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
then I doubt half the former part of his book will come to nothing for I had asserted that all the Governments the Convocation requires and justifies obedience to had acquir'd such a Right which the Dr. does not disprove but falls a distinguishing between the Laws of Nature Nations and a new Law never heard of before the Law of force which it seems does more than all other Laws for it cancels the obligation of them all And then tells me upon these terms he may agree with me Vindic. p. 16. whereas now he hath agreed the point upon my own terms and so hath confuted all that he said before for if a Legal Right to a Government by those means may be acquir'd if all the Governments the Convocation justifies obedience to had such a Right if all the Governments they justifie the resistance of had not such a Right then the distinction is between Right and no Right and then by a thorough Settlement they do mean the acquisition of a Legal Right and cannot mean usurped Powers which according to the Dr. himself have no Legal Right if men understand themselves tho perhaps they may have something or other no body knows what by the Laws of Nature Nations or Force 2. The Dr. says the Convocation does not offer to justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying that the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive Now the Dr. tells me that because I had said this I make very bold with the Convocation and I shall leave it with the Reader who makes more bold with the Convocation I that had said they give that as a Reason to justifie the proceedings or the Dr. who says they do not In this Chapter after having recited the Usurpation of Athaliah the preservation of the Rightful Prince the Subjects owning anointing him and deposing and slaying Athaliah add in all the process of which action nothing was done either by Jehoiada the High Priest or by the Rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands And to this they add immediatly Joash their late Kings Son being then their only natural Lord and Sovereign altho Athaliah kept him for six years from the Possession of his Kingdom And if they do not give this as the reason of the whole I wish the Dr. would tell me what they give it for But says the Dr. they only prove by this that She was an Vsurper who had no Legal Right to the Throne the Right Heir being living Now it is certain that this proved her an Usurper but did not the Divine Entail prove her an Usurper also that surely is the direct proof of it and the ground and reason why the other proves it The same Law that declared the Right to be in Joash declared Athaliahs to be Usurpation And why I wonder should the Right Heirs being living any more declare that She had no Legal Right to the Throne than the Entail of the Crown did and when his being alive and being their natural Prince declared it so only by virtue of that Entail And I desire the Dr. to tell me how Joash's being alive prov'd Athaliah to be an Usurper any otherwise than that the Crown of Judah was entail'd on David's posterity But then what means this trifling nicety why truely the Dr. was afraid least his beloved Usurpation should suffer And therefore adds that he believes I will own that they are two very different Questions whether such a Prince be an Vsurper and whether he may be depos'd and murdered murdered is a very hard word and I do not care to meddle with it the Convocation calls it slaying and I think with the Drs. leave there is some difference between slaying and murdering and a little more than there is between the Right of an Heir and the Entail that makes that Right But to gratifie him I do own that whether a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be deposed and slain are two different Questions but I say likewise that whether an Usurper may be deposed and slain when the Right Heir is living is but one Question and such a Question too as the Convocation makes no difficulty to answer nor any Auâ—hor of note that I have met with besides in any Age who as far as my reâ—ding serves Civilians Historians Divines have all unanimously asserted that an Usurper may be deposed and let any man consult Barclay Roffensis Bishop Abbot Sulitiffe Widdring ton or any other Author that answers Bellarmin with respect to this instance and he will find that â—he Reason they all give to justifie Athaliahs deposing was that She was an Usurper And here I shall renew my request to the Dr. and desire him to shew me any one approved Author of any Age that ever asserted that Tyrannus sine Titulo might not be depos'd or if he cannot do it himself that he will request that learned Pen he tells me of that is to inform me of the sense of the Primitive Christians for it is no great credit to this Doctrine that it hath had no better Patrons than Goodwin Jenkins c. and only trump'd up to serve the vilest purposes and from that time to this hath not had one single Assertor 'till it is now transmigrated to Dr. Sherlock I had further said that the Convocation thought of no such difference but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and tho attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Judah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Jews was not attained by honester means than Athaliahs and was as much contrary to the Entail upon David's house as hers and yet they justifie and require obedience to them but justifie the slaying of her and therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power for what the Dr. hath left out Athaliah had as full Possion of Power in the Kingdom of Judah as had the Babylonians Macedonians or Romans nor do they reckon God's Entail upon David's posterity any ground of difference in this matter for the Government of Judah by the Babylonians was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now saith the Dr. all this is answer'd in one word The Entail God made upon David 's posterity did always oblige the Jews when they were at their own choice and had power enough to take the King on whom God had entail'd the Crown which was evidently their case when Jehoiada anointed Joash and slew Athaliah but when they were under force as they were under the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans no Entail tho made by God himself could bind them And then I hope it will be granted that no Humane Entails can bind any People who are under force if a Divine Entail cannot do it
as meer Providence did not make them binding so neither does meer Providence destroy their obligation And how extravagant does this Doctrine look when apply'd to other instances of Legal Right All the Laws of a Country are made by Providence as well as the Entail of the Crown And he that usurpâ— another mans estate is the providential possessor and to urge the Laws of property against the Possession is to oppose providence against providence providence that made the Law against an after providence that put him in Possession The Drs. Evasion which he uses afterwards P. 46. that private injuries are reserv'd by God to the Redress of Publick Government does not reach the case for besides that injuries to Princes ore to be redress'd by the Laws as well as private injuries and the Law is the Rule in one case as well as the other the dispute now is about opposing providence to providence a former providence to a latter and tho the Laws will dispossess a providential Possessor and so they will in all cases if they might take place Yet the Question is whether according to this Doctrine the present wrongful Possessor hath not the same Title with the first occupier or last Proprietor For it is all but providence the one hath it by the Law that is by one Act of providence the other hath it by Possession that is by another Act of providence And Possession is to prescribe to the Law as being the later providence and not Law to the Possession as being the former providence And to talk of redressing injurious Possession by the Law is to redress providence by providence a later providence by a former and that is almost as absurd as to oppose providence against providence a former Providence to a latter For it is all but providence still And the Dr. desires to know why the providence of an Entail is more sacred and obligatory than any other act of providence which gives a setled Possession of the Throne The rest of the Proofs and Inferences that the Dr. makes use of in this particular are wild things and mean nothing and as to what he says that They will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter c. This is proving the Question backwards for the Question is not whether they will allow providence of God to change and alter his methods for that he may do and his Laws too if he please but whether God wi l allow us to change alter and transfer our duties merely upon the acâ—â—unt of his providence And what he says that what God has once done that they are reâ—â—â—ved to abide by we say yes 'till God himself discharge us and the Question returns whether acts of providence release us when the Rule holds us And as to limiting providence what Authority hath he to extend providence any more than we have to confine it and this is the Question whether we who say it is no Rule of practice nor ought to determine us against a Rule do limit providence or he who makes a Law and a Rule of it and makes the bare acts of it to dissolve all the obligations of Laws and Oaths does extend providence beyond the true meaning of it and beyond all the Accounts which from Scripture or sound reason can be given of it What follows in my Answer the Dr. tells us is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the twelve Tribes by Gods express command And this saith the Dr. answers to Gods entailing the Crown on the posterity of David the Possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a Humane Right and Title to the Crown well saith he there is something of likeness between them and what then and then repeats my words And therefore according to the Drs. way of reasoning Postscript p. 11. every man who wrongfully possessed himself of another mans estate in that Land Canaan must be made to restore it for God had expresly given it to the other and to his family But in all other Countries if a man by providence get his neighbours estate he must have it for the event is Gods Act and 't is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it To this the Dr. replies The fundamental mistake which runs through all those kind of arguments is this that they make the events of providence in private injuries thefts encroachments to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects Now whose arguments are these that make the events of providence the very same in both cases why truly the Drs. own does he not tell us in his Case of Allegiance that the Scripture never speaks of God's bare permissiâ—â— of any Events p. 12. but makes him the Author of all the good or evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies The Events of all things are in his hands and are ordained and disposed by his Wil. and Council as they must be if God governs the World Now if this be the Case then all Events are the same with respect to providence The Event of Usurpation and the Event of unjust Possession differ as to the matter but as to the Will Counsel Order and Decree of God they are both the same for the Dispossession of a priva e man is the same Providential Will Order Counsel and Decree as the Dispossession of a King And if this be a mistake then the Drs. Doctrine is a mistake and his Fundamental Doctrine is a Fundamental mistake and I cannot help that And to mend the matter the Dr. hath gone one step farther and to have the same effects And why not I pray The reason and ground why Usurpation is to take effect and draw the Allegiance of the Subject after it is because it is God's Counsel Decree and Order And if these be the same in all other Events why do not they take effect also when the reason and ground is the very same and I would fain see a good reason why the Providential Counsels and Orders are not as valid against the Legal Right to a private Estate as the Legal Right to the Crown The Doctrine of Providence affords us no difference and God's Government equally extends to all Cases and Persons The Scriptures give us none but equally attribute the depression and exaltation of private men to the Providence of God as they do the setting up and pulling down Kings and not one of the Drs. Arguments so far as they concern Providence but what are equally applicable to private property as to Thrones and Kingdoms And let him disprove this by shewing any one if he can But the Dr. tells us that All private injuries are reserved by God himself to the correction and redress of publick Government and Humane Courts of Justice and therefore his providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights Now this is true and
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