way of Jurisdiction it will be very difficult to prove but that the High Priest qua so had the highest Authority in that State next to the King and consequently if Jehoiada acted authoritatively it was in the capacity of High Priest and not as the Kings Vncle or as a Prime Peer He proceeds out of Dr. Jackson secondly the Power Royal or Supreme was by right Vindic. p. 78. 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 usurped the Royal Scepter by violence and cruel murder of her Seed Royal. The Dr. adds all those words in a different character are left out by our Author And that is true and some of them very material ones and that is true too for instance 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 Now I think this is very material to prove these two things 1. That Jehoiada did not act judicially and by way of Authority determine the Gove nment tâ—â—t â—sâ—â— and depose Athaliah but he â—â—d it in 〈◊〉 Right of the Prince And â—â—ing the 〈…〉 Maâ—â—strate in the vacancy made 〈…〉 â—â—wer and Authority for the actuâ—◠〈◊〉 of the Supreme Power to his Person unto â—â—om it was de jure annexed ie He did right to his Prince not as a Judge but as a Prime Minister of great power 2. That the Drs. outcry about the change of one particle for another or for and is a meer Cavil for if what Dr. Jackson says here may interpret his sense then the Particle and in that sentence save only in his right and interest and by his Commission and command is to be understood disjunctively for 't is not to be supposed that such an Infant Prince could give Jehoiada a Commission And then a Subject especially if he be the Prime Peer may depose an Usurper in the Right of a dispossessed Prince without his Commission or if it may be supposed then a Subject may lawfully take a Commission from a dispossessed Prince to fight against an Vsurper in the Possession of the Throne and the Dr. may take his choice and suppose which he pleases But these it seems were not so material as the Dr. thought fit to take notice of but he names two Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy which he says shews this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction But of that enough hath been said already The other is By the Express Ordinance and positive Law of God and the next Heir now alive unto David which plainly refers to the Divine Entail on David 's Family and distinguishes this from the Case of other Vsurpers Now I confess had I cited this passage against the Doctor it had been reasonable for me to have repeated these words because he lays such a mighty stress on them but I have told him already that by the Citations I had only respect to the Author against whom I wrot and my Pamphlet was in the Press before his Book was publish'd and I never saw it afterwards 'till it was abroad That Author says nothing of the Divine Entail tho the Dr. does and his Arguments about it I have consider'd before But that Dr. Jackson made no such difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Usurpers appears plainly from the general Doctrine which he delivers before And with 〈◊〉 having recourse to that if the Doctor would have come Dr. Jackson and me right â—â—d have repeated what I had cited out of him it would evidently have appear'd to the Reader that Dr Jackson made no manner of difference in that respect nor thought that the Divine Entail made any alteration with respect to Usurpation or the duty of Subjects Answer to Pamph. p. 28. for he draws from hence a general inference which concerns all times and places for it immediately follows and which I had cited from him and which the Doctor omits and suppresses Is it then all one in these mens Divinity for a Subject or Peer of any Realm not only of the Realm of Judah to stand for the Right of his Liege Lord and for the ancient Liberties of his Native Country against a Stranger or Vsurper And for a Stranger no Native Member of this or the like Christian Common-wealth to throw down the Lawful King from his Throne or to authorize his Subjects or others to do to him as Jehoiada did to Athaliah And to bring in a Stranger or Alien as he to cast out a Stranger or Vsurper This immediately follows in Dr Jackson and I had cited them verbatim from him which directly answer his Exceptions and which he perfectly suppresses and yet tells his Reader he would give him the entire passage and yet notwithstanding he could make this Preface to his Examination of this passage But this Citation from Dr. Jackson he has so shamefully mangled P. 77 78. that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out as it seems the Drs. discretion taught him to leave out what made against him than to have betrayed so much dishonesty in his Quotations Now all that I shall observe from hence is that the Doctor is very clamorous in his charges but very unfortunate withal for they always turn upon him and come home to him The Dr. tells me I conclude my Postscript with Rage and Venom that is to say 't is very furious and venemous to charge Dr. Sherlock with maintaining of Paradoxes tho he hath done nothing else in his two last Books and any man that hath heard of the Distinction of Tyrannus sine Titulo Tyrannus exercitio is able to discover it And he cannot be prevail'd upon to clear himself of it but leaves it to a Learn'd Pen to do it for him which is a small demonstration that he cannot do it himself It was very venemous too I suppose to joyn him in this matter with Goodwyn Eaton and such as they and I must confess they are not very laudable Companions But people that maintain the same Doctrines and Opinions have no great reason to quarrel at their company And if he does not like them he may try if he can tell where to get any better Would he have had me joyn'd him with Bishop Sanderson when he hath used his utmost skill to confute him or with Dr. Hammond and the other famous Worthies of our Church when they maintain the clean contrary to what he does I had cited a passage out of his Case of
members or by overturning the Legal Constitution but the single Question is whether the Government be settled and all the rest signifie nothing to the Argument And this I had told him if he would prove the Government of those Vsurpations was not settled Postscr p. 15. he might let all the rest alone And which he hath now done in his Reply tho he would not seem to do it so that my Objections as little as they are have oblig'd him to quit these differences as making no difference in the Argument which he cannot deny tho he cannot endure to own it For what difference did the villanies of those days make in the Argument Why truly it prejudic'd wise and good men as all villanies do one as well as another and where no strict duty oblig'd who would submit That is the difference in the Argument lyes not in the prejudice but in not being a strict duty What difference did the Barbarous usage of the Kings friends make in the Argument Why it created an aversion as Hanging and Imprisonments and such like kindnesses are apt to do and was a reason not to submit when they were not oblig'd in conscience i. e. the difference in the Argument lyes in the not being oblig'd in conscience and not in the aversion What difference did the overturning the Church and the being disabled to keep a good Living make in the Argument Why whoever loves the Church and a good Living will not choose to submit when not oblig'd in conscience So that had Cromwell restor'd Episcopacy and the Church Lands all would have been well and he might have had a Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Princes wrote in justification of submission to him What difference did the overturning the Constitution make in the Argument Why it is a reasonable prejudice as the peoples making whom they please King in an Hereditary Monarchy may be against submission when the Government is not thoroughly settled and when it is not a duty i. e. the difference in the Argument lyes in the Government not being settled and not in the prejudice It is therefore evident enough that all those make no difference in the Argument and if the Dr. had reply'd in the same order with his own method and my Answer every body would have perceiv'd it but instead of that he is for new stating the matter And the Reason of their non-complyance is to be resolv'd into nothing but prejudice and interest altho he himself had put it into the Objection They thought themselves bound in Conscience to oppose that Vsurpation at their utmost peril Case of Alleg. p. 46. 48. and at the end of his Answer expresses it those who thought it their duty never to submit to that wicked Vsurpation I am now come to my Parting Objection in the Postscript of which the Dr. gives us this fair account Vindic. p. 71. That it 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 Upon my Word this is very big and a man would imagine there was something very wretched and trifling in the Argument But I am so well acquainted with his way of replying that I am confident here is something he cannot answer and therefore it is to be run down with scorn and contempt If Arguments will not be answer'd let them be hooted at and perhaps with some Readers that may do as well and tho I do not believe that the Dr. is capable of thinking that such things are Answers yet I do not know but he may be capable of thinking that some people may take lofty and scornful words for good and plain Answers Well! let us see how ridiculous the Drs. Answer makes it The Argument is this If possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law Postscript p. 15. be Gods Authority and ought to be obey'd then whatsoever Sovereign Power a Prince possesses himself of is likewise God's Authority ought to be obey'd He answers But where do I say that possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is God's Authority A pleasant Question Where did he not say it It is but all over his Book What is Usurpation but possession of power contrary to Law And if the Dr. hath any other definition of it he would do well to produce it But for a man who writes a Book to justifie submission to Illegal and Vsurped Powers as having God's Authority to ask me where he said that possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is God's Authority is a Jest indeed But here the Dr. is very angry as if I had done him some wrong and tells me I do not pretend that he said it in express words but this I suppose is the sense of what he says and adds 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 Now I do not desire the Dr. should answer for any of my senses unless he could answer a little better for his own Let him but answer for his own and I will be satisfied but he will not do that And I must tell him that denying his sense is not answering for it For for all his impertinent Rhodomontade that which I have said is his sense or else his Book is not his sense for what does he mean by Illegal Powers but powers contrary to Law And which is the Cream of the Jest he immediately adds I say indeed that a Prince who is settled in the possession of Sovereign Power tho he have no Legal Title to the Crown has God's Authority i. e. he says the same thing that he makes such a terrible swaggering at me for saying for says he and what then therefore Possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is God's Authority how does this follow And how does it otherwise then follow For what I pray is a Prince not having a Legal Title but a Prince contrary to Law and what is such a Princes possession of Sovereign Power but the possession of it contrary to Law And if he hath God's Authority by vertue of his possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law then it follows that possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is God's Authority And does not he tell us Vind. p. 46. That the Authority of Government is always God's Authority And what does he mean by Government but the Possession of Sovereign Power And what hath he to say to this He adds Cannot God settle a King upon the Throne without a Legal Title but he must be presumed to give him Authority whenever 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 Now the Dr. has the best faculty of turning his Questions that ever I saw when he is to prove that God gives his Authority to Illegal and Usurped powers then the Question is Cannot God make a King without a Legal Title Is God confin'd to Humane Laws in making Kings And when he is to prove that these Usurpers are to govern according to Law then he is for asking Cannot God set up a King without a Legal Title but he must be presum'd to give him Authority to govern against the Laws of the Land No doubt but God can do both but that is not the Question And if we must answer by Questions his Question plainly turns upon him Cannot God make a King without confining him to govern by the Laws of the Land as well as without a Legal Title No doubt he can do that if he please And this brings us to the merits of the Cause which the Dr. would fain shift off And the Question is if a Prince in a Limited Monarchy possesses himself of Arbitrary Sovereign Power and actually administers it contrary to Law whether according to his Principles he hath not God's Authority and ought to be obey'd and we have not the same Evidence that he hath it that we have that Usurped Powers have God's Authority And that is Possession and Providence and if we must presume that God gives his Authority to an Usurper who is in possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law I would fain see a Reason why we must not presume that God gives his Authority to a Prince who possesses and exercises Arbitrary Sovereign Power contrary to Law And if the Law must be our Rule against the possession of Arbitrary Power why is it not also our Rule against Usurped Powers The one is as consistent with Sovereign Power as the other The one God may give as well as the other the Evidence that God does so is the same in both The one is as contrary to the Law as the other and the denyal of it as much confines God to Humane Laws as the other And here my Argument plainly affects him which he takes no manner of notice of The assuming an Illegal Power Postscript p. 16. is no more against the Laws than Illegal and Vsurped Powers And God when he gives Authority is confin'd to our Laws and Constitutions no more in the extent of Power than in the Person and the only Evidence that we have that God gives it is the possession of it by Providence and whatsoever Power a Prince is possess'd of hath the same Evidence and consequently is a branch of the same Authority And Arbitrary Power is not inconsistent with the notion of Sovereign Power and whatever limitations of Government there are now in the World they are only limitations made by Humane Laws and of no force against God's Authority But this it seems was so very ridiculous that the Dr. had not one single word to say to it And I must tell him that I am not only capable of thinking it an argument against him but I am capable of thinking it such an argument as he cannot answer without quitting some of his Principles And because he despises it so much I do here provoke him to it And in the mean time 't is very ridiculous to scorn an argument and when he comes to answer it to leave out the whole strength and force of it The Reason I added to confirm my Argument was For the formal Reason of Obedience to such a Prince is because he hath God's Authority and the Evidence that he hath that Authority is because he is possessed of Sovereign Power He answers Suppose this tho God's Authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a Prince yet it is not the Rule of our obedience Very well Then the Law is our Rule and why I pray is not the Law our Rule with respect to the Person as well as with respect to the duty we owe him The Law directs to the Person as well as to the duty and directs the duty only to that Person By the Law a Prince ought not to have Arbitrary Power and by the same Law an Usurper ought to have no power at all If therefore the Law be our Rule for the same reason that we ought not to obey the acts of Illegal Power we ought not to obey Vsurped Powers at all Vindic p. 72. But the Dr tells us The Authority of God is only an authority to govern according to the Laws of God and Nature or the Laws of the Land Now the Doctor knows well enough that in this Argument I oppose Arbitrary Sovereign Power not to the Laws of God and Nature but to the Laws of the Land even in the same sense the Dr. understands Vsurped Powers and if possession contrary to Law gives Authority to Usurpation why not to Arbitrary Power But that I doubt is a Ridiculous Question too for men do not love to be ask'd more Questions than they can answer He adds 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 to transgress the Laws of God and Nature The Proposition couch'd in these words is this That in a Limited Monarchy a Power that transgresseth the Laws of the Land is not God's Authority And then farewel to Usurpation that has not God's Authority For the very being of Usurped Powers is a fundamental transgression of the Laws of the Land And if men have no Authority from Gâ—d to transgress the Laws of the Land then an Usurper hath no Authority at all Arbitrary Power transgresseth the Laws of the Land and therefore it is not God's Authority and Usurpation transgresseth it ten times more and therefore if the Reason be good that also is not God's Authority He goes on indeed Arbitrary Government is not the possession of Sovereign Power which is God's Authority but the Arbitrary Exercise of it What does he mean by this Is not Arbitrary Power God's Authority in an Absolute Monarchy as well as limited power in a Limited Monarchy If he means this he ought to have prov'd it and he may yet prove it if he thinks it will help his Hypothesis But it is the Arbitrary Exercise of it Of what of God's Authority or of Sovereign Power If Arbitrary Government be the Arbtrary Exercise of God's Authority then it ought to be obey'd for God's Authority ought to be obey'd in what manner soever it is exercis'd It or Sovereign Power then I desire to know why the Arbitrary Exercise of Sovereign Power is not the Possession of Arbitrary Sovereign Power as well as the Exercise of a Limited Power is the Possession of that Power The Dr. tells us over and over of the wonderful efficacy of Actual Government Actual Authority Actual Administration which are but other words for the
is the utmost can be collected from the words of the Observators Letter is it impossible he should afterwards be otherwise informed And if not I wonder how the Convocation went on and proceeded to pass the Book in the upper house of Convocation and pass the other Books in the lower house And likewise afterwards to pass the Province of York This could never have been done except King James had been satisfied that the words of the Convocation had no such tendency as he seem'd to apprehend For the Letter contains a direct prohibition to proceed I shall give you orders about it by Mr. Sollicitor and until then medate no more in it But of this enough and too much except we had some better account of the Authority of it And therefore let us come â—s the Dr. says to try the sense of the Convocation from the Convocation it self The place is this ch 28. pag 57 The Conv. having given account of the various revolution of Governments brought about by the Providence of God who for the sins of a Natioâ— or Country altereth their Governments and Governours transferreth setteth up and bestoweth Kingdoms as seemeth best to his heavenly Wisdom Add these words and when having attained their ungodly desires whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their subjection or disloyal Subjects by their rebellious Rising against their natural Sovereigns they have establish'd any of the said degenerate forms of Government amongst their People the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such alterations are throughly setled to be reverenc'd and obey'd and the People of all sorts as well of the Clergy as of the Laity are to be subject unto it not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake He tells us Case of Alleg. p. 5. he 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 says he I proved because the Convocation speaks of illegal and usurped Powers and yet affirms that the Authority exercised by them is Gods Authority To this saith the Doctor the Author answers The Doctor will not Postscript p. 3. but the Convocation distinguishes between the means of acquiring the power and the power it self 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 alter'd 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 These I own to be my words and further that the Doctor concludes rightly from them when he says 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 To this the Doctor replyes As for what he says that I will not distinguish between the means of acquiring Power and the Power it self 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 Very well and which I pray are these means that are wicked that the Convocation speaks of I know of none but the wicked means of acquiring the power as by Rebellion and ambitious encroachments and what is the Power and Authority that is God's The Convocation mentions no other but a Government throughly setled and if the Convocation distinguishes between these as it plainly does then the Convocation distinguishes as I do whatever the Doctor distinguishes and by reason of that distinction it cannot be concluded from the Convocation that because they speak of the Ambition of encroaching Kings and the Rebellion of Subjects as a means whereby Governments have been alter'd therefore by a Gâ—vernment being throughly setled they must needs mean usurped Powers And this I take to be the ground of the Doâ—tors assertion and he hath not yet contradicted it He tells us as above that he observ'd from the words of the Convocation That those Princes who have no legal right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority Which saith he I proved because the Convocation speaks of illegal and usurped Powers But that is the Question which he begs and takes for granted which yet is the main thing to be proved and he did not before nor hath yet offered to prove it The Convocation speaks indeed of and condemns the wicked means of acquiring Power and the Doctor seems from thence to conclude that by a Government throughly setled they mean usurped Powers He says here Vindic. p. 4. when the Convocation speaks of the settlement of illegal Powers which began by Ambition and Rebellion where he manifestly confounds what the Convocation distinguishes and because they say they began by Ambition and Rebellion therefore the settlement they speak of must needs be the settlement of illegal Powers whereas the Convocation speaks not one word of the settlement of illegal Powers they speak indeed of the settlement of Powers which began by wicked means But these are two different things and the Convocation plainly distinguishes them And such beginnings may afterwards acquire a Right and terminate in a Legal Title and that I think is plainly the meaning of the Convocation and that from this distinction for they expresly tell us in this Chapter Convoc p. 57. that their attempts to acquire such Governments of all sorts are wicked and detestable in the sight of God and if the Government after it is acquir'd be as unjuâ—â— as the means then 't is likewise as wiâ—k 4d and detestable in the siâ—â—â— of God and then it follows that we can no more become partys to the Government than to the Rebellion and encroachment for to say that a man may and much more is bound to support maintain aâ—d abett wickedness is such a Position in Divinity that I never before met with I know the Doctor hath a fine notion and talks of God's Authority but that God's Authority was ever actually join'd with a thing the very being of which is wicked and detestable in his sight is a notion that a man may safely conclude never entred into the heads of the Convocation This is the reason for which I mentioned the distinction and I thought I had expressed it plainly enough but the Doctor is only pleased to repeat and take no further notice of it but instead of that
that from God's altering Stated and Legal Rules in the Case of Jehu and by express nomination nothing can be concluded in favour of a Providential Possession against legal Right here are these two things to be observ'd 1. That when God set up Jehu against another Right and Title and the Case is the same of any other so set up by God there was a clear and evident Revelation of God's Will that he had made him King and given him his Authority and about which there could be no doubt or scruple And such a clear Revelation seems necessary in all such cases For when men are under sacred Tyes and Obligations from which they cannot otherwise be released but by God himself for tho God is not tied to those Rules he prescribeth to others yet men are tied to those Rules the obligation of which holds them till they are discharged by God who is not tied himself and can release them that are it seems necessary that the Evidence of Gods Will in discharging them should be as clear and certain as the Evidence they have that the observing these Rules is their duty otherwise men depart from a certain duty upon the account of an uncertain discharge from God and may easily find ways to evade their necessary duties especially if they are clogged with difficulty and secular disadvantage And accordingly when God set up Jehu the manifestation of God's will was plain and evident and the persons concern'd to know it could make no doubt of it being reveal'd by Prophets the ordinary and accustomed way of God's making his will known to them But for Providence especially in opposition to Law and legal Right being the manifestation of God's will in order to practice I think I may appeal to all the world whether any man can be as certain that Possession of the Throne by Providence is as evident an indication of God's will that God hath given his Authority and the Government to him as he is of the obligation of an Oath and of the Duty of Alleg. to a rightful King if not then he releases himself from an evident Duty by a discharge from God less evident i. e. he has less evidence of his discharge than he has of his duty and that in the ballance of Conscience is no discharge at all Now it needs not be proved that Providence is not so evident a Declaration of God's Will as express Nomination the Doctor himself owns that in all other Cases Providence is not such a signification of God's Will And that this Doctrine could never be espied before nay that it was publickly and professedly disown'd are no great signs of its evidence And therefore there is a wide difference in the two Cases Upon the Nomination of Jehu God's Will was made so evident that all men concern'd to take notice of it neither did nor could doubt of it but in the case of the Doctor 's Hypothesis 't is the only thing in question And not only all men else but the Doctor himself not only doubted of it but believ'd the clean contrary 2. Convoc p. 52. When God set up a King without or contrary to a legal Right that King was immediately invested with his Authority and as the Convocation speaks of Ahud Independent of any but God himself he had the sole Right to the Government and the People were bound to submit to him without any more ado upon the account of God's Donation But the Doctor 's King whom he says is of God's setting up too is quite another thing he is no King or if he is he has no Subjects till the People have consented they are not bound to obey him upon the account of God's gift till themselves have consented And so for any thing that I can see notwithstanding God's setting up a King the People may refuse him and are not bound to submit to him except themselves please Tâ—e Doctor 's King likewise hath not the sole Right for the King God hath pulled down hath his Right still and may justly recover the Throne if he can which is one of the finest Evidences of God's giving away another Princes Crown as ever was heard of And I wonder when the Doctor will prove that God ever gave away any Princes Crown when notwithstanding he had still a Right to it and might justly recover it Postscript p. 2. And this I had told him before but he takes no notice of it altho it deserves as much Vindication as any of the rest But some things will not be vindicated how much soever they need it and it is not reasonable to require any man to vindicate more than he can And this I think is sufficient to shew how unreasonably the Doctor concludes from God's express nomination to providence and from God's Sovereignty in disposing of Kingdoms to providential Possession and all that I have further to say is that I expect the Doctor in his next will call me Atheist or some hard name and tell me people will be tempted to suspect I do not believe or that I ridicule God's Sovereignty because I do not believe the Doctor 's unreasonable Inferences and Arguments from it as he tells me they will be apt to suspect I do not believe or that I ridicule Providence Vindic. p. 58. because I do not believe the soul consequences he draws from it To confirm the Doctor 's Interpretation he tells us he observed that the Convocation teaches Vindic. p. 10. 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 Egypt 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 tho indeed they were â—yrants and that it had not been lawful for Ahud to have killed King Eglon had he not first been made by God the Judge Prince c. On the other hand sath the Doctor our Author affirms Postscript p. 3. Answ p. 19. 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 us â—f Government to which they say Obedience is due that those Governments had such a Right Well this I said and I had thought I had prov'd it too and what has the Doctor to say to it He replies This is a bold undertaker And that I suppose I am to take for an Answer for he says very little beside to the proofs I brought for it But let us consider what he does say He tells us Our first Inquiry is what the Convocation thought of the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites Whether they thought them legal and rightful Kings of Israel They saith he call indeed the Israelites their Subjects as our Author observes and from thence proves that these Kings had a legal
force then they might become Subjects to her and the Doctor intimates that they did and ought to be justified in it and might swear to her and tye themselves as fast as she pleased for the Doctor says in Cases of force God's entail did not bind them But then how came they and as the Doctor says upon the account of that entail too to set up Joash and slay Athaliah why truely I doubt that is not a fair Question and the Doctor cannot answer it without contradicting himself again And this he does as plain as words can do it for he tells us The manifest difference between Kings set up by Divine Providence Vindic. p. 35. in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel subject to a Divine nomination and email and Kings set up by Divine Providence in other Kingdoms The first may be and are depos'd when ever God nominates a new King or the Right Heir appears tho they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before But then what becomes of force or how does that take off the binding power of God's entails if assoon as the Right Heir appear such a Person who possess'd by force is depos'd and as the Doctor says sinks into the state of a Subject P. 3â—â— Why truely here is a very pretty business first force makes the Divine entail not binding and then the Dâ—vine Entail makes force not binding and so they alternately vacate each other according as the Dr. hath occasion But to do the Doctor Right he is here a little more consistent and he likes fâ—rce a little better than to part with it so for he tells us P. 27. Gods entails always oblig'd the Jews when they had power enough to take the King on whom God had entâ—â—l'd the Crown which was evidently their Case when Jehoiada anointed Joash and shew Athaliah but when they were under force as under the Babylonians c. no entail tho made by God himself could bind them so that force is the business still and then the châ—â—â—es run thus force on the side of Vsuâ—pation makes Gods Entâ—il not â—â—â—ing and force on the side of Gods Entail makes Usurpation not binding And so the People either have or they have not obligations to Gâ—â—'s Entail or â—o Vsurpation according as they have power if they are not able to fight with him and kill him the Usurper is their King and they are his Subjects but if they are then the Right Heir by God's Entail is their King and they are no bodies Subjects but his An admirable Scheme of Government and Obedience Men may talk what they will of Divine Entails and Covenants with God and Rights and Conscience but 't is all but words fâ—r force is the sum Total and Government is nothing else It makes it a duty to obey the Covenant with God and it makes it lawful to break it it makes Divine Entails binding and it makes them cease to bind And it seems this Brutal Principle of force is the Rule of the World and of Conscience too and Laws and Oaths Entails and Covenants with God vary their obligation and either bind or not bind either bind for or against them as they are back'd with power and according to the variation of Force Vindic. p. 17. The Doctor proceeds and tells us that all thâ—â— can be said 〈◊〉 thinks is that by submission which gives a Legal Right I mean the sumbission and acknowledgment of these in whom the Right is Well I do mean so Answ p. but that is not all I mean for I say joyn'd with the consent and submission of the People and therefore I except against the Doctors interpretation that is to say the submission of the People does not give a Legal Right but the submission of the King does whereas I had joyn'd them both together In answer to this as the Doctor calls it he has five Questions to ask and it might be eâ—ough to observe here that he does not deny it nor do any nor all of his Questions imply a denial of it the matter is plain before him does such a submission and acknowlegment of Fâ—rce and People given a Legal Right or does it not if it does 't is as much as I conâ—â—nd for if not let him disprove it And this would bring the matter into close dispute but the Doctor did not care for that be found where the shooe pinch'd and saw he could not deny it and if he own'd it then he must have prov'd that these Governments to which the Convocation say Obedience is due had not such a submission which he could not do neither and therefore instead of giving a direct answer he leads his reader about and through a maze of Questions to cloud and cover the defect of a plain and pertinent Answer And in truth to lead us quite beside the Question as we shall see in considering the particulars The plain Question between us is whether the submission of the Prince and People gives a Legal Right To which the Doctor Answers 1. In the first place I desire to know what submission of the King that is that gives a Legal Right That is to say the Doctor desires to make a new Question of it for whether submission dâ—â—â— give a Right and what that submission is that dâ—es it are different Questions suppose men should differ in opinion as to the nature degâ—â—es or forms of such submission does it therefore follow that submission it self does not give a Right because all men are not satisfied as to the kind or degree of submission this is an odd sort of arguing to deny the thing because we are not agreed about the Modus But since the Doctor is for asking of Questions he will give me leave to ask him one Vindic. p. 17. He says that the submission of the People gives a Right to Obedience tho not a Legal Right and I desire to know what submission of the People that is that gives such a Right is it a formal Recognition by the States and Representatives why possibly that may do something where there are such States and Representatives But what submission is that where are none as there were not in the Eastern Countries and about which is the present Question I suppose a Parliament was not call'd in Judaea nor the Sanbedrim neither if there were then any such Constitution to make a formal surrender of themselves to Nâ—buchadnezzar nor yet afterwards to the Romans The Doctor insists much upon the submission of Jaddus and if it were true what Convention of the People was there representing the Nation that formally submitted to Alexander Jaddus himself and the Priests and perhaps these at Jerusalem and what is all this to the great Body of the Nation which the Doctor makes necessary to a Settlement why truely nothing at all of this and what then is that submission of the People that gives a Right to obedience even a tacit
submission under force And methinks a man that is so very easie to his own Principles as to admit of any thing that makes for them should not presently fall of asking Questions what is that submission of the King as if it was hard to be found and especially when he has made it as easie as possible and I would fain know if submission of the People under force gives a Right to obedience why submission of the Prince under the same force does not give a Legal Right what need is there of any formal Resignation of the Princes more than there is of a formal submission of the People Vindic. p. 13. A consent certainly is sufficient and the Doctor hath told us in respect of the People and I do not know any Reason but it is the same in respect of the Prince For it is a voluntary consent tho extorted by force as all Moralists a low such a mixt choice and election to be And so the Doctor hath answered his own Question I confess there is a great deal more in this Question and which needs not now be insisted on Lawyers and Casuists have pretty clearly determin'd this point but I see no necessity yet of diving any farther into it For there is no dispute that claiming and insisting upon Right is no submission The Doctor indeed talks a little odly of it as we shall see presently in the mean time he asks again is swearing Allegiance a submission and acknowledgment I answer yes sure or else it is very hard to know what it is But then the Doctor hath an objection to this what became then of the Right of the House of York when the Duke of York swore Allegiance to Henry IV. Henry VI. it should be He is got into the unreasonableness of a new separation A Book heretofore despised by him for the weakness of its reasoning But when does he mean the Duke of York's swearing before or at the agreement between him and Hen. 6. if before it did not prejudice his Right for he had then no visible Right but was in the quality and condition of a Subject and so acted and so ought to act and when his Title came on foot the Title to the Crown was disputable and he put in his â—lâ—â—m and made 〈◊〉 Parliament Judges and till his Tiâ—â—◠〈◊〉 clear'd by these he appeal'd to 〈◊〉 in the quality of a Subject and 〈◊〉 duties of a Subject were 〈…〉 him if after or at the agreement it did prejudice his Right so far as the agreement extended and he had so far parted with his Right and had made himself by his voluntary act K. Henry's Subject and ow'd him Allegiance during his life and K. Henry had so far a Legal Title The next is a very pretty Question Is yielding to force and power quitting the administrating of the Government and leaving the Throne tho with an intention to recâ—â—ver 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 There are shrewd Questions and if the Doctor had pleas'd he might have ask'd whether the Duke of Savoy had not submitted to the French King when he is actually at war with him for the recovery of his Right he might as well have asked whether flying from an Enemy or fighting with lâ—tâ— be not submitting to him And therefore in answer I shall only tell him that 't is every jot as good a submission as the Doctor 's notion of a Settlement is a Settlement i. e. 't is none at all But says he if nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a formal resignation and conveyance of power that is I suppose under hand and seal and before sufficient witnesses But what now if nothing of that be necessary what if a virtual Resignation be sufficient When the King of Spain treated witht the united Provinces as a Soveraign State all the World were satisfied that that was a Cession and so is the submitting to be a Subject or other equivalent acts tho there be no formal conveyance of Power And now the Doctor desires to know how the Author will prove that the Israelites thus submitted to the Aramites Moabites or Babylonians I tell him I will not prove that they made a formal Resignation And there is no need to prove the other for they actually became their Subjects nay the Doctor says what other submission they made but a bare yielding to force and power Vindic. p. 13. and that proves it too for he tells us that is a voluntary consent the extorted by force as all Moralists allow such a mixt choice and election to be 2. The next main Question the Doctor asks is Can the submission of the King give a Legal Right to the Crown without the submission of the People I had told him no but both together and what then if not says he it seems the People may have some Right if not to the Government yet to give away the Goverment of themselves Some Right no doubt of it the Prince cannot give the Government of the People to whom he please without their own consent and therefore what The People may give it away without his consent that I think will hardly follow the People have some Right but have they all and to be sure they can give away no more Right than they have and what is their Right they have a Right not to be dispos'd of to any Prince besides their own without their own consent But have they any Right to throw off their own King and take another yes says he 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 that is because when they are free and have no King they may make one therefore when they are not free and when they have a King they may make another King This is a pure consequence the reason why they may make a King when they have none is because the power is then in them and they may delegate it or dispose it as they please or they may take it themselves but the Question is whether they can give it when they have it not and the being under force is a pretty odd reason that they have it But saith he it is the same state as if they had no King not quite the same state sure for if they had no King the Sovereign Power was in them and then they might give it away because they would give away no more than their own 3. His next Question is Can't every Private man or any City or Garrison when they are over-powered and cannot be relieved by their Prince submit for themselves to the Conqueror without the submission of
their Kings I pray mark the consequence and therefore the submission of the Prince and People does not give a Legal Right for that was the thing the Doctor was to prove here but instead of that he asks another Question do they not by such submission according to the Laws of Nations become the Subjects of the Conqueror till they are retaken Now these the Doctor takes for granted and proceeds upon it and draws a conclusion from thence that therefore a whole Nation may do so but for all that there is nothing more extravagant and no man believes it Does a private man when he is taken Prisoner or a Garrison of men when they are overpowered and taken forthwith become the Subjects to the Conqueror all the World knows the contrary when a Garrison is taken the Walls and Bulwarks are the Conquerors but the men are his Prisoners and not his Subjects But it seems according to the Dr. Men are taken like Beasts nay like the wildest sort ferae naturae the property follows the Possession But every Soldier can teach him a better Doctrine In the Wars heretofore and even in those now in the World how few instances are these of the Subjects of one Prince I except Soldiers of fortune not Subjects who when taken Prisoners have listed themselves and taken pay under the enemy and actually fought against their own King and Master Some such Renegadoes there have been but they have always been branded with Infamy and if retaken are sure to pay for it for to treat such perfidious violators of their Faith and Honour as the worst of enemies has been the practice of all Princes and all Nations And yet the Dr. in this case appeals to the Law of Nations by which he tells us before he means general practice and usage I am content to let that decide the point and if a Soldier changing sides upon his being taken and taking pay under the enemy against his own King be in the estimate of the World perfidious to a high degree and a man of no honour then the Doctor 's Principles maintaining he may do so are neither Principles of Honour nor Conscience 4. He has another Question Has a Nation no right when the King is gone to preserve themselves by making the best terms they can with the new powers yes no doubt the best terms they can honestly But where is the consequence again and therefore the submission of the Prince and People cannot give a Legal Right he tells us his Questions are in answer to that 5. His next is a very pleasant Question For what will our Author say to the submission of Jaddus and the Jews to Alexander while Darius was living Now the Dr. knows well enough I have said more to it than he hath answer'd or than he will answer in hast and he tells us he will not engage in the Quarrel but assigns me over to a more learned answerer and yet asks me what I will say to it This is extraordinary and I must confess a very dextrous way of answering But however what relates to the case of Jaddus I shall examine it altogether and when I come to consider the Vindicator of Josephâ—â— I shall not forget what the Dr. offers in that case that the Vindicator does not mention and that is but very little The next thing is the Case of Joash and Athaliah the story of which in the Convocation the Dr repeats at large and thither I refer the Reader not thinking it necessary to transcribe it Answ p. 17. My Argument from thence which the Dr. cites truely was this It is plain the Convocation does not conceive that the injoyment 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 injoyed the Crown with all its dignities c. and all places of trust and power c. were in her hands and at her disposal which was the very account the Author I disputed against had given of a thorough Settlement and this for no less a time than six years and in as full and ample a manner as any Usurper or any Rightful King ever injoy'd 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 setled it ought to be obey'd as God's Authority not only for fear but also for Conscience sake but they say also that when Athaliah was fully possessed She ought not to be obey'd 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 setled as to make it God's Authority and obedience to become a duty p. 22. To this the Dr. answers Now it were sufficient to observe here that he has not given the true notion of a full and setled possession That is I had not said that Athaliah was setled on the Throne according to the Convocations sense of a Settlement and I wonder how I should when I had expresly asserted the contrary and the design of the Argument is to prove it but for all that the Dr. is resolv'd to make me say it whether I will or no and accordingly he goes to prove against me that the Convocation says not one word of the thorough Settlement of Athaliah in the Throne but if we may learn the sense of the Convocation as this Author concludes we may from Bishop Buckeridge they did not think her setled in the Throne very Right and did not I say so And I thought I had given a good reason for it But then I wonder what makes the Dr. say thus his whole Argument is lost that is it is lost because the Dr. hath prov'd it But I doubt his Argument is lost for he asserts that the Possession of the Throne and the submission of the People makes a thorough Settlement And tho I do not say that the People of Judah submitted in such a sense as to become Subjects to Athaliah yet the Dr. says it and says they ought to be justified in it But then if notwithstanding Athaliahs Possession of the Throne and the Peoples submission to her The Convocation says not a word of her thorough Settlement nor did think her setled on the Throne It is as plain as the Sun that by a thorough Settlement they did not mean the Possession of the Throne and the submission of the People for according to the Dr. Athaliah had both and yet the Convocation did not think her setled and therefore there must be something else go to a thorough Settlement and the Dr. may try his skill if he can find any thing besides the acquisition of Right And
thus the Drs. Argument is lost if to have it perfectly confuted from his own words is to have it lost But no matter for that let the Drs. Argument suffer never so much by it he will have me say that Athaliah was throughly setled and makes me believe he does me a great kindness to admit it for says he to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly setled in the Throne â— 36. and a little after he tells me I will suppose that Athaliah was throughly setled in the Throne whereas I suppose and prove the clean contrary and if to suppose that Athaliah was not throughly setled be to suppose She was throughly setled then I do suppose it but the Dr. I thank him has a mind to make me to contradict my self as fast as he contradicts himself But the Dr. gives a reason why I have not given the true notion of a full and setled Possession for saith he he hath left out the principal part of it as I state it when the Estates of the Realm and the great body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Now it is true I have left it out and how should the Dr. expect I should do otherwise for he knows I do not believe that is the true notion of a Settlement and I do not believe that the Dr. can prove that it is But I suppose the Dr. means that because I said that Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne and did not say likewise that the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation submitted to her therefore my Argument does not affect him And what the Convocation says of deposing and slaying Athaliah does not relate to a setled Government except it appears that according to the Drs. notion of it the Estates of the Realm c. had submitted to her and therefore a setled Government may have God's Authority and ought to be obey'd tho Athaliah had not God's Authority and might be depos'd because she was not setled according to the Drs. account by the submission of the Estates of the Realm c. This I take to be his meaning tho he has not express'd it but I know I must be careful of giving his meaning least he be angry and tell me again he will answer for none of my senses And therefore if this be not his sense Vindic. p. 71. I desire him in his next to tell me what is for I can make no other sense of it But methinks a man that is so very humoursom and touchy should be careful to deliver his sense a little plainer and not leave men to guess and to make it out for him But if that be his sense then I make this Answer 1. I do own that the People of Judah at least the more conscientious part of them did not submit to Athaliah so as to become her Subjects and Parties to her Government But I do believe notwithstanding that a great part of them and perhaps the greatest did side with her and abet her For it is plain that She had a Party enough to maintain her Government and those that would not own it were not able to oppose her Had Jehoiada been strong enough I think there is no doubt but he would have deposed her and established Joash long before But at the end of six years he had a great accession to his Party which probably he had at that time been preparing and working them into a sense of their duty to their lawful King and there can hardly be given any other account why he permitted the Usurpation so long for if the mere shewing the King would have done it and have turned the hearts of the People that might as well have been done some years before and the Kingdom have been set upon the Right bottom and the mischiefs of continued Usurpation have been prevented But it is no wonder that power and interest should prevail against Duty and Conscience Men in those days as well as others might have their Principles corrupted and their morals poysoned what Arguments they had to justifie themselves by does not appear the Drs. two Books would have stored them with abundance but a little Argument with a great Interest will go a great way And it is plain it was six years before they came to a sense of their duty and there is little doubt to be made but Jehoiada travail'd all that time with them to reduce them and probably upon just Conviction they deserted the Usurper and joyn'd themselves to Jehoiada But the Question is not What they did but what they ought to have done That a great part of the Kingdom did submit to her I think there is no dispute and it is as little that a great many did not and the Question is Who of these according to the Principles of the Convocation ought to be justified and who ought to be condemn'd 2. The Dr. himself asserts they did submit and so Athaliah was setled according to his Notion of a Settlement and then my Argument affects him 3. The Question is not What is the Drs. Notion but what is the Convocation's Notion of a Settlement and I readily grant that according to that Athaliah was not setled nor that they thought she was But the Reason is because she was an Usurper and the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive and not because the People had not submitted For if they did submit as the Dr. says they did that made no alteration in the Case they were bound notwithstanding to return to their Lawful Ki g and to Depose the Usurper whether they had or not submitted And the truth is there is scarcely any thing the Convocation more obviates than the Notion of Peoples Consent contributing any thing to the Government or to their own Duty They express it Civil Power Jurisdiction c. deduced by their Consents depend upon their Consents did receive any such vertue and strength from the people P. 3. P. 8. P. 28. Now 't s true these are spoken with reference to Lawful Governments But then I would fain see a good Reason why the Peoples Submission and Consent which signifies nothing with respect to Lawful Governments and their Duty to them should signifie so very much against the Lawful Government or if the Peoples Consent does not make Allegiance a Duty to Lawful Governments how comes it to make it a Duty to Usurpation in opposition to Lawful Governments 4. Altho the Dr. here tells us that the Principal part of a Settlement is the Submission of the Estates and the great Body of the Nation as he does also in his Case of Allegiance yet when he comes to prove this he himself hath left this Principal part quite out for the Answerer had said that Settlement is a Term of Law and in the notion of it denoted a Rightful and Peaceable Possession and in Reply to this
deal more Reason to believe that men may think it their duty to own Allegiance to a dispossessed King as the People of Judah did than to kill a Lawful King as Ahud did and to seek no further such a man as Dr. Sherlock being so long before he could perswade himself to the contrary is a demonstrative Evidence of it and consequently it required yet the greater Caution to prevent it But instead of that they speak laudably and commendably of it and rather give encouragement to it Convoc Can. 23. p. 42. and recommend it than otherwise If any man shall affirm that it was neither lawful for Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes 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 the Usurper or that Jehoiada the High Priest was not bound as he was a Priest Let the Dr. mind that both to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's Pâ—omise that Joash should Reign over them and likewise to Anoint him This looks very like encouragement and rather seems that they intended it for an Example than to prevent its being so and is very differing from the method they use in the Cases before mentioned And all that they add as Caution hath no manner of respect to the Deposing of an Usurper or paying Allegiance to a Rightful King while such a one is seated in the Throne but the contrary Or say they that this fact either of the Princes Priests or People was to be held for a Lawful Warraâ—t for any afterward either Princes Priests or People to have Dâ—posed 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 But not one single word of Deposing an Usurper or any thing like it or of Cautioning Subjects from paying Allegiance to their Rightful King by that Example when an Usurper was on his Throne And the Pretermission of it is a clear Indication that they thought it Now a duty And I believe no good reason can be given why the Convocation should be so very express and particular in Cautioning against Resisting and Killing of Kings from those other Examples and yet give no manner of Caution against Deposing and Killing an Usurper from this Example except they thought those were not exemplary but this was And let any man consider the Method the Convocation uses and he will certainly find that when ever they mention any Examples which are not to be drawn into Practice in Succeeding Ages they plainly declare so with all possible Industry and Caution And their not doing so here and especially having from this very Example caution'd against Deposing a Rightful King it is a plain proof that they did not think that this Example of Jehoiada and the People of Judah was an Example of that kind but might so far as they justifie it be drawn into practice And this I think if men are not willfully blind is a sufficient evidence that the Convocation never thought that an Usurper might not be depos'd or that Subjects might not pâ—y Allegiance to their Lawful King tho his Throne was possessed by an Usurper or further that by a thorough Settlement they never meant usurped Powers and especially in opposition to a Rightful King Vindic. p. 25. But saith the Dr. tho the Convâ—cation does not answer a Question which they never propos'd if the setting up Joash and deposing Aâ—haliah be the Question the Convocation both propos'd and answer'd it yet saith he this is a good answer to it i. e. the Dr. thinks so but the Convocation did not for they do not make it by his own Confession But however he says it is agreeable to the sense of the Convocation in that place for they take notice that Johoiada when he had sent to the Levi es and chief Fathers c. acquainted them with the preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lords will that he should reign over them which plainly refers to that Divine Entail of the Crown upon David's Posterity so that 't is evident the Convocation it self answers the difficulties of this story by the Divine Entail What difficulties are these of owning their Rightful King and deposing the Usurper The Dr. indeed hath made some difficulty of that but the Convocation thought of none they plainly and roundly assert it was lawful and their duty so to do The difficulty of the High Priests Authority to depose a King they obviate and that the Person depos'd was an Usurper and what he did was as a Subject and not as High Priest but they make no manner of difficulty of their yielding subjection to their lawful King and then deposing the Usurper And I believe any man that attentively considers what the Convocation say in this Chapter and Canon will find that that is the main if not the only ground of their Answer that because it was lawful and a duty for Subjects to yield their Subjection and Allegiance to their Lawful King therefore what Jehoiada did in setting him up and deposing the Usurper was not peculiar to his office of High Priest but as a duty in common to him with the rest of the Subjects so that they are so far from disputing about it or using any Arguments to confirm it that they take it for granted and proceed upon it and ground their Answer upon the supposition of it But says the Dr. the Convocation taking notice that Jehoiada had acquainted them that it was the Lords will Joash should reign over them plainly refers to that Divine Entail And this he undertakes to prove more fully in the next page but to save him any further trouble I shall readily own that when the Convocation speaks of the Lords will and the Lords purpose that Joash should reign they do refer to that Entail upon David s Posterity And 't is next to impossible to think they should do otherwise for it was by virtue of that very Entail that Joash had a Right to the Crown and had there been no such Entail Joash would have had no more Right than Athaliah her self and therefore the mentioning of it was proper and necessary It was upon that account that Joash was their lawful King and Athaliah was an Usurper And it was highly reasonable that Jehoiada should juâ—tifie his proceedings upon it But what is this to the purpose do they mention this Entail in opposition to humane Entails not a word of that And how then can he say that his distinction and answer is agreeable to the sense of the Convocation For they speak it in one sense and he in another they speak it without opposition to humane Entails and he purely in opposition to them they urge it and so does Jehoiada to justifie his proceedings as acting
To this I answer This is no answer to the main point the Question is whether in the sense of the Convocation a thorough Settlement by what means soever attained did not oblige the Subjects of Judah to obedience as much as in any other Country and tho contrary to the Entail on David's posterity and it is plain they thought so for they urge the very same duties of Obedience and Non-resistance to the Babylonians and the Romans as they do to the Kings of David's Family The Babylonians and Romans when their Government was throughly setled among them their Authority was as sacred and irresistable as Joash's or any other of their Kings who were so by the Divine Entail and let the Dr. if he can shew me any one duty of Subjects which they require as due to the Kings of Judah by the Divine Entail which they do not also require as equally due to the Babylonians and Romans which is clear to a Demonstration that they thought of no such difference in this matter but that a thorough Settlement in the Kingdom of Judah was the same thing and every way as valid as in any other Country And the Inference is plain that therefore whatever possession of Power Athaliah had and whatever submission there was of the People to her â—for that the Dr. is resolv'd to suppose they did not mean that to be the thorough Settlement which has God's Authority and to which obedience is due for they urge obedience and non-resistance to the Babylonians and Romans but justifie the deposing and slaying of Athaliah But to this which is the main Question the Dr. says not one word and all that he says is that when they were at their own choice and had power they were bound to take the King on whom God entail'd the Crown but when they were under force no Entail tho made by God himself could bind them And what is all this to the Convocation speaking of a thorough Settlement without any respect to the difference between Divine and Humane Entails what if the Dr. to save a better answer has found a difference between choice and force The Convocation takes as little notice of this distinction as it does of the other But the Dr. hath an extraordinary faculty at distinguishing when the case of Athaliah and Joash presses him then he is for distinguishing between Divine and Humane Entails and Athaliah might be depos'd and slain because She was an Usurper against a Divine Entail and her Government was a nullity when the Right Heir appear'd when he is press'd with the instances of the Babylonians and Romans who according to him were likewise Usurpers against the same Divine Entail then he is for distinguishing between choice and force when they are at their own choice and have power they are oblig'd to take the King by God's Entail when under force God's Entail does not bind them So that this last distinction hath eaten up the former and the whole matter is resolved into force if they had power then the Government of the Usurper was at an end and a nullity and they were bound to prosecute and depose the Usurper But if they had not Power the Usurpers was a very good Government and ought to be obeyed for Conscience sake And so we are furnished with admirable measures of Obedience and Government if they have Power they are bound in Conscience to resist and depose if they are under force they are bound in Conscience to submit and obey so that either way the Rule of Conscience is not a Divine Entail but only force But then I wonder what the Dr. will say to that manifest difference that was between the Usurpation of Athaliah and the Government of the Babylonians and Romans They were plainly under force all the six years of Athaliahs Usurpation and how came it to pass that that would not make them Her Subjects and her Authority as irresistable as that of the other if force would do it Vindic. p. 13. why would not Athaliahs force effect it as well as Nebuchadnezzars or the Roman force Athaliahs force indeed was the force of the Kingdom and the Babylonians was a foreign force but I suppose the Dr. does not care to make that a difference and he expresly affirms the contrary for private Subjects when the Prince and Government of the Nation is violently changed and they are under force force will justifie submission and then it is much the same thing from what quarter the force comes And why then would not the force coming from Athaliahs quarter do the same thing and take off the binding Power of the Divine Entail as well as when it came from the Babylonish quarter And why were not they Athaliahs Subjects as well as to the Kings of Babylon and her Authority as irresistable The Nation the Laws the Entails were the same and there was force in one Case as well as the other why truly there was this difference that Athaliah was an Usurper and the Kings of Babylon were none And if the Dr. can find any other difference he would do well to shew it Well! however that be let us see what kind of Subjects this Doctrine makes of the Jews to the Babylonians and Romans He tells us Kings set up by providence in Kingdoms P. 35. subject to a Divine Entail may be and are deposed whenever the Right Heir appears though they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before Now the Doctor owns that the Babylonians and Romans were set up by Providence over Judah in a Kingdom Subject to a Divine Entail and therefore according to this Doctrine they might be and were deposed upon the appearance of the Right Heir as well as Athaliah I speak it with the Doctor 's limitation supposing they had power enough to depose them for we are not to suppose the Subjects of Judah could do more than they had power to do But then wherein lay that dreadful guilt of Perjury and Rebellion of Zedekiah so severely taxed and threatned in Scripture not with respect to the Rights and Settlement of Nebuchadnezzar for the Doctor tells us Kings set up by providence may be and are deposed though they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before not with respect to the Oath which he had taken to Nebuchadnezzar for the Doctor tells us again p. 37. that no Oath can oblige against a Divine Entaiâ— and therefore it was only for the want of Power and the dreadful account the Scripture gives us of the Perjury and Rebellion of Zedekiah and which was followed with such a remarkable vengeance and likewise those frequent Rebellions of the Jews and that Pharisaical spirit of Rebellion so justly taxed by the Convocation and by the Doctor too though ridiculously applied it seems the only fault and guilt of them was their foolish attempting without sufficent Power for if they had power enough they might not only lawfully but
they were bound to do it for he tells us elsewhere p. 41. though God may see fit sometimes to set a Providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the Right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose and kill them That is as he says before p. 36. whenever God is pleased to put it into their Power to place him the Right Heir on the Throne so that it seems the Jews were rare Subjects all this while and this an admirable Scheme of Obedience may men swear Allegiance to a Prince and tye themselves to him by all the sacred Bonds possible and then so soon as they have Power depose and kill him nay are as much bound in Conscience to kill him when they have Power as they were to swear to him when they had none which is an extraordinary account of Fidelity and Allegiance and very fit for an extraordinary Hypothesis But here the Dr. is hard put to it and wofully contradicts himself in the Case of Athaliah the Divine Entail is set up and is to answer all Arguments and then when the Right Heir appears the Reign of such providâ—ntial Kings is at an end Vindic. p. 41. and the Subjects may and ought to depose and kill them And he says it yet further with this Circumstance P. 35. tho they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal power before c. So that in that Case neither Rights nor Settlements nor any thing else is valid against a Divine Entail but the Usurper is to be deposed and killed But now in the Case of the Babylonians the Drs. Usurpers too to all intents and purposes as much as Athaliah and a little more for according to him they were Usurpers both against a Divine Law and a Divine Entail force is to do the business and the Divine Entail it self signifies nothing at all nor is of any validity against that For says he when they were under force as they were under the Babylonians P. 27. Macedonians and Romans no Entail tho made by God himself could bind them I have but one thing more to add that this again is as flat a contradiction and in express terms to what he says in his Case of Allegiance as ever I met with For he tells us upon this very matter Case of Alleg. p. 21. That the Prophet Jeremy's argument is prophesie or an express command from God to submit to the King of Babylon and there was great Reason for an express command from God at that time and I pray observe his reason Because himself had entail'd the Kingdom on David 's Posterity and therefore without an express command from God they could not subject themselves to any other Prince while any of that Family were living So that it seems then force nor any thing else would justifie their submission without an express command but the Drs. business now is to answer objections and if that cannot be done without contradicting himself who can help it that is the fault of the objection 2. My second Reason against the use the Dr. makes of his distinction was Answ p. 5. that the Drs. Arguments will equally justifie submission to Athaliah in the Kingdom of Judah notwithstanding such Entail as to any Usurper in any other Nation To this the Dr. replies Well and suppose he can prove it what then why then I have proved what I intended to prove and that is that the use the Dr. makes of this distinction in the present case is impertinent and trifling as we shall see presently But saith the Dr. Did I ever deny that it was lawfull to submit to Athaliah while She was possessed of the Throne and the true Heir concealed Now I do not know what the Dr. means by denying perhaps he may have some distinction in reserve to salve the business and if he have let us see it in the mean time he hath expresly affirm'd the contrary and that I think is denying it In his Case of Allegiance he tells us that God himself had entail'd the Kingdom of Judah Case of Alleg. p. 35. and therefore nothing could justifie their submission to an Vsurper when the Kings Son was found and he further says in the same place that Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of Gods chusing when he is known and to persecute all Vsurpers to the utmost and never submit to their Government And this I think is denying it with a witness for if nothing could justifie their submission to an Usurper and if they were bound never to submit to their Government then I think it is plain enough that it was not lawful for them to submit to Athaliah while She was possessed of the Throne The Drs. limitation here and the true Heir conceal'd and when the Kings Son was found and when the Right Heir was known signifies nothing for he plainly says here If any one should be condemn'd for it Jehoiada was the man who knew that Joash was living and yet for six years together while he thought fit to conceal the secret he submitted himself to Athaliah and acted under her Authority and neither blames himself nor any of the Nation for doing so Now I hope that when the Kings Son was found and when the Right Heir was known what force soever it might have with respect to the rest of the Subjects it could have none with respect to Jehoiada for he that hid him need not be told where to find him And then it follows if nothing would justifie their submission to an Usurper when the Kings Son was found then nothing would justifie the submission of Jehoiada to Athaliah if Subjects when the Prince of God's chusing was known were bound never to submit to the Usurpers Government then Jehoiada who knew that Prince was bound never to submit to Athaliah but then what becomes of the submission that he now talks on and in the next Page says it is certain they ought to be justified in it i. e. it is certain the Dr. contradicts himself for that nothing can justifie submission and they ought to be justified in their submission is as flat a contradiction as words can make But the Dr. had forgot what he said before and who can help that Vindic. p. 79. But methinks he that is more afraid of other mens inventions than their memories may a little fear his own memory and not say he never deny'd that which he hath flatly deny'd in the present controversie and in the present case But saith the Dr. Does he find in Scripture that the Jews are condemn'd for submitting all this while to Athaliah No truly I do not find it and does the Dr. find in Scripture that they did submit to her so as to become her Subjects When the Dr. finds that it is time enough
and ought to have been depos'd and the reason of this difference is manifest because the Crown of Judah was entail'd but the Crown of Israel was not and the possession of the Throne by Athaliah was in prejudice of the right Heir but the Possession by Baasha in Israel was not for no person had a better right to it than himself And this is a plain Answer to that tedious Account the Doctor gives in the two next Pages of the difference between the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel after the division of the ten Tribes whereas the plain difference is that the one was hereditary and not the other and therefore in Israel possession of the Crown gave a Right to it for there was no better Right against it but in Judah it did not and this seems the true reason why the Convocation mention'd the right Heir of that Kingdom being then living i. e. there was a plain and visible Right in being against the Possessor and which they were bound to own and stand by what possession soever an Usurper hâ—d got of the Throne And this is a sufficient Answer to what he says in the next pages but there is one thing more deserves to be taken notice of and that is the Reason he gives of the different behaviour of David and Jehu because Saul was a King by God's nomination and Joram only a providential King His words are This is the Reason of the different behaviour of David and Jehu Vindic p. 35. David was anointed as well as Jehu but he never pretended to the crown while Saul lived because there was then an anointed King on the Throne but this was not Joram 's Case he had no more than a providentiâ— Right which in the Kingdom of Israel must give place to God's anointing and therefore Jehu was King of Israel as soon as he was anointed and Joram was his subject This is a pure Reason as if God by his nomination of a person had divested himself of the Right of nominating another in his life-time if he had so pleased and if the mere nomination is a Reason against another nomination why is not the setting up a King by providence a reason of not setting up another by providence in the life-time of the first King for there is no more difference between Nomination and Nomination than there is between Providence and Providence I know the Doctor says that when God nominated any King it was always for life but that is said without proof for where does he find such a Clause in the gift that they should be Kings during life But the true Reason of the different behaviour of David and Jehu was not because Saul was an anointed King and Joram a providential King nor yet from their being both anointed for the Doctor may find that long before this time of Elisha's commanding the anointing of Jehu that God had commanded Eâ—ijah to anoint Hâ—zael King of Syria and Jehu King of Israel which if Elijah obey'd as there is no great doubt of it both Hazael and Jehu were anointed 20 years before they were actual Kings tho Benhadad of Syria and Ahab of â—srael were according to the Doctor providential Kings and therefore they did not immediately enter into possession by vertue of their being anointed or because the Kings into whose places they were to succeed were providential Kings but David was anointed not as King in present Convoc p. 46. but as Successor to Saul as the Convocation intimate and Jehu at this second anointing if he was anointed before as the command of God to Elijah seems to import and as many learned men believe was anointed King at present and appointed so for a particular end to destroy the family of Ahab And the Text is express Thus saith the Lord 2 Kin. 9. I have anoinied thee King over Israel and thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy Master c. So that together with his nomination and anointing at that time he had a command from God and which he was immediately to put in execution and God gave him accordingly Power and Authority to fulfill it but not the least intimation of the Doctor 's fancy because Joram was a providential King or because a providential Right in the Kingdom of Israel was to give place to God's anointing for whatever Right there was in the Kingdom of Judah or any other Kingdom it was to give place to that But if men without any warrant from the Text and of their own heads will be framing Schemes from Scripture to serve a wretched Hypothesis it is no great wonder if humane Writings such as the Convocation Book do not escape their corrupt Interpretations and Applications of it to serve the same end But to return The Doctor adds And what does he prove from this That according to the Doctor 's Principles Athaliah was placed in the Throne by God by his Council Decree Order and peculiar Order That is what I prove Now Athaliah says he had the actual administraâ—ion of sovereign Power and therefore according to the Doctor she was Queen by God's Authority tho not by the Law of the Land and Allegiance must be due to her as well as to any other and all the Doctor 's Arguments are as conclusive and valid for Submission to Athaliah as for submission to any body else To this the Doctor replies Grant all this and what then Why then the Doctor 's Arguments are lost by his own confession for but fifteen lines before he says that I say his Arguments will equally serve Athaliah as any other King or Queen de facto and he says if they will he will give them up for lost But says he Why then this justifies tht submission of the Jews to Athaliah while she was possess'd of the Throne and no right Heir appear'd But if he would have concluded any thing to the purpose he should have said And therefore it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah But what need was there for me to have concluded that I was disputing against the use the Doctor then made of this Distinction and for that purpose it was sufficient to shew that his Arguments equally concluded for submission to Athaliah as for submission to any other Usurper for whatsoever he says now he had said before from his Distinction that N thing would justifie their Submission to an Usurper Case oâ— Alleg. 35. and they were bound never to submit to their Government when the right heir was found I know he seems in many places of his Vindication to lay some stress upon the Kings son being found and known but in truth he means nothing by it for he equally supposes and justifies the submission of Jehoiada who knew of the right heir's being alive as well as the rest of the Subjects who he supposes did not know it But I suppose the Doctor would have had me to conclude against his Vindication
himself King whether God will or no. This I had apply'd to Athaliah and said If all Kings then surely Athaliah among the rest and I only suppos'd that Athaliah could not do what was impossible nor if she had never so much mind to it could she make her self Queen whether God would or no. But I add then it follows that Athaliah was a rightful Queen with respect to God nay she was as equally rightful with respect to him as Joash himself or as David or Solomon for he says That all Kings are equally rightful with respect to God But then I wonder how Athaliah who was a rightful Queen with respect to God should be otherwise with respect to God's Entail or that she who was rightful Queen with respect to God might justly be deposed and slain with respect to his Entail But the Dr. did not think fit to take notice of the mention I made of this Proposition and I suppose by this time the Reader is satisfied of the reason But says the Doctor This he knew did not follow from my Principles i. e. the Doctor did not say it was unlawful for Jehoiada to have anointed Joash and to have killed Athaliah And it would be pretty strange if he should But this follows from his Arguments and that is enough to shew their faultiness But I pray mark his Reason For saith he I expresly distinguish between Gods making Kings by a particular nomination as he made Kings in Jewry and entailed the Kingdom of Judah on David's Posterity and his making Kings by his Providence as he does in other Nations that is to say the Doctor defends his Distinction by his Distinction I was here arguing against the use he made of his Distinction and he tells me he expresly distinguishes so and therefore it did not follow from his Principles Very logically answer'd The next Argument I had mention'd of the Doctor 's and which he says Vindic. p. 36. There will be no great occasion to take notice of was from the necessity of Government to the preservation of humane Society for saith he I readily grant what he contends for That these Arguments will equally conclude for submission to Athaliah as to any other Usurper Well! that is as much as I can desire and then if I mistake not he must grant too that his Distinction is frivolous and his Arguments weak and not concluding for what Submission is that which the Preservation of humane Societies will justifie to be paid to an Usurper why truly according to him a full and entire Submission the very same to all intents and purposes that is due to the most rightful Prince in the World For Bishop Sanderson Case of All. p. 38. and the zealous Loyalists as he says own it lawful for Subjects to pay some kind of submission and complyance to usurped Powers but not to own their Authority But this will not satisfie the Doctor and therefore in Answer to Bishop Sanderson he tells us plainly That nothing can preserve Society without Authority in the Usurper and Duty in the Subject And if humane Societies must be preserved then the necessities of Government give Authority to the Prince and lay an obligation of duty on the Subject if God will preserve humane Societies we must conclude that when he removes one King out of the Throne he gives his Authority to him whom he places there i. e. He took it away from Joash and gave it to Athaliah For if we must conclude so from the necessity of Government to preserve humane Society I wonder why the Jews upon the same Reason were not to conclude so as well as we and then it concludes too much and that is it concludes that the Doctor 's Argument is naught But the Doctor goes a little further and says he Case of All. p. 39. I would ask whether the care of my own preservation c. does oblige me in conscience to obey and submit to the Government and the Prince who governs and to wish and pray for and do my utmost to endeavour their Prosperity if it does I see no difference between this and Alleg. and what I am bound in conscience to do I may swear to do if it does not then I am at liberty to disturb the Government notwithstanding all my gratitude when I can nay am under an Obligation by my Alleg. to the dispossessed Prince to do it when I can And how does this contribute to the safety and tranquillity of humane Societies This is pretty well and if it was but true one would have thought Athaliah as well establish'd in the Allegiance of the Subjects as any Prince in the World and a little better than Joash himself But the Doctor hath yet one step further P. 40 Suppose saith he the Government does not think it safe to leave all men at liberty to disturb it when they please and when they have a promising opportunity but should require an Oath of Fideâ—ity which is the universal practice of all Governments what shall Subjects do in this Case which question concerns as much the Subjects of Judah as any other and they must e'en swear for he tells us should every man refuse and the Prince had power enough to compel what must be the effect of this but the utter ruine and destruction of the Nation The Land indeed would remain where it was but the people must either be destroyed â—r imprison'd I suppose a million or two in a Jail or transplanted from the Temple to some other habitation or into some foreign parts as the Ten Tribes who were carryed away captive I suppose not as a just Judgment for their Rebellion and Idolatry but for their not taking an Oath to an Usurper However 't is a plain Case they must swear and tye themselves to the Usurper if he has a mind to it by all the obligations possible For the Dr. believes it will be hard to perswade any considering man that that which in such Cases is necessary to preserve a Nation is a sin and that which will infallibly destrâ—y it is a duty or vertue And so he plainly resolves that the Preservation of Humane Societies does of necessity force us to own the Authority ev'n of Vsurped Powers And to the same purpose is what he says concerning the presum'd consent of the ejected Prince that if the Princes leaving his Kingdom for his own safety will justifie him why will it not justifie Subjects when their King has left them to submit and comply with the prevailing Powers as far as it necessary to preserve themselves that is ev'n by Oaths of Allegiance if that be necessary that is when Joash was hid to save his life the Subjects of Judah to save their interests and preferments might joyn themselves to Athaliah espouse her Cause and Interest become her Subjects to all intents and purposes and take an Oath of Fidelity to her to defend her against all men ev'n against him whom
I wonder what is the difference between Actual Possession of Power and Actual administring it And if there was any difference whatever he means now in his Case of Allegiance he certainly meant the administring i. e. the performing the Acts of Government for his Argument is Case of Alleg. p. 42. If the Prince cannot govern the Subject can't obey And what does he mean by the Prince cannot govern but that he cannot perform the Acts of Government cannot exercise and administer it And the same he means with respect to the Allegiance of the Subject P. 43. The Subject cannot obey i. e. cannot actually pay his Allegiance And this he must mean if he means any thing And so he says after He may have a Legal Right but he cannot actually have the Subjects Allegiance nor can Subjects pay him their Allegiance i. e. cannot perform the Acts of it I know there is a difference between the Acts of Allegiance and the Duty of Allegiance A man may owe Allegiance where he cannot pay it and it may be due to a Person to whom the Subject cannot perform the Acts of it But this is so far from doing him service that it confutes his whole Argument for what if when the Prince can't govern the Subjects can't obey yet if the Subject may owe the Prince Obedience what if the Subject cannot pay the Prince Allegiance yet if Allegiance be due to him the Drs. Argument falls And what then makes him distinguish thus Critically Why truly I had said That the Actual administration of Government and Allegiance are not Relatives but the Acts of Relatives And to be even with me By Actual Administration he does not mean the particular Acts of Government and by Allegiance the Duty and not the particular Acts of it And what is this to the purpose Are they not the Acts of Relatives for all that What if Actual Administration should signifie Actual Posssession and Authority is it not an Act of the Relative when it signifies so as well as when it signifies particular Acts of Government What if Allegiance means that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government is not that an Act of the Relative as well as when it means the particular Acts of Allegiance Actual Authority is not the particular Acts of Government but it is the Act of the Relative the Duty of Allegiance is not the particular Acts of Allegiance but it is the Act of the Relative And therefore let the Dr. mean what he please by them it makes no Alteration in the Case For either way they are Acts of Relatives and therefore not Relatives themselves And this is the Single Question and I ask him If the Actual Administration of Government signifies Possession of Power and Authority to Govern and Allegiance means that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Goverment are they then Relatives Why truly the Dr. cannot say that tho he hath a great mind to it but says if the Author will be so severe as not to allow me to call these Relatives But the Dr. is mistaken if he thinks I contend with him only about a meer propriety of expression For the whole stress of the Argument depends upon it And if the Dr. mistakes the use of an Expression and argues and builds upon such mistake there is no reason to give up the Argument out of Complement to the Expression Relatives se mutuo ponunt tollunt But if the Actual Administration of Government and Allegiance are not Relatives then they do not se mutuo ponere tollore which the Dr. concludes from their being Relatives And this perhaps he would have me give him out of good manners for he hath not prov'd it nor does he now directly assert it But saith he they are the Relations which make the Relatives and do mutuo se ponere tollere Now if the Dr. can prove that Actual Possession of Power is the Relation that makes a King or if he can prove that the Actual Possession of Power he adds indeed and Authority to Govern but if he means by that more than Possession of Power he speaks ambiguously and ought to have explain'd himself and the Allegiance of the Subject do mutuo se ponere tollere I will not dispute with him about Terms and Expressions Now to prove this he asks 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 neccessary 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 respect to each other as Father and Son These are call'd by Logicians Relative Acts i. e. Logicians call Paternity and Filiation Relative Acts This is extraordinary and the Dr. would have done well to have told us who those Logicians are that call them so Relations I know they are call'd but Relations and Relative Acts are two things But for all that the Dr. proceeds upon it and asks Why then may not I call Government and Subjection Relative Duties He may call them so if he please but if he has no better Authority for it than that Logicians call Paternity and Filiation Relative Acts he has none at all But saith he by which I explain'd what I mean't by Relatives The Dr. call'd Government and Allegiance Relatives Case of Alleg. p. 42. and argued upon the supposition that they were Relatives and from thence draw'd a peremptory Conclusion and said This is as certain as any Proposition in Logick and to extend Allegiance beyond the actual administration of Government is to preserve a Relative without its Correlate for when one of the Relatives is lost the Relation is destroy'd And I hope no body will be so obstinate as to say that by Relatives the Dr. meant Relatives but that he meant Relations or Relative Acts or Relative Duties or any thing rather than Relatives for by Government and Subjection being Relative Duties the Dr. had explain'd what he meant by Relatives i. e. he had said Government and Allegiance were Relatives and they are not Relatives And can any body believe the Dr. should mean things are what they are not tho he says so over and over For this is all his Explication He was speaking of Government and Subjection but he was speaking of them as Relatives and affirm'd them so to be but seeing they are not so therefore when he calls them so he does not mean what he calls them but something else Now is it not a thousand times better ingenuously to own the mistake of an Expression than to be put upon such shifts to disguise it and then to
colour the matter the better to laugh away the notice of it as the Dr. very gravely This I'm sure is only a Logical Banter and so let it pass Well! but the Dr. hath explain'd himself now and for once let us take a new account for an explication and see whether he hath mended the matter but here we are at some loss in the Case of Allegiance Government and Allegiance were Relatives but in the Vindication by way of Explication they are the Relations that make the Relatives and a few lines after they are Relative Duties and a little after Vindic. p. 11. they are Relations again I remember the Dr. told me I blunder'd for want of clear and distinct notions of what I wrote But mocking is catching And here the Dr. blunders to some purpose if speaking confusedly backwards and forwards be blundering and all for want of having or for want of laying down clear and distinct notions of what he writes For as to Government and Subjection being Relative Duties I doubt he must explain himself again For Duties it seems they are and I desire to know what Duties Are they the Duties of Relations If not I desire the Dr. in his next to tell me what Duties they are but if they are then they are not the Relations themselves but such as flow from the Relation And this is a plain contradiction to what he asserts before that they are the Relations that make the Relatives But truth will out And this is the plain state of the Câ—se for it is certain they are duties and relative duties too in the sense those words are generally taken that is such duties as arise from Relation and are due to Relatives And this plainly confutes the Drs. notions and arguments for then they are not nor can be the Relations that make the Relatives for the duty flowing from the Relation and the Relation it self are two very different things not do they mutuo se ponere tollere for the failure of the actual duties of the Relative does not destroy the Relation And this is the Drs. fundamental mistake he confounds the Relation with the duty of that Relation and accordingly he asserts That the actual Administration of Government as that signifies the actual Possession of Power and Authority to govern And Allegiance as it means that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government are the Relations which make the Relatives and do mutuo 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 c. In answer to this I have these things to observe 1. This is an illogical and preposterous way of arguing 't is notum per ignotius the Relatives are well enough known but the Relations between the Relatives being abstracted things are not so easily and in some cases perhaps not at all understood The Relatives Father and Son all men understand and that there is a Relation between them but there are not many that have any formal Conception of Paternity and Filiation the Relatives Husband and Wife are evident enough but the Relations between them are not so and for ought I know have not a name in any Language and if they were expressed very few would be the wiser who notwithstanding would know well enough that there was a Relation between them And the Case is the same with respect to King and Subject and the Relations between them the Relatives are plain and obvious and well known but the Relations are abstracted things and not so distinctly apprehended And this is the reason why several Relations have no names and cannot be expressed without difficulty and artificial explication And hitherto men have not been very inquisitive about them and there was no reason for it as answering no end or no good end either a fruitless curiosity or worse to evade a Duty and perplex plain things For the Relation is inseparable from the Relative and when you have found the Relative you have found the Relation where a King is there is the Relation of a King and where is a Subject there is the Relation of a Subject it would be a wise course for a Son to seek his Father by inquiring into the Relation of Paternity or a Wife her Husband by inquiring into the Relation of an Husband at this rate we should soon have a mad World on 't and we should have as dutiful Children and obedient Wives as we have Subjects And this it seems pleases the Dr. best he is for seeking the Sun in the dark and the Subjects must find out their King by the Relations which is the backside of an Argument and begins at the wrong end In the Case of Allegiance the Dr. urg'd that Government and Allegiance were Relatives and did mutuo se ponere tollere And the Argument was proper and logical if he could but have prov'd it but when that would not do then he is for a new strein and contrary to all methods of argumentation is for proving the business by Relations and would feign know whether the Relative continues when the Relation is destroyed And this is the difference between the Dr. before and now in his Case of Allegiance the Relation ceased with the Relative but in the Vindication the Relative ceases with the Relation that is because a direct Argument cannot do it a preposterous one must and because the notion of a Relative which all men understand cannot be perplexed and intangled the Dr. is for proving his point by Relations which are not so well explained nor put into terms nor perhaps can be The Relatives in all Cases are plain enough but the Relations between them are not so plain nor are capable of being so and the Dr. thought it more for his turn when he was beaten out of the plain road to take by ways and according to some new Rules of Logick to prove a plain thing by an obscure one And this is an answer to his Question what is the Relation between King and Subject And let our Author think of any thing 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 And what if I could not think of any thing else nor of that neither do Relatives cease to be Relatives or must the Corrolate go round about the wood to look for his Relative because he cannot expresly name the relation between them There is a Relation between Husband and Wife Master and Servant and when he tells me what is the Relation between these Relatives it will be time enough to answer him
and when he answers that he will answer himself what is the Relation between Husband and Wife why truly if the Dr. will express it Logically it is in fine language Husbandhood and Wifeship And so by way of Logical Argument if the Relation of Husbandhood ceases the Wife is gone And it a man has a mind to prove that a Husband or Wife are or are not so related he must prove it forsooth from the Husbandhood and Wifeship and then it is as plain as can be and every body understands it for the Dr. tells us very Logically the Relative ceases with the Relation 2. That Actual Possession of Power and Allegiance are not the Relations which make the Relatives This the Dr. asserts and ought to have prov'd it for it is the foundation of this part of his discourse But instead of that he asks a Question or two what is the Relation of a King to a Subject his Dominion and Government Actual Dominion he means what is the Relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection and so the matter is fully proved it is so because it is so and this is very usual with him he takes for granted what hath most need to be proved and then builds upon his own suppositions and raises the force of his Arguments from them Here he tells us that Government and Allegiance are Relations and to prove this he turns it into Question and Answer and in that form says the same thing over again and then away he runs with it and draws his Arguments and Conclusions from it And then Dominion makes a King and Allegiance a Subject and if the Relation then of a King to his Subjects be Dominion and Government does he continue a King c. As if this was any more proved when it was in the form of a Question and Answer then when it was in a Proposition Well! tho he has not prov'd that Government and Allegiance are the Relations that make the Relatives he hath said enough in all Conscience to prove they are not so for he tells us that By Allegiance i. e. the Relation that makes the Relative of a Subject he means that subjection and obedience that is due to Government that is to say one Relation is due to another filiation is due to Paternity which is extraordinary fine And accordingly he asks what is the Relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection and afterwards in the next page he calls it the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance And are not these pure Characters of a Relation it would sound rarely to say the Duty of filiation or the obligations of filiation And so to avoid one piece of Logical nonsense we must make 2 or 3. And here we are at a loss again on one side of the leaf the Relation of a Subject is his due Allegiance on the other 't is the Obligations to Allegiance and due Allegiance it self and the Obligations to Allegiance are two things and which would he have us take for the Relation the Duty or the Obligation Allegiance it self or the obligations to it And all this blundering arises for want of laying down a clear and distinct notion of Relation which is nothing else but the respect the Relatives have to each other and because they have such a Respect thence arise the Reâ—pective Acts Duties and Obligations but these are not the Respect but flow from it and are consequential to it The Relation of a Father is Paternity that is a Father is related to his Son by being his Father for being the Father of a Son is Paternity But Paternal Authority or the duty of Parents are not the Relation but result from it The Relation of a Son is filiation that is a Son is related to his Father by being his Son And this is the same in all other Relations as the Relations of Husband and Wife Master and Servant King and Subject the Relations consist in the respect that the Relatives have to each other the Relation of a King to his Subjects is being their King But Kingly Authority is no more the Relation of a King than Paternal Authority is the Relation of a Father but only results from his Relation and is in nature consequential to it But I expect the Dr. will ask me what is the Relation of a King But he knows well enough of the complaint of penury of words in this point and that Aristotle says in such cases we must invent words if it be needful to express it But it is all one to me let him call it Government Sovereignty Sovereign Power Magistracy or Kingship or what he pleases provided he will but observe these two conditions 1. That the meaning of them be not extended beyond the notion of Relation for they and I think any other words whereby this may be expressed are words of ambiguous signification and as in one sense they may mean the Relation of a King so in another sense they may mean the acts or duties that result from it Government may mean actually governing and then it may be the Act of the Relative or the Act of one that is not the Relative but neither in one sense nor the other is it the Relation of the Governour and if it means that it is in an abstracted sense and is not to be taken for actual Government actual Administration or actual Power For no act or duty of the Relative can be the Relation but only for the bare and naked respect of the Governour to the Subject for Logicians tell us that Relationes sunt nudae formae per quas Relata referuntur 2. That they only terminate on the Relative for the Relative is the Subject of the Relation and the Relation is the Relation of the Relative but of no body else tho he should stand in the place of the Relative if the Dr. likes to call the Relation of a King Government be it so but then it is only the Government of the true King that is that Relation but not of another tho he actually administers the Government of Sovereign Power let it be so but then it is the Power of the true Sovereign that is that Relation not the Power of every one that gets into the place of the true Sovereign Paternity is the Relation of a Father but this Relation can be extended to none but the true Father what Power and Authority soever another man may get in his Family the Relation of a Husband call it by what name you will is confin'd to his Person and tho another man cohabits with his Wife he does not therefore stand in the Relation of a Husband to her nor she in the Relation of a Wife to him The truth is all the Drs. Actual Administrations actual Government actual Possession of Power are no Relations at all nor yet do they mean any thing but as they proceed from the Relative But if they proceed from
any other besides the Relative they neither make nor prove nor are any signs at all of a Relation Government is the Authority and Administration belonging to the Relation of a King and when it is administred by the King 't is valid and authoritative and draws the Allegiance of the Subjects after it but if it be administred by one that is not the King that Administration does not make him a King nor confer the Relation nor make him stand in such a Relation to the Subject All Kingly Acts receive their force and validity as they are Acts of the King and not as Acts of Power and the very same Acts done by another are nothing at all Actual Allegiance or the same Obedience that is due to the Rightful King may be performed with the same fidelity or with greater and may be sworn too to one that is no King But this does not make the Relation of a Subject at that rate a man may be a Subject when he please and to whom he please and he may discharge himself as oft as he please And I wonder what reason there is why actual Government should make a King any more than actual Allegiance makes a Subject for the Dr. tells us the Relations make the Relatives Government makes a King and Allegiance makes a Subject And if actual Government makes a King then actual Allegiance makes a Subject for according to him Allegiance is as much the Relation of a Subject as Government of a King This the Dr. seems aware of and therefore says 't is the Subjects due Allegiance But if it be due Allegiance that makes a Subject then I doubt it must be due Government also that makes a King and that is not meer Administration but Lawfull Authority 3. That actual Administration of Government or actual Possession of Power and Allegiance do not se mutuo ponere tollere Here the Dr. tells us They have a mutual and necessary respect to each other Allegiance has as necessary relation to Dominion as Subject to a King if there be no King there can be no Subject if no Dominion and Government there can be no Allegiance By this he means actual Dominion P. 38. as he says afterward where actual Dominion and Government ceases the Kingship is lost and the obligations to subjection and Allegiance with it Now it would be sufficient here to turn the Drs. Argument and Questions upon himself and to ask as he does what are the Relations between actual Government and Allegiance For it seems they are related as much as the Relatives themselves He tells us indeed that Government and Allegiance are the Relations between King and Subject But I desire to know what are the Relations between Government and Allegiance for these it seems have a mutual and necessary respect to each other Now 't is egregious Logick to talk of the Relation of a Relation and this is Progressus in Infinitum For if there are Relations between the Relations then what are those Relations between them for those Relations must have as mutual and necessary a respect to each other as the former Relations and so on without end And this is pure disputing and shews the vanity of such new methods of argumentation hitherto men have been satisfied that the Relations are between the Relatives and there was an end but to talk of Relations between Relations is absurd and ridiculous and makes the Question everlasting But as to the mutual being and ceasing of actual Government and Allegiance as to the reasons against it something hath been said before and more will be said presently I shall now only shew the absurdity of it from example but it is such a one as evidences the falsity of this assertion and the fallacy of the Drs. Reasonings to support it better than any Arguments or trains of discourse It is the Case of that glorious Martyr King Charles the First Now if this be true then when King Charles was kept Prisoner at Holdenby Hampton Court the Isle of Wight and St. James's He ceased to be King and the People of England owed him no Allegiance nor were his Subjects For I suppose actual imprisonment is not actual Possession of Power And so it seems the High Court of Justice was in the right and they did not murder their King but only Charles Stewart For tho the man was in being the King was gone and went away with his actual Power And the Dr. afterwards for when God has taken away his Government he has taken away his Authority to govern for God never gives the Civil Authority without the Civil Sword The actual Possession of Power and the Duty of Allegiance are Relations at least and saith the Dr. if the Relation 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 his Subjects continue Subjects when he ceases to be King And so by plain dint of Argument it seems King Charles's Government was at an end some time before that horrid murder and no duty of a Subject was owing to him for one Relative cannot subsist by it self without its correlate Now the short of the matter is this either King Charles was King notwithstanding his imprisonment and notwithstanding his being divested of all actual Power or he was not if not then the attempting his life what crime soever else it might be was not Treason nor within the Stat. of the 25. Edw. 3. And the Indictment of the Regicides upon that Stat. was faulty and they ought to be indicted not as Traytors but as Murderers But if he was King all that time then actual Possession of Power actual Administration and actual Government and the Allegiance of the Subject have not such a mutual and necessary respect to each other as that the Allegiance of the Subject ceases upon the Princes not being in the Possession of actual Power Something of this I had said before in the Case of Joash That Allegiance was due to him before he actually administred the Government Postscript p. 10. nay when an Usurper actually administred it and so it was to David when he fled out of the Country But the Dr. it seems would trouble his readers no more about that case But here is another Case tho the reason be the same and if he please he may trouble himself to answer it and acquit himself from the Infamy that that Case charges upon his Doctrine and Arguments In the mean time how is the Doctrine he delivers here agreeable to the Answer he gives with respect to the times of Usurpation between 48. and 60. I had told him that his account of a Settlement would fit Cromwel and those Usurpers and tho he had mention'd some differences yet they made no difference in the Argument This the Dr. denies and says they were not setled according to his account of a Settlement not having a national consent and therefore
they might or they might not submit it was lawful but not necessary nor matter of Conscience and they might be determin'd by their honour or interest well suppose all this and that those Usurpers were not so setled were not each of them actually possess'd of Power Did they not actually administer the Government And this the Dr. in that very answer expresly asserts That the Power of the Nation was for some time in their hands Vindic. p. 69. And if it was in their hands then they actually possess'd it and for the time they possess'd it they must according to him be Sovereigns at least Sovereigns of Gods making and the Allegiance of the Subject was so long due to them For it is as certain as any proposition in Logick that actual possession of Power and Subjection are relations and have a mutual and necessary respect to each other and that Dominion and Government makes a King But then what becomes of the fine pretences of Honour Interest and his notion of a thorough Settlement for if these Usurpers were not setled according to his account of a Settlement they were possessed of Power according to his account of Possession of Power And if Actual Government makes a King Cromwel was a King and had the Relation of a King and the People were bound in Conscience to submit to him and then I would feign know how the Drs. Honour and Interest would excuse them Now tho the Dr. will not allow me that his account of a thorough Settlement fits Cromwel to all intents and purposes his Account of Possession of Power and administration of Government fits him just as if it had been made for him Now to say no more this is as great a Reflection upon those Worthies of our Church and Nation as I had charg'd upon his account of a thorough Settlement Well! but this I suppose is a prejudice and no argument But I will tell him what is an argument and directly against him and that is that his Answer there is a plain contradiction to all his Arguments and Assertions here and I pray him to reconcile them He hath given us a great many distinctions already but none of them will serve the turn and if he please to find out one more to make his Answer there and his Doctrine here to agree For if actual Possession of Power and Allegiance have a mutual and necessary respect to each other let him tell me if he please why the Rumps and Cromwels actual Possession of Power and the Subjects Allegiance had not as mutual and necessary respect to each other as the Actual Possession of Power by any other Usurper The Dr. by way of objection to what he had said says All that I know 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 tho he be fallen from Power is King still and Subjects are Subjects still and owe Allegiance to him By this time I suppose the Dr. may know that something else may be said in this Cause And I know no manner of necessity why we must say so now for the single question is whether Actual Government and Allegiance are the Relations that make the Relatives and do mutuo se ponere tollere And this may be sufficiently determin'd without mingling the Fundamentum Relationis in the dispute But this objection he made for his own sake and tho it be not needful for us to say that the Relation continues as long as the Fundamentum Relationis continues it was very needful for him to say so And it is the very answer he gives to what I said to prove P. 40. that Actual Government and Allegiance do not mutuo se ponere tollere if a Subject be taken captive or otherwise hindred from paying actual Allegiance is the Relation lost and does he therefore immediatly 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 To this the Dr. replies these two cases are not parallel in the first case tho the Subject is taken captive yet the Foundation of the Relation is not destroy'd for his Prince is on his Throne still in the Actual Administration of Government tho he be violently torn from him so that his Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related But when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the Foundation of the Relation is at present destroy'd And now we see the meaning of the Drs. objection which was not to answer an objection of ours which we never made nor need to make but to prepare an Answer to an Argument which otherwise he could not Answer But for all this artifice he must have a good hand at reconciling contradictions that can reconcile this Answer with his foregoing assertions The Foundation of the Drs. Argument is that Government and Allegiance are Relations and do mutuo se ponere tollere and then the ceasing of Allegiance destroys the Relation of Government as much as the ceasing of Government destroys the Relation of Allegiance and when a Subject falls from his Allegiance he dissolves the Relation of the Prince to him as much as the Princes falling from actual Government dissolves the Relation of a Subject For this I take to be the meaning of muto se ponunt tollunt But the Dr. whatsoever he had said the leaf before is now for making a single not mutual Respect of it The Prince is in the Throne and in the actual Administration and therefore the Subject is the Subject still whatsoever becomes of his Allegiance and that is nothing destroys the Relation between King and Subject but the Princes losing actual Government but then what becomes of mutuo se ponunt tollunt and Actual Government and Allegiance having a mutual and necessary respect to each other that is not for me to know and the Dr. may reconcile it and if he please he may take his Fundamentum Relationis along with him to help him out And yet after all I must confess the Dr. has given a very good answer for he says that the King is on the Throne still tho the Subject is violently torn from him and the Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related and this is certainly true But then it follows the Relation of a Prince may continue because he has Subjects to whom he is related for mutuo se ponunt as well as tollunt And if the Relation of a Subject continues tho he be violently torn from his Prince the Relation of a Prince continues
as much bound to observe their own Laws as the People of Judah were theirs Now if this be that which I would prove what need was there of so many previous Questions to entangle a plain thing and I own this is that which I would prove only I except against his all Cases and to all intents and purposes which are his words and not mine and I will no more answer for his sense than he will for mine My words are as much bound which the Dr. sums up too and adds in all Cases and to all intents c. as much oblige whereas it is enough if they oblige as much in the present Case and to the Present purpose without running any further And I do assert that Entails of the Crown made by Humane Laws do as much oblige the Subjects to own the Authority of their Rightful King by those Laws and to disown the Authority of an Usurper as the Entail of God upon the Posterity of David did oblige the Subjects of Judah to own Joash and to Depose and Slay Athaliah and let us see what the Dr hath to say to it He replys The Dispute in general about the Authority and Obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denyes it Very well but I doubt they must oblige as much and in such Cases only as will fit the Drs. turn But yet saith he we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Humane Laws tho made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe the Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God Now I thought the Dr. had some fetch in putting in these same in all Cases and to all intents and purposes But did I ever say that meer Humane Laws were as sacred as Divine Laws but as to their obligation the Subjects in other Countrys are as much oblig'd to observe their Political Laws as the People of Judah were theirs tho the one is made by God himself and the other by his Authority And this for the Reason that I gave because all Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience And need the Dr. be told what is the meaning of Humane Laws binding in Conscience which hath an immediate Respect to the Law of God And the formal Reason that Humane Laws oblige in Conscience is not because they are meer Humane Laws as the Dr. hath a mind to phrase it but because it is the declared Will of God they should be obey'd and the obligation in Conscience to Humane Laws is resolv'd only into the Law of God And I hope the obligation may be equal with respect to the Law of God tho the Laws themselves are not equal in all Cases and to all intents and purpose And I wonder where is the singularity of asserting this as the Dr. out of extraordinary candor hath a mind to insinuate But saith he the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature tho they be both the Laws of the Country for which they are made i. e. tho they are both Laws and tho they both receive their binding power as they are Laws and tho the difference the Dr. contends for is that the one is a Law of God and the other is a Law of man Yet it seems the Dispute about Laws would not serve the Turn and therefore they must be considered not as Laws but as Entails tho I must confess I can see no difference in that for if they are Entails they are Laws and they are Laws as they are Entails And I do not very well see how their Consideration can be sever'd or what need there is for it But for all that P. 43. the Dr. tells us it will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a Providential Settlement of them in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and tho God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence will not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a Providential King when it is in their Power to set the Right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Humane Entail is only a Providential Settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is seâ—â—â—d only by Providence may be unâ—â—â—led by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones And what is all this to the Purpose and what signifies this tedious Relation of his Hypothesis which we must have at every turn And what is this to the difference of the dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and Divine and Humane Entails All that concerns that is that a Divine Entail is God's Providential Setling the Crown by the express Revelation of his Will i. e. it is a Divine Law And a Humane Entail is only God's Providential Settlement of the Crown on such a Family and that is he hath setled it by a Humane Law And I would fain know whether it binds as an Act of Providence or as a Law But it seems the Laws of Entail are to be submitted to not as Laws but as Providences And if we must talk in this Cant I say that a Divine Entail is God's Providential Settlement of the Crown by express Revelation that a Humane Entail is God's Providential Settlement by a Humane Law but Vsurpation is a bare Act or Permission of Providence and no Settlement of the Crown at all And why does a bare Act or Permission of Providence defeat a Providential Settlement by Humane Law any more than it does a Providential Settlement by Divine Law The Dr. says what is setled by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again Very well but then it is the same degree of Providence The Dr. says we must not expound Providence against the express revelation of God's Will And I reply we must not expound a bare Act or permission of Providence against a Providential Settlement by Law But all this while my Answer is not touch'd which is that the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs God's Entail was the Political Law of that Kingdom and a Humane Entail is the Law of other Hereditary Kingdoms and the Laws of other Countrys oblige in Conscience as well as the Laws of Judah And if it was not lawful to own the Authority of an Usurper in the Kingdom of Judah because contrary to their Laws and their obligations to them neither is it so in any
a good reason why the providence of God does not take effect against Legal Rights But how will this agree with the Drs. Doctrine and Argument Does God reserve the redress of these contrary to his own Decrees and Orders Do such reservings exclude himself and his own interpositions by providence When God has done this once shall he never be at liberty to dispose it otherwise and will not the Dr. allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever reasâ—ns the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done he iâ— resâ—lv'd to abide by whatever hâ— tâ—â—â—ks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and 〈◊〉 providence that it shall not after its usual methods in the Government of the Woâ—ld which are his Arguments but the very page before and if they prove any thing at all they are equally valid against such a Reserve as against any other Legal Right and if the Dâ— will answer them fairly he will save any man the trouble of answering his Book The Dr. adds But the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a Legal decision or any Humane Courts for the decision of which God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires And here the final determination of providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of the Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Sovereign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he please as he can best serve the wise and many times unsearchable designs of his providence by it To this I answer and because he hath the same in other places I shall do it distinctly 1. The Rights of Princes may and ought to be determined by Law as well as those of Subjects I have already instanced in the differences between the Houses of York and Lancaster where the Law hath decided the controversie and the Case hath been the same in other Kingdoms but I wonder whoever insisted on a Providential Title or thought it a sufficient competition for a Legal Tiâ—le There is never a Prince nor private Man in Christendom nor the Dr. himself that would change his Legal Title for a Providen ial one which is a preâ—ty plain Case that however some People may talk of it no body believes it But because there are no Judges and Juries appointed and the Rights of Princes are not to be tryed in Westminster Hall nor in other Courts of Judicature therefore Possession and Providence must determine it But this is manifestly false for the Law is as proper a Judge of the Rights of Princes as of any other their Persons are not under the Law but their Titles are and the Laws declare who is and who is not King as much as they do who is or who is not any inferior Proprietor And as to what the Dr. says of a Tribunal I suppose he means to inforce this upon the Subject for the matter is declared by the Law and there needs no Tribunal for that no more than there needs a visible Judge of controversies in matters of Religion 't is a duty under the direction of the Law and every Person concerned is bound to take notice of it But as for the other if the Law may take its course there are Tribunals enough But indeed when the Prince is dispossessed there is no Tribunal to force this and to punish the neglect that is there is no Power to hang a Man if he does not take notice of the Law and there is power to hang him if he does This makes some difference as to punishment but none as to duty for the obligation arises from the direction of the Law and not from the external force to compel the observance and the direction of the Law binds when there are and when there are not Courts of Judicature to put it in execution 2. There is no Tribunal for the Correction of Princes but Gods Very true And therefore they are not accountable to the People for mal-administration Their Persons are sacred their Authority irresistable and unalienable And these were the Inferences that hitherto the Men of the Church of England have drawn from this Doctrine but the Dr. hath found out a new Inference that the Subjects may resist him and shake off his Authority and kill him too if need be and all for this weighty Reason because they have put another in the possession of his Throne I know the Dr. calls it Providence but that is the English of it 3. 'T is true God hath reserved to himself the Correction of Sovereign Princes and somtimes he doth here actually correct and punish them and dispossession is sometimes design'd as a Punishment by God himself But still the Question returns is such a dispossession by providence a sufficient evidence that God hath given away the Kingdom from the dispossessed to the Possessor of the Throne and 'till that can be made out all these Arguments and Inferences signifie nothing And that is manifestly false in the Case of David he for the punishment of his sins was dispossessed by his own Son but God by that providence did not take away the Kingdom from David and give it to Absolom And God had then erected no Universal Tribunal for the decision of such Cases no more than he has now The Question therefore is not whether there are some Cases too big for a Legal Decision or Humane Courts or whether God hath reserv'd to his own judgment the correction of Princes and transferring Kingdoms But the Question is whether the Possession of the Throne by providence divests the Rightful King of the Crown and of the Allegiance of the Subjects while his Person is in being and his Legal Right remains And that the matters being reserved to God's own Tribunal does not prove the nature of the thing indeed proves that cases that cannot be redressed by publick Government are reserved to God's own judgment but their being so reserved which is the full of the Drs. Argument does not prove that therefore every Providential Possession of the Throne is God's final determination or any warrantable evidence to conclude from thence that God hath made him a King and the People his Subjects Dr. Sherlock makes another Collection from providence in this very case No Vsurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of the natural Prince such Vsurpers Case of Resist p. 132. the they have the Possession of the supreme Power yet they have no right to it and tho God for wise reasons may sometimes permit such Vsurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence he secures their Title too 4. The Dr. says that in correction of Princes
visible Settlement not a Legal one the Settlement of a private Person in an estate is a Legal Settlement and to make the Cases Parallel one must be actually setled not legally and the other must be legally setled And so a thorough Settlement in one sense is Parallel to a thorough Settlement in another sense even just as a Tryal of skill is Parallel to a Tryal at Law or the Drs. Picture is Parallel to himself But Parallel is a term in Mathematicks as Settlement is a term in Law But when they come to be apply'd to Usurpation they must change their signification and mean the clean contrary And there is all the reason in the World for if Usurper signifies a King why may not Settlement signifie Illegal Possession and Parallel signifie inequality Now 't is no marvel the Dr. tells his Answerer he expects to hear no more from him for who is able to answer such terrible arguments as these The Dr. here tells us that by his Principles Kings must be throughly setled in their Governments before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them Now I cannot tell what his Principles are but this I can tell that his Arguments prove no such thing I know indeed that to get the Convocation of his side he hath given us a new sense of a thorough Settlement and that as the chief is the Consent and submission of the States and the great Body of the Nation And when he hath done that he takes his leave on 't for his Arguments neither concern a thorough Settlement in his sense nor in the true sense For what has God's removing and setting up Kings Case of Alleg. p. 12. 14. the events of Providence being his Decree and Order That those are all rightful Kings who are placed in the Throne by God that he is our King who is setled in the Throne in the Actual Administration of Sovereign Power c. That the Scripture account means only the Powers that be i. e. those that are in the Actual Administration of Government c. p. 21. And what is all this to the Peoples consent And here I ask the Dr. this plain Question does the Peoples consent convey any thing to the Government or does it not if not how comes it necessary or how comes it to be only unlawful to dispossess Princes when they are throughly setled i. e. when the People have consented but not before But if it does convey any thing then Providence alone does not do it and then it does not follow that when a Prince is in the Possession of the Throne and in the Actual Administration of Government that he hath God's Authority for that is a strange Authority from God which the People may chuse or refuse at their pleasure But the truth is the Drs. notion of a thorough Settlement hath rooted up the very foundations of Government and plainly center in the Commonwealth Principles And that is the bottom of the business and for the proof of this I will be tryed by the Dr. himself In his Case of Allegiance disputing against a Legal Right p. 25. he thus delivers himself To say that God sets up no Prince who ascends the Throne without a humane and legal Right is to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the consent of the People for if God can't make a King without their consent declared by their Laws and if the Dr. will give me leave I say without their consent declared by themselves or the States or the great body of the Nation the Authority must be derived from the People not from God or at least if it be God's Authority yet God cannot give it himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws I add by their consent But what becomes of the Drs. thorough Settlement by the Consent of the People all this while why it may be he had forgot it But however he tells us that it is his Principle and that may be too but heretofore men used to bring Arguments to prove and not to confute their Principles The Dr. goes on as our Author has stated the case it signifies nothing to the present purpose for whether private mens estates be setled by a Divine or Humane Entail it is the same case if they suffer injury from their Fellow Subjects they must seek for redress from Publick Government That is the saying that the Land of Judah was entailed by a Divine Entail as well as the Crown is not to the present purpose tho the great stress of the Drs. Answer lies in the difference between a Divine and a Humane Entail And it is plain enough from thence that a Divine Entail made no difference as to Providence and Property between that and other Nations But his reason is that private injuries may be redressed by publick Government well and that is a reason to prove that no providential dispossession of a private man is any warrant against Law But it is no reason to prove that a providential dispossession of a Prince is such a warrant but the contrary for being above or under the Law makes no alteration in the nature of Providence and it is odd to say that Providence has power and efficacy in Cases where the Law has none but has none where it has But this hath been considered before and as to the matter of God's setling the Land of Canaan by Divine Entail The Dr. after having said that he could have told me how to have applied the Case to the purpose and methinks he that hath said so little to the purpose need not have neglected what had been to his purpose shews some difference between the Land of Canaan and other Countries But those are not at all to his purpose In Canaan saith he where God allotted every tribe and family their inheritance none could pretend to a Right to any portion of Land but what was allotted him But in other Countries which were left in Common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Very true but not when they were not left in common but property was inclosed by Laws Legal Possession then only gave a Right But saith he Thus in Judah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those that were nominated by God or had the Crown descended on them by a Divine Entail But in other Countries Possession and Occupation gave a Right to the Allegiance of Subjects Now if the Dr. would have made this Parallel he should have said in other Countries where Government was left in Common and then it had been true enough for no body had a better Right but it is not so where the Crown is entail'd by Laws Possession gives no more Right to the Crown than it gives to private Estates In Canaan saith he when God had setled such an inheritance in a family it could never be perpetually alienated and tho it were sold it could
one at least of the Church of England on his side but such a one it seems was not to be found and therefore he gives us two Forreigners both learned men indeed but against one there is just exception and the other is not for him Mr. Calvin for any thing I know may be of the Drs. opinion and any man that considers the turbulent State of Geneva at that time and the Revolution there will be able to give a Reason for it and I think there is no great Question but as he suited his Church Discipline so he did his Doctrines about Government to the circumstances of that State And his Doctrine of a power reserved to inferior Magistrates Calv. Inst l. 4. c. ult to restrain and coerce Kings is another instance of it And the one hath just as much Authority as the other And to say no more the Judgment of Mr. Calvin in point of Government hath always been exploded by the Church of England and it is a great evidence the Dr. is very much streightned for Authors when no body but Mr. Calvin can be found to concur with him He might if he had pleas'd have nam'd Dr. Goodwin and it would have done as well But as for Grotius the Dr. interpâ—ets him as he does the Scripture Grotius does say indeed Grot. in Rom. 13.1 That God rules and changes Governments not only by his common Providence by which he leaves many things in their natural order but with Wisdom suited to the advantage or the punishment of the Subjects c. And what then therefore he believ'd the Apostle meant usurped as well as legal Powers or that it is the Law of God that every person possessing himself of the Throne by Providence is a King of God's making and ought to be own'd as such I wonder how he will draw this out of Grotius's words And Grotius himself plainly asserts the contrary De jure belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. Restat ut de invasâ—re Imperii videamus non postquam longa possessâ—ne aut pacto jus nactus est sed quamdiu durat injuste possidendi causa quidem dum possidet actus imperii quot exercet vim latere possunt obligandi non ex ipsius jure quod nullum est sed ex eo quod emnino probabile sit cum qui jus imperandi habet c. Nec minus licebit invasorem imperii interfâ—ere si diserta auctoritas accedat ejus qui jus verum imperandi habet and that when he speaks to the Question ex professo He tells us that an Usurper not after he hath acquired a Right by long possession or agreement but so long as the Reason of his unjust possession remains While he is in possession the acts of Government which he exercises may oblige but not from any Right derived from him which is none but from the presumptive consent of the Right Heir and then puts the Question Whether it be lawful to depose or to kill such an Usurper and in some cases affirms it and among those this is one If it be with the Authority of him whose the Right is whether that Right be in a King Senate or the People And to these saith he we are to reckon the Tutors and Guardians of young Princes as Jehoiada was to Joash when he deposed Athaliah And it is yet more remarkable what he adds Besides these cases I do not think it lawful for a private person to depose or kill an Usurper And for what reason not one single word of the Doctor 's Hypothesis nor any thing like it of his havinâ— God's Authority or being God's providential King but truly from the old beaten reason the presumptive consent of the true King It may so be saith he that he who has Right to the Government had rather leave the Usurper in possessiâ—n than give occasion to dangerous and bloody troubles c. And again likewise speaking of Contracts personal and real the latter of which he says are Leagues and Contracts made with Princes which bind their Successors and People as well as themselves and then adds A League made with a King remains in force altho he or his Successor be driven from his Kingdom by his Subjects and his reason is For the right of the Government is with him tho he hath lost the possession Sane cum Rege initum fâ—edus manet etiamsi rex idem aut successor regno sâ—â—â—itis sit pulsus Jus enâ—m regni pours ipsiâ—m manet utâ—â—â—que posse sâ—mâ—m amiserit contra si alieni regni invasâ—r volente vero rege aut oppr ssâ—r c. beâ—lo impeâ—atur nihil en siet contra foedus c. ibid. lib. 2. cap. 16. And on the contrary if an Usurper or an Oppressor of a free People before he hath a sufficient consent of them be invaded by War the true K. consenting this is no breach of the League because they have only possession but they have no Right And this is the meaning of that which F. Quintius said to Nabis Livy lib. 34. We made no friendship and society with you but with Pelops the just and lawful King of the Lacedemonians And here by the way we have not only the sense of Grotius but a very good Argument likewise for if in real Contracts made with a King as sustaining the person of a supreme Governour if these bound to his person out or Possession and not to the Usurper in Possession it is plain the Prince out of Possession is the King and the Usurper is none for the Contract or League was made with him as King of such a Country and if he ceases to be King the binding power of the Contract ceases as to him for as the Dr. phraseth it the Man is in being but the King is gone and the Contract goes away with it and being real and not personal passes to him that is King But now if such a Contract does not pass to the Usurper nay if it be no breach of it to fight with and to invade him and if it remains with the dispossessed â—rince then he is the King of that Country and the Usurper that possesses his Throne is not And Grotiâ—s says The Qualities in Leagues of Kings and their Successors and the like properly signifie Right and the Cause of an Usurper is odious This Argument will reach a great way and any man may improve it to deâ—ect the fallacy both of the Doctor 's and of some other Arguments But it may be sufficient here to observe that tho the Dr. ciâ—es Grotius and seems to triumph in it yet that he is not for him but directly against him What follâ—ws is extraordinary What saith the Dr. thinâ—s he of Bishop Overal's Conversation were there no learned men in it and yet they 〈◊〉 this Doctrine before John Goodwin was thought of What kind of Argument does the Dr. call this This is the thing in controversie and the Dr.
removeth Kings and setteth up Kings Dan. 17.2.21.37 Now saith the Dr. the whole of his Answer is That Usurpers are no Kings and therefore tho God removes and sets up Kings he does not set up Usurpers and the whole of his proof is that Athaliah was an Usurper and no Queen Now the Dr. who talks so much about the honesty of altering his Order should himself one would think have dealt more justly and not have mention'd only part of my Answer and in downright terms affirm'd it was the whole Now my Answer was this Postscript p. 12. These the Expressions of the Prophet Daniel are certainly true but nothing to his purpose for God did always set up and remove Kings but this was no evidence that God would have Usurpers obey'd as Kings as is evident in the case of Athaliah And God did as much remove and set up Kings in the Kingdom of Judah as in any other Kingdom and therefore it cannot from these Expressions be necessarily concluded That every person that gets possession of the Throne is a King and ought to have the duties belonging to a King paid to him And is this no more than saying an Usurper is no King or need the Dr. be told wherein the force of this Answer lies which is That these Expressions are no Evidence that every person possess'd of the Throne is a King or that God would have them obey'd as Kings and that is not as the Dr. is pleased to say only that an Usurper is no King but that which the Dr. cites to prove his Hypothesis does not prove it and the reason of that is for that the Prophet Daniel delivers a general Doctrine not peculiar to Times and Seasons or Countries but what was always so and God gives Kingdoms to whomsoever he will and removeth and setteth up Kings in all Ages and Places and particularly in the Kingdom of Judah as well as any other Kingdom Now if this general Doctrine did not prove that God had given the Kingdom of Judah to every one that possess'd the Throne and took it away from him that was dispossessed if it did not prove in particular that God had given it to Athaliah and took it away from Joash then it is as clear as the Sun that it cannot necessarily be concluded from this passage in Daniel that Possession of the Throne is an evidence that God gives and Dispossession an evidence that God takes away the Kingdom for God gave Kingdoms remov'd and set up Kings as much with respect to the Kingdom of Judah as to any other Country But this it seems is no Answer and yet however it comes to pass it answers all that the Dr. hath reply'd as we shall see presently Well but I said that Usurpers were no Kings I did so and I thought I had given a good reason for it and that is That all learned men deny that an Usurper is a King But that it seems is no Reason with the Dr. Let all learned men or all the world say what they will if it does not serve the Doctor 's tuâ—n it is Nonsense For that is his whole proof that an Usurper is a King To say saith he that a King without a legal â—itle or an Usurper who has a setled poss ssion in the Doctor 's sence of a Settlement of the Regal Power is no King is Nonsense yes iust as much Nonsense as to say that a Man who cohabits with a Woman and is not lawfully married is not her Husband For saith he Regal Power and Authority makes a King as S. Austin Regnum à Regibus Reges à Regendo Certainly proofs are mighty scarce when scraps of Poets and the derivation of Words are brought for proofs Doctor à docende and therefore every man that teaches is a Doctor And yet S. Austin must be quoted for this too and the Book and Chapter punctually on the Margin He might as well have cited Calepin or Robert Stephens and their Authority in such casuistical points as these would have been a little more than S. Austin's however he goes on and tells us it is certain i. e. the Dr. confidently affirms it tho he does not prove it that he who has the exercise of the Regal Power and Authority is King whether we will call him so or no and he is no King who has no Regal Power whatever his Title be i. e. Cromwell was a King tho he was not call'd so and King Charles the Second the first twelve years of his Reign was no King tho he was call'd so And this makes our Laws Nonsense with a witness which own him as King all the time of the Usurpation and yet the Dr. adds If this be not so i. e. his proposition before our Laws are Nonsense which distinguish between a King de jure and de facto if a King de facto be no King â—ho it signifies one who is actually King Now this is Sophistry and it lies in the Ambiguity of the Expression a King de facto signifies one that is actually King but if it be spoken in opposition to a K. de jure then it signifies one that is in the place of King but is in truth no King and a King de facto in that sense is no more a King than a Counterfeit is the real thing it self because it is called by the same name And the Law it self 1 Edw. 4. cap. 1. where this distinction is made plainly expounds what is meant by a King de facto by calling the same Persons most commonly pretenced Kings i. e. Persons who had that name but in reality were no Kings at all And a pretenced King is no more a King than a Hypocrite is a Christian he is one in name and shew but in reality no such thing Altho I believe there is some difference between a King de facto and a meer Usurper as there is a difference between administring the Government sub ratione juris and without any pretence of Right at all But I shall not engage in this Controversie the Dr. already being so well answer'd by a learned pen. But saith he What sense does this make of what the Prophet Daniel says that God changeth Times and Seasons removeth Kings and setteth up Kings By Kings here according to our Author the Prophet means not Usurpers but rightful and lawful Kings And then the meaning is that God pulleth down rightful Kings and setteth up rightful Kings Now as for setting up rightful Kings our Author likes it very well but how does be like pulling down rightful Kings which is as much against Law and Right as to set up Kings without Right and that it seems he does Very well and so he does and does this contradict any thing that I have asserted God removed Saul and set up David he remov'd Joram and set up Jehu he removed Jehoiakim and set up Nebuchadnezzar and all rightful Kings and where is the harm or absurdity of
a Settlement but the inference even with respect to his own notion is the same for he owns that it is not a duty to obey a Person in Possession of the Throne 'till he is thoroughly setled in his sense And that is till then he is no King for he is a King of Clouts whom no body is bound to obey so that either way it is not God's setting up or setting upon the Throne that denominates a King but that joyn'd with other Circumstances and the Question between us is Whether that is the Consent of the States and People or the Acquisition of Right The Dr. says If I will allow the dispossessed Kings to be Legal Kings he wonders how I should fansie that those Kings who dispossess the Rightful Kings and place themselves in their Thrones should in my sense be Legal and Rightful Kings too And yet I had told him how as plain as I could speak by the Death or Cession of those dispossessed Kings And the Dr. if he please may wonder still but it had been as well if he had answer'd it I now come to his Testimony from the New Testament Rom. 13.1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers Vindic. p. 52. for all power is of God c. To this I said that by Powers the Dr. understands Vsurped as well as Lawful Powers Postscr p. 12. And his Reason is because the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings and Vsurpers And to these the Dr. adds those words he had mention'd in his Case of Allegiance between Kings whom we must and whom we must not obey And then tells me these last words I conceal because they spoil all my Argument And if they do so I will confess it was ill done to conceal them But if they do not 't is humorsome and captious to complain of it And let us see his Reason For saith he 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 Very well this was my Argument but how comes this to be spoyl'd by those last words That I cannot tell and it may be the Dr. will tell me in his next But at present he replys There was a distinction between Athaliah and Joash that she was an Vsurper and he a Rightful King and the Dr. makes a Distinction between an Vsurper and a Rightful King with respect to their Vsurpation and their Right But saith he this I say the Scripture makes no distinction between a Rightful King and an Vsurper with respect to the obedience of Subjects while they are setled in the Throne No! What does he think of setting up Joash when out of possession and deposing Athaliah when in possession This I think is a distinction between a Rightful King and an Usurper with respect to the obedience of Subjects And with the Drs. leave I am apt to believe that Killing on the one hand and Crowning and Allegiance on the other hand is a considerable distinction in that respect What follows that in reference to this the Case of Athaliah is no Example of such a distinction because the Jews might and did lawfully submit to her and that she was afterwards depos'd was owing to the Divine Entail This hath been urged and answered before and it is not at all to the Drs. purpose now For the Question here is only whether there be such a distinction in Scripture with respect to the Subject's Obedience And if the setting up Joash and the deposing and slaying Athaliah be not a Distinction there is no such thing as a Distinction in the World The Dr. adds Had this Law been given to the Jews at that time while Joash was conceal'd it must have been expounded of Athaliah who had possession of the Throne when Joash was known and anointed it must have been expounded of him as having a Divine Right to the Throne of Judah That is to say this Law would have been expounded of the Usurper if there be no Right Heir or none known but when the Right Heir is known it is to be interpreted of him and not of the Usurper As if any body could think this Law would have been expounded of Joash if he had not been living or had not been thought to have been living But what I pray has this Concealment to do in the matter The Distinction is not between the Concealment of the one and the Possession of the other but between Right and Vsurpation and both visible between Joash out of Possession and Athaliah in Possession of the Throne And here is the Question of whom ought this Precept to be understood of Athaliah or Joash if of Athaliah then she was ordain'd of God and to resist her had been to receive Damnation which was plainly false for she was resisted and killed and both justify'd Besides if it was to be understood of her then it could not be understood of Joash for it cannot be interpreted of Two Competitors But if it must be understood of Joash then a Rightful Prince out of Possession is the Higher Powers in the sense of this Text and an Usurper in Possession is not And then the whole Reason of the Drs. Argument fails then the Powers that be may be the Rightful Powers out of Possession in the intention and according to the direction of that Text. And then there is a Distinction in Scripture between Kings whom we must obey and Usurpers the Dr. calls them Kings whom we must not obey which is the thing to be proved I proceeded But saith the Dr. if the Apostle had intended such a Distinction he ought to have said it in express words and why so I pray The Dr. replys I gave him a reason for it which he is pleased to conceal why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown in Scripture But sure I did not conceal this for I had spoken to it just before as much as I thought needful and I did not see any reason to repeat it again The Dr. adds he said 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 Now I cannot tell why the Dr. should say I conceal'd this for I answer'd it and that I think is not concealing it I had said are there not general Rules about right and wrong which extend to all Cases and Persons And if they extend to all Cases and Persons then there are Rules in
Scripture about the Right and Wrong of Government and about Legal and Usurped Powers and so I meant it and could mean nothing and so that if the Dr. had any Reason to disprove this he had no Reason to say Vindic. p. 53. This I thought a very good Reason and did not expect to have been asked for more till they had been answer'd for that is a very good answer to it as we shall see presently He goes on But saith our Author does not the nature of the thing sufficiently distinguish it He replyes the nature of the thing distinguishes between a Legal King and an Vsurper but the nature of the thing does not prove that usurped powers are not the higher powers and ought not to be obey'd but I think proves the quite contrary that is to say the nature of the thing distinguishes between who has and who has not a Right to the Government And that I think is sufficient to distinguish between who are and who are not the Higher Powers And it had been superfluous to distinguish in express terms what is imply'd in the very Precept as the Precept to obey Parents Husbands Masters do not expresly distinguish between those which are and those which are not so for 't is always imply'd and an express distinction is needless And there is no Rule in Scripture given to submit to lawful and not unlawful Husbands and Masters any more than there is to submit to lawful and not unlawful Governors But I think for all that no body questions of whom the Precept is intended or that those that are the lawful are those only that are meant altho there be no express distinction excluding the unlawful from any share or partnership in it But the truth is that is always imply'd and such cases are under the direction of general Rules And therefore I said Are there not general Rules about Right and Wrong Postscript p 12. which extend to all Persons and Cases By which I meant that the Rights and Wrongs that respect Government are under the direction of those Rules as much as the Rights and Wrongs that concern Private Property He that unjustly possesses another man's Throne is as much an unjust Possessor as much bound to Restitution and men are as much bound not to partake with him and become party's to his injustice nor to support and abet it against Right by virtue of these general Rules as they are the same in private Cases He that abets an unjust Possessor of the Throne is as much Particeps criminis as he that abets an unjust Possessor of any other mans estate And now let us hear his reply Yes saith he there are such general Rules 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 Before I consider his Answer I shall crave leave to give him this Answer to his Question Possession of the Throne is their due And this I think can never be deny'd by a man that owns the dispossessed Prince hath still a Legal Right by virtue of which he may recover his Throne if he can and if he hath a Right to it then it is due to him And I would fain know how engaging and endeavouring all we can and swearing to keep him from his Right be a compliance with this Precept to give to every man his due The Dr. hath a subtle Distinction between a Right to the Government and a Right to Allegiance which I shall consider presently but if it was granted him it will not evade the force of this Argument for suppose the Possessor of the Throne had a Right to Allegiance and the dispossessed Prince a Right to the Government how comes Allegiance to warrant an Act of injustice to pray and fight and do all we can against a manifest Right and which we know to be so If he ought to have the Government Case of Alleg. p. as the Dr. expresses it he ought to be King but is not then 't is injustice to keep him from it for no man ought to have what can justly be kept from him And then I would fain know by what Rules of Conscience Allegiance if it were due can justifie our acting against a moral Law For if obedience be not his Right the Crown is and obedience to the most Rightful Prince in the World will not excuse our aiding and assisting him in the unrighteous taking or keeping another man's Estate if it be notorious and manifest We come now to the Drs. Answer to this Question What is their due whether Subjection and Obedience 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 And to this he says because the controversie turns on it he shall particularly consider it The Arguments he says 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 and to submit and pay Allegiance to any other though actually possessed of and setled in the Throne is a great injustice to our natural Prince and a violation of that precept to give to every one their due To this the Dr. Answers Here are two things to be considered 1. The Right to the Crown 2. The Right to Allegiance As for the first the substance of his Answer is The fundamental prejudice and mistake seems to be the making no difference between a Legal Right to the Crown and a Legal Right of Subjects to their Estates but the Dr. apprehends a great difference that in setling an Estate nothing more is required but a meer Humane Right but to make a Legal King besides an Humane Right to the Crown he must have God's Authority Nothing but a Legal Descent and Possession gives Right to a Legal Estate and therefore the Law must have its effect And is the only adequate Rule of right and wrong in such Cases and tho the Providence of God allots mens private fortunes yet he gives no man a right to an Estate which he gets by fraud nor exempts them from Legal punishments but leaves all such meer Legal Rights under the general influence of Providence to the care of Publick Government But if a meer Humane Right cannot make a King but God's Authority makes a King if God reserves this Authority in his own hands and does not inseparably annex it to Humane Entails of the Crown if God's Authority without a Humane Right can make a King but Humane Laws cannot make a King without God's Authority this may satisfie us that when God thinks fit to interpose his Authority a meer Legal Right is not sufficient Reason to adhere to a Prince God has removed from the Throne nor the want of a Legal Right sufficient reason to disown a Prince whom God has set upon the Throne Now here
does not g ve it and what then does he think of the Authority of King Charles the First after he was imprâ—oned nay after he was condemned had he then God's Authority or not Did God's Authority leave him so soon as the Rebels had laid hold of him or so soon as they had condemned him could they by prosperous villany as they had beat his Armies so drive from him God's Authority too could they by a most abominable and cursed sentence degrade him from his Regal Character and release the Subjects from the duties of Allegiance they ow'd to him and to God's Authority with which he was invested This I suppose the Dr. will not say but then it follows that Authority without Actual Administration is not Authority in fancy and Idea and that God does give his Authority to govern without the Power of Government in the Drs. sense And the divesting of Power and actual administration is not divesting a Prince of God's Authority which remains with his Person and the Character is indelible I do not know what the Dr. means by a very fruitless and insignificant Authority wicked People would not obey it and they murder'd the Lord 's Anointed and so far indeed it was fruitless but if that be a reason of the insignificancâ— of Authority 't is a Reason against God's Authority too for neither will they obey him but that is no impeachment to God's immediate Authority nor yet to his Authority vested in his Vicegerent He was the Lords Anointed still and so remained to the last minute of his life the Regicides had the Power of Government and he had not but that did not transfer God's Authority from him to them but he was the same King and had the same Authority from God upon the Scaffold as he had upon the Throne from whence 't is plain enough that Authority is not annexed to actual Power or actual Administration wicked People may take away the Power of Government but they cannot take away the Authority And this is the very same in all the instances of Authority in the World the respective Powers of Father Husband Master may be suspended by the ungovernableness of those under their Power or by other accidents or they may be exercised by other Persons But the respective Authorities all this while are annexed to the Rightful Persons and not to the Exercise or Administration No man hath any more Authority than he hath Right and he that exercises an Authority without Right makes an Authority to himself but he hath not God's Authority In all such Cases indeed there is not Power to force and compel which the Dr. calls a fruitless and insignificant Authority but for all that it is not Authority in fancy and Idea but real and valid the Authority of a Parent and Paternal Authority is as much God's Authority as the Regal does not cease to be the same Authority nor to bind to obedience when he has not Power to restrain the undutifulness and rebellion of his Children and if it were our own Case we should soon distinguish that we had Authority tho we had not Power and they were bound in Conscience to obey us tho we were not able to make them And here is the state of the Case Authority binds the Conscience and Power can force the outward man And that it seems iâ— very significant which can hurt imprison or fine us but it is a very fruitless and insignificant Authority which only obliges in Conscience The Dr. proceeds to consider the Parallel case I had instanced in 13. Vindic. p. 57. Heb. 17. The Apostle exhorts to obey them that have Rule over you meaning the Ministers of the Gospel Now the Apostle makes no distinction between lawful Ministers and Intruders and yet we must understand it of lawful Ministers He answers But these Cases are by no means Parallel For the Author 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 should be understood only of lawful Powers his proof is The Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the Rule over them at that time that they were lawful Ministers and he 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 To this I answer 1. The Drs. Reason is absurd 2. The ground of it is improbable 1. His Reason is absurd and that is Had he added such a distinction it would have insinuated he knew some among them not lawful Ministers and without naming them would have made them jealous of them all and spoiled his exhortation of obeying them A mighty ground of Jealousie indeed I suppose for some of the Drs. Reasons because of the difficulty of examining of Titles Case of Alleg. p. 192. and carrying men into the dark Labyrinths of Law and History which is one of the Drs. weighty Reasons for submission to actual Government and Usurpation And was it so hard a matter for them in those days to know who were and who were not their lawful Ministers who were and who were not sent and constituted by the Apostles and methinks it is a pretty odd reason if the Apostle had named lawful Rulers it should make them suspicious of their lawful Rulers it might have put them upon inquiry where there was doubt and there is no harm but a great deal of reason in that but it would have secured and confirmed their obedience where there was no doubt The Dr. tells us the Hebrews knew whom St. Paul meant by these who had the Rule over them and St. Paul knew they were such as ought to be obeyed Well! did the Hebrews know St. Paul meant them as lawful or as actual Ministers if as lawful Ministers the Drs. reason of jealousie is a trifle for then it had been the same thing whether he had or had not expresly named it for it is implied and that is all one with naming it and then the adding such a distinction in express terms imports no such insinuation as the Dr. suggests which I think is plainly the Case If only as actual Ministers then I doubt by virtue of this precept they were to submit to a Minister de facto tho not de jure for if there was danger in naming lawful Ministers lest they should be jealous of their actual Ministers that Reason extends to all actual Ministers and so there is a fair gap opened for Usurpers Hereticks and Apostates and they if they could perswade the People to own them might claim the benefit and be within the intention of this Precept for it seems lawful was not to be named lest it should make them jealous which had indeed been a sure way to prevent their jealousie
but not their being seduced which seems to be the main end of the Apostle in this Precept But this is more absurd still if this Precept be considered as a standing and perpetual Rule for all Ages of the Church Do all People know whom the Apostle meant as well as the Hebrews and did St. Paul know that all that bear spiritual Rule ought to be obeyed Must not lawful be named lest it should be insinuated some are not lawful Ministers or lest any Body should be jealous of their Pastors This is inconsistent with the Apostles own Cautions to beware of Dogs and to avoid Hereticks and with all experience And I suppose the Dr. will not deny but that it had been better for them and for Religion if some People had been jealous of their Pastors And the truth is as the World goes a little jealousie does well and there is no great Reason to take every man for a Minister within this Precept who calls himself so and actually Rules and this Precept is no Caution against jealousie and in other places St. Paul directly advises it So that if the Dr. was any Reason with respect to the Hebrews it is none with respect to the rest of the World except the Dr. can think there never was nor never can be any actual Ministers but who were lawful ones and ought to be obeyed And the Dr. himself tells us to justifie his exposition of the 13 to the Romans in the next Page upon the account of actual Government 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 and I conceive the Epistle to the Hebrews is of as general direction as the Epistle to the Romans 2. The Ground of the Drs. Reason is improbable and that is that there were no false Teachers among the Hebrews that there were Seducers and Hereticks before the time of the writing this Epistle which is generally concluded to be the last but one of St. Pauls Epistles is evident from all the Rest of the Epistles and that Judaea among all the Plantations of Christianity should be the only Climate without them is not very accountable The Apostle in this Chapter cautions against seducement Heb. 13.9 Be not carry'd about with divers and strange Doctrines And these I suppose were not the Doctrines of their Lawful Ministers whose Faith he advises them to follow v. 7. as well as to submit to them v. 17. And to apply this to the Drs. reason I wonder why the distinction of strange Doctrines should not make the Hebrews jealous of all the Doctrines their Ministers taught them as well as the distinction of lawful Ministers should make them jealous of all their Ministers Reasons sure are very scarce when such things as these are given for Reasons but something must be said and it is great pity the Dr. should be pressed with an Argument and have nothing to say to it But says he 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 Very well and I pray is not the charge to the Hebrews as general as that to the Romans it is not said indeed obey all them that have rule over you but it is expressed indefinitely which is equipollent to an universal and in construction it is to be understood universally and means the same as if it had been expresly said All them that Rule And if it did not the Drs. Reason would be yet more pleasant for if by them that have Rule over you may be meant some and not all of them that have Rule then the Apostle did more than insinuate that he knew some among them that were not lawful Ministers and without naming the Persons such a suggestion would have made them jealous of them all and spoiled his exhortation of obeying them So that if for nothing else for the sake of his own Reason he must be forced to admit that it is to be understood in an universal sense There is but one thing more and that is St. Paul generally affirms that all Power is of God and is not all Spiritual Power of God as well as Secular That the Dr. will not deny Now we must remember the Dr. tells us these cases are by no means Parallel And yet when he comes to state the Case of the 13 to the Romans he has not made the least title of difference All Secular and all Spiritual Power is of God the charge in both is general and the Precepts require to obey all them that Rule in one Case as well as the other and if these Cases be not Parallel with respect to the present controversie no man living knows what a Parallel is For what are the Drs. Reasons for his Case why the General charge the universality of expression the want of express limitation and here they are all and in a Case of obedience to Rulers also And as an addition to the Parallel we may cast in the Drs. Principle and Argument from Providence which equally fits a Providential Pastor as a Providential King and therefore there is the same Reason to understand both precepts with the same limitation and by all Rulers and all Powers we are to understand all Lawful Rulers and all Lawful Powers and as an Vsurper in the Church is no Bishop nor Priest nor Church Ruler within the intention of this Precept tho he actually Rules so neither is an Vsurper in the State a King nor the Higher Powers within the intention of That Precept tho he actually governs I added The Drs. Reason is against him there has ever been a distinction in the World between Legal and Usurped Powers and 't is probable 〈◊〉 St. Paul who was so learned 〈…〉 knew it and if he had intended to 〈◊〉 obedience to Usurped Powers 't is probable he would have said so in express terms but since he never said it we have reason to conclude he never intended it The Dr. replies I doubt not St. Paul did knâ—w it and 〈◊〉 also that the Pharisees made this objection against their submission to the Romans and â—â—r that reason he affirms that all Power is of God and that they must be subâ—â—ct to the Higher Powers without any distinction which he would not have done if any â— stiâ—ction ought to have been made when he kâ—ew the diâ—â—ute was about the Romans whom they looked upon as Vsurpers over Israel who were God's pâ—culiar People and Inheritance Now I doubt not but the Pharisees as well as other People did distinguish between Legal and Vsurped Powers and there was no fault in that I doubt not likewise but they as well as the rest of the World
thoughts Why did not be produce any one Doctrine or oâ—e Expression of mine that tended that way There is one small reason for it because he could not I have nothing to say to the ingenuity of such a practice let the Dr. satisfie himself about that as well as he can But when he is so hard put to it to discharge his account of Providence from justifying an unreasonable and impious Doctrine when he hath not answer'd any one of my Arguments nor so much as offer'd at them as we shall see presently in the very same case to â—all a recriminating and crying out of disâ—â—â—â—ving and riâ—iâ—uâ—ing Providence is a strain of Bâ—llinâ—gaâ—e Logick and nothing else but out-facing an Argument instead or answering it And this will be yet more plain when we see his Reason For says he let me ask him this God in the Kâ—â—â—s in England or not But how comes this Question to prove that 〈◊〉 or â—iâ—â—cuâ—â— Providence For it is brought â—or th t â—â—â—son if his Particle For means any thing And if the proof depends upon answering this Question the Dr. should have â—â—id a little before he had told me what some people will suspect except those people would suspect also what I would answer And then I do not know how far a previous suspition may justifie the charge of a future fact or because the Dr suspected that I would give an â—pâ—curean Ignorant or Atheistical Answer therefore to fave further trouble and to dispatch the business all at once he might charge â—â—e with not understanding or ridiculing Prov dence by way of anticipation He goes on iâ— He does God makes Kings in England 〈◊〉 which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the Jure Divino with a witness and is that such a business Why may not a man renounce the Jure Divino as well as Legal Powers Pref. to Case of Alleg. if there be occasion is any man forbid to grow wiser and to alter his mind when he sees good reason for it Methinks be might let renouncing alone but if God does make Kings in England how does he make them he sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings But to save him the trouble of any more Questions I answer tho God sends no Prophets he sends Laws among us to tell us whom he hath appointed to reign over us God doth not govern mankind like Beasts in a Desert where every thing is Prey and Possession but by the Rules of Society which confine and determine Property and fix the bounds of it And it would be a wise Question to ask How does God make a man a Right Possessor of an Estate in England He does it by his Providence but it is according to Laws How did God make Kings in Judah after he had entayl'd the Crown why he made them by his Providence but it was according to that entail and so in other Kingdoms God makes Kings and private Proprietors by his Providence but it is according to the standards of Right and Justice that are fix'd and setled among men and authoriz'd and confirm'd by God himself and by the express declarations of his will And whatsoever exceeds and is contrary to these is Invasion and Wrong Robbery and Rapine expresly disallow'd and forbid by God himself And to say God gives by his Providence what he forbids by his Revealed Will is an Impious Doctrine and justifies my charge against the Drs. interpretation that it makes Providence a Rule of Practice against Right and Justice And a man may as well say that God gave to Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit tho he forbid them upon pain of Death to eat of it because all Events are by Providence and they were permitted by Providence to take it And this answers what follows Suppose says he a Prince ascends the Throne by the most unjust force and ungodly arts P. 59. who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's permission he usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making well let him call him what he please it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God rules in such a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne I say yes God does govern by his Providence but not by communicating his Authority to the Usurper And what does the Dr. think of those times of Usurpation in this Kingdom between 48 and 60 Did God govern in the Kingdom of England all those 12 years or not And therefore what he says for indeed will any man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not govern'd by his Authority or Minister is perfect fallacy by his own Principles for he himself says it and I ask him had the Rump or Cromwell God's Authority or not If they had then four or five Leaves of his Book and his account of their not being settled and all that he says on that Head is meer trifle and contradicts what he says here For if they had God's Authority they ought to be obey'd and no pretences of Loyalty could excuse it But if not then God may govern a Kingdom when those persons who actually govern for many years have not his Authority nor yet are his Ministers otherwise than as the Devil and wicked men are Ministers to execute the designs of his Providence but not as deriving any Authority from him or thereby claiming any Right by vertue of their Actual or Providential Government And thus his following Question is answer'd Does Providence and Government signifie only his permission that God looks on and sees men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is universal Lord of the world never gave them Now here is a large compass and if the Drs. Argument signified any thing it would prove that all the Sinful Events that ever were or shall be in the world have God's Authority respectively annex'd to them for if it does follow that because Providence and Government do not signifie permission that because God does not meerly look on the affairs of the world therefore whatever Authorities and Powers men snatch and exercise and keep God who is the universal Lord of the World gives them Then it plainly follows that whatever Powers men have and whatever Possessions or Goods they snatch or keep tho never so unjustly they are all the Gifts of God and there is a Right and Property in them deriv'd from the Universal Lord of the World But to our Instance And then the Rump and Cromwell and the High Court of Justice exercis'd God's Authority and Charles the First was murder'd and his Son rob'd of his Crown by God's Authority For Providence and Government signified the same in those days as they do now And I wonder what the peoples consent signifies
that is and are in the actual administration of it which is the only evidence we have that they have received it from God For what tho Passive Obedience be due to God's Authority is it therefore due to Usurpation and actual Administration which is not God's Authority and to use some of the Drs. expressions He may harangue upon this Argument as long as he pleases P. 64. unless he can prove that God invests every Usurper with his Authority while the Rightful King is living and claiming And that he does not do so is manifest from this very Doctrine of Passive Obedience For the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience is founded on an irresistable Authority consider then what are the Rights of an irresistable Authority and what the duties of Passive Obedience 1. The Rights of Sovereign and irresistable Authority are that he cannot forfeit his Crown that he cannot be judged nor deposed by his Subjects And therefore when once King he is always so 'till death or a voluntary and legal Resignation 2. Non-Resistance does not merely signifie not to fight against the King but 1. That upon no pretence we must renounce his Right and 2. Must never set his Crown upon anothers head 3. Must not transfer our Allegiance to another Now the Dr. will not except against this Doctrine for the sake of its Author and he may please to observe that we are not so apt to invent as he is to forget and he may trie if he can solve the matter by his distinction between Zeal and Faction But if this be the case then these things necessarily follow 1. That Transferring of Passive Obedience from the Rightful King to the Usurper is a Proposition inconsistent with it self and made up of contradictions Passive Obedience signifies one thing and transferring it the clean contrary And to talk of transferring Passive Obedience is just as if we should say fighting Non-Resistance or Rebellious Allegiance 2. The Argument from the Doctrine of Passive Obedience equally affects his interpretation of Scripture as his interpretation of the Convocation for Passive Obedience is as evidently and plainly enjoyned by the Scriptures as by the Convocation and for the proof of this I refer my self to Dr. Sherlocks Case of Resistance And if his interpretation of Scripture be irreconcilab e with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience then it is not reconcilâ—ble with Scripture and then it â—â—ot true and if to fight against and kill a King to whom we have sworn Allegiance and whom we still acknowledge to have a Legal Right and Title be not Passive Obedience then the Drs. expounding the 13th to the Romans of Vsurped Powers in opposition to a â—â—gâ—tful King is not the sense of Scripture but his own private sense it is not sufficient here to say it is certain they teach both and therefo e they are not inconsistent for that is proving things the wrong way for it is certain they do not teach both iâ— they are inconsistent And therefore if the Dr. would regularly prove that they do teach both he ought to have made it appear by shewing they are not inconsistent and not come off with a short reply it is certain they do so My next Argument is That this interpretation repreaches the Virtue and Loyalty of those admirable men who suffered between the years 42 and 60. The Dr. replies and therefore it cannot be the sense of the Convocation for no doubt the Convocation in 603. had great regard to the Loyalty of these who suffered between 42. and 60. by a spirit of Prophecy I suppose A very wise observation And why might not the Convocation in 603. have regard to the Loyalty of the members of the Church of England in 42. or 60. or 90 either if they design'd their Book as a direction for practice it must regard future time as well 42. as 603. and as well 90 as 42. But the Dr. knows well enough the Question is concerning a Principle of the Church of England and here we have a body of men undoubted Sons of the Church of England and as great and eminent for piety and virtue as that Church ever bred and most of them living at the time of this Convocation and some of them probably members of it And here was a Case where their sense of this Principle was tried to the bottom and besides their plain Doctrines their sufferiâ—gs were a convincing Testimony that they did not believe that the Drs. notion of a thorough Settlement was any Principle of the Church of England And considering all circumstances this brings the dispute almost down to our very senses Answers to the Pamphlet p. 22. As I said it would have been thought madness for a Church of England man to have doubted who in the late times acted most agreeably to the Principles of that Church in the point of Alleg. and Government Archbishop Juxton Bishop Cozens Bishop Gunning c. or Hugh Peters Dr. Owen or John Goodwin or whether the Regicides were Church of England men too in the same points c. So that with the Drs. leave this Argument does not lye so far off as to need any Prophecy to make it good but is plain easie and natural and seeing we are about the interpretation of a Church of England Principle from whom are we most likely to learn it from the Doctrines and Practices of those excellent men and who gave such illustrious evidences of their own sense of it or from Peters Bradshaw Marshall or Milton and I shall crave leave to believe except the Dr. can give me some better Reasons that the Virtue and Loyalty of those admirable men are better interpreters of the Church of England Principles then the villany and wickedness of those Advocates for Usurpation But these it seems are hard and spightful words which the Dr. tells me I give to my Adversaries That indeed is very easily said but it had been much fairer to have given a plain and rational answer to them Concerning this the Dr. said it is a great prejudice but no Argument Postscript p. 14. nor can be formed into an Argument I answered I thought an Argument from example had been an Argument tho not always a very good one He replies Right what and cannot be formed into an Argument Vindic. p. 64. That is a little strange but the Dr. to avoid that repeats another sentence not that which I answered I suppose by virtue of keeping his own Order and Method and I would fain know how that is an Argument which cannot be form'd into an Argument This agrees like the rest of his Principles Well! He tells us Example is only a prejudice not an Argument against plain reasons which cannot otherwise be answered Let Reasons be first answered and then when there is no Reason against a thing the example of great and wise men without any other reason carry some Authority with them especially when we have other good reasons
believe that this is so far from lessening and reproaching their Loyalty that it is greatly for the commendation of it yes sure it is greatly for the commendation of a mans Loyalty that he loves himself and can better his condition by it This may suit well enough with some mens Loyalty but the Loyalty between 42 and 60 was quite of another make and hitherto the World hath thought that the commendation of it consisted in suffering for their Fidelity in parting with their Interests rather than their Loyalty in submitting to the hardest Circumstances rather than violating their natural and sworn Allegiance The Dr. adds now That they were not bound in conscience to submit to these Usurpers The Question is whether the Doctor 's Principles and Arguments do not equally conclude for their Submission to those Usurped Powers and this he says he â—oved because their Government was never setled i. e. according to his notion of a Settlement And that is aga n according to one branch of it a national consent in Parliament or by the Peoples Representatives And here the Dr. takes a great deal of pains to prove that the Rump and Cromwell had no such national consent Vindic. p. 40 41. and therefore their Government was not throughly setled To which I answer 1. That all the Doctor 's Arguments equally conclude for Submission to those Usurpations as to any other 2. That they might be setled according to the Doctor 's notion of a Settlement notwithstanding what he hath oppos'd to the contrary 1. That all his Arguments equally conclude for Submission to those as to any other Usurpations though they had not the formal consent of the People I shall mention two His Arguments to prove his notion of a Thorough Settlement and His Arguments to prove the necessity of submitting to Usurped Powers 1. His Argument to prove his Notion of a Settlement His Answerer had objected against it Vindic. p. 5 6. That Settlement was a term in Law and imply'd Right which he admits in â—ettlements according to Law but in Settlement of Powers against Law it must be understood of the Settlement of Possession and the obvious exposition of Settlement in such cases is a Settlement of Possession Very well This Settlement such as it is the Rumpers and Cromwell had for they were possess'd of the Government and administred the Power and made Laws and govern'd the People And we may take the Doctor 's remark along with us to confirm the point It argues great perverseness of mind to reject that sense of the Word which is proper to the Subject to which it is apply'd That is it is very perverse to say that the Settlements of Usurpation are any other than the Settlements of Possession And then I doubt it must likewise be perverse to say that the Rumpers and Cromwell were not setled Governments To the same purpose the Dr. says afterwards That all the Convocation says relates to visible and actual alterations of Government P. 7 8. Now says he this is matter of fact not of Right and therefore the settlement of such Alterations is an actual not a legal Settlement of them And actual and visible Settlement is all that is requir'd to an actual and visible translation of Kingdoms Is that all that is requir'd Then they had all that is requir'd for their Governments were as actual and visible as any other Cromwell for some years possess'd the Government and dy'd in the possession of it and left the possession to his son and therefore as far as actual and visible will go it is as good a Plea for those Usurpations as for any other This is what the Doctor offers in proof to justifie his Notion of a Settlement and which in all respects fits Cromwell just as if it had been made for him And if they are Arguments sufficient to prove a Settlement then they likewise prove that Cromwell's Government was such a Settlement 2. All the Doctor 's Arguments for Submission to Usurped Powers equally conclude for Submission whether there be such a consent of the People or no as his Doctrine and account of Providence Then God sets up Kings Case of Alleg. p. 12. 14. 36. when by his Providence he advances him to the Throne and puts sovereign Authority into his hands He is King who is setled in the Throne in the actual administration of sovereign Power That the actual administration of Authority is the only evidence we have that they have received it from God His Argument from Relatives or Relations or what he will please to call it that Government and Alleg. are such Relatives or Relations as do mutuo se ponere tollere That actual Dominion and sovereign Power is the Relation that makes a King Vindic. p. 37 38. That God invests a Prince with his Authority by placing him on the Throne p. 56. and he has the actual Authority who actually administers the Government and it is actual Authority which is Gods Authority Now all these if they have any force at all equally conclude for Submission to all Usurpers whether they have or have not the consent of the People and that makes no manner of alteration in the Argument for a providential advance to the Throne and the Possession and actual administration of Power and the evidence of it and actual Authority these are all the same whether the People consent or not And if the Rump and Cromwel had not a national consent yet they were providentially advanced to the Throne and actually administred the Government and therefore according to his Arguments they must have God's Authority and therefore ought to have been obey'd And the same is to be said of his Arguments from Scripture of Gods removing and setting up Kings which according to him means no more than removing from and putting into the actual administration of sovereign Power Vindic. p. 50. and he tells us from S. Austin that Reges are a Regendo and peremptorily asserts it is certain he who has the exercise of the Regal Power and Authority is King whether we call him so or no. Let them be call'd Rump or Protector or by any other name or names And so likewise for his Interpretation of the 13 to the Romans Vindic. p. 57. the general Expression all Powers The Scriptures giving no direction but to submit and pay all the Obedience of Subjects to the Present Powers Case of All. p. 18. and the making no distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers between Kings whom we must and Kings whom we must not obey c. Now all this reasoning extends to all Usurpers without any manner of limitation from the consent of the People for all those Usurpers the Rump and Crom. were the Present Powers and therefore according to him within the intention of that Precept whether the Nation consented or no and the Scripture hath made no distinction between Usurpers who have and Usurpers who
have not the Peoples consent And as he says Why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown in Scripture Case of All. p. 20. The Doctor to prove his Exposition argues thus When the Apostle says All power is of God there is no reason to confine this to all legal Powers unless it were evidently the Doctrine of Scripture that Usurped Powers are not of God which is so far from being true that the contrary is evident And this is a reason directly against all that he says here When the Apostle says All Power is of God there is no reason to confine this to all Powers consented to by the People unless it were evidently the Doctrine of the Scripture that Powers without the consent of the people are not of God which is so far from being true that the contrary is evident And the consequence is That this Precept is to be interpreted of all Usurpers or of none and the Dr. must interpret it of the Rump and Cromwel or discharge his Argument as insufficient And let the Dr. at his leisure shew me where in Scripture All Power and the Present Powers and the obedience to them is limited to a national Consent or where there is such a distinction that the higher Powers by the consent of the People ought to be obey'd and the higher Powers without their consent may not if he will not undertake it all his Argument from a national consent signifies nothing if he will he must renounce with a witness But the truth is This business of the Peoples Consent seems to me to be put in for no other end but to stop the mouth of an Objection which the Dr. foresaw would open wide upon him but does not at all concern his Hypothesis which stands or falls without any manner of relation to it For how come the People to have any share in God's Providence in setting up Kings or what have they to do with Gods Authority or how comes it to pass that their consent makes it a duty to obey God's Authority and their dissent makes it no duty Those men indeed that say that all Power is originally in the People and that they may resume it and dispose it as they please for them to say that the consent of a People settles a Government or makes it is agreeable enough to their Principles and the People derive to the persons governing the Authority that is originally in themselves But for them that maintain it as a Principle that all sovereign Authority is of God to talk of the Peoples consent as necessary to make Obedience a duty to that Authority is a contradiction and it is a fine Doctrine to say that the Authority is deriv'd from God but the Obedience to it is deriv'd from the Peoples own consent And this it seems was the case here for the Dr. tells us with respect to those Usurpations that it was lawful to submit to them tho they were not bound in conscience to do it Now if it was lawful for them to submit and become Subjects to those Usurpations then they had God's Authority for it is not lawful to become Subjects to persons who have not God's Authority if they were not bound in Conscience then their obedience to God's Authority depended purely upon their own consent And that is God by his Providence gives the Usurpers Authority and the People by their Consent make it a duty to obey it And so the matter is divided the Authority of Government is from God and the duty of the People from themselves If the Dr. hath a mind to deliver his present Argument from these consequences let him give some other account of the Peoples consent and I am afraid it must come to one of these two either that Usurpers have not God's Authority or if they have then the Peoples consent is not necessary to make obedience a duty if the first then his Hypothesis and most part of his two books signifie nothing if the last then all that he says on the present head signifies as little 2. Those Usurpations might be setled according to the Doctor 's Notion of a Settlement notwithstanding what he hath oppos'd to the contrary Now it will be needless to repeat the Doctor 's Notion of a Settlement at length He does not think convenient to insist upon it himself He takes sanctuary only in one small branch of it The submission or consent of the great Body of the Nation And methinks since the Dr. insists so much upon it he should have given us some small proof or if that could not be had something like a proof that the Peoples Consent is included in the Notion of a Settlement or that a setled Government to which God annexes his Authority by plain construction means the Peoples consent All the rest of the Branches for this same thorough Settlement according to him is a great composition viz. The whole administration of Government Case of All. p. 9. the whole power of the Nation all things done in his name and by his Authority These the Dr. hath taken great care of and all his Arguments are one way or other a proof of But this of the Peoples Consent must shift for it self if it will serve to answer an Objection well and good but for proving it no matter for that tho it seems as the Dr. now states the matter it is not one branch but the chief nay for any thing I can see it is all the Settlement or however it is so essential to it that all the rest are nothing wi hout it Possession of the Throne by providence Tâ—e whole administration of the Government and the Power of the Nation all things being acted in the Usurper name and by his Authority All these and I know not how much more signifie nothing at all with respect to the duty of Obedience without the Peoples Consent and the Dr. does not deny but Cromwell had all this and whether he had the Peoples Consent we come now to examine Now what the Dr. means by the Peoples Consent we have in pag. 69. Vind. p. 69. Case of All. p. 47. for having in his Case of Alleg expressed this by National Consent National Act and the Representatives of the Nation it was answer'd As to the National Consent in Parliament that is part of the Constitution but what is that to Usurpation which may as well usurp upon all branches as upon one He replies I do not urge a National Consent in Parliame t consider'd as part of the Constitution but barely consider'd as a Nâ—tional 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 And according to this account Cromwell had the Consent of the great body of the Nation to his Government by other Acts virtually declaring it and by a formal and express Consent so far as Representatives illegally
chosen could make such a Consent 1. By Acts virtually declaring it When he was proclaimed Protector there were general Acclamations and such other Expressions as are usual upon the proclaiming a new King and after that more express Acknowledgments he was publickly and solemnly treated by the City under the Character of Supreme Governour and in that Character own'd and submitted to by the most if not by the whole of the Nation so that if the Consent of the People may be virtually declar'd he certainly had it 2. He had a formal and express Consent so far as Representatives illegally chosen could make such a consent He summon'd two Parliaments both of them met upon his Writ both of them own'd his Authority and solemnly recogniz'd it But to this the Dr. hath some Objections 1. That the Parliament summon'd according to the directions of the Instrument of Government agreed on by Cromwell and his Officers never could make a National Consent And I pray mark his Reasons for they are two 1. For they were not chosen according to the ancient Usages and Customs of the Nation a very weighty Reason according to the Doctor 's Principles for neither is an Usurper a King according to the ancient Usages and Customs of the Nation And if the Consent of the People by their Representatives cannot be made but by the ancient â—ustoms and Usages of the Nation then a Parliament call'd by an Usurper can make no such Consent This Reason I suppose came from him unawares 2. His second Reason is Nor were they the Representatives of the Nation but only of a prevailing Party and Faction and his reason of that is for that Artic. 14. of the Instrument 't is provided no persons aiding advising assisting or abetting in the War against the Parliament since 41. unless they had been since in the Parliaments Service and given signal Testimonies of their good affections should give any Vote in the Election of Members And what proportion did these bear to the whole Nation Most of those that had been active in the Kings Service were fled several turn'd to the Government and were within the Qualification and how many were the rest certainly very few in comparison of the whole So that notwithstanding such restriction those that were elected might represent the great Body of the Nation which is all the Dr. requires to such a Consent But here the Dr. objects again That after such Election they were not Parliament men unless they were approved to be Persons not disabled by the major part of the Council and accordingly he tells us that many persons who were return'd in the second Parliament were not approved which occasion'd a Remonstrance subscribed by near a hundred And what then One Parliament I hope is sufficient to give the peoples consent The people in two years time the distance between the two Parliaments might grow weary of the Usurpation and send up Members of another temper but what did that signifie to their choice before were any of the first Parliament secluded upon that account That the Dr. does not say but for that he tells us The first Parliament began to be very busie about the New Government but in what particulars he does not say but the Protector sent for them into the Painted Chamber and taught them better Well! then they were better taught and comply'd with him And he before their next sitting appointed a New Test and one branch of it was as the Dr. repeats it I do hereby freely promise and engage my self to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector And he tells that day one hundred and thirty Members took it and for ought appears to the contrary all the rest took it afterwards And is not this a pure argument that they did not consent to his Government I suppose because they took an Oath to be true and faithful to him And so the Dr. hath fairly prov'd his point Well! however that be it can never be deny'd no not by the Doctor himself but that a very great number did expresly consent And what became of them Why truly according to him they became Subjects for it was lawful to submit and when they had submitted it became a duty to them tho the rest were free So that all they that took the Engagement were Subjects to the Rumpers and all that took the Oath to Oliver of otherwise expresly consented to his Government were his Subjects and the rest were Subjects to King Charles or rather to no body but were in interest engag'd to him And what a special Society have we got here one part of the same Society are Subjects to one person another part to another or rather absolutely free one Party are oblig'd in Conscience and by their Oaths to support one Government with their Lives and Fortunes the other Party are oblig'd by Interest a Principle found by experience to be much stronger than Oaths or Conscience to pull it down and to set up another and according to their differing obligations they were bound to cut one anothers Throats at the first opportunity Now the Dr. may call this a Humane Society if he please but it suits better by half with a Society of Wolves and Tygres The Dr. has forgot Case of Alleg. p. 38 39. that one of his principal Aruments for Submission to Usurpers is the necessity of Government to preserve Humane Societies for Humane Societies must not dissolve into a Mob or Mr. Hobs's State of Nature And yet it seems to answer an Objection it must dissolve into something very like them To serve that purpose the Dr. supposes that no man who considers it well will call that a Civil Government or a Civil Society to which Authority and Obedience is Essential But to serve another purpose All Authority and Obedience is stated quite away and they may submit or not submit without sin i. e. there is a Society where is neither King nor Subject no Authority to command nor Duty to obey When the Dr. is to prove submission to Usurpers from the necessities of Government to preserve Humane Societies why then if God will preserve Humane Society we must conclude that when he removes one King out of the Throne he gives his Authority to him whom he places there for without Authority Humane Societies must disband Power may tye men together a while but can never unite them into a Civil Body without the Bonds and Ligaments of Duty and Conscience But when the Dr. is for vindicating his Arguments from laying any Reproach on the Loyal Sufferers then he states the matter so plain as no body can mistake or misrepresent it and that is that we must conclude no such thing at all we must not conclude that God has given his Authority to him that is placed on the Throne and the necessities of Government for preservation of Humane Society do not give Authority to him that governs and lay an obligation of duty on the Subject
Princes were ordained by God but yet granted that the Authority they exercised was God's and must be obey'd But this is all his own and a Reason he hath made for St. Chrysostom to make him speak what he thinks fit for where does St. Chrysostom say any thing of reproaching and blemishing the Justice and Goodness of Provividence And where does he say that the Authority exercis'd was God's Authority and ought to be obey'd whatever the Persons were or as the Dr. sayes before whatever their Title be Upon this the Controversie turns and St. Chrysostom hath not the least word of it And I believe any man that attentively considers St Chrysostom will find that he delivers a Doctrine directly contrary to what the Doctor hath made for him For he plainly intimates that all Governours are not of God tho Government it self is and when he comes to explain this he does it by an allusion from Marriage That a woman is joyned to a man by God that is by God's Institution of Matrimony not that every one that co-habits with a Woman is therefore joyn'd to her by God Now if it will be admitted that this allusion explains St. Chrysostom's meaning and I think that cannot be doubted then we have a pretty clear account of what he means when he sayes all Governours are not ordain'd of God Marriage is of Divine Institution as well as Government But as every man that co-habits with a woman in the Drs. phrase is in possession is not therefore joyn'd by God nâ—â— is any Matrimonial Relation contracted so every one that possesses the Throne is not therefore ordain'd of God for a Prince or Ruler an Adulterer is not a Husband of God's making however he may unlawfully or providentially co-habit with a woman nor is an Usurper a King of God's making however he may providentially exercise the Government and the Doctor may as well say that St. Chrysostom granted that any man that co-habits with a woman ought to be obey'd and to have the duties belonging to a Husband pay'd to him tho they are not joyn'd together by God as that he grants that a Governour exercises God's Authority and ought to be obey'd tho he will not allow that such Governours are ordain'd of God The Doctor adds The Bishop and others will allow what St. Chrysostom would not that most wicked Tyrants who have a Legal Title P. 75. are ordain'd of God but are afraid to own that Princes who ascend their Thrones by unjust means are set up by God but it does not hence follow that they deny'd their power and authority to be God's or that Subjects ought to obey it And he adds the Convocation affirms no more in that mighty place And then he concludes so that Learned men may differ in this point whether illegal Vsurpers are placed in the Throne by the over-ruling Counsels and appointment of God or only by his permissive Providence and yet agree in the main Conclusion That the Authority they exercise when settled in their Thrones is God's Authority and must be obey'd Now this is a dextrous method of interpretation and a curious way to avoid the force of any Allegations And Authors must be very stiff and stubborn if they will not yield and be brought over when we may make distinctions for them which they never made themselves and then draw a sense for them out of our own Distinctions The Question is concerning the sense of Bishop Andrews The Doctor cites St. Chrysostom to prove the Bishop's sense and to make that good he sayes the Bishop and others will allow more than St. Chrysostom would and at length concludes That Learned Men may differ as to the placing an Vsurper on the Throne whether by the Counsel or permission of God and agree in the main conclusion that they exercise God's Authority But where I pray is this difference And where is this agreement is there any thing like it in Bishop Andrews Not a word of that He tells us indeed we have an express determination of this matter by Dr. Jackson And suppose we have what is that to the purpose We are not now enquiring into Dr. Jackson's sense but into Bishop Andrew's sense Suppose Dr. Jackson did differ with the Dr. about God's Council and permission of Usurpers and yet agree in the main Conclusion does it follow that Bishop Andrews did so likewise or that when he sayes Kings that reign not are true Kings and Usurpers that reign are not Kings he speaks it with reference to such difference or to such agreement tho he hath not the least word or intimation of it nor any thing like it But of this before And now let us see what Dr. Jackson says the Doctor tells me it is in that very Sermon to which I appeal The words that concern the Controversie are these But doth the Ruâ—e of our Apostle hold as punctually of the Magistrate as of the Magistracy Doth every one which resists the Magistrate or men invested with the power of Jurisdiction resist the Ordinance of God as directly or in as high degree as he that resists the Power it self wherewith he is invested as he that seeks to overthrow the Magistracy And then he repeats the observation of S. Chrysostoms and Oecumenius who observe the Apostle speaks not of this or that Magistrate in particular sed de re ipsa and then asks Is there any power not inherent in some mens persons Any Magistracy without a Magistrate And from thence concludes the Magistrate must not be resisted as well as the Magistracy The Doctor hath repeated this at large but for what purpose I cannot imagine for how does any thing here concern the dispute between us He adds that in the next Section Dr. Jackson makes a great difference between the power it self and the acquasition or exercise of power That our Apostles Rule doth not so punctually hold of the means of acquisition of power or of the exercise of it as it doth of the power or Magistracy it self albeit the power or Magistracy be always God's positive and primary Ordinance always an effect of his gracious Providence always a blessing to any Land or People or the award of his antecedent will yet the manner of acquiring this power or the annexing it to this or that person is not always the positive Ordinance of God no effect of his bounty and benignity no consequent of his antecedent will but sometimes rather the award of his consequent will an act at least permissive of his punitive Justice From these words the Doctor draws this Conclusion So that all Princes are not from God in the â—ame sense that all power is but all Princes have that power which is from God and must be obey'd But from whence does this follow there is not a word in this last Paragraph of all Princes having that power which is from God and must be obey'd i. e. all Uâ—urpers as well as Lâ—wful Princes as Doctor
Jackson afterw rds expresses it Tyrants by Title but I think the clean contrary in the former Paragraph he had said that the Rule of the Apostle held as well of the Magistrate as of the Magistracy and they must not be resisted But in this Paragraph he plainly tells us that the Apostle's Rule doth not so punctually hold of tâ—e means or acquisition of power 'T is true indeed he says that Magistracy is always God's positive and primary Ordinance but the means of acquiring this power is not so but sometimes the award of his consequent Will which the Doctor hath put into great Letters as if they were much for his purpose whereas all the meaning of that is as Dr. Ja k on himself explains it that the one is always an eâ—fect of his gracious Providence always a blessing towards a Land or People but the other is sometimes an act at least permissive of his punitive Iustice But what is this to Obedience or Resistance I hope God's punishing people by an Usurper is not an argument that therefore they ought to obey him in conscience and the truth is Dr. Jackson in this Parâ—graph does not at all concern himself with any thing that relates to Obedience to Usurpers but speaks to that in the next Section and there plainly affirms that Usurpers may be resisted and that will be consider'd presently In the mean time befâ—re I take leave of Bishop Andrews I shall give the D another Quotation out of him and shall leave it to his consideration and Distinctions 't is in a Sermon preach'd 16.0 on 1 Chron 16.22 Vnxit in Regem Royal Vnction gives no Grace but a Right Title onâ—y in Regem to be King that is all and no more it is the administration to govern not the gift to govern well the Right of ruling not the ruling right it includes nothing but a due Title it excludes nothing but Vsurpation who is anointed on whom the Right rests who is inunctus he who hath it not suppose Nimrod who cared for no anointing thrust himself in and by violence usurped the Throne came in like one steeped in vinegar than anointed with oyl rather as a Ranger over a Forest than a Father over a Family he was not anointed nor any that so come in But on the other side David or he that first beginneth a Royal Race is as the head on him is that right of ruling first shed from him it runs down to the next and so still even to the lowest borders of his lawful issue Remember Job 36 7. Reges in solio collocat in perpetuum it is for ever God's claim never forfeits his character never to be wiped out nor scraped out nor Kings lose their right no more than Patriarchs did their Fatherhood My next Testimony was from Bishop Buckeridge another Learned Member of that Convocation Vind. p. 76. And the Dr. says He speaks exactly the sense of the Convocation And I say so too but here we differ for I affirm that he does not speak the Doctor 's sense And if he would have repeated what I have cited out of him it would have plainly appeared But he did not care to do that and therefore I must be forc'd to do it Answer to the Pamphl p. 27. and we shall soon see the difference I had cited out of him that he had lay'd this down as a general Doctrine There is a great difference between a Tyrant reigning by a lawful Title Dispar vero est ratio Tyranni legitimo jure regnantis c. Roffens p. 919. and a Tyrant withâ—ut Right and Title and invading the Kingdom by force if a Lawful King exercise Tyranny he cannot be compell'd by the Bishops Nobles or People c. such a Tyrant being in the Throne by a just Title is ordained of God and he who resists him resists the Ordinance of God But if any man snatcheth the Kingdom by force and Tyranny he is not a King but an Enemy and it is lawful for any of the people to do the same to him as they may do to an enemy And what did the Doctor say to this why truly not one single word nor so much as vouchsafe to take the least notice of it And let any impartial and unprejudic'd Reader judge if the Doctor 's Hypothesis and Interpretation of the Convocation be not as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it The Bishop makes a manifest difference between a Prince by Right and Title and an Usurper with respect to the Peoples Obedience that a lawful King tho he rules tyrannically must not be resisted that an Usurper is no King but an Enemy and may be resisted as an Enemy Nay he adds further Communis opinio est quod in hoc cast licet unicuique subdito talem Tyrannum invasorem occidere ib. That it is the common opinion that in such a case it is lawful for any Subject to kill such a Tyrant and Usurper and which opinion he himself expresly approves pag. 922. And now does not every body see what Agreement there is between the Doctor 's Hypothesis and the Doctrine here deliver'd by Bishop Buckeridge The Doctor tells us as the sense of the Convocation That those who have no Title to the Throne may have God's Authority The Bishop by necessary implication intimates that those only who are in the Throne by a just Title are ordain'd of God and consequently those only have God's Authority The Doctor says that such Princes in possession of the Throne without Title ought to be obey'd for Conscience sake the Bishop says they may be resisted and kill'd But this the Doctor did not think fit to meddle with tho it directly affects him and the whole design of his book but instead of that falâ—s upon another citation and makes some Cavils upon it for they are no better as we shall see upon the examining it He tells me I did well to cite the Passage honestly but not so to corrupt it with my comment for says he he turns a disjunctive into a conjunctive The Bishop says neither by the consent of the People nor by the prescription of six years which supposes that either the consent of the People or a long prescription would give a Right and he expounds it of both together That a Right to the Government is acquiâ—'d by a Prescription and that is a long uninterrupted possession joyned with the consent of the people But why did not the Doctor go on my very next words are Answ to Pamph. p. 28. And so it follows a little after when in answer to Bellarmine 's objecting c. And what does and so it follows mean I prove this last part therefore not from the disjunctive before but from the Answer that follows which is to Bellarmines instances of Tyrannical Government that became lawful by the Consent of the People as the Caesars P. 921. Goths and Lumbards accedente populorum
contrary Premises Suppose the Bishop did believe that the consent of the People convey'd a Right and Title to the Government in the foremention'd case of a competition between an Usurper in Possession and the right Heir out of Possession and from thence should conclude that these Governments should be obey'd not as usurped Powers but as having a Right and being legal Governments And what signifies this to the Doctor who admits they have not Right nor are legal but usurped Powers The Doctor hath a pleasant Evasion for this Vindic. p. 23. i. e. says he Such a Right as makes Obedience due to Princes thus setled without a legal Title Which is a very dexterous interpretation of the Bishop The Bishop's words are by their consent making a lawful Queen P. 920 921. conferring a Right and Title acquiring a Right to the Government Reginam legitimam fecerunt ut usurpatrici jus titulum Regni conferret nec jus Regni acquisivit which according to the Doctor 's vein of Interpretation signifies a Right to Obedience without a legal Title And yet at the same time tells me I greatly prevaricate in pretending to give the Bishops sense Vind. p. 23. But what the Bishop's own judgment was with respect to the Peoples consent conferring a Right to the Government may be seen above and also an express determination as may be seen at large p. 291. My next citation is out of Dr. Jackson and the Doctor allows it That a meer Usurper or a Tyrant by Title may be resisted by violence even to Deposition or Death And then he makes his Exceptions Our Author confesses Dr. Jackson will not allow Resistance to be made by every body but he says it with this Qualification save in the Right and Interest of the right Heir or by his Commission or Command And here he tells me I have made a Conjuâ—ctive a Disjunctive Or for And. Now I own that is made in the Print but it was not made in the Copy which was carefully and verbatim transcrib'd from Dr. Jackson but by the mistake of the Printer and I must tell the Doctor I had not the Correction of the sheets as they came from the Press but they were forced to take their chance and there were a great many more Errors than that and 't is likely there will be as many in this and I know not how to avoid it But after all there was no need of such an out-cry about it for the change of that Particle makes no change in the Argument and 't is equally valid against him with and without that Particle The Doctor hath not transcrib'd what I cited out of Dr. Jackson but hath given us the next Paragraph and appeals to the Reader on which side Dr. Jackson is and therefore I shall observe his method and consider whether what he hath cited makes for him and then shew how that which I have cited makes against him The Paragraph is this and the Doctor hath cited it at length So then a Tyrant or Usurper may be deposed or resisted but thus resisted he may not be by every man who knows him to be an Usurper for a man may transgress this Rule of the Apostle and resist God's Ordinance by resisting the power wherewith he is invested tho not simply by resisting him Aliud est Magistratum esse aliud 〈◊〉 in Magistratu esse aut Magistratum gerere It is one thing to be a true and lawful Magistrate another thing to bear or execute the office of a true Magistrate The Acts of a false Magistrate or Intruder whilst he is in Magistratu in the office it self are of validity his Person is to be obey'd not resisted by every man untill he be declared to be an Usurper or Intruder by some higher Power or Authority Few Tyrants have gotten investiture or admission to Royal Power by more indirect means than Richard III. in this Kingdom did yet many Acts and Exercises of Royal Power tho proceeding from him were legal and of validity nor did they resist the Ordinance of God that bare office under him and obey'd his Summons whether for Parliament or other business of State It had been a sin for any man of his own private head to have kill'd him a belt all the space of his reign he did resist the Ordinance of God this belongs to the higher Powers only or unto them to whom the supreme Power by Right is annexed and so Henry of Richmond was authorized by God's Ordinance to execute Vengeance and to bring Condemnation on this Tyrant which every man might not have done which perhaps no other might have done save in his Right and Interest and by his Commission and Command This is the intire Paragraph which the Dr. leaves his Reader to judge on which side Dr. Jackson is and I will leave him to judge whether these plain propositions are not deducible from it and then let him make his best of the rest 1. That every man may not resist an Usurper tho he knows him to be so 2. That the Acts of a false Magistrate or Intruder while he is in the office are of validity his Person is to be obeyed and not resisted by every man But then it is with this qualification until he be declared to be an Vsurper or Intruder by some Higher Power and Authority but then by consequence when he is so declared his Acts are not of validity nor is his Person to be obeyed and let the Dr. remember that too and who are those Higher Powers that may declare this why if the Dr. would have mentioned what I had cited it would have appeared to have been the Rightful King And it is sufficiently expressed in this Paragraph them unto whom the Supreme Power by Right is annexed and this confutes all the Drs. Principles and Arguments For then the Prince out of Possession is our King and the Higher Powers And there is nothing of duty owing to an Usurper whensoever he please to declare him so I wonder the Dr. did not think of this and tell us as he does about receiving a Commission from a dispossessed King That the great Question is whether Subjects may lawfully hear a Proclamation from the dispossessed Prince which would have been a fine complement to Dr. Jackson He supposes the Righâ—ful Prince may declare the Poâ—sessor an Usurper but at the same time supposes there are no ways whereby he can declare it or which is all one that no body câ—n take notice of his Declaration For this Declaration â—lâ—iâ—â—ly in the sense of Dr. Jackson respects those under the Usurper as the validity of his Acts the obedience to his Pâ—â—sâ—n These respect only those under the Uâ—urpers Power and then I would ask the Dr. whether a Rightful Prince actually insisting upon his Right and making war in prosecution of it be not a sufficient Declaration as to this point We are now come to matter of fact the Case of Richard
the Third And from what Dr. Jackson says these things are plain 1. That Richard the Third came to be invested with Royal Power by very indirect means 2. That many Acts of Royal Power tho proceeding from him were legal 3. That they that bore office under him or obeyed his summons to Parliament did not resist the Ordinance of God 4. That it had been a sin for any man of his own private head to have killed him And this the Dr. hath put into great black letters as if there were some very great matter in it But in truth it is nothing at all for I do not know that it is a Question between us whether any man of his own private head may kill an Usurper whatever some learned men have said about it But this I can tell him that Dr. Jackson expressing it with this cautious limitation plainly supposes that be thought it might be done by private men tho not of their own private Heads And therefore 5. Every man is not Avenger of such as resist the ordinance of God i. e. of Usurpers which plainly supposes that some men are And Dr. Jackson immediatly tells us who are This belongs to the Higher Powers only or unto them to whom the Supreme Power by right is annexed i. e. The Rightful Prince hath Authority and is an Avenger of an Usurper And so Henry of Richmond was authorized by God's Ordinance i. e. he was the Right Heir for that the Dr. plainly means by God's Ordinance This indeed is a mistake in History but that is nothing to the Argument and upon that account had authority to execute vengeance on him which every one might not which perhaps no other might have done save only in his right and interest and by his Commission and Command i. e. tho others may not do it of their own private heads yet they may in the right and interest and by the Commission and Command of the Right Heir And now we have it with the Conjunctive and what hath the Dr. to say to it he tells us who ever doubted Vindic. p. 77. but a Rightful Prince when dispossessed unjustly may recover his Throne if he can and dispossess the Vsurper or that those who lawfully receive Commissions from him may lawfully fight in his quarrel But the great Question still remains whether Subjects may lawfully take Commission from the dispossessed Prince to fight against the Prince who is setled in the possession of the Throne this Dr. Jackson does not say and therefore he can do our Author no service Right he does not say it nor was there any reason for it but this he says that the Right Heir or dispossessed Prince is the Higher Powers and it is a great Question indeed whether the Subjects may lawfully take a Commission from the Higher Powers and the instance makes this as clear as the Sun Dr. Jackson says perhaps no other Person might have done it save only in his right and interest and by his commission and command and in whose right and interest c. did he mean why truly in the right and interest and by the commission and command of Henry of Richmond and who I pray were the men that took Commissions of him and fought for him why truly no body else but the Subjects of England even at the same time that the Usurper actually governed and then the Subjects may lawfully take Commissions from the Right Heir to fight against the Prince who is setled in the Possession of the Throne The truth is any man who is not concern'd it should mean otherwise will easily see that what Dr. Jackson here obviates is the resisting or killing an Usurper of a mans own private head but by no means to prejudice the Right and Interest of the Lawful Prince as appears plainly by the former limitation that the Acts of a false Magistrate are of validity and his Person is to be obeyed until he be declared an Vsurper by some Higher Power And the Case of Richard and Henry is but an example to illustrate the Doctrine he had before delivered and when Henry of Richmond had declared Richard an Usurper as he manifestly did by making war upon him the validity of his Acts of Government and Obedience to his Person fell from him and centred in the Higher Powers and in the Ordinance of God and 't is ridiculous to question the lawfulness of taking Commissions from the Higher Powers to fight against a Prince who hath no Authority and when there is no obedience due to him And by this time the Dr. may see what great Reason he had to appeal to his Reader to judge on which side Dr. Jackson is As to the validity of the Acts of Government by an Usurper the Dr. may be satisfied in the Case of Allegiance to a King de facto And that worthy Author hath since given him abundant satisfaction We have now seen how much that which he hath cited out of Dr. Jackson makes for him in the next place let us consider how much that which I have cited makes against him he did not care to repeat it but thus it is as much as concerns the Case of Usurpation He who is a mere Vsurper or a Tyrant by Title may be resisted by violence even to deposition or death albeit he happens to exercise his power with such moderation as would become a just and lawful King it is a truth unquestionable that a Tyrant by Title c. may be resisted without resisting the Ordinance of God And the Reason is plain for that he could neither usurp nor continue his power otherwise than by resisting some Higher Powers or by resisting the Ordinance of God and among others he instances in case he usurp or exercises Royal Authority over such as have been formerly governed by Royal Succession he openly resists power much higher than his own whether this power be yet actually annexed to some known Persons that have Right or Title to the Kingdom by Succession or whether in defect of the Antient Royal Issue c. from hence these things are plain 1. That an Usurper may justly be resisted and deposed and therefore he hath not the irresistable Authority of a Sovereign Prince And the Drs. Title to his Book and his Hypothesis do not agree the Title is the Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Princes And his Hypothesis concerns only obedience to Vsurped Powers 2. The formal reason why they may be resisted or deposed is because they resist some Higher Powers or they resist the Ordinance of God and from whence it plainly and undeniably follows 1. That Usurpers are not the Higher Powers nor the Ordinance of God for 't is a contradiction to say that those are the Higher Powers or the Ordinance of God whose very essence and constitution consists in resisting them And this strikes at the Root of both the Doctors Books 2. That the Right Heir or the King out of possession is the Higher Power
and the Ordinance of God for otherwise it could not be said that an intruder into the Office Royal could never usurp or continue his power otherwise then by resisting some higher power or the Oâ—dinance of God and as he afterwards expresses it with respect to a Government by succession He the Usurper resists power much higher than his own And if the Right Heir or King out of possession be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God then he is the Person within the Precept of the Apostle in the 13th to the Romans and not the Usurper And therefore whatever may be due to an Usurper in the exercise of Royal Power in indifferent cases nothing can be due to him in prejudice of the Right Heir for our duty to the place and power the Usurper holds which is the utmost Dr. Jackson allows can never be interpreted to the wrong and injury of the Person to whom that place and power of Right belongs and whose it is For I hope no duty to Usurpers will excuse us for resisting the Higher Powers and the Ordinance of God and if the Right Heir be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God then whosoever resists him resists the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God And I would fain know if the Usurper by resisting the Rightful Prince resists the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God why also every man else that resists the rightful Prince does not likewise resist the Higher Power the Ordinance of God And the Dr. may trie if he has a distinction that can make it a duty to obey Usurpâ—rs in opposition to St. Paul who commands us to obey the Higher Powers and who are ordained of God And thus Dr. Jackson himself expresly determines it in the very case of Richard the Third He tells us 3. Tom. p. 881. They were not Traitors that and yeild obedience to the Laws made by him or submit themselves unto the Magistrates of his appointment save only in Cases wherein the Laws made by him might prejudice the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom or cut off the Right of Succession to the Crown But in case the Magistrates Earls or Barons created by him should have commanded their inferiors to taâ—e arms against the known and lawful heir to the Crown to have yeilded obedience to them in this case had been Treason as Rieh himself during all the time of his Reign was no better than a Traitor I have one thing more to observe from hence and that is that the Rightful King out of Possession is not only the Higher Power but that he has the Power actually annex'd to his Person for thus Dr. Jackson expresses it the Usurper openly resists Power much higher than his own whether the Power be yet actually annexed to some known Persons that have Right or Title to the Kingdom by succession which overthrows at least one half of his two books and all his Arguments about actual Authority c. And besides fully answers his little exception about receiving Commissions from them for it is ridiculous and a contradiction to talk of Power being actually annexed to the Person of a Prince when he cannot exercise any Acts of Power and Authority The Dr. comes to examine another citation I produced out of Dr. Jackson And ushers it in with this laudable preface But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out then to have betrayed so much dishonesty in his quotations These are hard words and the Dr. is bound in honour to make them good for it is shameless with a witness to charge a man at this rate and have nothing to say to justifie it And let us see what it is he does say He says he will give the Reader the entire passage 1. Jehoiada in that he was High Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the Power of Jurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This saith the Dr. our Author leaves out Right I did so and what reason was there to transcribe more than was necessary and concerned the question I wonder he did not charge me with dishonesty for not quoting the whole Sermon But he says it is very material because it shows by what Authority he did it as the ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne then it seems the Throne was vacant and I would desire the Dr. to tell me when according to his Principles when Athaliah was on the Throne it was fill'd with God's Providential Queen when Joash was crown'd it was fill'd with a King by Divine Entail but according to the Dr. it was never vacant and consequently according to him Jehoiada never had any such Authority But the truth is the Throne was vacant all the time the Usurper possessed it i. e. it was not legally fill'd And Jehoiada as a Prime Peer of the Kingdom was to take care and to exercise his Authority that the Right Heir might be restored as Dr. Jackson says In the Right of this Prince and for the actual annexion of the Supreme Power to his Person unto whom it was de jure annexed Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate did by force and violence depose her And not as the Dr. seems to insinuate that he had any power to make a Decision of a controversie between the Right Heir and the Usurper and which way soever he determined it the People were bound to acquiesce for Dr. Sherlock adds that is not merely in his Right of Priesthood as the Papists pretend nor merely as a Subject but as being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged as he had observed before what have we got here can the Prime Peer of a Kingdom judge authoritatively and judicially of Kings if the Dr. could persuade Dr. Jackson to say this it might do his Hypothesis of the Peoples consent in Parliament some service but his Doctrine about providence would suffer as much by it on the other hand for then there would be a Tribunal on Earth for the decision of differences between Kings and Usurpers Vindic. p. 46. and then the Events of Providence would make no difference between private injuries and usurpations of Government Let that go as it will he tells us Dr. Jackson had observed this before Now indeed Dr. Jackson did observe that an Usurper's Acts are of validity c. till he be declared to be an Vsurper by some Higher Power or Authority now transfer this to Athaliah and Jehoiada and see what wise work we shall make on 't that is to say all the time of Athaliahs Usurpation Jehoiada was the Higher Powers and then Athaliah's power must be inferiour to his and so at last he has made a pure Queen of her to have a Power inferiour and under the Authority of her own Subjects for he tells us Jehoiada submitted to her and ought to be justified in it
Vindic. p. 27. But the truth is Dr Jackson observ'd nothing at all of this by the Higher Powers he means the Right Heir and Lawful King as I have shewed before and in this very place the Dr. cites out of him he says Jehoiada was invested with the Power of Jurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power and I suppose next to the Higher Power is not the Higher Power it self And therefore Jehoiada deposed and killed Athaliah not meerly in right of his Priesthood nor merely in Right of his Peerâ—ge But Dr. Jackson says expresly in the Right of this Prince i. e. the Infant Joash unto whose Person The Power Royal was by Right annexed And to whom by virtue of his high Station and his Relation to him as being the Kings Uncle he might be Guardian and therefore the fittest to preside and manage that undertaking but it does not therefore follow that if he had neglected it or took part with the Usurper but any other Peer or Subject might have undertaken it in the same Right and by the same Authority and Dr. Jackson plainly intimates it by the inference he draws from hence which the Dr. conceals tho he told us he would give the Reader the intire passage Is it then all one in these mens Divinity for a Subject or Peer of any Realm to stand for the Right of his Leige Lord against a Stranger or Vsurper c. So then it seems a Subject or Peer and I hope or is a Disjunctive a Subject that is not a Peer may stand by the Right of his Leige Lord against an Usurper as well as a Prime Peer The Dr. here charges me with shamefully mangling this passage of Dr. Jackson and I shall leave it with the Reader whether he hath not shamefully interpreted it He adds This is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Jehoiada did this being the Kings Vncle and the chief Head and Prince of his Tribe that is not a private Subject but a chief Prince in the Kingdom of Judah Now the Dr. deals with the Convocation just as he hath done with Dr. Jackson and to shew what a fair interpretation he makes I shall cite the passage Now after six years that Joash the true and natural Heir apparent to the Crown had been so brought up Convoc p. 41. He the said Jehoiada being the Kings Uncle and the chief Head or Prince of his tribe sent through Judah for the Levites nd chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come unto him to Jerusalem who accordingly repairing thither and being made acquainted by him with the preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lords will that he should reign over them they altogether by a covenant acknowledged their Allegiance to him as unto their Lawful King and so disposed of things as presently after he was crowned and anointed which dutiful office of Subjects being performed they apprehended the Usurper Athaliah and slew her as before it was by the said States resolved In all the process of which action nothing was done either by the High Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah which God himself did not require at their hands And what is all this to Jehoiada's being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged where is any judicial or authoritative Act of his he conven'd them indeed and which he might do as High Priest and Prince of his Tribe and acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and the Convocation attributes no more to him in particular but the acknowledgment of their Allegiance and the business of deposing and slaying Athaliah was resolved on by common consent by the said States There is nothing of Authority ascrib'd to Jehoiada in this and they express it yet plainer in their Canon Or that Jehoiada the High Priest was not bound as he was a Priest both to inform the Princes and People of the Lords promise that Joash should reign over them and likewise to anoint him Now as I take it informing is not commanding them nor directing them by an act of Authority And if Jehoiada had not done as he was bound if he had not informed them nay if he had informed them otherwise yet if they had been informed any other way I suppose they might have done their duty and have acknowledged their Allegiance to their natural Prince and have resolved together to depose and slay the Usurper what Authority soever Jehoiada had or how much soever he had informed or commanded them to the contrary was it their duty to adhere to their natural Prince or not if it was the interposition of Jehoiada's Authority either way could not influence that the great Authority of the High Priest might indeed facilitate and expedite the setting him on the Throne but could not make that a duty which was not nor make that cease to be a duty which was so before And now let me ask the Dr. where is the shameful mangling and dishonesty in my not citing this passage of Jehoiada's being a Prime Peer and invested with Power of jurisdiction next to the Higher Power For what is that to the purpose for which I cited Dr. Jackson The single question is whether it be lawful to obey an Usurper in possession of the Throne in opposition to the Right Heir out of possession and what was the heigth of his Station and the power of his Jurisdiction to that as high as he was it was not lawful for him and his fact plainly declares it His high dignity indeed made it reasonable for him to interpose his Authority in behalf of the Right Heir and was the fittest to conduct and manage an affair of that nature but it made no difference in the lawfulness of the thing for if it be unlawful for a Prime Peer to joyn himself to an Usurper in opposition to the Rightful Prince 't is unlawful for a private Subject And that was all that I was concerned in it was foreign to the question to meddle in the dispute with the Papists to whom this was an Answer for they urge this fact of Jehoiada as an Act of Authority annexed to the Priesthood And the Dr. says in express terms That this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction I will not return his scurrilous inuendo of looking kindly towards Rome but he hath given the Papist greater advantage in this Controversie than any Protestant ever did For if it be granted that this was an Act of Jurisdiction and Authority in Jehoiada the Question hath a new face and 't is splitting an hair whether that was the Authority of the High Priest or of the Prime Peer whereas all Protestants have fix'd it upon a clearer bottom and say that what he did was in the Right of his Prince and not by any Authority of his own and remove the controversie off of that bottom and admit that Jehoiada acted in a
Power over Israel But the mischief is the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments c. that God had called him to murder the King de facto under whom he lived c. which says the Doctor is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de facto in the jugdment of the Convocation And I suppose our Author knows what a King de facto signifies in opposition to a King de jure one who is King without a Legal Right I answer yes I do know that but the mischief is the Convocation does not speak of a King de facto in opposition to a King de jure but barely of a King de facto and I suppose the Doctor knows that a King de facto when it is not spoken in opposition to a King de jure does not mean a King without a legal Right And this is plainly the case for 1 it is barely and nakedly expressed without any opposition to a King de jure either mention'd or suppos'd 2. The matter plainly proves that it cannot be spoken in opposition to a King de jure which is that the King de facto may not be murdered by his Subjects but if a King de facto was spoken in opposition to a King de jure then a King de jure may be murdered by his Subjects 3. The Doctor tells us that this is spoken with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon and therefore King Eglon was but a King de facto But then this is a reason that the Convocation did not speak it in opposition to a King de jure for in the Chapter to this Canon they speak with reference to the same That the Lord may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countries Kingdoms or Empires These words were plainly spoken with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon and the Convocation prefaces thus Both which Examples i. e. of Jehu and Ahud do make it known to us that although the Lord may and is able to overthrow c. And the Doctor tells us but the page before P. 9. that there is no sense to be made of these words if they do not prove God's sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings c. and this was spoken with reference to God's pulling down King Eglon by Ahud But then Eglon was so far from being a King de facto in opposition to a King de jure that he was not only a rightful King but a most rightful King And therefore the mischief the Doctor speaks of that the Convocation in express words owns the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites to be only Kings de facto is no other mischief but that the Doctor contradicts himself but that is no mischief with him otherwise he would not use it so often And here we plainly see the Doctor 's admirable dexterity in interpreting the Convocation to his own purpose The Convocation says King de facto and no more but it seems that would not do and therefore the Doctor says they say only King de facto and but King de facto but these Additions which perfectly alter the sense are no bodies but his own and yet it seems it was not enough to put them in but he must tell us also the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto when the Convocation hath not any such word or any thing like it The Doctor proceeds Vindic. p. 11. Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author hath found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies and that is the submission both of Prince and People Well that is one of them but not all which says the Doctor he says I grant gives a legal Right Postscripâ— p. 2. whereas I only said that the submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so Very good let it differ as little or as much as he please it is nothing to me for if he will look again he will find that I only said the Doctor tells us that the submission of the Prince c. And I think also that saying he tells us differs a little from saying he grants So that I think this might have been spared But the Doctor had a mind to charge me with a fault and he hath thereby shew'd himself to be only guilty of it However I take this opportunity to tell him that it is indifferent to me whether or no he grants that the submission of the Prince and People confer a legal Right all the world besides grant it and that is sufficient for any ordinary Principle tho the Doctor should not think fit to like it nor any thing else tho never so plain if it contradicts his Hypothesiâ— But now the Doctor tells me The truth is our Author is here blundered for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous terms This is a terrible business if the Doctor could but shew us where this blundering and these ambiguous terms were I had told him as plain as I could speak that besides lineal descent a Right to a Government might be acquir'd by the death or cession of the right heir joyn'd with the consent of the People and by Prescription and when such a Right respectively was attain'd the Government was then a legal Government I think this is distinct enough and the Notions are clear enough and if the Doctor would have given a direct Answer he should have shewn that either a Right to a Government by these ways is not attain'd or if it be that the Governments the Convocation speaks of and requires Obedience to had not attain'd such a Right but instead of that he runs on with a company of distinctions about legal and learnedly shews how many several ways Powers may be said to be legal And what is all that to me and to the purpose By legal Powers I understand what he understands by them if he understands any thing by them and that is legal Powers in opposition to usurped Powers Usurped Powers are such as have no Right legal Powers are such as have a Right as well a Right acquir'd as by lineal descent and such Powers by the consent of all mankind are legal Powers and Usurpers the contrary And the Doctor knows well enough this is my sense and hath quoted it too but two or three pages before but the truth is Vindic. p. 6. the Doctor is blunder'd for an Answer and to avoid giving a clear and distinct Answer falls a