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
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
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
that we will not allow God to deliver us unless he do it by Law This is pretty and passionate but to use his own Eloquence is a very nothing It is often a Duty to refuse Deliverance when God does deliver us we are sometimes bound to suffer Martyrdom not accepting Deliverance A Master of a Family does cruelly treat his Wife his Children and Servants God delivers them by suffering a Robber to drive him out of his Possessions he offers to govern them gently if they will swear to resist the former Possessor and accept of him as a Husband Father and Master A Prince oppresses his Subjects many of them rebel and bring Deliverance to the rest with this Condition that they will swear to joyn in the Rebellion In these Cases is it lawful for the oppressed to accept Deliverance When a Deliverance is offered which cannot be enjoyed without Sin it is God's Providence that offers it not for our Complyance but our Tryal and to accept of such a Deliverance will make us liable to his Vengeance The Question then is whether it be a Sin to abjure our lawful Sovereign and to assist an Usurper against him we believe that it is a Sin against humane Laws and against the Laws of God and Nature and if it be a Sin then interests of Flesh and Blood cannot make it lawful and therefore to talk of God's Deliverance when the only Question is about the lawfulness of abjuring a lawful Sovereign is in plain English only Cant and Banter His 6th Argument wherein he undertakes to confute Bishop Sanderson has fallen into better Hands and there I shall leave it the summ of it is this That we must renounce our Allegiance to the dispossessed Prince for the sake of the publick Good the Necessity and Ends of Government and I shall only observe that here he Argues upon the Fundamental Principle of the Jesuites Republicans and Fanatiâ—ks who have written for Resistance and if the Doctor expects it I will make good this Charge against him His 7th Argument is this These Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the security of the Prince and Subjects and that is a good Argument to believe them true These Principles What are they Non-resistance Non-assistance and Allegiance to Usurpers A Prince who is in Possession is secured in Possession by them as far as any Principles can secure him against all attempts of his Subjects who must submit to him without Resistance though they are ill used On the contrary here is no Security for even the best of Princes his Subjects are indeed forbidden to resist him but if any attempt be made against him by Subjects or Foreigners he may be left to duel them all and to sight his Battles by himself against all his Enemies He will say that a good Prince must be defended by his Subjects and so say the Republicans that he must never be resisted and deposed But it is the unavoidable Mischief of their Principle that the Subjects are made the Judges of their Sovereign and they will often judge the best of Kings to be Tyrants And is not the Doctor 's Principle liable to the same Mischief If Subjects have a very bad King who notoriously violates their Rights they are not bound to defend him and are they not plainly then the Judges of his Crown They may judg the best of Kings to be a very bad one and then David look to thy self for Absalom or Sheba any Rebellious Son or Subject may destroy thee at their Pleasure there is but little difference between Resistance and Non-Assistance as to the Security of Kings the one exposes them defenceless to be murthered by the other this brings them to the Scaffold and that chops off their Heads and 't is the same thing to Princes whether they are betrayed or resisted abandoned or deposed assaulted by Assassins or exposed naked to them But The Doctor 's Principles will not serve the Revolutions of Government to remove one King and set up another and why so the Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative that is God may make Revolutions but the Subjects must not promote them and if God can change Governments without the Subjects Assistance why may he not do it without their Complyance But yet Subjects must comply and transfer their Allegiance and then the new King is secure till he disobliges his Subjects for then they who have Power from God will think they have a Call to execute his Prerogative and the rest will say in their Hearts let him go if he cannot defend himself and if sighting by himself he chances to â—e beaten then God removes him we must â—dore the rising Sun and Allegiance must â—e always a Lacquey to Success These â—re Principles sure that Princes have reason â—o be jealous of for whatever Service they may do them at one time they may do them as great disservice at another they advance Usurpers to the Throne and then tumble them headlong from it But when any Prince is setled in the Throne these Principles put an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience I may answer in his own way it is evident that these Principles were either unknown to the World and that is an Argument against them or else that they cannot put an end to Disputes of Right and Title for there have been such Disputes in all Ages and I believe will be to the end of the World If this be trifling let the Doctor answer for it But admit his Principles were generally receiv'd it is evident they can never put an end to Disputes of Right nor bind the Subjects by Duty and Conscience to an Usurper for he expresly acknowledges that the Providence of God removes and sets up Kings but alters no legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed to recover their Rights The dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right and Claim which he may lawfully prosecute by War And is not here an admirable end the Controversy about Right Oh! but this Controversy is between the Princes only upon these Principles it can be none among the Subjects for they are bound by Duty and Conscience to the Prince in Possession And what are they bound to Non-Resistance and Submission Is that any Security to the Sovereign when he is invaded by the lawful Prince Are they bound to Allegiance or to an actual defence of the Usurper against him That they cannot be for it would be a bond of Iniquity if the dispossessed Prince has a just cause of War and this is evident to the Subjects Is it lawful for them to support an unjust Cause against a just Cause It is generally agreed that a War cannot be just on both sides Grotius gives this Reason because in the nature of the thing there cannot be a moral Faculty unto contrary Actions a right in one