there is no incongruity in the Expression as ridiculous as the Doctor represents it to say that God may resign his immediate Government over a People as their political King This was done in fact upon the ceasing of the Theocracy in the Kingdom of Judah Now in the present case the Text saith expresly that God delivered them into the hands of the Moabites and Aramites And what does that intimate but that God had so far parted with his immediate Government as their political King for if God was at that time their political King how came the Israelites to be the Subjects of these Kings Might they transferr their Alleg. from God too when he insisted upon his Right to govern them But if God appointed them for the punishment of their sins to be Subjects to those Kings and delivered them as such into their hands and the Israelites knew that he did so it is plain that God so far consented that they should be their Subjects And tho the Doctor will not allow that the presumed consent of the Prince signifies any thing I hope he will not think so of the express consent of God Now the Convocation plainly asserts that the Israelites were the Subjects of these Kings and the Doctor 's Argument proceeds upon the supposition of it And the Question is how they became so Either God at that time was their political King or he was not if he was Which way should they become Subyects of another Prince I doubt for all his laughing it will puzzle the Doctor to give another account of it If God was not their political King then those in whom the Right of the Government was together with the People had submitted and had thereby made the Governments of the Aramites and Moabites over them Legal Governments But of this more presently 2. To consider what the Doctor hath found out to justifie the Submission of the Israelites and their becoming Subjects to these things And here we are got into a field of Distinctions and nothing at all to the purpose And the Doctor will grant Legal Powers may be understood in a larger Notion and that may be said to be legal which is agreeable to the Laws of Nature and Nations and Submission may make a legal King of him who according to the Laws of the Land can be only King de facto And this he tells us is worth considering and then goes on In a state of Nature wherein we must suppose all men free from any Government but that of Parents and so might give up the Government of themselves to whom they pleased c. But what is this to the purpose Was that the Case of the People of Israel whom God himself had framed into a Commonwealth and especially at such times when he was their political King But says he If we fall into a state of Nature and Liberty again P. 13. or something like it as in the case of a new prevailing force when Prince and People are conquer'd for then the Government is at an end and they are as much at liberty to submit to a conquering Prinâ—e as they were in the state of Nature Now this is perfectly a new Question and I see no reason to meddle with it but if the Doctor is weary of his Hypothesis as he hath laid it and will quit it as not defensible and will fix the controversie upon this bottom he shall hear what I have to say to it But the Doctor I suppose thinking it not much to the purpose hath himself enlarg'd this point And with respect to private Subjects he says When upon a violent change of Government they are as much under the force and power of a new Prince or a new Government as they could be under a conquering Prince Force will justifie Submission and then it is the same thing from what quarter the force comes And agreeable to this he says in matters of Government it is an unalterable Right of Nature to submit to Force 〈◊〉 14. And this is that which he gives as a Reason to justifie the Submission of the Israelites to the Aramites and Moabites for it follows All men will grant that no humane Laws and Constitutions are so sacred as the positive Laws of God that Government and Polity which God himself prescribed to the Children of Israel which they were religiously bound to observe by vertue of their Covenant with God which certainly was as sacred as any oath Now those Laws did not admit of the Authority and Government of Strangers but expresly forbad it that had they chose to be governed by any foreign Prince they had greatly sinned in it but this very Law as sacred as it was gave way to necessity and when they were conquer'd by the Aramites or Moabites or any other Nation it was no fault to submit to them And if force would justifie this in the Israelites who had God for their King and were oblig'd by their Covenant with him to accept of no foreign Prince to govern them it is hard if it will not justifie the Subjects of humane Governments most of which were at first founded in mere force whatever their Oaths and Obligations be to submit to a new and greater force This is the Doctors state of the matter and I shall consider it immediately For the Doctor says This gives a sufficient Answer to what our Author adds in the place last quoted Postscript p. 3. That God's being King of Israel would be an Argument against their submission for the Doctor tells us that where God entails the Crown the People were not to submit to any Usurpâ—r if the right Heir was alive and therefore much more where God himself was their King and then sure they might lawfully resist those Kings whose Subjects they were not nor could be and they needed no especial direction to destroy the Usurpers as Ahud did King Eglon but they might nay they were bound to do it as Jehoiada slew Athaliah for I hope God's entail is not of greater force than his own immediate Government So that either their Submission transferr'd a legal Right or their Submission was a sin To this the Doctor replies Vindic. p. 15. This looks like something very deep but it is so very a nothing that I cannot devise what he would be at that is because the Doctor has nothing to say to it For now he comes to another of his shifts just before instead of giving a direct Answer he brings a company of impertinent Distinctions to blind the business and in the mist drops the Question and now instead of answering one Question falls to asking I know not how many Would he prove that God was not the King of Israel â—gaiâ—st the Scriptures oâ— would he prove 〈◊〉 the Israelites ought not to have subâ—â—tted to the Moabites and have â—ad all tâ—â—ir Throats out or would he prove against â—he Convocation that they were not 〈◊〉 Sâ—â—jects of King Eglon No
as much bound to observe their own Laws as the People of Judah were theirs Now if this be that which I would prove what need was there of so many previous Questions to entangle a plain thing and I own this is that which I would prove only I except against his all Cases and to all intents and purposes which are his words and not mine and I will no more answer for his sense than he will for mine My words are as much bound which the Dr. sums up too and adds in all Cases and to all intents c. as much oblige whereas it is enough if they oblige as much in the present Case and to the Present purpose without running any further And I do assert that Entails of the Crown made by Humane Laws do as much oblige the Subjects to own the Authority of their Rightful King by those Laws and to disown the Authority of an Usurper as the Entail of God upon the Posterity of David did oblige the Subjects of Judah to own Joash and to Depose and Slay Athaliah and let us see what the Dr hath to say to it He replys The Dispute in general about the Authority and Obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denyes it Very well but I doubt they must oblige as much and in such Cases only as will fit the Drs. turn But yet saith he we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Humane Laws tho made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe the Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God Now I thought the Dr. had some fetch in putting in these same in all Cases and to all intents and purposes But did I ever say that meer Humane Laws were as sacred as Divine Laws but as to their obligation the Subjects in other Countrys are as much oblig'd to observe their Political Laws as the People of Judah were theirs tho the one is made by God himself and the other by his Authority And this for the Reason that I gave because all Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience And need the Dr. be told what is the meaning of Humane Laws binding in Conscience which hath an immediate Respect to the Law of God And the formal Reason that Humane Laws oblige in Conscience is not because they are meer Humane Laws as the Dr. hath a mind to phrase it but because it is the declared Will of God they should be obey'd and the obligation in Conscience to Humane Laws is resolv'd only into the Law of God And I hope the obligation may be equal with respect to the Law of God tho the Laws themselves are not equal in all Cases and to all intents and purpose And I wonder where is the singularity of asserting this as the Dr. out of extraordinary candor hath a mind to insinuate But saith he the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature tho they be both the Laws of the Country for which they are made i. e. tho they are both Laws and tho they both receive their binding power as they are Laws and tho the difference the Dr. contends for is that the one is a Law of God and the other is a Law of man Yet it seems the Dispute about Laws would not serve the Turn and therefore they must be considered not as Laws but as Entails tho I must confess I can see no difference in that for if they are Entails they are Laws and they are Laws as they are Entails And I do not very well see how their Consideration can be sever'd or what need there is for it But for all that P. 43. the Dr. tells us it will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a Providential Settlement of them in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and tho God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence will not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a Providential King when it is in their Power to set the Right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Humane Entail is only a Providential Settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is seâ—â—â—d only by Providence may be unâ—â—â—led by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones And what is all this to the Purpose and what signifies this tedious Relation of his Hypothesis which we must have at every turn And what is this to the difference of the dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and Divine and Humane Entails All that concerns that is that a Divine Entail is God's Providential Setling the Crown by the express Revelation of his Will i. e. it is a Divine Law And a Humane Entail is only God's Providential Settlement of the Crown on such a Family and that is he hath setled it by a Humane Law And I would fain know whether it binds as an Act of Providence or as a Law But it seems the Laws of Entail are to be submitted to not as Laws but as Providences And if we must talk in this Cant I say that a Divine Entail is God's Providential Settlement of the Crown by express Revelation that a Humane Entail is God's Providential Settlement by a Humane Law but Vsurpation is a bare Act or Permission of Providence and no Settlement of the Crown at all And why does a bare Act or Permission of Providence defeat a Providential Settlement by Humane Law any more than it does a Providential Settlement by Divine Law The Dr. says what is setled by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again Very well but then it is the same degree of Providence The Dr. says we must not expound Providence against the express revelation of God's Will And I reply we must not expound a bare Act or permission of Providence against a Providential Settlement by Law But all this while my Answer is not touch'd which is that the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs God's Entail was the Political Law of that Kingdom and a Humane Entail is the Law of other Hereditary Kingdoms and the Laws of other Countrys oblige in Conscience as well as the Laws of Judah And if it was not lawful to own the Authority of an Usurper in the Kingdom of Judah because contrary to their Laws and their obligations to them neither is it so in any
other Country for the same reason But here the Dr. shifts and tells us that the Dispute about the Authority and Obligation of Humane Laws is impertinent to the purpose but gives no reason except his saying for no man deny it be a reason he says after that the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and Divine and Humane Entails are of a very different nature And it may be so or it may not be so for any thing he hath said for his comparing a Divine and Humane Entail makes no difference in that particular but this is trifling and amusing not answering The single Question is whether they are Laws or no Laws and are to be consider'd as such is a Humane Entail the Law of an Hereditary Kingdom and does it oblige as such Then if other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their Laws as the people of Judah were theirs it plainly follows that Usurpation cannot be admitted against a Legal Right in other Kingdoms any more than it could in the Kingdom of Judah But this is impertinent to the purpose i. e. to the Drs. purpose The Dr. goes on This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws that are made by God's Authority and which are a Rule to us to Providence which is no Rule Well! This I said and where is the fallacy Now saith he I would ask the Author whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws To which I answer yes and moreover they bind in Conscience with respect to the Laws of God But I cannot tell what the Dr. will call them whether Providential Settlements or Providences for it seems they have no influence on the Peoples Subjection otherwise than as they are Providences and not as Laws backt with God's Authority But saith he if they be I ask whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence I answer no for God makes Kings by his Providence according to Legal Right But it is another Question Whether an Usurper possessed of the Throne by Providence be a King of God's making or be made a King by God's Authority And the Question as the Drs. puts it is Sophistical he mixes and confounds what ought to be divided Whether Kings are made by God's Authority and whether they are made by Providence are two Questions which he makes one when Kings are made according to Legal Right they are made by God's Authority for the Laws have God's Authority But that a Providential Possession of the Throne is God's Authority or that a Person so possessed is made a King by God's Authority is that which the Dr. hath not yet and I suppose will not be able to prove The Dr. adds to avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by God's Authority To avoid what That Sophistical Question before I never so much as thought of it And I do not see how I should for it affects nothing that I have said And now I do know it I do not see any such strength in it as will need any Art or Pains to avoid it But to save him further trouble I will tell him all the design I had in saying the Laws were made by God's Authority was only to shew the obligation of Humane Laws that they bound in Conscience and were a Rule to us and which Providence was not and therefore all the pains the Dr. takes to prove that Humane Laws are not Divine Laws concerns not me at all nor the Question He disputes only against his own fancy and therefore I shall not trouble the Reader with that but go on to the next Well! saith he but these Laws are our Rule They are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superiour Authority P. 44. but that they may be by the Authority of God Very true But are the Acts or Permissions of Providence that Authority of God that over-rules the Laws Divine Laws are under God's Authority as well as Humane Laws and may be over-ruled by him when he please But that is no proof that Acts of Providence over-rule them And the Question is not whether God's Authority may over-rule Humane Laws but whether by meer Providence he doth over-rule them and till God doth over-rule them they are our Rule And the Providence of God is not our Rule Well this I said To this he replyes if by this he means we must not make Providence the Rule of Good and Evil to us i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do what ever the Providence of God does I grant it For the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence Very well We must not think it lawful to do whatsoever the Providence of God does but may we think it lawful to do any thing that the Providence of God does as it is meerly an Act of Providence in opposition to a plain and known Rule allow'd and authoriz'd by God himself as is the Case of Humane Laws This is the single point But let us see what a kind of Rule the Dr. makes of Providence But saith he if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our duty cannot lay some new obligations on us and discharge the old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand instances What does Providence do this as a Rule That is the Question And I doubt to make it out that we must have a new notion of a Rule as we have had of Providence and a through Settlement What if Providence direct our duty it does not make it but the duty is to be measured by the Rule and not by Providence What if Providence layes new obligations on us and discharges the old ones the obligation and the discharge too are to be taken from the Rule and not from Providence and we are not to practise by Providence but by the Rule And if Providence be contrary to the Rule it directs no duty nor lays any new obligations nor discharges the old ones Except it be quite contrary to the Drs. meaning if a man by Providence usurps another mans possession all the Duty Providence directs to and all the obligation it lays is to have justice done and the possession restor'd to the right owner So that I doubt the Drs. thousand instances will come very short and what are those Instances Every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some duties and lays some new obligations on us And what then Is Providence the Rule of those duties or those obligations This is manifestly false or is Providence the Rule of that Condition or of that new Relation This is manifestly false also Suppose Providence puts a man into a state of sufferings or into a state of plenty or any other state the justice or injustice of these sufferings or prosperity c.
and transferring Kingdoms God does not confine himself to determine on the side of humane Right but acts with a Sovereign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases And what then and therefore the Possession of the Throne by providence is God's giving the Kingdom but that does not follow And God's acting with a Sovereign Authority which the Dr. intimates as a Reason does not prove it for in all acts of Providence God acts with a Sovereign Authority if by Sovereign Authority the Dr. means acting independantly and without respect to the Laws and Rules God hath prescribed to others This is the same in cases under the cognizance of Laws and Humane Courts as well as in those which are above them and such acting by a Sovereign Authority is no Rule for mankind nor warrant for practice But if by Gods acting with a Sovereign Authority the Dr. means That God as Lord and Proprietor of the World may dispose of it as he sees good and actually does so in such a way as may warrant practice and confer a good Right and Title as when he ordered the Israelites to spoil the Aegyptians This was an Act of Sovereign Authority but cannot be called Providence but comes under the notion of a Law and they were warranted to take the Aegyptians goods not from providence giving them opportunity but from God's express will impowering and authorizing them so to do In like manner God may if he please dispose of Kingdoms and private estates by his Sovereign Authority but if he does so he extinguishes the Legal Right of the former owner and conveys it to whom he gives it And it can never be concluded that he does so from providence only the ends and designs of which are mysterious and to us unknown but from some further evidence and notice of the Divine Will But the Dr. confounds God's providence with his Laws and makes one a Rule of practice as well as the other God governs the World by his providence as well as by his Laws but he hath not made his providence nor directed us to observe it as a Rule of life And therefore the Drs. proof is preposterous for although there are cases reserv'd to Gods own judgment altho God may act by a Sovereign Authority that is nothing to his purpose except he proves likewise that the events of providence are God's final sentence and that he would have the World take notice of them as such But instead of that the Dr. is for beginning at the other end and proves that God's providence is his final determination and a Rule to be observed because there are Cases reserved to his own judgment And therefore this proves indeed that there is a difference in the two Cases but does not prove that there is any difference in providence which is the only thing that needs to be proved the one is under publick Government the other is immediatly under the Government of God but they are both immediatly under Providence And a direct answer must affect that and shew how providence is less Gods Act or a less Act of his Sovereign Authority with respect to private Possessions than to Thrones how the same Providence which in one Case is Paramount to Laws dissolves their obligation cancels the bond of Oaths and disposes Crowns in the other does nothing at all but is under the Authority of a Justice of Peace or a Constable But this which is the main point the Dr. does not attempt to answer but instead of that tells us that in one case God hath erected humane Judicatures but the other are reserved to his own judgment i. e. there is some difference as to the things but none as to Providence which is the only question For a humane Judicature does not alter the nature of Providence and if providence be God's Decree Order and Council then it is so notwithstanding any humane Judicature and it is somewhat strange that a humane Judicature should determine against God's Orders and Decrees any more than humane Laws And here I desire to be resolved in 2 Questions 1. How it comes to pass that a humane Judicatory is a greater confinement to Providence than a humane Law 2. Whether God hath erected humane Judicatories to determine the Rights of private men any otherwise or for any other purposes than he hath humane Entails to determine the Rights of Kings and if not then I suppose it will follow that as humane Judicatories are a Reason why Providence as the Dr. says has no effect at all on such Personal Rights so humane Entails also will be a Reason why providence has no effect at all on such Regal Rights or at least the one will be as good a Reason as the other At last the Dr. comes to prove his point from the Poet and tells me The Poet would have taught him the difference between these two Cases And I confess I should rather have expected this Doctrin in a Poet than in a Divine Regum timendorum in proprios greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Jovis Now the Poet is not for him neither for all that he says as the Dr. quotes him is that the Government of Kings is over their own Subjects and the Government of Jupiter is over Kings themselves And that he might very well think without the Drs. notion of Providence and what opinion the Poet had of Providence does not appear But however tho this is not for the Drs. Purpose it must be own'd that the Method is very proper for proofs from a Poet do very well suit with Poetical Divinity The Dr. goes on Besides according to my Principles P. 47. Kings must be throughly setled in their Governments before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them and then if he will make the Cases parallel be who unjustly seizes another mans estate must be throughly setled in it before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him but that no private man can be who is under the Government of Laws who has not the Possession of his Estate given him by Law and when he has whether right or wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again Now I crave the Drs. good leave to return him one of his own Complements is he in â—est or in earnest and certainly such things as these were never said in earnest by a man of the Drs. Character The dispute is between the Providential Possession of the Throne and of a private Estate now to make the Cases parallel in the private Case there must be a Legal Possession that is there is a Parallel between Possession and Possession but between Providential and Legal which is the only thing in controversie there is none We are not now disputing about the notion of a thorough Settlement and for once let us take it in the Drs. sense and see what a fine Parallel he makes a thorough Settlement of an Usurper on the Throne is an actual and
chosen could make such a Consent 1. By Acts virtually declaring it When he was proclaimed Protector there were general Acclamations and such other Expressions as are usual upon the proclaiming a new King and after that more express Acknowledgments he was publickly and solemnly treated by the City under the Character of Supreme Governour and in that Character own'd and submitted to by the most if not by the whole of the Nation so that if the Consent of the People may be virtually declar'd he certainly had it 2. He had a formal and express Consent so far as Representatives illegally chosen could make such a consent He summon'd two Parliaments both of them met upon his Writ both of them own'd his Authority and solemnly recogniz'd it But to this the Dr. hath some Objections 1. That the Parliament summon'd according to the directions of the Instrument of Government agreed on by Cromwell and his Officers never could make a National Consent And I pray mark his Reasons for they are two 1. For they were not chosen according to the ancient Usages and Customs of the Nation a very weighty Reason according to the Doctor 's Principles for neither is an Usurper a King according to the ancient Usages and Customs of the Nation And if the Consent of the People by their Representatives cannot be made but by the ancient â—ustoms and Usages of the Nation then a Parliament call'd by an Usurper can make no such Consent This Reason I suppose came from him unawares 2. His second Reason is Nor were they the Representatives of the Nation but only of a prevailing Party and Faction and his reason of that is for that Artic. 14. of the Instrument 't is provided no persons aiding advising assisting or abetting in the War against the Parliament since 41. unless they had been since in the Parliaments Service and given signal Testimonies of their good affections should give any Vote in the Election of Members And what proportion did these bear to the whole Nation Most of those that had been active in the Kings Service were fled several turn'd to the Government and were within the Qualification and how many were the rest certainly very few in comparison of the whole So that notwithstanding such restriction those that were elected might represent the great Body of the Nation which is all the Dr. requires to such a Consent But here the Dr. objects again That after such Election they were not Parliament men unless they were approved to be Persons not disabled by the major part of the Council and accordingly he tells us that many persons who were return'd in the second Parliament were not approved which occasion'd a Remonstrance subscribed by near a hundred And what then One Parliament I hope is sufficient to give the peoples consent The people in two years time the distance between the two Parliaments might grow weary of the Usurpation and send up Members of another temper but what did that signifie to their choice before were any of the first Parliament secluded upon that account That the Dr. does not say but for that he tells us The first Parliament began to be very busie about the New Government but in what particulars he does not say but the Protector sent for them into the Painted Chamber and taught them better Well! then they were better taught and comply'd with him And he before their next sitting appointed a New Test and one branch of it was as the Dr. repeats it I do hereby freely promise and engage my self to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector And he tells that day one hundred and thirty Members took it and for ought appears to the contrary all the rest took it afterwards And is not this a pure argument that they did not consent to his Government I suppose because they took an Oath to be true and faithful to him And so the Dr. hath fairly prov'd his point Well! however that be it can never be deny'd no not by the Doctor himself but that a very great number did expresly consent And what became of them Why truly according to him they became Subjects for it was lawful to submit and when they had submitted it became a duty to them tho the rest were free So that all they that took the Engagement were Subjects to the Rumpers and all that took the Oath to Oliver of otherwise expresly consented to his Government were his Subjects and the rest were Subjects to King Charles or rather to no body but were in interest engag'd to him And what a special Society have we got here one part of the same Society are Subjects to one person another part to another or rather absolutely free one Party are oblig'd in Conscience and by their Oaths to support one Government with their Lives and Fortunes the other Party are oblig'd by Interest a Principle found by experience to be much stronger than Oaths or Conscience to pull it down and to set up another and according to their differing obligations they were bound to cut one anothers Throats at the first opportunity Now the Dr. may call this a Humane Society if he please but it suits better by half with a Society of Wolves and Tygres The Dr. has forgot Case of Alleg. p. 38 39. that one of his principal Aruments for Submission to Usurpers is the necessity of Government to preserve Humane Societies for Humane Societies must not dissolve into a Mob or Mr. Hobs's State of Nature And yet it seems to answer an Objection it must dissolve into something very like them To serve that purpose the Dr. supposes that no man who considers it well will call that a Civil Government or a Civil Society to which Authority and Obedience is Essential But to serve another purpose All Authority and Obedience is stated quite away and they may submit or not submit without sin i. e. there is a Society where is neither King nor Subject no Authority to command nor Duty to obey When the Dr. is to prove submission to Usurpers from the necessities of Government to preserve Humane Societies why then if God will preserve Humane Society we must conclude that when he removes one King out of the Throne he gives his Authority to him whom he places there for without Authority Humane Societies must disband Power may tye men together a while but can never unite them into a Civil Body without the Bonds and Ligaments of Duty and Conscience But when the Dr. is for vindicating his Arguments from laying any Reproach on the Loyal Sufferers then he states the matter so plain as no body can mistake or misrepresent it and that is that we must conclude no such thing at all we must not conclude that God has given his Authority to him that is placed on the Throne and the necessities of Government for preservation of Humane Society do not give Authority to him that governs and lay an obligation of duty on the Subject