have a Divine Right to an Estate when the legal Right is another's and then though God's Providence gives Possession of an Estate that Gift is no conveyance of Right or Authority to keep it But then the Doctor briâ—kly demands does whomsoever signifie those only who have a legal Right to an Estate does giving it suppose an antecedent Right does giving an Estate to whomsoever be will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it The Answer is obvious God gives Estates by his permissive and by his positive Will by the latter to those only who have a legal Right by the former to every one that gets Possession in respect to this Gift whomsoever may be taken universally but must be limited to a lawful Right in respect to the other Thus in the disposal of Kingdoms every one who has Possession has a permissive Gift but not a positive or authoritative Gift which always attends upon Right in relation to the former God does give Kingdoms absolutely to whomsoever he will without regard to Right in relation to the latter God does give Kingdoms to whomsoever he gives Right to possess them In short he gives them to whomsoever he will but God's Will is either positive or permissive and it is impossible to distinguish by which of them he gives any Possession but by considering the Right to possess them When an Estate is entail'd the Possessor cannot give it to whomsoever he will for he has no Right to alienate it from the Heir neither does Providence properly give it to those who have no Right to it But nevertheless God can give Estates to whomsoever he will by permitting Power or conveying a legal Right to possess it God can do both when it is not in the Power of a Man to do either and therefore there is a great Disparity in this Case between God's giving and Man 's giving And now what Absurdity is there in saying that God giveth a Kingdom to whomsoever he will permit the Possession of it and conveys his Authority on whomsoever he will confer a Right to possess it does the Absurdity lie in distinguishing between his permissive and authoritative Will that is a Distinction generally receiv'd and hitherto I see no Reason why it is not applicable to the disposal of Kingdoms Is it absurd to say that God gives a thing when he only suffers the taking it that is the Language of Scripture thus saith God himself unto David I will give thy Wives unto thy Neighbour and he shall lie with them I will do this thing before all Israel and before the Sun But surely no Right was hereby given unto Absalem to his Father's Wives The Actions of seducing deceiving and moving unto Wickedness of blinding and hardening Men in it are expresly attributed to God in Scripture and if such Expressions may be reasonably expounded only of God's Permission or his being the accidental cause of such Effects there can be certainly no Absurdity in expounding God's giving a Kingdom without Right by granting Power to Usurpers and permitting them to abuse it Lastly Does the Absurdity lie in restraining whomsoever he will unto rightful Princes when we speak of God's giving Authority But if God gives a legal Right to whomsoever he will then there is no Restriction because none are excepted God gives Riches to whomsoever he will but he always gives a legal Right when he gives Authority to keep them and in fine it is no Absurdity to restrain the general Expressions of Scripture when the matter does require it Thou hast wrought all our Works in us saith the Prophet if we understand this of God's positive Operations wicked Works must be excepted He hardneth whom or whomsoever he will saith the Apostle and I think the Doctor will not think it absurd to restrain the Words to those who make themselves obnoxious to the Divine Vengeance by their obstinate Incredulity and if this Expression may be restrain'd in one place so it may in another if there be equal Reason for it In short it is no Absurdity to restrain such general Words when it is absurd to understand them without Restriction But the Doctor argues that these Passages relate to the Four Monarchies which were all as manifest Vsurpations aâ— ever were in the World and yet set up by the Decree and Counsel of God and foretold by a Prophetick Spirit Here he affirms that the most manifest Usurpers that ever were in the World were set up by God conseqently they had God's Authority to govern and therefore a Right to Allegiance otherwise Usurpers are never the better for being set up by God and those Passages are produc'd superfluously to prove it But if the most manifest Usurpers in the World are God's Ordinance what shall become of his distinction between Usurpers setled and unsetled such as Cromwel was and such as those that are enthron'd by a full Convention such as have and such as have not the consent of the People If all Usurpers have God's Authority these distinctions are perfect Banter but if all have it not certainly the most manifest Usurpers that ever were in the World were without it But let this pass for an Hyperbole I answer 1. It appears not that those Monarchies were Usurpations I grant they were such in sieri those I mean who set them up were Usurpers in doing it and for some time it may be after their Advancement but they soon became rightful Sovereigns by the extinction of the former Right and if at first they were Usurpers and afterwards rightful Sovereigns How knows the Doctor that those Passages in the Prophet relate to the four Monarchies as Usurpations and not as rightful Governments He affirms that the Prophet tells us with respect to the very Revolutions which were nothing else but Force and Vsurpation that God changeth Times and removeth and setteth up Kings Then it follows that even the unjust and violent Changes of Governments are acted and authoriz'd by God for if in respect to them it is said that God changeth Times and sets up Kings and setting up is the act of God and conveyance of Authority then it is certain that God does act and authorize Changes then those very Usurpers whose Government is founded only upon Force without the consent of the
relate to Civil Society As for God's Decrees they are unknown to us till they are fulfilled and when they are we can never know whether they are positive or permissive whether they require our Submission or Resistence but by the nature of the Events Usurpations are decreed by God and so are Robberies so is Antichrist and if there be no difference between these Decrees as there may be none and there can be none gathered out of Daniel or out of any other part of Scripture it follows necessarily that God's Decreeing of Usurpers infers not any Obligation of Subjection to them Thus I have done with his Argument from Dreams Decrees and Prophecies and I hope it appears that the Doctour's Commentary upon Daniel does by no means make good his Commentary upon the Apostle 8. He argues farther That this Distinction that only legal not usurped Powers are of God had made the Apostle's Direction signifie nothing for the great Question had still been undetermined what Powers are of God and what they must obey if some Powers be of God and some not The Apostle directed the Roman Christians to be subject to the Roman Powers then in being and if there was any Dispute whether they were lawfull Powers or Usurpers he plainly determines it by declaring they were God's Ordinance and that Subjection was therefore due to them he tells them the Powers then in being were ordained by God and that was enough to silence all Disputes about them The Doctour confesses That had the Apostle confin'd himself to the then present Powers it would have directed them at that time but says he it would have been no general Direction to Christians in other Ages to obey the present Powers it would have been very convenient for some Men if the Apostle had given such a Direction but what if he hath not Why then we have no Direction in Scripture what to do in such disputed Cases unless by a Parity of Reason Well suppose that we have not the Direction is sufficient if we will be content with what may be reasonably expected St. Paul required the Christians to pay Subjection to the Roman Emperours who were lawfull Powers and the Reason upon which he enjoins it extends the Obligation to Subjects in all Ages and Nations who are under the government of such lawful Powers But the Apostle has not directed us to distinguish what Powers are lawful neither have we any Directions to find out true Parents lawful Husbands Masters and Pastors and yet I think the Scripture is not to be charged with Imperfection The Scripture prescribes the Duties of these several Relations but gives no Rules to distinguish the Relatives the True and Lawful from the False and Counterfeit that depends upon the infinite variety of Fact of Customs and of Laws and therefore cannot be comprehended in general Rules so does the Distinction between lawful Powers and unlawful it depends upon the various Constitutions of Civil Politics and often upon Matters of Fact and therefore that Distinction could not be bounded and defined within Rules nor consequently be determined in Scripture In short it may be inferred by parity of Reason from the Apostle that the supreme Powers in every civil Government are God's Ordinance and irresillible But which are the supreme Powers he hath left to be determined by the Laws of every Government The Doctor himself hath told the World That whatever Power in any Nation according to the Fundamental Laws of its Government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme Power of that Nation the higher Powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And is there any Nation in the World which hath made an Usurper irresistible by a Fundamental Law The Doctor may recant this but he will pardon me if I am still of his Opinion But the Doctor is sure the only Direction in Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government And I am sure there is no such Direction there and which is more the Doctor himself is sure of it for he is sure that Usurpers who have the actual Administration of Government without the consent of the People have no Title to Subjection He seems to lay stress upon those Words of the Apostle At God's Ministers attending continually upon this very Thing the Emperors were then actually Administring the Government and that was their Business as God's Ministers But does the Apostle say that Sovereign Powers are not God's Ministers when they are hindred from their Business though they are still attending upon it and endeavour to remove the Impediment Do they cease to be God's Ministers because their Subjects are Rebels Obedience is required to Spiritual Rulers because they watch over Souls Heb. 13. 11. Are the People then discharged from their Duty if they will not suffer their Pastors to watch over them but separate from them And are the Pastors no longer God's Ministers because they can't exercise their Function But there is not the least notice given us of any kind of Duty to a Prince removed from the Administration of Government whatever his Right may be Neither say I is there any the least notice of paying any Duty to Usurpers no more is there of paying Obedience to a Father or a Master remov'd from the Government of their Families or to a Bishop removed from his Church by Persecution there is no more than this that the Scripture requires Obedience to them and neither Scripture nor Reason does teach us that when they are violently removed from the actual Administration of their respective Governments the Relation ceases and the Duty with it And thus much may be said for Sovereign Princes Subjection is required to them but neither Scripture nor Reason do inform us that the Relation is extinguished when they are violently deposed On the contrary we are expresly required to give Princes their dues and what those are we must learn from the Laws of Nature and Nations for the Scripture has not taught us But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to Vsurpers In the 2d of Samuel we have the People of the Jews submitting to Absalom in the 13th of Revel the People of all Nations to Anti-christ but in neither do we find that they are blamed for it But I wonder when he was heaping up these negative Arguments that he did not remember that if they are good for any thing they overthrow his own Hypothesis he maintains that Allegiance is not due to all Usurpers though all his Arguments from Providence and Scripture do prove it but only to those that are setled by a general consent and yet there is no Rule no Example not an Iota for this Distinction in Scripture But this was not convenient to be remember'd for then he had lost these pretty Arguments But in Scripture we have Examples of Subjects being condemn'd for refusing
this Providence We acknowledge that the Authority of Government is derived only from God and from him no otherwise but by a Providential Conveyance of his Authority upon particular Persons and thus far we are agreed But then the Question is Whether God's Providence does invest a Prince with his Authority by the conveyance of Right or by the conveyance of Possession without it In short whether every Prince in Possession is invested with God's Authority We affirm that Government is founded in God's Authority but we deny that God conveys it upon every Prince in Possession 3. When we say God's Authority is annexed to Right we do not confine this to a Right by political Laws of particular Governments the adaequate Rule of Right is Law and whatsoever is Law may create a Right and consequently Right may result not only from political Laws of this or that Government but also from the Laws of God of Nature and Nations the Will of God revealed is a Law to us and therefore when God nominates a King by express Revelation he has a Right to the Possession of Sovereignty and the Obedience of Subjects In a state â—f Nature as they call it wherein Men are under no Government nor Obligation of Subjection they may choose a Sovereign and when they have chosen him he has a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature By the Law of Nations it is generally said how truly I dispute not that Conquest in a just War does create a lawful Right And lastly when political Societies are Constituted and a Rule of Succession Established either at the first by an Original Agreement or afterwards by Prescription or positive Laws that Law of Succession does create a Right to the Sovereignty which is confirmed by the Laws of God and Nature and Nations but if this Law be violated and an Usurpation is made against it the Usurpers may acquire a Right by Prescription which implies an undisturbed Possession and a Dereliction of the former Right and this new Right which commences from the extinction of the former is such by the Law of Nature which is Equity and of Nations which is the Consent of civilized Societies Lastly Where there is no Rule of Succession or no Right in any Person to the Sovereignty as when a Royal Family is extinguished in such Cases The Possession of Sovereign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it for then we may presume that God gives him the irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an irresistible Power When there is no other Right Possession is a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations but Possession of another's Right has been always pronounced invalid by the voice of Equity and the suffrage of all Nations These Two last Rights may perhaps be reduced to the Second the Consent of a free People for they suppose them to be discharged from all former Obligations and Possession of Sovereignty supposes Submission of the People and that is nothing else but a Consent to be governed which in a free People I have observed does create a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature And now let us consider what the Doctor does object against these Titles to Sovereignty Against the Choice and Consent of the People he objects That then no Man is a Subject but he who Consents to be so for the major Vote says he cannot include my Consent unless I please that is the effect of Law and Compact or Force not of Nature I answer when a free People choose a Sovereign if they consent to choose it is presum'd unless it be otherwise provided that they consent the major Vote shall determine the Choice this presumption is grounded upon manifest Equity But if any one refuses to be determin'd by a Majority he refuses to enter into the Society and may remove out of it but if he will live within the Government of the new Sovereign he accepts him for his Sovereign and is bound to Obedience He urges farther That if Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away again if they please Bp. Sanderson propounds this very Inference and his Answer is this Contra stat ratio omnia jura omnia for a reclamant scilicet legitima pacta non esse rescindenda It is the Voice of Reason and of all Laws and of all places of Commerce that lawful Compacts are not to be resâ—inded at pleasure But another Answer is also given The Subjects are only instrumental Agents God is the principal Agent in the making of a King the People design the Person and God conveys the Authority It is God that makes Kings the People are his Instruments but he has given them no Power to depose them The Doctor himself affirms That the Consent of the People are the means by which Princes gain a Right to their Thrones and I affirm no more the People may be a means of conveying Right though it be God alone that confers the Authority and if God alone does make Kings he alone can depose them But farther Vpon this Principle there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can choose only for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had True if there could be no Right to Sovereignty without the constant Election of the Subjects but that is no Principle of mine and I am not bound to answer for it but this I will answer for that a Law made a Thousand Years ago may be Obligatory now and that it may create a Right to a Person now living and that it may be a Sin to deprive him of it tho' it be done by the help of Providence His Objection against the Right of Conquest supposes it to be effected by unjust and violent Force and I easily acknowledge that unjust Conquest gives no Right Submission he says is only a forced and after Consent not to make a King but to own him who has made himself King and what Right can that give more than Force He shall Answer this himself The Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was Originally no more but Force into a civil and legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince by this means Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedont Right this is certainly true where the People are under no antecedent Obligation The continuance of an Vsurpation can never give a Right unless that which is Wrong grow Right by Continuance That Maxim of the Law to which he refers has this Exception Vnless a new Cause intervene which of it self can create a Right Now that which makes way for a new Right is the Extinction of the former Right The continuance of an Usurpation of it self may never give a Right but if the Usurpers enjoy quiet Possession of a 100 Years together it is a presumption in Law and Equity
but 't is onely a repeating of what he had said in his 5th Proposition and there it is answered Here it will suffice to answer that removing and setting up Kings are equivocal Expressions which signifie either God's suffering or doing his Permission of Power or his Conveyance of Authority An Usurper is set up by permissive Providence and to deny him Allegiance is no Opposition to God's Authority But God cannot make a King if he cannot oblige us to obey him nor remove a King if he cannot discharge us from our Allegiance to him He can make and remove Kings by his permissive Will without transferring our Allegiance if the Doctour can prove that he makes Usurpers otherwise we are ready to shift sides with Providence But those are bold Men who will venture to say in plain contradiction to holy Scripture that God cannot remove or set up Kings As for me I am none of those bold Bayards I believe that God governs the World and that he removes and sets up Kings he removes Kings out of the World and out of their Thrones he sets up lawfull Kings and he sets up Usurpers Henry the Great he removed by Ravilliack and Charles I. by a High Court of Justice he set up Charles H. and King James and he set up Cromwell and Massianello All this is true but it follows not hence that he does all this by his positive Will and Conveyance of Authority Our Church has taught us otherwise in the Office for King Charles's Martyrdom his Death is there always asscribed to God's permissive Will Albeit thou didst suffer them to proceed to such a height of Violence as to kill him and to take possession of his Throne yet didst thou in great Mercy preserve his Son whose Right it was and at length by a wonderfull Providence bring him back and set him thereon The Removal of King Charles and the setting up the Vsurpers are both attributed to God's permissive Providence but the setting up of him whose Right it was to his positive and active Will He suffered the Usurpers to take Possession of the Throne but he set the rightful Heir thereon But here again the Question is not what God can doe but what he does he can give a Man's House and his Wife his Ox and his Ass and any thing that is his to another who has no Right to them and so he can give his Crown and Kingdom But the Question is whether God does give them by the bare Events of Providence Whether he who has Possession of another's House or Wife or Kingdom has a divine Right to them I will be bold â—o say that he has not and yet I pretend not to confine God's Providence he governs the World as he pleases but he obliges us to be governed by Laws he can transfer any Man's House or Wife or Kingdom to another by his permissive Will as when they are usurped by his positive when he conveys a Title to them The Doctour affirms that God never sets up Kings without the Consent of the People others add without their lawfull Consent or against a lawful Right if Consent be no Confinement of Providence neither is Right and lawfull Consent and if this Opinion be a contradiction to the Scripture so is the former But 5. This limits the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting injured Subjects We say the punishment of Sovereign Princes is peculiar to God and that if they abuse their Power God will punish them for it but it seems God has no way to doe this but to take them out of the World for he cannot remove them from the Throne The Doctour is very carefull that bad Princes may be punished and their Punishment in another World does not satisfie him He pretends to make them accountable to God onely but that is a Complement he elsewhere makes them accountable to their Subjects for if Princes govern not according to their liking they may withdraw their sworn Allegiance from them suffer them to be deposed and then abjure them But has not God ways enough to punish Princes without licensing their Subjects to abjure them Cannot he punish them as he did David by raising Evil against them out of their own House and Bowels as he did Jeroboam with the loss of his Son Vzziah with Leproâ—ie Nebuchadnezzar with Phrensie and Herod with a most loathsome and tormenting Disease Is not God's Power of punishing confined by not resisting as well as not abjuring Or is it any Argument against Non-resistence that then God cannot license Subjects to rebell against their Sovereign Is it a Confinement of God's Power to punish leud Husbands because it is not lawful for their Wives to commit Adultery or prodigal and tyrannical Parents because their Children cannot hang them or in respect of both because Obedience is due to Husbands and Parents as long as they are living In all the Succession of the Roman Emperours which were as wicked and tyrannical as any Succession in the World not one of them was punished by the Translation of the Empire while they were living and against their own Consents and yet God's Judgments were never more remarkable upon any Succession of Monarchs God has ways enough to punish Princes without taking his Measures from the Doctour he â—an punish them without the Wickedness of Men and he can punish them by it though he never makes it lawful for Subjects to rebell and depose their Princes yet he can punish them by Rebellion and Deposition by withdrawing his Protection and giving Success to Rebels and Usurpers he can punish them likewise by hardening them in their Wickedness by suffering Subjects to abjure the King they have deposed to raise Taxes and Armies to oppose and even at length to murther him and can any Man wish for more ways of Punishments Are not these enough for God to execute his Vengeance Or is his Providence cramped or limited because it is not lawfull for men to do evil But if Subjects can't translate their Allegiance when an evil Prince is removed from the Throne then his removal is no deliverance to them They are never the better for it for they must not own another Prince though he would be never so kind to them Well and what if they are never the better for the deposing of their Prince This is often the course of God's Providence to give and to take away a King in his Wrath. When the Romans thought to make themselves happy by deposing Tyrants they were usually plagued with greater Saevior intestabilior semper est exortus When God deposes a rightful Prince and leaves him a right to the Throne he has a right to Allegiance and therefore his Subjects cannot transfer it to another Prince though he be the sweetest kindest Prince under Heaven for kindness and good Nature are no Right to Allegiance Yet this seems very hard that when God has actually delivered us we must refuse our Deliverance
and therefore if the Possession of a Power which is the Right of another be Wickedness we are sure that God's Decree and Providence about it are merely permissive and are consequently far from being Arguments of Divine Authority But to return to the Doctor He endeavours to support his Argument by Providence by remembring That Kings are God's Ministers and Lieutenants and are invested with his Authority now to give Authority to any Person does not signifie to permit him to take it and we cannot but think that God will exercise a particular Providence in appointing his great Ministers Under the word Kings he comprehends Vsurpers and here the Doctor would conjure us into a Circle He undertook to prove that all Usurpers do rule by God's Authority because they are advanced by his Providence and now he remembers that they are invested with his Authority and from thence he argues that they are advanced by his Providence But the Doctor remembers what he has not proved that all Kings comprehending Usurpers are invested with God's Authority This we positively deny as being here precariously asserted and therefore the Assumptions and Inferences that follow ought to pass for nothing But behold his Subtilty No Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it is given and if the advancement to a Throne invests a Prince with God's Authority then God gives him the Throne and does not merely permit him to take it If the Supposition were well proved the Consequence would be never doubted but the Reason on which he grounds it is either not true or not pertinent For no Man can take God's Authority but it must be given by him The gift of God does generally imply a conveyance of Right by divine Donation and in this sense his Assertion is manifestly false for all Authority is God's and whenever Men do assume Power and Authority which they have no Right to exercise as for instance all Usurpers Rebels Pyrates Robbers and Schismatical Preachers it is evident they usurp that Power and Authority which God never gave them But sometimes God is said to give a thing when Providence so orders it that Men have Power to take it Thus â—â—d God give David's Wives to Absalom as the Prophet had denounced but this Permissive gift did by no means authorize and legitimate his Inoest with them and in this sense it is true That no Man can take God's Authority but it must be given that is no Man can usurp it without God's Permission But in this sense his Proposition here is insignificant for a Permissive gift is as good a Charter for Thieves and Cut-throats as it is for Tyrants and Usurpers Nay says the Doctor Since God makes Kings now not by an express Nomination but only by the Events of Providence we must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings whom he does not make Kings for then we can never distinguish between Kings by the Permission and by the Appointment of God between God's Kings and Kings of their own making Then in other words he repeats the same Assertion and concludes That there is no direction how to distinguish them and the Events of Providence in placing them in the Throne are the same in both Here the Doctor will not distinguish against his own Hypothesis but why may not the Permission and Appointment of God be as easily distinguished in the advancement of Kings as in the success of Pyrates and Robbers or in any other Event whatever Since the only way whereby God does now give Riches and Estates is the disposal of Providence can we therefore never distinguish between the Possessing them by the Permission and by the Appointment of God Does the forgeâ— of a Will hold his Estate by divine Appointment or the Thief the purchase of Robbery If we cannot distinguish in such Cases between God's Permission and Appointment Justice must leave the Earth again and a divine Right may be pleaded for all the Injustice in the World But if that distinction be allowed in private Property why should it not be admitted in the right of Sovereignty also the Reason is the same in both for God can never be the Author of any Wickedness and as long as the Possession of any thing is unjust or wicked we may be sure that Providence only permits it But saith the Doctor There is no direction how to distinguish between Kings by Permission and by divine Appointment and the Events of Providence are the same in both If he means direction in Scripture he knows we are directed there to render every Man his due and not only Scripture but the Laws of Nature and Nations do direct it also But though Scripture is no Code of Political Laws and Rights yet we want not sufficient direction to determine us in paying every one his due Political Laws and Constitutions are the Rule of Civil Rights and they direct us how to distinguish between unjust and just Possessors and the light of Reason and Scripture does assure us That an unjust Possession is only permitted by God and not appointed and authorized by him We have as plain a direction how to distinguish about the Possession of Sovereignty as of private Property or as we have to distinguish between the Usurpers of God's vindictive Justice â—nd the lawful Administrators of it Vengeance is God's and his Vicegerents but it is often usurp'd by Murtherers and Rebels they invade it by God's Permission only but the Laws of Nations teach us how to distinguish them from God's Vicegerents and if we have directions to distinguish when one branch of Sovereignty is permitted to be Invaded when the whole is Invaded will not the same directions serve Or is it easie to distinguish in lesser Usurpations impossible in greater But when a legal Prince and an Usurper are advanced to a Throne The Event is the same in both The Events considered as Natural actions may be the same but as Moral they may be as easily distinguish'd as any Moral good and evil Adultery and Conjugal Copulation just and unjust Possessions the executions of Magistrates and Cut-throats the Beheading of Charles the First and the Beheading of Monmouth in all these actions the Event considered Physically is the same but I hope it is easie to distinguish in these Cases between Lawful and Unlawful Permission and Appointment So it is in the advancement to Sovereignty when King Charles and Cromwell were advanced the Event to wit the Possession of the Sovereignty was the same but every Church of England Man in those Days could easily distinguish between God's Sovereign and the Devil 's In short we can never distinguish Permission and Appointment by bare Events but only by the moral Circumstances which denominate them good or evil Consequently since Providence it self must be distinguished by the rules of good and evil it necessarily follows that Providence of it self can never be a rule to us The only rule of our
that the former Right is relinquished But it is also affirmed by Lawyers That quiet and immemorial Possession is a Right by the positive Law of Nations and if that be true then a wrongful Possession may become rightful by Continuance But though the former Right be extinguished Though no body else has any Right to the Crown How does this make him a rightful King who has no Right I answer in his own Words Possession is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it it is a Right by the Law of Nations and it may be founded also on the Consent of the People for they are free to Consent when the former Right is relinquished and they actually consent by submitting to his Government This Right of Prescription the Doctor will not understand He demands will an uninterrupted Possession of an hundred Years make the Vsurper a Rightful King without the Death or Cession of the whole Royal Family I answer a Cession is presum'd by the Consent of Nations and by Equity it self because it is reasonable to believe that he has relinquish'd his Right who suffers another to enjoy it without interruption and because it is the Interest of Societies that the Controversies about Dominion should at length be ended How then says the Doctor does the Royal Family come to lose their Right by an usurp'd Possession And if an Vsurpation will destroy their Right why not a short one as well as a long one Their Right is lost by Cession not by Usurpation and the Cession is not presum'd by the Law of Nations when the Usurpation is of short continuance short possession of an Estate is no right in any civiliz'd Society but a long Possession is a right almost all the World over So it is in Kingdoms and this consent of Nations will justify this Distinction though the Doctor will not understand it He demands farther How the People shall be justified in consenting that the Vsurper should reign while their rightful King is living If they cannot hinder him from reigning they need not justifying if they can and will not and therefore cannot be justified who can help it And what is that to the matter of Prescription But how long must the Vsurper reign before the People consent to it Till they can reasonably be persuaded that the former Right is extinguish'd Lastly he asks again Whether an hundered Years Possession be a good right against a better claim or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred Years Vsurpation And I answer again that Prescription supposes the former Right to be extinguish'd which is so far from being a better that it ceases to be any Right the extinction of it may be grounded upon Equity or the positive Law of Nations as to the time of its expiring an hundred Years is not always necessary if the Cession can be prov'd that will suffice without respect to time but without other Proof by the consent of Nations undisturb'd Possession for a hundred Years does entinguish the former Title We come next to Hereditary Right and thus he argues against it it is either a continued Vsurpation which can give no Right or a Right by Law How Usurpation may produce a Right is consider'd already and what says he against a Right by Law why that is by the consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family which he has observ'd before cannot be done for what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years agoe to choose a King for me Here a Question is made whether an Act or Law made by our Ancestors may oblige their Posterity He gives no Reasons to prove the Negative but supposes it Self-evident But the Reason and Practice of Mankind suppose the quite contrary if Children cannot be bound by the Acts of their Parents the Authority of Parents does signifie nothing but we need not this Authority to enforce the Obligation of Laws every Human Law does oblige the whole Community or Political Society to which it is a Law and therefore the Society being still the same it was four hundred Years agoe the Obligation reaches to every Member of it Thus Mr. Hooker to be commanded we do consent when that Society whereof we are a part hath at any time before consented without revoking the same after by the like universal Agreement Wherefore as any Man's Deed past is good as long as he himself continueth so the Act of a publick Society done five hundred Years sithence standeth as theirs who presently are of the same Societies because Corporations are immortal We were then alive in our Predecessors and they in their Successors do live still Even the publick Good and Interest of Societies is a sufficient Foundation for the extending the Obligation of Laws to Posterity If the Acts of Predecessors cannot bind their Successors standing Leagues between Nations are impracticable a King in being cannot be oblig'd by the Acts and Grants of former Kings the publick Faith of a Society is a publick Cheat for the Society can never be bound by it for a Week together and lastly where the explicite Consent of the People is requir'd to a Law it is plain that all Laws must expire as soon as born for the People are in a continual Flux and they are not the same to Day as Yesterday so that absolute Necessity seems to have introduc'd an universal Agreement in all Societies 〈◊〉 that the Obligation of Laws should be extended to Posterity This is the undeniable practice of all Nations every Act of Parliament is intended to oblige the future as well as present Generation till it is repeal'd In the Recognition of James the First the Lords and Commons do submit and oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterity for ever until the last drop of their Bâ—oods be spent to his Majesty King James and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever Here it is plain this Parliament thought they had a right to make Acts and Vows for their Posterity and we have not a Parliament only but also the Reason and Practice of all Nations against a single Doctor and I think he is the first Doctor that ever undertook to prove that Hereditary Right is no Right and that there is no Right to Sovereignty but Possession But I think also that the Doctor does contradict the Doctor for he allows that in an Hereditary Kingdom the lawful Heir has a legal Right to the Crown before he is in Possession and even after he is dispossess'd and when the Crown is vacant he acknowledges the Subjects are bound to maintain the Succession and to set up the lawful Heir And if this be true then it is evident that an Hereditary Right without Possession may lay an Obligation upon the People and consequently the People may be oblig'd by this Right though they did not personally consent to it He urges farther that this Hereditary Right must be ultimately resolved