almost invincible Prejudices against Submission when Conscience was not concerned and this answers all his little Objections As 1. The great Villanies of those days in an open and bare-fac'd Rebellion and in the barbarous Murder of one of the best Princes in the World this he says makes no difference in my Arguments What! not to prejudice wise and good Men against all Compliances For who that could possibly avoid it that is where strict Duty does not oblige nor irresistible Force constrain would submit to such Men 2. The barbarous usage the Kings Friends met with This he confesses makes some difference in point of Interest but none in point of Conscience nor did I say it did but it justly created a great Aversion to those Usurpations and was a reason not to submit when they were not obliged in Conscience to do it since all the Interest they had in the World engaged them not to settle by their Submissions but to do all they could to overturn those Usurpations 3. The Church of England was overturned Bishops Deans c. turned out and their Lands and Revenues sold the Loyal Clergy were Malignants for what they had done and had no way to keep their Livings but by renouncing the Church of England To this he answers the Case is concerning Civil Government not Ecclesiastical But yet whoever loves the Church will not chuse to submit when they are not obliged in Conscience to such Usurpations on the State as overthrow the Church Whether they were obliged to renounce Episcopacy or not they saw it destroyed and not so much as an Indulgence allowed to the Worship or Government of the Church of England What he adds I would desire him carefully to consider for it did not concern them that to be disabled to keep a Living though a very good one is no reason to rebel against a settled Government 4. The whole Government in Church and State was overturned which was the fundamental Constitution of the Nation but this he says is only changing the form of Government as the Dr. knows the Convocation says when such degenerate forms of Government are throughly settled I grant it but when such degenerate forms of Government are not throughly settled the subversion of the fundamental Constitution of the Nation is a reasonable prejudice against submission when it is not a duty His parting Objection is so very ridiculous that had he begun with it I should have thought he had only intended it for a jest but I am now so well acquainted with his way of reasoning that I am satisfied he is capable of thinking it an argument and it is this If possession of Sovereign Power contary to Law be God's Authority and ought to be obeyed then whatever Sovereign Power a Prince possesses himself of is likewise God's Authority and ought to be obeyed If therefore a Prince in a limited Monarchy resolves eo be arbitrary to make his will the Law and to exercise an Illegal Power he must be obeyed as Gods Authority But where do I say that possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is Gods Authority He does not pretend that I say it in express words but this he supposes is the sense of what I say But I desire he would keep to my words for I will answer for none of his senses unless I were better satisfied both of his understanding and honesty I say indeed that a Prince who is settled in the possession of Sovereign Power though he have no legal Title to the Crown has God's Authority and what then therefore the possession of Sovereign power contrary to Law is God's Authority how does this follow cannot God settle a King upon the Throne without a legal Title but he must be presumed to give him Authority when ever he has power to govern by an Arbitrary will against the Laws of the Land cannot God make a King without giving him Authority to do all that he has power to do But the formal reason of obedience to such a Prince is because he hath God's Authority and the evidence that he hath God's Authority is because he is possessed of Sovereign Power Suppose this though God's Authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a Prince yet it is not the Rule of our obedience and therefore we are not bound to obey every thing he commands though he have God's Authority The Authority of God is only an Authority to govern according to the Laws of God and Nature or the Laws of the Land and tho Sovereign Princes may have such an Authority as must not be resisted yet in a limited Monarchy they have no more Authority from God to transgress the Laws of the Land than in an absolute Monarchy they have to transgress the Laws of God and Nature Indeed Arbitrary Government is not the possession of Sovereign Power which is God's Authority but the arbitrary Exercise of it And tho we must obey God's Authority it does not hence follow that we must obey the Exercise of Arbitrary Power And yet I do not attribute Gods Authority which we must obey in Conscience to the bare possession of Power but to the setled possession of it that is with the Consent and Submission of the People and could any Prince change a limited into an absolute Monarchy by a National Consent Subjects were then as much bound in Conscience to submit to an arbitrary Power in all matters which have no moral evil in them as they are now to obey the Laws but then this would not be an Authority against Law but the Law would be changed Thus it is not yet and we are in no danger now it should be so and therefore the Case of the Declaration and of Magdalen-Colledge c. are very impertinently alledged by our Authour and he had better reserve them till he can bring us under the Government of a French Power But do not I say That when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to Divine Authority He should have cited the whole That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us So that the Laws of the Land must be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes unless they contradict the Laws of God and I do not know that any of our Laws do that and then there is no danger in a limited Monarchy that we should be obliged by God's Authority to obey Arbitrary Will and Power It is a certain truth as our Authour must confess that if the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us But this proves nothing in particular without proving what Laws of the Land are contrary to the Laws of God If then he can prove that by the Law of God we are bound to obey the Arbitrary Will of the Prince against the
Jezebel p. 46. And the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires These Passages our Author has thought fit to take no notice of for if they do not prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no right and place them in the Thrones of those who have the right there is no sense to be made of them Our Author's hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it for if no Prince can have God's Authority nor must be obeyed unless he have a legal Right either an old Hereditary Right or a new Acquired Right by the death or cession of the Royal Family or by a long prescription then God is bound to those Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribes to others that is to adhere to Humane Rights then God may not overthrow any Kings or Emperors who challenge their Countries Kingdoms or Empires by any just Claim Right Title or Interest Then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just right and claim For he cannot unmake a rightful King if he cannot absolve Subjects from their Allegiance nor make a King without a legal Right if he cannot give him his Authority and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects to him God can remove the Man by death but cannot unmake the King unless he unmake himselfe by resigning his Crown He can set a Man upon the Throne but cannot make a King of him without the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription Whereever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure this Convocation never taught it him To confirm this I observed that the Convocation teaches that Obedience was due to such Kings as never could have any legal Right to the Government of Israel as the Kings of the Moabites and Aramites of Aegypt and Babylon and yet says that the Israelites knew that it was not lawful for them of themselves and by their own Authority to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were though indeed they were Tyrants And that it had not been lawful for Ahud to have killed King Eglon had he not first been made by God the Iudge Prince and Ruler of the People On the other hand our Author affirms that all these Kings had a legal Right and were legal Powers and that it appears in all and every one of the Instances the Convocation gives of Government to which they say obedience is due that these Governments had such a Right This is a bold Undertaker unless he only play with equivocal words and that I believe is the truth of the matter for such legal Rights as he has found for these Princes will quickly transubstantiate all usurped Powers into legal Governments But our first Inquiry is What the Convocation thought of these Kings as for instance the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites who ruled over and oppressed Israel whether they thought them the legal and rightful Kings of Israel they call indeed the Israelites their Subjects as our Author observes and from thence proves that these Kings had a legal power over Israel but the mischief is that the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any man shall affirm that any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments which Wit or Learning could devise that God had called him to murther the King de facto under whom he lived yea though he should first have procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did and should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master ought therefore to be believed of any that feared God he doth greatly err Which is spoke with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de Facto in the judgment of the Convocation and I suppose our Author knows what a King de Facto signifies in opposition to a King de Iure one who is King without a legal Right and yet the Convocation asserts that such Kings de Facto must not be murdered by their Subjects which is an express Determination against our Author Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author has found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies which were successively Erected with the most manifest Violence and Usurpation And that is the Submission both of Prince and People which he says I grant gives a legal Right whereas I only said That the Submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so The truth is our Author is here blunder'd for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous Terms which if they were truly stated would clear all these Difficulties Legal Powers signifie such Powers as are according to Law but then there are different kinds of Laws and when we speak of legal Powers unless we agree by what Law we call them Legal we shall never understand one another Now we may understand Legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Laws of Nations or the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation or Kingdom and in this last sence Legal is understood by all Men who understand themselves in this Controversie of legal Powers that those only are legal Powers who have the rightful Authority of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom which they govern This is the reason of the Distinction between a King de Iure and de Facto which relates to the particular Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom a King de Iure is a rightful King by the Laws of the Land a King de Facto whatever other Right he may have is not rightfully and lawfully possessed of the Crown by the Laws of Succession proper to that Kingdom And if our Author will take the Controversie off of this Bottom and dispute only about legal Powers in general we will then admit his Plea of Submission and joyn issue with him upon that Point And this is all the Mystery I intended when I affirmed that the Moabites and Aramites Aegyptians and Babylonians could not have a legal and natural Right to Govern Israel that is that by the Constitutions of the Iewish Commonwealth they could not give the Power of the Government to a Stranger nor set up a Prince over them who was not of their Brethren and therefore no Strangers neither Aramites nor Moabites could be their legal Kings As for their Submission when under Force it shall be considered presently This made me smile to see how he was concerned to ward off a Blow which was
the right Heir was alive and therefore much more where God himself was their King as if God were not the King of Israel when he set Kings over them and then surely they might lawfully resist these Kings whose Subjects they were not nor could be and they needed no especial Commission or Direction to destroy the Usurpers as Ahud did Eglon but they might nay they were bound to do it as Jehoiada slew Athaliah For I hope God s Entail is not of greater force than his own immediate Government So that either their submission transferred a legal Right or else their submission was a sin This looks like something very deep but it is so very a nothing that I cannot devise what he would be at Would he prove that God was not the King of Israel against the Scriptures who say he was Or would he prove that the Israelites ought not to have submitted to the Moabites but have had all their Throats cut by a vain opposition Or would he prove against the Convocation that they were not the Subjects of King Eglon but any Israelite might have killed him without any such Commission from God as Ahud had Whatever he intends to prove if he knows that himself yet as far as I am concerned it is no more but this That while the Israelites were under no Forreign Force but had liberty to live by their own Laws they were bound to make him their Prince on whom God had entailed the Crown while they were under Force they might do as they could and submit to the Conqueror which submission could not give those Usurpers a Legal Right according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Iewish Common-wealth but according to the Laws of Nature which allow submission unto a Conquerour it did Now if the Laws of Nature when we are under the Protection of no Government allow us to submit to Force and Power then call it Conquest or what you will when I am under no Protection and under Force I am at liberty to submit whatever my former Obligations were and I become as firmly and entirely bound to such a new Power as ever I was to the most Legal Prince Thus far the Laws of Nature go towards making a Legal King and this is confirmed by the Laws of Nations which are nothing else but received Customs and Usages agreeable to the Laws of Nature and right Reason Now though different Nations have different Laws of Succession to the Crown yet they seem all to agree in this That he is the King who is in possession of the Throne with the consent and submission of the People The consent and submission of the People turn that which was originally no more but Force into a Civil and Legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince By this means Kingdoms and Empires are transferred and Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedent Right When God intends to pull down one King and set up another he gives success to the rising Prince puts the Nation into his hands and so orders it that by Force and Power or other Arts he obtains their consent and submission and then he is their King and is invested with God's Authority especially when he is visibly setled in the Throne by the united strength and power of the Kingdom Upon these terms I suppose our Author and I may very well agree that the Convocation does allow such Governments as were begun by wicked means when they are throughly setled to become legal and rightful Powers not by the Laws of the Land but by the consent and submission of the People and the Authority of God wherewith they are invested This I owned before that the distinction between Kings de Iure and de Facto related only to the Laws of the Land for upon other accounts those Kings who are set up by God and have his Authority are rightful Kings that is so rightful that our Obedience is due to them But this is all shuffling and playing with words for the single Question is Whether the Convocation by throughly setled means that such Governments as are begun by Usurpation or Rebellion or other wicked means cannot be throughly setled till they acquire a legal Right by the Laws of the Land which he says must be by the death or cession of the rightful King or by a long Prescription now this I say the Convocation could not mean as appears by the Instances they give of such Powers For the Aramites and Moabites could never by the Constitution of the Iewish Commonwealth be the legal and rightful Kings of Israel and a Common-wealth where there is a perpetual Succession of Persons in whom the ordinary Power resides can never die nor lose their claim to that Power which is given them by God though they might submit when under Force so that here was neither Death nor Cession and they were far from having such a Prescription as our Author makes necessary to give such Powers a Legal Right and this answers all his other instances where he argues only from the term lawful Now if submission in such Cases will give a Right to our Obedience in contradiction to the Laws of the Land that which justified the submission of Israel will justifie the submission of any other People to a prevailing Power and will give such Powers as good a Right as the Aramites and Moabites could challenge to Israel All that can be said here I think is this That by submission which gives a legal Right our Author means the submission and acknowledgment of those in whom the Right is That is to say the submission of the People does not give a legal Right but the submission of the King does 1. But for answer to this in the first place I desire to know what submission of the King it is that gives a legal Right Is swearing Allegiance a submission and acknowledgment What became then of the Right of the House of York when the Duke of York swore Allegiance to Henry IV. is yielding to Force and Power quitting the Administration of the Government and leaving the Throne tho' with an intention to recover it again when he can a submission If it be does not a King so far submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince Is not this as much a submission as if he had stayed at home and laid aside his Crown and submitted to a private Life without renouncing his Right and future Claim but if nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power I desire to know how our Author will prove that the Israelites thus submitted to the Aramites and Moabites Or what other submission they made but a bare yielding to Force and Power What other submission did the King and Princes and People of Iudah make to the
in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and though God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence would not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a providential King when it is in their power to set the right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Human Entail is only a providential settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is setled only by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by his Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Human Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws that are made by God's Authority and which are a Rule to us to Providence which is no Rule Now I would ask our Author Whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws If they be I ask Whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence for do they not refuse to obey a King whom the providence of God has placed and setled in the Throne upon a pretence that he is not King by Law And then I think they give greater Authority to the Laws of the Land than to God in making Kings which is to oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority To avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by Gods Authority but the Question is Whether they are Humane or Divine Laws It is a childish piece of Sophistry and argues a great contempt of his Readers to call Humane Laws Laws made by God's Authority because Sovereign Power which makes these Laws is God's Authority as if there were no difference between Humane and Divine Laws because they are both made by God's Authority though the one are made by the immediate Authority of God the other are made by men who receive their Authority from God whereas in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God which therefore are said to be made by God's Authority in the other case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws Sovereign Princes have their Authority from God but their Laws are the Laws of Men and the difference between them is this that Divine Laws which are made by God himself have a Superior Authority to Men and to all Humane Laws though made by a delegated Authority from God for God grants Authority to Men only in subordination to himself and the Authority of his own Laws He might as well have said That all the By-laws of a Corporation are the King's Laws because made by his Authority granted to them by Charter and therefore there is no difference between the private Laws of the City and the Laws of the Kingdom as being both made by the Authority of the King This may satisfy our Author That though Humane Laws in some sense may be said to be made by God's Authority yet when men oppose a legal Entail of the Crown to the Authority of God in making Kings they oppose Humane Laws to the Authority of God Well! but these Law are our Rule they are are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superior Authority but that they may be by the Authority of God And the Providence of God is no Rule to us If by this he means that we must not make Providence the Rule of Good and Evil to us i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do whatever the Providence of God does I grant it for the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence but if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our Duty cannot lay some new Obligations on us and discharge our old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand Instances every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some new Duties and lays some new Obligations on us I shall instance only in the Case before us If the Providence of God can remove one King and set up another tho this does not alter the Duty of Subjects to their Prince yet it changes the Object of their Allegiance as it changes their Prince the Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him And now let us consider the opposition he makes between Humane Laws of Entail and Providence for he confesses they do oppose Laws made by the Divine Authority that is the Laws of the Land which entail the Crown to Providence or to the Providence of God in making Kings that is they think themselves bound in Conscience to adhere to that King tho out of possession who by the Laws of the Land has a legal Right to the Crown against that King who is actually setled in the Throne by the Providence of God Now if we will consider the sense of things and not the words this is no more than to say that they oppose the Providence of God against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence that is they will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever Reasons the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done that they are resolved to abide by whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and confine Providence that it shall not alter its usual methods in the Government of the World or when it has disposed of the Crown once shall never be at liberty while that Family lasts to dispose of it again to any other For what are these Laws which he says are made by the Divine Authority and are our Rule They are the Laws of Succession which entail the Crown And how does God settle the Crown on any Family by such Laws No otherwise but by his Providence so over-ruling the hearts and counsels of Men as to consent to such an Entail which gives a humane Right to the Crown and bars all other humane Claim So that an Hereditary King by a humane entail of the Crown with respect to God is only a Providential King as much a Providential King as the first of the Family was who obtain'd it by Election or Conquest or worse Arts not by God's express nomination of the Person So that to opppose the Laws of Entail made not by God's immediate Authority as they were in the Kingdom of Iudah but by the over-ruling influence of Providence against God's setting up a new King on the Throne by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence God's Providenee in
can learn the sense of the Convocation from the Convocation itself I observed in the first place from the Words of the Convocation That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority which I proved because the Convocation speaks of Illegal and Usurped Powers and yet affirms that the Authority exercised by them is God's Authority To this our Author answers The Doctor will not but the Convocation distinguishes between the means of acquiring the Power and the Power itself the means of acquiring Power may be very unjust and illegal and yet the Power afterwards may be very Legal But the Doctor resolves they must be all one and because the Convocation speaks of the Ambition of encroaching Kings and the Rebellion of Subjects as a means whereby Governments have been altered therefore by a Government being throughly setled they must mean usurped Powers As if it were impossible for such beginnings afterwards to acquire a Right and to terminate in a Legal Title and till that is the Government is as unjust as the Rebellion and Encroachment So that according to this Author a Government which is illegally and wickedly begun when it is legally setled has God's Authority and this is all that the Convocation meant by it As for what he says That I will not distinguish between the means of acquiring Power and the Power itself I do not indeed distinguish as he does but I distinguish as the Convocation does that the Means are wicked but the Power and Authority is Gods which is all the distinction the Convocation makes and I desire him to shew me where the Convocation says that the Government which is illegally acquired cannot be throughly setled till it becomes Legal if this had been their meaning it had been easily said and had prevented all mistakes about it which their words without this limitation are very apt to betray Men into I believe all unbiassed Men who are not prepossed with other Notions and concerned that the Convocation should be on their side would never dream of our Author's Sence of the Convocation For 1. If the Convocation meant no more than our Author says that a Government illegally begun when it is legally setled has God's Authority what a wonderful discovery is this that Legal Princes have God's Authority for who doubts of this What need was there to introduce this with such a long pompous Preface of the changes of Government by the Ambition of Princes and the Rebellion of Subjects For let Governments begin how they will when they are once legally setled no Man that I know of who owns the Authority of any Government to be from God disputes theirs Which makes me wonder at our Author's reason viz. Left it should be thought that wicked ways of obtaining this Right was a prejudice to the Right itself and people should from thence take occasion to rebel and disturb all the Governments of the World because they could not shew an express Order from God or derive the Pedigree of their Government even from Adam and Noah to prevent the terrible Confusion that such a Notion would make in the World they say That the wicked ways of attaining it or the wickedness of the persons that have it is no impeachment of the Right itself but when it is attain'd it is God's Authority and ought to be obeyed That is to say a wise and grave Convocation write a whole Chapter to confute a Notion without naming it or giving any hint at it which if ever it entred into any mad Man's Head yet never did never can disturb any Government till a Nation is fitter for Bedlam than to be directed by a Convocation whereas the Difficulties occasioned by the Changes and Revolutions of Government especially when a rightful Prince is dispossessed and another setled in his Throne are very great and worthy of the determination of a Convocation to direct Mens Consciences in such cases and which is the most probable account of this matter let every one judge 2dly When the Convocation speaks of the Settlement of Illegal Powers which began by Ambition and Rebellion it is manifestly unreasonable unless it had been expressed to expound this of a Legal Settlement by acquiring a new Legal Right Settlement I grant as our Author says is a Term of Law and used by Lawyers of a Legal Settlement and must always in reason be understood so in Law when the contrary is not expressed but yet a firm and stable possession without Right must be confessed to be a Settlement too though not a rightful Settlement I suppose our Author will not deny but that the Government was setled in fact under the Three Heneries tho' in his sense it was not a Legal Settlement Now as it is reasonable in Law to understand a Settlement of a Legal Settlement when the contrary is not expressed because the Law must speak of such Settlements as are according to Law so for the same reason when the Convocation speaks of the Settlement of Powers which are against Law it must be understood of the Settlement of Possession not of Right unless this had been expressed for the only ordinary way of setling illegal Powers is by Possession not by Right and that ever such Powers be afterwards legally setled is a great accident and therefore the natural and obvious exposition of Settlement in such Cases is a Settlement of Possession and it argues great perverseness of mind to reject that sence of the Word which is proper to the Subject to which it is applied for such a Sence as is forreign and unnatural It is plain that the Right and Settlement of Government are two very different things for they may be parted the first relates to the Title the second to the setled Possession and Exercise of Government and whenever a rightful King is dispossessed our Author must grant that his Settlement is gone tho' not his Right and if Right and Settlement may be parted I desire to know why there may not be a Settlement without Right and then it is ridiculous to conclude that Settlement must always signifie Right Nay the Addition of Thorough plainly refers Settlement to Possession and not to Right for there are no degrees of Right no more than there are of Truth for all Right in this Case of a Legal Title is Thorough Rite but there are degrees of Settlement as that signifies Possession for Princes may be more or less setled in the Possession and Exercise of Government which is reason enough to expound thoroughly setled of a thorough setled possession of Power and Authority or a compleat and perfect Administration of the Government 3dly Let us consider what our Author makes necessary to the thorough Settlement of such Powers as begin by Usurpation or Rebellion and try what sense it will make of what the Convocation says Now he tells us That a Right to a Government may be acquired by the death or
never intended him for since the Israelites did submit to the Aramites and Moabites c. and according to our Author Submission gives a legal Right he could not imagine why I said that those Nations never could have a legal Right to the Government of Israel unless it were because God was at that time their Soveraign and He did not submit and the Submission of the Soveraign as well as of the People is necessary to give a legal Right And now he had started an Objection which he knew not what to do with and his Answer is as extravagant as the Objection for he has found out something which he thinks equivalent to God's Submission to the Aramites and Moabites and that is that God delivered them into their hands What then did God resign his Government of Israel into the hands of the Aramites and Moabites and quit his Right and Claim to the Government of them Spectatum admissi But to proceed I will grant this Author that legal Powers may be understood in a larger Notion as that may be said to be Legal which is agreeable to the Laws of Nature or Nations and in this sence Submission may make a legal King of him who according to the Laws of the Land can be only a King de Facto This is worth considering and therefore I shall briefly explain it In a State of Nature wherein we must suppose all Men free from any Government but that of Parents and Heads of Families which how far it extended before Civil Governments were formed we cannot tell they were at liberty to give up the Government of themselves to whom they pleased and this made such Persons their legal and rightful Princes and Governours by the Law of Nature For Men who are free may give the Government of themselves to another and if they may do this their doing it is a Law to themselves Especially Nature teaches this When Men are over-powered by Force and must either submit to the Government or suffer the Vengeance and Fury of an Usurping Nimrod for Nature teaches us to preserve ourselves and therefore justifies whatever may be lawfully done to preserve ourselves and in a State of Nature Men may part with their Liberty and submit to be governed by another and such a Submission with respect to themselves gives a Right for it is a voluntary Consent tho' extorted by Force as all Moralists allow such a mixt Choice and Election to be But it will be said This is nothing to us who are at such a distance from the first Original of Government this can be done but once for when we have given up ourselves to the Government of another we have given away our Liberty to chuse for ourselves Right unless we fall into a State of Nature and Liberty again or something like it which may be done many ways but I shall name but one and that is in case of a new prevailing Force that is with respect to a Kingdom when Prince and People are conquered for then the Government is at an end and they are as much at liberty to submit to a Conquering Prince as they were in the State of Nature for every Dissolution of Government must so far restore us to the State and Liberties of Nature as to provide for ourselves or if the Prince be conquered and driven out of his Kingdom and the People in the Power of the Conqueror they are as perfectly at liberty to submit to the new Conqueror as they were before to submit to their old Prince or his Ancestors with respect to private Subjects when their Prince or the Government of the Nation is violently Changed and they are as much under the Force and Power of the new Prince or new Government as they could be under a conquering Prince who had Conquered both King and People for Force will justifie Submission and then it is much the same thing from what quarter the Force comes when a Man is under the power of a new Government which he cannot resist and which will not protect him nay which will undo and ruine him if he will not submit it is all one to him with respect to his Submission as if both his King and Country were absolutely conquered Though we live under a settled Government yet if we happen to fall into the hands of Thieves and Robbers where the Government can't protect us we may very innocently for our own preservation promise and swear to them such things as are against the Laws of the Land and which it would be unlawful for us to do in other circumstances and then I think with greater reason if the Government cannot protect itself nor its Subjects from a greater Force Subjects are at liberty to shift for themselves and to submit to the greater Power for our Obligations to human Government are reasonably supposed to except the case of a greater force since such Obligations can last no longer than the Government lasts Conquest is the death and dissolution of the Government and dissolves the Contract as the death of either Party does the Marriage-Vow This is not as some vainly talk to justifie the breach of Oaths and Promises to save ourselves and to make Self-preservation the only Supreme Rule of Good and Evil but the dissolution of the Government or of the Power of the Prince to protect himself or his Subjects in his Government puts an end to the Obligation of Oaths for in matters of Government it is an unalterable Right of Nature to submit to Force All Men will grant that no human Laws and Constitutions are so sacred as the positive Laws of God I mean 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 these 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 conquered 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 obliged by their Covenant with him to accept of no Forreign Prince to govern them it is hard if it will not justifie the Subjects of Human Governments most of which were at first founded in meer Force whatever their Oaths or Obligations be to submit to a new and greater Force And this gives a sufficient Answer to what our Author adds in the place last quoted That God's being the King of Israel would be an argument against their submission for the Doctor tells us That where God entails the Crown he refers to what I say about Ioash and Athaliah of which more anon the people were not to submit to an Usurper if
King of Babylon when they were carried away Captives to Babylon And yet their submission our Author confesses gave a legal Right 2dly Can the submission of the King give a legal Right to the Crown without the submission of the People If not it seems the People may have some right if not to Government yet to give away the Government of themselves If the consent and submission of a People can make a King when they have none why can it not do so when they are under a new Force and Power which is the same state as if they had no King for Power has an immediate effect and will admit of no delays 3ly Cannot every private Man or any City or Garrison when they are overpowered and cannot be relieved by their Prince submit for themselves to the Conqueror without the submission of their Kings and do they not by such a submission according to the Laws of Nations become the Subjects of the Conquerour till they are retaken And why cannot a whole Nation in the same circumstances do the same thing though the King has escaped and does not and will not submit to the Conqueror 4ly For has a Nation no Right when the King is gone to preserve themselves by making the best terms they can with the new Powers Must they ask leave of their Prince whether they shall continue a Nation when he is gone Whether they shall submit to a new Prince when he can protect them no longer All Mankind have this natural Right to submit for their own preservation and need ask no Princes leave to do it I urge all this onely to shew that there are such Cases wherein Subjects may submit without the submission of their Prince and when they do so it gives that Prince a Right to govern them for they have made themselves his Subjects and if the Case is such wherein they might lawfully do it they confer a lawful Right though they cannot extinguish their former King's Claim by it who has not submitted 5ly For what will our Author say to the submission of Iaddus and the Iews to Alexander while Darius was living whose Subjects they were and who had not submitted and yet they assert that by this means Alexander gained a lawful Authority over them and that they owed all the Duty and Obedience to Alexander which they formerly had done to the Kings of Babylon and Persia Can. 31. pag. 67. and then according to this Convocation the submission of Subjects without the submission of the King gives a lawful Authority Our Author is much troubled about this Story of Iaddus and Alexander and spends several Pages to confute Iosephus who is the only Relator of it I will not engage in this Quarrel the Vindication of Iosephus as to this Story being undertaken by a more learned Pen as I suppose our Author will know before he will see this But this I must say that if they part with this Story they lose so glorious a Testimony as they used to account it to the indispensable obligation of an Oath of Allegiance while the King to whom we have sworn Allegiance lives whether he be in possession or out of it that they will not find the like again in any Records of Time but it seems they are sensible Iaddus confuted their sense of it himself by submitting to Alexander notwithstanding his Oath of Allegiance while Darius was living and now they are willing to part with it Well but as he himself observes the Dispute is not whether the Story be true or false but whether the Convocation believed it for if they believed the Story true by their Judgment on the case we may know what their sense was about this matter This he grants but says likewise That their sense is not to be extended beyond their words and this I grant nor are they to be made parties to any more of the story than they have inserted in their Book But this I deny for if they believed any of the Story upon Iosephus's Authority by the same reason they must believe all and if they pass their Judgment on a matter of fact such wise Men ought to be presumed to judge upon the whole matter of fact especially when different circumstances will alter the nature of the Action According to our Author's Opinion it makes a great difference in Iaddus's submission to Alexander whether Darius were living or dead And can we think such wise Men as made up that Convocation should not consider this though as he says they take no notice of it And if they did consider it and took their Story from Iosephus and it seems by him they could have it from no other Author it is plain they must believe Darius to be living when Iaddus who was his Subject and had sworn Allegiance to him notwithstanding this submitted to Alexander which shews what their Opinion was That Subjects who had sworn Allegiance to their Prince might yet when under Force as Iaddus was become the Subjects of another prevailing Prince What he mentions concerning Iaddus's Answer to Alexander I answered before in The Case of Allegiance p. 8. and he has not thought fit to make any Reply to it But he adds Granting the Story true it is not to the purpose it is urged for that is it will not justifie a Subject under an Oath of Allegiance to submit to another Prince while his own King is living and his reason for it is this Josephus tells us That God appeared to Jaddus in a Dream and warned him to submit to Alexander and to meet him in that solemn manner he did so that this is a singular and exempt Case and falls within the circumstances of Iehu and Ahud It was always the Custom in the Jewish Church in Cases of great extremity and emergency to have recourse to God for some express Revelation what they should do And here Josephus tells us were all the Preparations to it they fasted and prayed and the next Night God appeared to Jaddus however as we have the Story from Josephus so we must take all from him and he tells expresly that God appeared to him and ordered him so to do and God's appearing and Command stands upon the same Authority with all the rest of the Story And then it is wholly besides the purpose it is alledged for For there is a wide difference between acting by common and standing Rules and by express Revelation And if these Gentlemen will shew us any express Revelation for what they do as Jaddus had then they say something but till they can shew that this Example of Jaddus if it were true will do them no service We are now disputing about the sense of the Convocation and therefore must remember that the Convocation does not assign this reason why Iaddus after his Oath to Darius submitted to Alexander for they make no doubt at all about the lawfulness of his submission and therefore never inquire into the
reason of it which they thought visible enough in the force he was under But I will take no advantage of this if he will but remember it when we come to the Case of Iehoiada and Athaliah But the Answer to all this is plain For as Iosephus tells the Story Iaddus never questioned whether it were lawful for him to submit to Alexander when he was coming with a great Force to Ierusalem but his care was how he might atone for his former contumacy by an early submission and the Prayers and Sacrifices he commanded the People to offer were not to beg God's direction whether he should submit to Alexander or not for that he was determined to do but that God would be favourable to his People and deliver them from the imminent danger they were in from a provoked Conquerour and when God is said to appear to him in his Dream he answered no question about the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander but directed him how to do it in such a manner as should prevent the threatned danger that he should appear in his Pontificial Attire in which it seems God himself had formerly appeared to Alexander and promised him success over the Persians by which Alexander knew that he was the Priest of that God to whom he owed his Victories and this made him worship the High Priest and shew all kindness to the Iewish Nation So that Iaddus had no Revelation of the lawfulness of submitting to Alexander nor have we need of any but we have the Judgment of the Convocation upon this which they intended as a common and standing Rule But the great instance our Author depends on and doubts not to carry the Cause by it is the Case of Ioash and Athaliah The Story as it is related by the Convocation is this After the death of Abaziah King of Iudah his Mother Athaliah finding his Children all to be very young kill'd them all but the youngest and reigned by Usurpation six Years over the Land The said youngest Child whose name was Ioash was secretly conveyed away by his Aunt Iehosabeth his Father's Sister and Wife to Iehoiada the High-Priest who kept him so secretly in the Temple as that Athaliah the Usurper could never hear of him Now after the said six Years that Ioash the true and natural Heir apparent to the Crown had been so brought up he the said Iehoiada being the King's Uncle and the chief Head or Prince of his Tribe sent through Iudah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Iudah and Benjamin to come unto him to Ierusalem who accordingly repairing thither and being made acquainted by him with the Preservation of their Prince as is aforesaid and that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them they altogether by a Covenant acknowledged their Allegiance unto him as unto their lawful King and so disposed of things as presently after he was Crowned and Anointed which dutiful Office of Subjects being performed they apprehended the Usurper Athaliah and shew her as before it was by the said States resolved In all the Process of which Action nothing was done either by Iehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes or People of Iudah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Ioash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom This is the Story and their Canon upon it is this If any Man therefore shall affirm either that Athaliah did well in murthering her Son's Children or that Jehoiada and his Wife did amiss in preserving the life of their King Joash or that Athaliah was not a Tyrannical Usurper the right Heir of that Kingdom being alive or that it was neither lawful for Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes and Levites and People to have yielded their Subjection to their lawful King nor having so done and their King being in Possession of his Crown to have joyned together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper or that Jehoiada the High-Priest was not bound as he was a Priest both to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's Promise that Joash should Reign over them and likewise Anoint him or that this Fact either of the Princes Priests or People was to be held for a lawful Warrant for any afterward either Princes Priests or People to have deposed any of the Kings of Judah who by right of Succession came to their Crowns or to have killed them for any respect whatsoever and to have set another in their places according to their own Choice or that either this Example of Jehoiada or any thing else in the Old Testament did give then to the High-Priest any Authority to Dispute Determine or Iudge whether the Children of the Kings of Judah should either be kept from the Crown because their Fathers were Idolators or being in Possession of it should be deposed from it in that respect or in any other respect whatsoever he doth greatly err I have transcribed this because we must have a little dispute about it and it was fitting the Reader should have both the Story and the Canon before him Our Author ' s Argument from this Story is this It is plain the Convocation does not conceive that the Enjoyment of the Crown with all its Dignities c. is that thorough Settlement to which is due Subjection and Obedience as to God's Authority Athaliah personally enjoyed the Crown with all its Dignities c. and all Places of Trust and Power c. were in her hands and at her disposal and this also for no less a time than six Years and in as full and ample a manner as any Usurper or any rightful King ever enjoyed them but for all that the Convocation is so far from urging Obedience to her as to God's Authority that they expresly justifie the resisting nay the slaying her And this is a clear Demonstration that by a thorough Settlement the Convocation does not mean a full Possession of Power meerly for they say when a Government is fully settled it ought to be obeyed as God's Authority not only for Fear but for Conscience sake But they say also that when Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne she ought not to be obeyed but to be resisted and slain And the Conclusion from these Premises is That to be fully possessed of the Throne is not of it self to be so throughly settled as to make it God's Authority and Obedience to become a Duty Now it were sufficient here to observe that he has not given the true Notion of a full and settled Possession for he has left out the principal part of it as I state it viz. When the Estates of the Realm and the Great Body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Which in the Case of Antiochus is one thing the Convocation expresly makes necessary to a thorough Settlement The Government
when the Government is setled by such submission then submission which necessity justified before becomes a Duty and those who would not submit at first or might have refused to do so without sin when the Government is setled by a general submission are then bound in Conscience to submit themselves The Question then between us is or ought to be this if he intends to oppose me Not whether the Iews might lawfully submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne for this I grant they might lawfully do but whether they having sosubmitted and she being thoroughly setled in her Throne for that our Author will suppose it were not as unlawful upon my Principles for the Iews to set up Ioash and to kill Athaliah as it is for any other People to Depose and Murther a King de facto whose Government is throughly setled among them And here he takes notice of two Arguments I make use of the Argument from Providence and from the necessity of Government for the preservation of human Societies which he says will equally serve Athaliah as any other King or Queen de facto and if they will I will give them up for lost 1. As for Providence the sum of all he says is this That according to my Principles Athaliah was placed in the Throne by God by his Counsel Decree and Order and peculiar Order Well! I must own it for I know none but God who can advance to the Throne and I know no more hurt in owning that God exalted Athaliah to the Throne than that he exalted Baasha who slew Nadab the Son of Ieroboam and Reigned in his stead and yet God himself by his Prophet tells Baasha I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my people Israel 1 Kings 16. 2. And what does he prove from this Now Athaliah says he had the actual administration of Soveraign Power and therefore according to the Doctor she was Queen by God's Authority tho' not by the Law of the Land and Allegiance must be due to her as well as to any other And all the Doctor 's Arguments are as conclusive and valid for submission to Athaliah as for submission to any body else Grant all this and what then Why then this justifies the submission of the Iews to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and no rightful Heir appeared And what hurt is there in this Will our Author condemn them for this submission or does the Scripture or Convocation do it If he would have concluded any thing to the purpose he should have said And therefore it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah But this he knew did not follow from my Principles for I expresly distinguish between God's making Kings by a particular nomination as he made Kings in Jewry and entailed the Kingdom of Judah on David ' s Posterity and his making Kings by his Providence as he does in other Nations Now what I say about the Rights and Prerogatives of Kings advanced to the Throne and setled there by the Divine Providence concerns only such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence not such Kingdoms where God ordinarily makes Kings by a particular nomination of the Person or by a Divine entail which is equivalent to a particular nomination For this greatly alters the Case To make this plain let us consider the state of the Kingdom of Iudah and of the Kingdom of Israel after the Ten Tribes were divided from the House of David God first made Kings by an express nomination of the Persons as he did Soul and David and afterwards entailed the Kingdom on David's Posterity when the Ten Tribes were divided from Iudah he still reserved to himself the Prerogative of nominating their Kings when he pleased but yet he did not so strictly confine himself to nominate whom he would have to be King or to an entail of his own making but that he sometimes set up Kings by his Providence without a particular nomination or any successive right as he did in other Nations let us then consider what the right of these providential Kings was in Iudah and Israel Now these Kings when they were setled in their Thrones had all the rights of other Soveraign Princes of Iudah or Israel excepting this that they were liable to be divested of their Kingdom by God's nomination of a new King or by the revival of an old Entail When God nominated any King and gave command to his Prophets to anoint him it was always for life and tho' during his Life he might nominate another to succeed him after his death as he did David to succeed Saul yet he never nominated another to take his Life and his Crown from him and when he had made a perpetual Entail tho' he might for a time interrupt the Succession he did not cut it off but it was otherwise with meer providential Kings as it must necessarily be in such Kingdoms which were under the immediate disposal and nomination of God A new nomination or the appearing of the right Heir put an end to their Reign As for example Ieroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by God's nomination and Reigned as long as he lived but for his sins God would not entail the Kingdom on his Family but Baasha slew his Son Nadab and succeeded in the Kingdom and was the first providential King of Israel without a Divine nomination or entail Elah Baasha's Son was slain by Zimri and the Children of Israel without any Divine appointment made Omri King Ahab his Son succeeded Omri and Ioram Ahab who were all advanced by the Divine Providence without God's nomination but now their sins being very provoking God commands his Prophet to anoint Iehu King over Israel to destroy the Family of Ahab and Iehu as soon as he was anointed immediately takes possession of the Kingdom kills Ioram and destroys the House of Ahab For tho' Ioram was advanced by the Providence of God and was the third successive King of his Family and therefore had a good right against all human claims yet he could have no unalterable right in the Kingdom of Israel because that Kingdom was at God's immediate disposal when ever he pleased to nominate a King And this is the Reason of the different behaviour of David and Iehu David was anointed as well as Iehu but he never pretended to the Crown while Saul lived because there was then an anointed King on the Throne But this was not Ioram's case He had no more than a Providential Right which in the Kingdom of Israel must give place to God's anointing and therefore Iehu was King of Israel as soon as he was anointed and Ioram was his Subject And this was Athaliah's case She took possession of the Throne by very wicked means but must be allowed to be placed there by the Providence of God and if she had as thorow a settlement as other
Usurpers can have had a right to the submission and obedience of the Iews while it was not known that the King's Son was living but Iudah was an Hereditary Kingdom by God's entail and therefore as soon as the true Heir appeared she fell from her Power as much by the express Ordinance and Command of God as Ioram did when Iehu was anointed for a Divine Entail as the Convocation asserts is equivalent to an express nomination This shews a manifest difference between Kings set up by the Divine Providence in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel which were subject to the Divine Nomination or to a Divine Entail and King 's set up by the Providence of God in other Nations where God makes Kings only by his Providence The first may be and are deposed when ever God nominates a new King or the Right Heir appears tho' they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before in other Nations those Kings who are placed in the Throne and setled there are and continue Kings till the Providence of God displace them again for where Kings are made only by the Providence of God they can be unmade by Providence too Had our Author considered this he would not have said That it is meer trifling to talk of God's entailing the Crown as if God was tied any more to the entails of his own making than he is to humane Entails and his own Decrees and Orders would not cut off his own Entails as well as those of Men. For tho God may cut off his own Entails if he pleases yet Men can't and the meer Events of Providence can never prove that God has done it for we must never interpret providential Events to contradict an express Revelation And therefore tho the Providence of God in placing a King on the Throne in Iudah or Israel who neither was anointed by God's Command nor had an Hereditary Right by God's Entail justified their Submission to him yet whenever God was pleased to anoint a new King or to discover their Hereditary Prince and to put it into their Power to place him on the Throne the Right and Authority of these Providential Kings was at an end And now there will be no great occasion to take much notice of what he answers to my second Argument From the necessity of Government to the Preservation of Humane Society for I readily grant what he contends for That these Arguments will equally conclude for Submission to Athaliah as to any other Vsurper and what then The Iews did actually submit to Athaliah and this Argument from the necessity of Government justifies their Submission But our Author disputes as if it were manifest that the Iews did not submit to Athaliah but it is evident from the Story that they did and yet are not blamed in Scripture for so doing but I suppose his mistake is that because they owned Ioash for their King when he was anointed by Iehojada and slew Athaliah therefore they never submitted to Athaliah's Government as if they could not very innocently and lawfully submit to the Government of Athaliah while they knew of no other King they had and yet own their King who was their King by a Divine Entail when they knew him but indeed here is the fundamental mistake of all That he supposes the Iews all this while knew that Ioash the true Heir to the Crown was living and therefore out of Loyalty to their Prince they did not all this while submit to Athaliah whereas it is evident from the Story that they knew nothing of this matter till Iehojada sent for the Princes and Levites and discovered the King's Son to them and I would desire him to consider how Athaliah should be ignorant of this for six years when all the People of Israel knew it and yet if he was not guilty of this mistake I know not what sense to make of what he says p. 8. about swearing an Oath of Fidelity to her to defend her against all Men even against him whom they owned and acknowledged had a Right to the Throne that is against Ioash who was their Rightful King but they could not own and acknowledg him to be so without believing him to be alive and safe And yet if they knew nothing of Ioash and did believe that the Royal Line was extinct I desire to know of our Author by his own Principles had it been customary in those Days what should have hindred them to have sworn Allegiance to Athaliah for he allows possession to be something when there is no better claim against it And yet though they had sworn Allegiance to Athaliah they might without Perjury have owned their lawful Prince when Iehoiada had discovered him to them for no Oath can oblige against a Divine Entail and therefore such Cases are always supposed to be excepted I asserted in the Case That Government and Allegiance are such relatives as do mutuò se ponere tollere the one cannot subsist without the other if the Prince can't govern the Subject can't obey and therefore as far as he quits his Government he quits their Allegiance and leaves his Subjects as he does his Crown to be possessed by another and must recover them both together This Our Author says is as plain a fallacy as ever he met with and proves from the Example of Ioash that it is so but I have said so much already to that case that I will trouble my Reader no further with it Divine and Humane Entails give very different rights to Princes as will appear more presently and yet even in Divine Entails it was lawful for Subjects to submit to and obey Usurped Powers either when they were under force or when they knew not their Rightful King that is whenever their King could not govern them He says By Government I mean the actual administration of it and then Government and Allegiance are so far from being such Relatives that they are no Relatives at all they are only the Acts of Relatives and to say the Acts of Relatives are Relatives is so far from being as certain as any Proposition in Logic that it is Logical Non-sense Well! Logical Non-sense I hope is the best sort of Non-sense however But my meaning is plain enough and certainly true which is as much as any Proposition in Logic can be By Government I do mean the Actual Administration of Government not as that signifies the particular Acts of Government but the actual possession of Power and Authority to govern by Allegiance I mean that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government and if our Author will be so severe as not to allow me to call these Relatives yet they are the Relations which make the Relatives and do mutuò se ponere tollere for what is the relation of a King to a Subject His Dominion and Government What is the relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection then
Dominion and Government makes a King and Allegiance a Subject and Allegiance has as necessary a relation to Dominion as a Subject has to a King if there be no King there can be no Subject if no Dominion and Government there can be no Allegiance Paternity is the relation that makes a Father and Filiation a Son and Paternity and Filiation have as mutual and necessary a respect to each other as Father and Son these are called by Logicians Relative Acts and why then may not I call Government and Subjection Relative Duties by which I explained what I meant by Relatives but this I 'm sure is only a Logical Banter and so let it pass But as to the matter in hand since we are got into Logic I desire to know of our Author whether the Relative continues to be a Relative when the relation is destroyed for we are told that the whole nature of Relatives relata secundum esse for I must speak cautiously consists in their Relation if the Relation then of a King to his Subjects be Dominion and Government does he continue a King when he has lost his Dominion and Government or do Subjects continue Subjects when he ceases to be King do they owe him Allegiance when he has lost his Dominion that is can one Relative subsist by its self without its Correlate He tells us indeed that the relation is only between King and Subject and the actual Administration of Government of the one hand and paying Allegiance on the other are but the acts of that Relation and consequential to it but are not Relatives themselves But I desire to know what he calls the relation between King and Subjects for King and Subjects are not the relation but Relatives as Father and Son are Relatives Paternity and Filiation the Relation now I desire to know what is the Relation between these Relatives King and Subjects the particular Acts of Government and the particular Acts of Allegiance I grant are but the Acts of that Relation but still we want to know what the Relation is to which these particular Acts are consequential and let our Author think of anything else wherein to place this Relation if he can besides actual Dominion and Sovereign Power on the one hand to make a King and the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance on the other hand to make a Subject from whence flow the particular Acts of Government and Allegiance now if the Relative ceases with the Relation where actual Dominion and Government ceases the Kingship is lost and the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance with it All that I know of that can be said in this Cause and which those men must say who make Allegiance inseparable from Right is only this that the Relation continues as long as the fundamentum relationis that whereon the Relation is founded continues and that being a Legal Right while this Right remains such a Legal King though he be fallen from Power is King still and Subjects are Subjects still and owe Allegiance to him Now to shorten this Dispute I shall only observe That a Legal Hereditary Right is not the fundamentum relationis the foundation of that relation which is between Prince and Subjects for then there would be no foundation of this relation between Prince and Subjects in any but Hereditary Kingdoms for the same relation can have but one foundation and yet there are a great many ways whereby Princes are advanced to the Throne An Hereditary Right The Election of the People The Nomination of God A Divine Entail And Conquest Which very much differ from each other and if all these be different Foundations there must be different Kinds and Species of Kingship whereas the Relation between King and Subjects is the same in all And therefore we must find out such a foundation for this Relation as will serve all Sovereign Princes by what means soever they are setled in the Throne and that can be no other but the Authority of God by which Kings reign and to which Subjects owe obedience the several ways of advancing Princes to the Throne are but the several ways of investing them with God's Authority but the Authority of God with which they are invested is the foundation of this Relation and this is not always annexed to a Legal Right but is always annexed to a full and setled possession of the Throne No man can have God's Authority who has not the actual Power and Authority of Government for God's Authority is the Authority of Government and when Princes fall from Government so far they lose God's Authority whatever becomes of their Legal Right and all Logicians grant that Relations are dissolved when the foundation of such Relations cease And therefore as in the nature of the thing Subjects cannot obey a Prince when he can't command nor submit to him when he can't govern so when he falls from his Government and another Prince is setled in his Throne the foundation of this Relation at present ceases for when God has taken away his Government he has taken away his present Authority to govern for God never gives the Civil Authority without the Civil Sword I grant in all other Relations where the Relation it self does not consist in the Authority of Government nor the foundation of the Relation cease by falling from the actual Authority of Government the Case is different as between Parents and Children Masters and Servants where the Relation is founded in Nature or Purchase or Civil Contracts under the superior direction and government of the Civil Authority tho the Master of the Family as he says be spirited away or taken captive his Servants and House and Family do not presently fall to the lot of the next Possessor but must be disposed of by the Laws of the Countrey and by the Authority of the Prince for such private and particular Interests are subject to publick Laws and a Superior Authority But the Authority of God is at his own disposal and Sovereign Power and Dominion to which the Divine Authority is annexed is the Relation of a King to his Subjects and when his Sovereignty is lost the Relation is so far dissolved and there is no higher Tribunal to appeal to but to that God who removeth Kings and setteth up Kings And this shews how inconsequent his Argument is from the incapacity of a Subject to pay Allegiance and a King to govern If says he a Subject be taken captive or otherwise hindred from paying actual Allegiance is the Relation lost and does he therefore immediately cease to be a Subject And therefore neither doth a King if he be hindred from the actual administration of Government cease to be a King but hath the same right to our Allegiance in and out of possession Now to wave all other Answers though I suppose our Author will not deny that such a Captive may become a Subject to another Prince these two Cases are not parallel in the
in such a Case commands us to pay all the Obedience and Duty of Subjects to a Prince in the actual Possession of the Throne and the Law of the Land forbids it which must we obey the Law of God or the Law of the Land To this our Author answers Where is this Law of God that commands us to obey Vsurpers Where is it ever affirmed in Scripture in express Terms or deduced from thence by evident Consequence This I had shewed before and it is in my Boek still and there he may see it But this Law had need be very clear and evident and the Doctor had need be very sure of it when he builds not only his Book but his Practice upon it in plain Contradiction by his own confession to the Laws of the Land But I never confessed this was contrary to the Laws of the Land but on the contrary that the Laws of the Land if we will believe Learned Judges and Lawyers do allow and justify it and I think the Scripture is very plain in the case and if he would give me leave to be sure of any thing I think I am pretty sure of it But he proves the Scriptures cannot be clear in the point from the Controversies about it in the late dismal Times of Vsurpation that is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Controversy and thus we must either be Scepticks in Religion or seek for an Infallible Interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Articles of Faith thus Papists dispute against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith and whither these Arguments will carry our Author I cannot tell but they look very kindly towards Rome and if that be his Inclination I can pardon his Zeal in this Cause But no Learned Men could ever espy this Law before the time of John Goodwin What then does he think of Mr. Calvin and Grotius who have both passed for learned Men And they espied this Law before the time of Iohn Goodwin as he may see if he pleases in their Commentaries on Daniel and the Romans or that he may not seek for it I have given him a tast of their Judgment in the Margin What thinks he of Bishop Overal's Convocation Were there no Learned Men in it And yet they espied this Doctrine before Iohn Goodwin was thought of what Iohn Goodwin thought of this matter I cannot tell for I am not much versed in his Writings but if some Men abused a true Doctrine to wicked purposes must we therefore deny the Doctrine or rather vindicate it from such Abuses But what thinks he of the Primitive Christians whose Sense he may guess at from what Grotius has cited and their practice in all the Revolutions of the Empire does more fully declare it for they always submitted to the Reigning Emperor by what means soever they gained the Throne and that is an argument that they owned the Doctrine because they practiced it as our Author will quickly be informed by a Learned Pen. I grant indeed That the Resolution of Conscience ought not to depend on such Nicties of Law and History as Learned Men cannot agree about and that is a reason why Legal Rights and Titles should not be the Rule and Measure of our Obedience to Princes who are possessed of the Throne but is this a reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too because some Men will dispute the plainest Texts This has nothing but either Scepticism or Infallibility at the bottom Our Author proceeds to consider the Scripture-Testimonies which I cite in this Cause And First from the Old Testament That God giveth Kingdoms to whomsoever he will that he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings 4. Dan. 17. 2. 21 37. Now the whole of his Answer to this is That Usurpers are no Kings and therefore tho God removes Kings and sets up Kings he does not set up Usurpers and the whole of his proof is that Athaliah who was an Usurper was no Queen As for Athaliah I suppose our Author has enough of her already She was God's Providential Queen tho an Usurper as much as Baasha was God's King And to say That a King without a Legal Title or an Usurper who has a setled Possession of the Regal Power is no King is Nonsense For Regal Power and Authority makes a King as St. Austin tells us Regnum à Regibus Reges à Regendo that a Kingdom is so called from Kings and Kings from Governing it is certain he who has the Exercise of the Regal Power and Authority is King whether we will call him so or no and he is no King who has no Regal Power whatever his Title be If this be not so our Laws are Nonsense which distinguish between a King de jure and de facto if a King de facto be no King tho it signifies one who is actually King But pray what Sense does this make of what the Prophet Daniel says That God changeth times and seasons removeth Kings and setteth up Kings By Kings here according to our Author the Prophet means not Usurpers but Rightful and Lawful Kings and then the meaning is that God removeth or pulleth down Rightful Kings and that he setteth up Rightful Kings Now as for setting up Rightful Kings our Author likes it very well but how does he like pulling down Rightful Kings which is as much against Law and Right as to set up Kings without Right And that it seems God does He will not allow us to pay Allegiance to a King who is set up without Right will he then allow us to withdraw our Allegiance from a Rightful King whom God has removed and pulled down If he won't as it is plain he won't then God can no more remove a Rightful King than he can set up an Illegal Usurper but when the Prophet says God removeth Kings and setteth up Kings to reconcile it to our Author's Hypothesis the removed King must signifie an Usurper and the King set up a Rightful and Legal King I doubt not but our Author would be ashamed to say this but whether he be or no he dares not say it for then he must allow that King may signify an Usurper as well as a Rightful King which overthrows all he says for then it is reasonable to expound the Text of all Kings whatever they be who are removed or set up And this is evidently the Prophet's meaning to attribute all the changes and revolutions of Government when ever they happened not to Chance or Fate but to the Divine Providence that whenever we see one King removed and another set up whoever they be they are removed and set up by God who ruleth in the kingdom of Men and giveth it to whomsoever he will Does whomsoever signifie those only who have a legal Right Does giving suppose an antecedent right in him to whom it is given Does giving to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law
gives it Do we use to say a Man may give his Estate to whom he will when his Estate is entailed and he cannot alienate it from the Right Heir We should think this a very absurd way of speaking among Men and yet thus our Author must expound God's giving a Kingdom to whomsoever he will to signify his giving the Kingdom to the Right Heir He may if he please call this Expounding Scripture but I doubt every body else will give it some other name and I hope he himself upon second thoughts will be ashamed of it But it is more absurd still if we apply it to the occasion viz. those great Revolutions and Changes of Empires which the Prophet foretold and which he attributes to God and when Kingdoms and Empires are overturned by violence it is nonsence to talk of God's setting up only Rightful Kings not Usurpers when all those Revolutions were nothing else but force and Usurpation Men may talk of Law and Right of Succession in a setled Government but Kingdoms are not transferred nor Kings removed nor set up by Law and therefore when the Prophet tells us with respect to such violent Revolutions That God changes times and seasons that he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings an ingenious Man must be hard put to it to say This is not meant of Usurpers but of Rightful and Legal Kings whereas if but one of these must be meant we must expound it of such Kings who ascend the Throne by Force and Usurpation and if when God is said to remove Kings he will allow this to be meant of Rightful Kings who were legally possessed I wonder how he should fancy that those Kings who dispossess the rightful Kings and place themselves in their Thrones should in his sense be legal and rightful Kings too My Testimony from the New-Testament is Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers for all power is of God Now by Powers our Author says I understand Vsurped as well as Lawful Powers I do so by Powers I understand the Powers in a setled Government whatever their Claim and Title be He says this is contrary to the current of all good Interpreters That I deny I have shewn him already that I have Mr. Calvin and Grotius on my side and the Convocation and if that will not satisfy him it is no hard matter to produce more My Reason he says is Because the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings and Vsurpers One of my Reasons is That the Scripture has given us no directions in this case but to submit and pay all the obedience of Subjects to the Present Powers It makes no distinction that ever I could find between rightful Kings and Vsurpers between Kings whom we must and whom we must not obey These last words he conceals because they Spoil all his Argument For he adds I thought the Case of Athaliah had been a distinction and had this precept been given in those days I wonder whether any body would have doubted of whom it ought to be understood of Athaliah or Joash But the Answer is plain There was a distinction between Athaliah and Ioash That She was an Usurper and He the Rightful King and I hope our Author had not that mean opinion of me to think that I made no distinction between an Usurper and a Rightful King with respect to their Usurpation and their Right but I say the Scripture makes no distinction between a Rightful King and an Usurper with respect to the Obedience of Subjects while they are setled in the Throne the Scripture does not tell us that there are some Kings whom we must obey and other Kings viz. Kings by Usurpation whom we must not obey And with reference to this the Case of Athaliah is no example of such a Distinction for the Iews were not forbid either by the standing Law of the Kingdom or by Iehoiada to submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and Ioash was concealed but they actually submitted to her and are no where blamed for it That Iehoiada afterwards anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah was owing to the Divine Entail of the Crown and was peculiar to Iudah and affects no other Providential Kings who are setled in their Thrones So that had this Law been given to the Iews at that time while Ioash was concealed it must have been expounded of Athaliah who had possession of the Throne when Ioash was known and anointed it must have been expounded of him as having a Divine Right to the Throne of Iudah He proceeds But saith the Doctor if the Apostle had intended such a distinction he ought to have said it in express words and why so I pray I gave him a reason for it which he is pleased to conceal Why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown to Scripture had there been any such Rule before given to submit to Lawful Powers but not to submit to Vsurpers there had been some pretence of understanding St. Paul's All Power of all Legal Power but there being nothing like this any where else in Scripture if he had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of subjection to the Higher Powers only of Powers that had a Legal Right This I thought a very good reason and did not expect to have been asked for more till this had been answered But says our Author does not the nature of the thing sufficiently distinguish it The nature of the thing distinguishes between a Legal King and a Usurper but the nature of the thing does not prove that Usurped Powers are not the Higher Powers and ought not to be obeyed but I think proves the quite contrary But are there not several Rules about Right and Wrong which extend to all Persons and Cases Yes there are such is the Apostle's Rule in this Chapter to give to every one their due but then the Question returns What is their due Whether Obedience and Subjection be not due to the Prince who governs not to the Prince who does not and cannot govern whatever his Legal Right to the Government be But because this Argument of Right and our obligations to do right to every man especially to Princes is that whereon this Controversie turns I shall particularly but briefly consider it The Argument is this He who by the Laws of the Land has a right to the Crown has a right to our Allegiance and whether he be in or out of possession to own any other King to submit and pay Allegiance to any other though actually possessed of and setled in the Throne is great injustice to our natural Prince and a violation of that precept To give to every one their due And whatever force and necessity we are under we must not do so wicked and unjust a thing to preserve our selves nay to preserve the Nation
fruitless and insignificant Authority But to proceed our Author proves by a parallel Case that St. Paul by the Higher Powers could mean only Lawful Powers for the Apostle exhorts 13. Hebr. 17. Obey them that have rule over you meaning the Ministers of the Gospel now the Apostle makes no distintion between lawful Ministers and Intruders and yet we must understand it of lawful Ministers and by the same reason though St. Paul makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful Powers yet he means only lawful Powers for this is the force of his Argument though he has not expressed it But these Cases are by no means parallel For the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such distinction which yet was necessary for St. Paul to have done had he intended his Precept of Obedience should be understood only of lawful Powers The Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the rule over them at that time that they were lawful Ministers and exhorts the Hebrews to obey them and had he added such a distinction it would have insinuated that he knew some among them who were not lawful Ministers and such a Suggestion without naming the Persons would have made them jealous of them all and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them The Hebrews knew whom St. Paul meant by those who had the Rule over them St. Paul knew they were such as ought to be obeyed and therefore there was no need here of any distinction between lawful Pastors and Intruders But St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the higher Powers and generally affirms that all power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it of all Powers however they came by their Power he should have limited it to legal and rightful Powers He adds In short the Dr's Reason is against him There has ever been a distinction in the World between Legal and Usurped Powers and 't is probable enough that St. Paul who was so learned a Man knew it and if he had intended to enjoin Obedience to Usurped Powers 't is probable he would have said so in express terms but since be never said so we have reason to conclude he never intended it Now I doubt not but St. Paul did know this distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers and knew also that the Pharisees made this Objection against their Submission to the Romans and for that reason he affirms that all power is of God and that they must be subject to the Higher Powers without any distinction which he would not have done if any distinction ought to have been made when he knew the dispute was about the Romans whom they looked upon as Usurpers over Israel who were God's peculiar People and Inheritance and yet though there was a distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers there was no distinction made in point of Obedience to them but only by the Pharisees and therefore with respect to the rest of the World he ought to have made this distinction in express words if he intended any distinction should have been made I have insisted the longer on this because it gives a full Answer to his next Objection that the Interpretation I give of the Convocation Book justifies an unreasonable and impious Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Iustice. Now this I confess is a very unreasonable and impious Doctrine and were I sensible that any thing I have said would justifie this Doctrine I would immediately renounce it but I hope when our Author considers again that I have evidently proved that the Interpretation I have given is the true Sense of the Convocation he will be more favorable to it for their sakes But I have already stated this matter about Right and Justice and have shewn the difference between the Right of private Men to their Estates and of Princes to their Thrones and to the Allegiance of Subjects between a Thief 's taking a Purse and an Usurper a Crown by the Providence of God between the Providence of God in such matters as he refers to the Correction and Redress of publick Laws and publick Government and what he reserves to his own cognizance and disposal as he does the Revolutions of Government the removing Kings and the setting up Kings The truth is our Author writes at that rate that it is to be feared some People will suspect that he does not believe a Providence or does not understand it or has a mind to ridicule it For let me ask him does God make Kings in England or not if he does which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the jure divino with a witness how does he make Kings He sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings and to tell us whom he has nominated to Reign over us and therefore he can make Kings no other way among us but by the Events of Providence and how does God make Kings by his Providence truly this can be done no other way but by placing them in the Throne and setling them there with the general Consent and Submission of the People does then this Providential Settlement in the Throne which makes a King invest such a King with God's Anthority if it does not then it seems God makes a King without giving him his Authority makes a King without any Authority to govern which is a Contradiction if he does does not this make it the duty of Subjects to obey such a King Are not Subjects bound to obey such Kings as have God's Authority Again suppose a Prince ascends the Throne and obtains the Consent and Submission of the People by the most unjust force and the most ungodly Arts that can be thought on who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's Permission he Usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making Well let him call him King or Usurper or what he pleases but it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years it may be a hundred years for so long a Prescription our Author requires to give a Just Title to an Usurper without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God Rules in such a Kingdom while an Usurper fills the Throne The reason of the question is plain because the Prophet Daniel pronounces universally that God ruleth in the Kingdom of men and as a proof of it adds and giveth it to whomsoever he will and then it should seem that God does not Rule in these Kingdoms which he does not dispose of by his own Will and Counsel which he does not give to whom he will but suffers Usurpers to take the Government of them For indeed will any Man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by his Authority or Minister Does
who suffered chearfully under those Usurpations and as chearfully comply with the present Revolution which as I observed before is an Argument that they make a great difference between these two Cases But if as our Authour argues to justifie our present Submission and Compliance be to reproach those Worthies who suffered for their King in that horrid Rebellion and Usurpation then he must upon his Principles accuse those Worthies who suffered for their King then with falling from their Loyalty by their present Compliance He reproaches all the Nobility Gentry and Clergy who have now Sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties and tho the Clergy he says are only a Company of Weather-Cock Divines and therefore it is no great matter for them yet I doubt the Nobility and Genty will not take it well from him to be thought Weather-Cocks or less Loyal than those who suffered for K. Charles were And if it moves our Author's Indignation to see the Worthies of the World and of our Church mocked and diminished and represented as Fools and Knaves which no body has done but himself a much cooler Man than he is may be a little moved if not with Indignation yet with Contempt to see all our present Worthies in Church and State so maliciously libelled 2ly If our Authour will argue from Examples he ought not only to consider what was done but upon what Principles they did it whether they were all of our Authour's mind that it is absolutely unlawful in any Case whatsoever to submit to a Prince who is possessed of the Throne while the legal King or his true Heir is living tho dispossessed It is probable some few might be of this mind but that this was their general sense can never be proved and that it was is very improbable for it was neither the Doctrine of the Church nor the Law of the Land And yet if our Authour cannot prove this he proves nothing to his purpose if they did not act upon his Principles though they suffered for their King then they might have complied now as some of them have done and yet don't think they have recounced the true Principles of Loyalty by it 3ly When he resolved to argue from Example he should have carefully considered whether there are not more and greater Examples on the other side whether supposing the Case to be as he represents it there be any thing like it in all Story either sacred or profane whether both Iews and Christians did not always submit to the present Powers when the Government was settled by what wicked means soever it began But I shall not enter upon this Argument now which will be managed by a more learned Pen. I shewed what a vast difference there was between the late times of Rebellion and Usurpation and this present Revolution this he cannot deny but says it makes no difference in the Argument let us then try that But to state the matter so plain that our Authour himself had he never so much mind to it shall not be able to mistake or misrepresent it I must first premise that they are two very different Questions as I have observed above When it is lawful to submit to Usurping Powers and When it becomes a Duty to do it It is lawful to submit when we are under such force as can compell us it is our Duty to submit when as the Convocation says the Government is throughly settled now while we are in this state that we are under mere force but the Government not setled we may either submit or not submit without Sin and then that which must turn the Scale are Arguments from Interest Now what I said upon this occasion in the Case of Allegiance had reference to both these viz. That Subjects were not in those days bound in Conscience to submit to these usurped Powers and not being bound in Conscience to do it there were many reasons which might move the Royal Party not to do it Now this is so far from lessening and reproaching their Loyalty that it is greatly for the Commendation of it that when they were not bound in Conscience to submit to those Usurpations tho by Submission our Authour intimates they might have made better Terms for themselves yet they rather chose to venture their Lives and Fortunes to restore the King which is not as our Authour insinuates to prefer their Interest to their Conscience in serving the King but where Conscience was not concerned to the contrary to venture their Interest their Lives and Fortunes to restore the King Tho Men are but Men and if what I said be true that there were many Reasons which touched their Interests why they should not submit to those Usurpations I cannot see what Dishonour it is to them to say that it may be supposed that the utmost Despair under a violent Usurpation and the only possible prospect of bettering their Condition by the return of the King might not influence their Consciences but inspire and quicken their Loyalty Now that they were not bound in Conscience to submit to those Usurpers I proved because their Government was never setled and tho the Convocation does not deny the lawfulness of submitting to Power before a Settlement yet they do not make it a necessary Duty and matter of Conscience to submit till the Government is throughly setled The Convocation alledges two ways whereby a Government wickedly and unjustly begun may be throughly setled viz. By a general Submission or by Continuance that they had not continuance enough to make a Settlement I proved because the Government was frequently changed and new moddelled which was no Argument of Settlement and as for Settlement by a general Submission they could not pretend to that for they never had a National Consent and Submission That they had no such National consent needs not be proved to any Man who remembers the story of those days I suppose no man will pretend such a consent to the Government of the Rump-Parliament when all the Representatives of the Nation were flung out of the House excepting those few Rumpers because they would not consent Nor will it be pretended that Cromwells Dissolving the Rump-Parliament and summoning some select Persons out of every County nominated by himself and his Council of Officers without any Election of the People to be the Representative of the Nation had a National consent Nor had the Council of State chosen by this Mock-House of Parliament any greater Authority than their Masters nor did their Resignation of their Power to Cromwell again give any Authority to him or carry a National Consent with it Nor will it be pretended that the Instrument of Government agreed on by Cromwell and his Officers which made Cromwell Lord Protector of the Three Nations had any National Consent It is plain it had no National Consent in framing it and it is as plain that it was never afterwards confirmed by any National Consent and Submission The Parliaments called
according to the directions of this Instrument never could make a National Consent or Submission for they were not chosen according to the ancient Customs and Usages of the Nation nor were they the Representatives of the Nation but only of a prevailing Party and Faction in it for by Article 14. it is provided That all and every Person and Persons who have aided advised assisted or abetted in any War against the Parliament since the first day of Jan. 1641. unless they have been since in the Service of the Parliament and given signal Testimonies of their good Affections thereunto shall be disabled and be uncapable to be elected or to give any Vote in the Election of any Members to serve in the new Parliament or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments So that a great part of the Nation were hereby wholly excluded from choosing or being chosen Members of Parliament When they were thus chosen this Election did not make them Parliament-Men unless they were approved of by the major part of the Council to be Persons not disabled but qualified as aforesaid Artic. 21. When they were thus chosen and approved they had no Authority to reject this new Model but it is provided Art 12. That the Persons elected shall not have power to alter the Government as it is hereby setled in one single Person and a Parliament The first Parliament met Sept. 3. 54. and began to be very busie about the new Government but the Protector sent for them to the Painted Chamber and taught them better that the same Government that made them a Parliament made him Protector and that as they are intrusted with some things so is he with other things That there were some thing in the Government fundamental and could not be altered tho this Instrument had no other Authority but his own and his Council of Officers as 1. That the Government should be in one Person and a Parliament and therefore he was sorry to understand that any of them should go about to overthrow what was so setled it seems then this Parliament at the beginning was so far from giving their Submission and Consent that they were about to overthrow this new Settlement and to prevent such great Inconveniences he was necessitated to appoint a Test or Recognition of the Government which was to be signed by them before they went any more into the House and it was this I A. B. do hereby freely promise and engage my self to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector and to the Common-wealth of England Scotland and Ireland and shall not according to the tenor of the Indenture whereby I am returned to serve in this present Parliament propose or give any Consent to alter the Government as it is setled in one single Person and a Parliament That day 130 Members subscribed it and took their Places in the House how many more did afterwards is not said And yet this very Parliament spent near five Months in their debates about the new Government and the Protector was glad to dissolve them at last and this does not look like a National Submission and Consent especially considering the Plot which was ready to break out upon it and the Declaration of the free and well-affected People of England now in Arms against the Tyrant Oliver Cromwell In the second Parliament Sept. 1656. many Persons who were returned by the Country for Members were not admitted into the House as not approved by the Council which occasioned their publishing a Remonstrance subscribed by near one hundred of them the reading of which will satisfie any man how far that new Government was from having a National Consent and Submission But this is enough for my present purpose to shew that those Usurpations were never setled by a National Submission and Consent but all the settlement they had was mere force and now let us hear what our Author says to this As for the Government being frequently changed he says every one of these changes was a settlement if the Dr's notion of a settlement be right but it is plain according to my notion none of them were settlements for none of them had the general Consent and Submission of the People and though the Power of the Nation was for some time in their hands the continuance of none of these changes was long enough to make a Settlement by Prescription without Consent He adds But as the National Consent in Parliament that is indeed part of our Constitution but what is that to Usurpation which may Usurp as well upon all Branches of the Constitution as upon one But I do not urge a National Consent in Parliament considered as part of our Constitution but barely considered as a National Consent for a National Consent and Submission is necessary to the settlement of any new Government and this must be declared by one means or other The Consent of a Parliament freely chosen by the Body of the People must be allowed to be a National Consent and that Consent the present Government has but where there is no Consent in Parliament in a Nation which never gives their consent any other way but by their Representatives when a Government dares not call such a Parliament nor ask their consent or if they do ask are denied it it is evident there is no National Consent What he says indeed is true that had Cromwell possessed himself of the Authority of Kings Lords and Commons had he been setled in this Possession by the general Consent and Submission of the People he had had God's Authority in all those respects and ought to have been obeyed but without such a Consent though the People might for a while have silently submitted to Power they were at liberty to cast off the Yoke when they had power and opportunity to do it This is my Notion of a thorough Settlement to which he appeals and let any Man try whether as he says it will fit Cromwell in all respects just as if it had been made for him viz. When the whole Administration of Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in the hands of the Prince when every thing is done in his Name and by his Authority had I added no more the Author might have pretended that the Government of the Rump-Parliament and of Oliver Cromwell had this Settlement but what follows spoils this Conceit when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him So that here was no such Settlement of these Usurpations as could oblige Subjects in Conscience to obey them and to submit to them and when it was not matter of Duty and Conscience to submit I shewed that there were other very great Reasons why they should not submit not such Reasons as ought to have over-ruled their Consciences had it been matter of Duty for there are no such Reasons to be had but such as were very reasonable and
Laws of the Land whenever he will command things against Law and has power to crush us if we will not obey I will readily grant and so must he that it is our duty to do it but till he prove this he must not take it for granted there is such a Law and then we need dispute this matter no further at present But what he means by this Argument I cannot tell if he does think there is such a Law of God I suppose he intended in good earnest to prove that we must submit to the Arbitrary Will of our Prince against Law and to condemn the opposition that was made in the late Reign to such Arbitrary Proceedings if he did not believe there was any such Law of God how ridiculous was it to pretend that we must submit to Arbitrary Will and Power against Law because when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us I shall only observe farther that our Authour charges me with saying in the Case of Resistance that this may easily be that a Prince in a limited Monarchy should resolve to be arbitrary when he has all the Power of the Kingdom in his hands and must not be resisted Whereas I bring this in by way of objection against Non-Resistance and only say it is possible but shew by several Arguments how difficult it is and that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance does not destroy the distinction between a limited and absolute Monarchy But at this rate he uses to cite Authours that unwary Readers will easily be imposed on if they give too much credit to him Thus I have particularly answered all the little appearances of Reason and Argument in the Postscript and made it appear that according to the Sense of the Convocation those Princes who have no legal Right may yet have God's Authority and have so when their Government is thoroughly setled And now had been the proper time to enquire what the Convocation meant by a thorough Settlement but he did not like this order and therefore chose to begin with the Notion of thorough Settlement for when once it had appeared that the Convocation spoke of the settlement of illegal Powers he must have been ashamed to have pretended that they meant a legal Settlement by acquiring a new legal Title either by the death or cession of the right Heirs or by a long Prescription I shall only add that when the Convocation speaks of a Settlement they mean the Settlement of the Government within it self not with respect to foreign Force and Power for so they express it when they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their own People and then the Government may be throughly setled within it self before it have a peaceable Possession and Settlement so Alexander's Authority was setled at Ierusalem before Darius was finally conquered and so are K. William and Q. Mary setled on the Throne notwithstanding all the expectations some have of a French Invasion and Conquest And since our Authour insists so much upon a legal Settlement Possession of the Throne with the Consent and Submission of the Estates of the Realm gives a legal Settlement in England if we will believe our best Iudges and Lawyers as I shall be inclined to do till I see a fair Answer to what I have said in this Cause in the Case of Allelegiance and then we have the opinion of our Lawyers for a Settlement and of the Convocation for Obedience to a setled Government For the Conclusion of his Answer he alledges the Authority of Bishop Andrews and Bishop Buckeridge two Members of this Convocation and of Dr. Iackson a very learned Divine against that sense we give of the Convocation The thing then he is to prove from these reverend and learned Men against our sense of the Convocation is this that those who ascend the Throne by Usurpation without a legal Right have not God's Authority and must not be obeyed and that such Princes can never in the sense of the Convocation be setled in their Thrones or have God's Authority till they gain some new legal Right by the Death or Cession of the rightful Prince or by a long Prescription Let us see then how he proves this to be the judgment of these Learned Men. Now what he quotes from B. Andrews has not one word of this matter The whole of it is no more but this that the Bishop will not allow the Name of King to any but Kings of lawful and true descent they are Kings the they reign not as Ioash was others are no Kings but Usurpers tho they reign as Athaliah did and what is this to the purpose Does not the Convocation allow Ioash to be the true Heir while he was kept from the Crown and Athaliah an Usurper tho she reigned Six Years Does not the Convocation call such Kings Kings de facto which is a little softer Name than Vsurper but signifies much the same thing viz. One who is possessed of the Throne without a legal Right And yet what the Convocation's Doctrin was about Obedience to such Kings I have already proved and Bishop Andrews might be of the same mind tho he would not allow them the Name of Kings But the Bishop will not allow that such Kings reigned by God Right but then he does not mean that such Kings do not exercise God's Authority but that God did not by his antecedent Will and Appointment place them on the Throne Thus S. Chrysostom on the 13. Rom. allows all Power and Authority to be of God and to be ordained by God and therefore not to be resisted whoever has it but yet will not say that all Princes who exercise this Power wickedly and tyrannically whatever their Title be are ordained of God He thought it a Reproach and Blemish to the goodness and justice of Providence to say that wicked impious tyrannical Princes were ordained by God but yet granted that the Authority they exercised was Gods and must be obeyed The Bishop and others will allow what S. Chrysostom would not That the most wicked Tyrants who have a legal Title to their Thrones are ordained by God but are afraid to own that Princes who ascend their Thrones by unjust and wicked means are set up by God but it does not hence follow that they denyed their Power and Authority to be Gods or that Subjects ought to obey it The Convocation it self affirms no more in that mighty place as our Authour calls it than that the Authority which is exercised in those Governments which begun by the Ambition of Princes or the Rebellion of Subjects is always God's Authority and therefore can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it and therefore must be obeyed So that Learned Men may differ in this Point whether illegal Usurpers are placed on the Throne by the over-ruling Counsels and Appointment of God or only by his permissive Providence
great question still remains whether Subjects may lawfully take Commissions from the dispossessed Prince to fight against the Prince who is settled in the Possession of the Throne this Dr. Iackson does not say and therefore he can do our Author no service His next citation from Dr. Iackson is the case of Jehoiada ' s Deposing of Athaliah urged by the Papists for the power of the Pope to depose Kings But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out than to have betrayed so much dishonestly in his quotations I shall give the Reader the entire passage First Jehoiada in that he was High-Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the power of Iurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This our Author leaves out though very material because it shews by what Authority he did it as the Ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne that is not merely in right of his Priesthood as the Papists pretended nor merely as a Subject but as being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged as he had observed before And this is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Iehoiada did this being the Kings Vncle and the chief Head and Prince of his Tribe that is not a private Subject but a chief Prince in the Kingdom of Iudah The Doctor proceeds Secondly The Power Royal or Supreme was by right by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God annexed unto the Infant Prince whom Jehoiada ' s Wife had saved from the Tyranny of Athaliah as being next Heir now alive unto David In the right of this Prince and for the actual annexion of the Supreme Power to his person unto whom it was de jure annexed Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy did by force and violence Depose her who had Usurpt the Royal Scepter by violence and cruel Murder of her Seed Royal. All these words in a different Character are left out by our Author and some of them very material ones especially those by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God and the next Heir now alive to David which plainly refers to the Divine entail on David's Family and distinguishes this from the case of other Usurpers which is the very account the Convocation gave of it as I shewed before and overthrows all that our Author has said about the case of Athaliah and for that reason he suppressed them as any one will easily guess Thus he leaves out Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy which shews this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction which private Subjects must not pretend to and therefore would not serve his purpose and I believe by this time he thinks he had better have let it all alone He concludes his Postscript with rage aud venom and I have no answer to that I have indeed changed my Opinion about the Authority of Usurpers who are setled in the Throne by the general consent and submission of the People and of the Estates of the Realm and I have Scripture and Reason the Authority of the Church of England and the Laws of the Land for any thing our Author has said to the contrary to justifie this change and I assure him I will change my Opinion in any thing else upon the same terms and despise his censures of my Honesty for doing so and as for Authority I never pretended to any my self and will never own any mans Authority much less my own Opinions in opposition to Scripture and Reason the Church of England and the Laws of the Land But what a charitable Opinion our Author has of the present Government and of all that comply with it we may see in the Parallel he makes between my case and that of Hazael as if swearing Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary were as great as notorious as self evident an impiety and wickedness as all the villanies which the Prophet Elisha foretold Hazael that he would be guilty of I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the Children of Israel their strong holds wilt thou set on fire and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword and wilt dash their children and rip up their women woth child But let our Author consider who are most likely to be guilty of these Villanies those who quietly submit to the Government which is now setled among us or those who are for overturning all by bringing in a French Power to devour and consume with Fire and Sword and to enslave their Native Country if this be Allegiance and Passive Obedience I am sure what our Author calls Perjury and Rebellion are the greater vertues As for his parting Request I do affirm it again That I never was factious against taking the Oaths nor made it my business to dissuade men from it when my Opinion was asked I declared my own thoughts but never sought out men to make Proselytes and in this Profession I am not afraid of his or any other mens memories so much as of their inventions for there are some great Wits among them Let them produce the man if they can whom I endeavoured to dissuade by word or writing from taking the Oaths where my Opinion was not first asked and if my Opinion had any Authority with them then our Author knows it is more than it ought to have had and that was none of my fault unless he means that my Authority was considerable against taking the Oath but none for it which is the way that all Parties and Factions judge of mens Authorities But though our Author seems very well acquainted with the thing called Faction yet he is not willing to understand the word and therefore I must tell him that when I say I was never factious against the Oath I do not mean that I was never hearty and zealous against taking the Oath for I hope there may be Zeal without Faction or that when I was pressed to discourse the matter I did not talk with as much Warmth and Concernment as other Men. But Faction is quite another thing it shews it self in Separations and Schisms in Rancour and Bitterness Envyings and Emulations in violent Oppositions to Government in changing and confining Friendships with a Party in Censures and Reproaches in stigmatizing all Persons of another Perswasion as perjur'd Knaves whereas tho there had been a material Perjury a different Opinion may excuse from formal Perjury for no Man is formally perjured who does not know it I shall not explain this by Instances for if our Author is for writing Secret Histories I am not so at present And now I am at leisure to attend his motions and to consider his threatned examination of all my arguments whenever his due time for it comes and if he will promise to examine them well before he answers I shall