him in the interim of his Dispossession to need an Act of Oblivion Not to mention moreover how Richard the Second was not judged in Law to have lost his Authority whilst Henry the Fourth was possess'd of his Crown Whereof I think this is a very good Proof because the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. as it is in the Rolls says That Henry himself who was unjustly Possessed thereof ought Allegiance to him all that time As his most Sovereign Lord in Earth and acted against God's Law Man's Ligiance and Oath of Fidelity when at last he Murdered him Nor the several Attaindors that might be produced for acting against the Right Heirs seeking to get Possession These Attaindors suppose Authority for an Attaindor cannot ly against any but for acting against the Royal Authority And this Authority was whilst they had no Possession yea for acting for the unjust Possessor himself against them This I think may be sufficient to shew that the Authority of a King doth not lye in possession of External Strength but in such a Right of Ordering as lays an Internal Obligation which may stay by him when all his External Strength is gone and which they may want who have got all his External Strength from him And therefore this Reverend Person should not think it enough to prove one Prince out of Authority because he is out of Possession or another to be in his Authority because he has got into Possession To know who has and who wants the Authority we must look who has or who wants that which carries and and conveys Authority which is not having of External Strength but having Right thereto as I shall endeavour to shew by and by II. Secondly It may be fit to inquire Whence have they this Authority Now that is from God as he observes Who is the Supream Lord of the World and the Fountain of all Authority he is Lord of our Spirits as well as of our Bodies and his Authority can bind us in Conscience as well as in External Interests and this Authority in them coming from him can do so too and therefore St. Paul speaking of the Obligation laid upon us by Civil Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Higher Powers says It calls for our being subject thereunto not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1 5. To force the Body may be in the Power of Men but to reach the Conscience is not to be done but by the Authority of God But if this be God's Authority it is next to be inquired III. Thirdly How come they by it or where has he conferred on them this Authority This I think is in the Commandment The Fifth Commandment empowers all Authority and so do those other Precepts that require us to be subject to the Higher Powers to Honour the King to Obey Magistrates and the like That I think empowers him to Command which requires us to Obey and is a Charter both of his Authority and of our Duty since this Duty is only due to Authority I know no other way whereby God speaks either to Governours or Subjects but by the Commandment which empowers one and obliges the other and on this Foot St. Paul seems to put the Guilt of all that is done against Authority He that resisteth the Power or Authority resisteth the Ordinance of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. says the Aethop and Syr. The Divine Mandate or the Constitution and Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Names as Grotius notes which the Emperors were wont to give to their Imperial Constitution so implying them to be Empower'd or Authoriz'd by the Commandment and making resistance of Authority to be a resistance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Commandment which carries and conveys the Authority Rom. 13. 2. This annexing of Authority by the Commandment is immediately to the State or Dignity and only by means of that to the Person The Authority the Commandment places in the Father and the Subjection it requires to the Higher Power the Obedience to the Magistrate and the like in all other Authorities and this is all that Laws can do for Laws are general Sayings and general Sayings can only authorize States in general but must leave it to Men to make the particular Applications The State and Relation then of a Prince or Parent c. is what God and the Command immediately authorizes But this State authorized by a general Commandment is a general Thing And it will be asked further How comes this to be such a Man's Authority or to be fixed in such a Person Now that is by the same way that he comes into the State or Relation and that is not by any immediate Act of God but by an Act of Men. 'T is the Law of the Land for instance that makes any particular Man a King and that Law is not the Act of God but the Act of Men and so in every other State and Relation The comming into these States God and his Laws have left to human Ways and these Ways are very well known none need be Ignorant of the way of coming in to be a Father a Magistrate a Master an Husband c. Which State when once by such Ways they see any Person in the Command of God takes Place giving him Authority and calling for Duty from the Subjects towards him This the Learned Authour seems to think is not enough But as the Power or Authority is annexed to the State so must the Person be called to that State and Power by God himself And therefore he says this empowering or authorizing of the parcular Person is by Providence which is God's doing and which he thinks a good Grant of God to an Usurping Possessor who according to him is a good providential King 1. But First As for such Grant of God to a Person if he means as I suppose he doth a more immediate way of Granting than that by human Rights I know no way of doing that but by particular Revelation or God's immediate Nomination If God please to name the Person he gives the Authority particularly to that Person and not only by the general Grant of giving it to him whosoever should come into such Relation or State of a Parent suppose or King And thus in the First Marriage God fixed the Person viz. Eve who should be Wife to Adam And sometimes among the Jews named the Man as Saul and David who should have the Royal Authority and be their King But these are Rarities and out of the ordinary and constant Course of God's empowering either Kings or Husbands and yet all that come into these States otherwise are as much empowered by God as these so his way of empowering the Person must not be tyed to Revelation and particular Nomination And how God can immediately fix the Person otherwise than by himself immediately naming him which is
Property and that can go but one way If the thing is one of the Party's it cannot be the other's for a very good Reason because it cannot belong to both and 't is nothing but Right that makes it belong to either So that as only one of them can have it only one of them can have Right to it and the better Right must set the worse aside else one would be righteous in invading the others Right and the other would be righteous in withholding his Right since both in invading and detaining each others Right each would pursue their own Right which is evidently to destroy all Right and to confound the Notion and Use of Right and Wrong So that take away Right from Authority and then Authority in that Person is neither to be Defended nor Obeyed the plain Reason is because both their Defence and Obedience is to respect the Person They are to defend him in his Authority and obey him for his Authority and they neither may defend him in it nor are bound to own and obey him for it unless it be his Authority Now what is it in any Person that can make Authority to be his The very same that can make any Thing else to be his or any Thing to be any Mans and that is a Title to it And if Authority must go by Title it must plainly go by Right for that is a very bad Title and will do a Man but little good which has no Right in it Admit any Person to have no Right then who pretends to Authority and you make him a King without Authority since without some Title to it the Authority is none of his Such a King as they who please when they can safely may very rightfully cast off and disobey But whom against the Person that has the Right they cannot righteously obey and defend All their Acting there on his side is without Authority and against the other is against Authority so that Right must come in to give any Authority which Subjects are either bound to obey or may lawfully defend And for any other Authority that can neither authorize and justifie Defence nor challenge Obedience it will not deserve any Dispute whether it must go by Right or no. And as this leaves the wrongful Possessor no Authority so doth it leave him who has the legal Right and which no better Right has set aside still to be in Authority For if Property go by Right as it can go by nothing else the Authority is his whose the Right is And what a Difficulty would this make on transferring Allegiance and Obedience when this way they would pay it all where there is no Authority and disclaim and deny it all where there is Authority Which Practice would make a very odd Comment on all those Scripture Texts and Commandments that call upon us To be subject and obedient to Authorities The Author thinks this Transfering and Paying Allegiance and turning subject to the Possessor without Right is no wrong to the other nor any denial of his legal Right What Men may still believe in themselves or own of his legal Right is one Thing but if the Dispossessed Prince really has such legal Right such transferring Allegiance in my Opinion must needs do him a great Wrong he will allow it to be casting off Subjection to him and turning subject to another against him Now he that has the legal Right as I have shown has God's Authority and casting off Subjection to him that has God's Authority is certainly doing him Wrong for Authority is no Authority unless it oblige People to be Subject and Obedient to it And St. Paul requires Every Soul in Conscience towards God to keep Subject to the Authority meaning to the Persons in Authority The Authority or Power v. 1 2. being called the Ruler v. 3. and the Minister of God v. 4. And they would plainly wrong the Persons in Authority if they should renounce and deny them that Subjection which God has given and requires every Soul to pay to them On the other side the Possessor without Right has not God's Authority and then Allegiance and Subjection is not his due Allegiance as the Author himself says being due only to God's Authority and we being to own no King who has not God's Authority And to cast off Subjection to the Right in Authority to whom it is due and to pay it to the wrongful Possessor without Authority to whom it is not due I think is dealing very Unduly and not according to St. Paul's Rule of Justice when treating of these Duties towards Princes He requires us to render to all their Dues As for the Author's Reason That Obedience is not due to the Prince of legal Right but whilst he actually administers the Government There were more pretence for that if he were in God's Authority only whilst he administers it as he supposes But I imagine he will not deny but some Obedience must always and inseperably be due to God's Authority For it would be a strange Authority of God that no Body were under any Obligation to obey and as strange to think we perform the Scripture Rules of being subject to Authority when we cast it off And what I now urge is that he who has the legal Right to Authority though he has not Possession has not lost the Authority So that to transfer and renounce Allegiance to a Prince he must be stript of Authority which cannot be without setting up a better Title and stripping him of his legal Right too Add to all this the Nature of Authority it self which is a Moral Quality as I noted or Spiritual Thing Now how should any Man come by this but by way of Right and Title Being a Spiritual Thing he cannot take it but must come to be Master of it in its own way that is by having Right thereto If it be questioned whether a Man has got the Authority or no How should he make it out he may show himself possessed of the External Strength which was the Means of Exercising and Enforcing it but the Authority may remain with the right Owner after all that is taken away from him as I shewed above And if he can tell no other way of his getting it but by such force of Arms it 's a strong Argument he has not got it since it cannot be seized that way Mere force of Arms can no more take Right than Righteousness and Men may as well go to storm Temperance and Humility as to storm Authority If one wants it mere Strength then can never give it and if one has it mere loss of Strength can never lose it What then must either give or recal it If mere Strength and Force cannot Right must so that he has Authority that has Right to it and he keeps Authority who keeps Right to it though he can keep nothing else II. Secondly To make Authority go otherwise than
Medes and Persians Dan. 5. 28. 30. 31. And like was the way of removing the King in the next great Change viz. by the Death of Darius when the Empire passed from the Persians to the Macedonians And by this way of removing their Persons by Death or of conquered Kings submitting and giving up their own Rights which is another way of removing human Rights were the Removals of Kings brought about in the several Changes of the Monarchies there spoken of And both these are full Removals of Kings and Kingly Rights yea and that against human Laws whereby God removed them in the Nations Besides that more immediate way of removing one and setting up another by Personal Nomination as he did sometimes among the Jews Another Degree of God's removing a King is not quite removing him from his Regal Right and Title but from actual Exercise of Government And this God doth sometimes by internal Incapacities depriving them of use of Reason that renders them for the present incapable to Govern As he did by Nebuchadnezzar taking from him the Heart of a Man i. e. Human Reason and giving him a Beasts Heart i. e. making him turn Bruitish fancying himself a Beast and fit only to live among Beasts and to delight in them Dan. 4. 16. 31. c. This took away his Exercise of Government yea of Conversation v. 25 32. making him to be driven from among Men and made a Necessity of some Regent or other Provision in the interim till he should recover his Wits again But the Title and Authority noted in the Vision by the Stump of his Roots still in the Earth v. 15. 26. was still remaining in him to secure his Kingdom to him and to bind his Lords and Counsellors to seek unto him as he says they did v. 36. when his Reason should return And of this Removal of him and giving away his Kingdom not the Right and Title but actual Administration is his other Text Dan. 4. 17. spoken which calls this God's giving it to whom he will and setting up and ruling in the Kingdoms of Men. Or sometimes instead of internal Incapacities God removes them from this actual Administration by external Force when others without any good Title of Right are Providentially possessed of the External Power of their Kingdoms But when God doth this alone he doth not fully remove a King but leaves the Right and Authority that goes by Right still with him So this is not God's Removal or Setting up of Kings that is to remove or transfer Allegiance God's giving or acting by this way not of Title but mere Providential Possession not conferring Right or Authority as I have shewn before He also p. 18. urges Rom. 13. 1 2. which declares all Powers to be of God commanding them to be obeyed and forbidding them to be resisted But these Powers are only rightful Powers and Authorities not mere Providential and Usurping Possessors who can have no Authority till they first have some good Title to it as I think I have sufficiently proved ch 3. So this will give no Right to his usurping Possessors Neither will our Saviour's Argument against the Pharisces which is another of his Scripture Proofs p. 21. from the Superscription of the Coyn Which was an Argument to those who were under a rightful Power and could not pretend Obligation to any rightful Competitor and to shew they were Subject to the Romans who were the only Pretenders to Power over them But not to shew whether they should have owned them in Competition of a more rightful Prince as I have declared above ch 3. Nor will he prove it from p. 21. Jeremiah's Prophesie calling them to submit to the King of Babylon who had an human Right over them at that time and against whom as I shewed they were then in Rebellion Nor from the four Monarchies which he also alledges p. 20. 22 because what Right they had over any they subdued was in way of human Rights by the Submissions of People when they had no Rightful Kings left or by the Rightful Kings coming into the Submissions as is before explained Nor from the Roman Emperors whom he likewise particularly adds p. 20. 21. because their Government both over the Romans and others stood on legal or human Rights as I have formerly shewed Nor will it add any Force to any of these to say p. 20. 22. they were foretold before in Prophesies For Predictions only respect the Events but carry no Right or Authority to the Actors nor alter the Moral Natures of the Events themselves to give Right to that which is in it self unrighteous Christ foretold Iudas's Betraying him and the Jews Crucifying him and the Scriptures foretel what Antichrist shall do when he shall come and many more unrighteous Events and Accomplishments But as those Events would have been unrighteous without the Predictions they were unrighteous with them the Scriptural Foretelling giving Right or Authority to none of them And these I think are all that is material in his Proof from Scripture I come next to answer his Reasons for the foresaid Right of Providence and its Power to over-rule and set aside human Rights 1. His First Reason is p. 23. 24. c. because this giving Authority by Right of Providence is the best and most intelligible Account of the Original of human Government and of fetching all Authority of a Governor from God But as to this it doth not fetch any Person 's Authority from God any better or more immediately as I have shewn Chap. 2. than human Right doth Nay by a worse means in as much as it puts them in Authority by means of human Wickedness And human Rights seem a much better and fiâ—ter way of carrying Right from God than human Unrighteousness But God's Authority is carried in God's Commandment immediately to such a State and by means of Rightful Title to such a Person those Rightful Titles putting the Person in that State which God has authorized and making the Authority to become his before he act by it as I have above discoursed And as to the Question which particular way of giving this Right whether free Election of a Governor or Submission to a Conqueror or enlargement of Paternal Power by the Continuation of Duty under the Multiplication of Families to the Father or the First born did in Fact give Rise to the first or the most Governments That is not accounted for in either way but is an Historical Dispute But by which soever of the ways any Government was set up these rightful Titles are a good way of giving the Persons God's Authority which his mere Providential Possession is not As for the Objections he starts and answers under this point as p. 25. c. it s barring injured Princes to recover their Rights and p. 34. giving Right to Pyrates and Robbers and p. 34. 35. the Case of Athaliah and Joash I have already spoke to them Chap. 5. as they fell in
of Authority and he that has Possession though against Right has God's Authority which is the Notion that runs through his whole Book To clear this therefore I shall here enquire into the Nature of Authority and into the way of coming by it which will shew the way of losing of it A right Understanding whereof will be of great use to clear up his most fundamental Mistakes as I conceive and answer the main of what he has alledged on this Subject I. First I shall say something to the Nature of Civil Authority or shew what it is that we may know what to seek for in one when we seek after Authority There is the more need of this because I sind Men are very apt to take External Might and Strength which they see in Persons of Authority for their Authority And to conclude When they see one possessed of this External Strength that he is possessed of Authority but if he loses this External Strength that he loses his Authority Civil Authority speaks a Right or Liberty in one to order or do a thing in Civil Matters laying an Obligation on others to follow or submit to him as particularly in a Prince to give Order and Commands for a Rule of Practice to judge and determine Disputes about Rights or Properties to use the Sword which God has allowed him alone the Liberty of for Defence or Punishment And all with an Obligation to these under him to obey or acquiesce in or submit to them The most Essential Property of this and of all other Authority is to lay Obligation or a Conscientious and Internal Bond on those who are subject to it And some Authority has no other Inforcement being furnish'd with no External Compulsory nor using Force over the Bodies of those who are subject thereto as the Ministerial Authority which yet is a good Authority and God's Authority as truly as Civil Authority it self is But since the generality make so little of this Internal Obligation and can so easily break it External Strength and Might is added to this Authority to be a tye upon the Bodies as the other is upon the Spirits of Men and to make them observant out of fear of Wrath as St. Paul says Rom. 13. 4 5. who would not otherwise be so out of the true Obligation of Authority that is the Bond of Conscience And this External Strength lyes in a Princes having the Command of Courts and Officers Prisons and Executions in being possessed of Armies Ordinances Magazines Navies Treasures and Strong-holds of a Nation and the like But now this External Force and Strength is not the Prince's Authority it self but a Means and Instrument to exercise to back and inforce his Authority The Authority as I noted lies in Rightor Licence of Ordering with effect of Obligation and all this is a Spiritual Thing as Right Licence and Obligation and other Moral Things are So that Authority is a Moral Quality but this External Strength is no Moral Quality but a bodily Thing The insâ—pâ—rable effect of Authority is to lay an Internal Obligation this an External that a Power of affecting the Conscience this only the Bodies of Subjects For what External Strength has Power over is only our Bodies bodily Force can take away bodily Things but mere External Force lays no such Internal Bond of Submission upon the Conscience If a Man falls into the Hands of Thieves or Pyrates or in time of War if he and all he has in the Power of the Enemies their Ezternal Strength will give them Power over his Body but his Spirit is free And such Men for all they are under the Power of External Strength may refuse all they require with safety enough to their Consciences if they can with safety enough to their Persons There must be Authority as I say to bind the Conscience when this External Might that is only the means to exercise back and inforce Authority binds us in fear for External Interests And both these distinct Effects St. Paul distinctly Marks in the Higher Powers whose Authority which as being God's Authority binds the Conscience is backed with Strength for present Wrath upon the Bodies of Subjects Ye must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Rom. 135. Accordingly we find this External Stength separate from Authority and that shews plainly that External Strength is not Authority If a Man is in the Hands of Thieves or Pyrates or of Enemâ—es in time of War as I said he is the subject of External Strength but yet he is not there the subject of Authority For no Man pretends as this Author says p. 34. That Theives and Pyrates have God's Authority nay not although they proceed upon him in Form of Law and Judically as the High Court of Justice did upon the Blessed Martyr who for all in that Court he was the subject of External Strength yet I think no wise Man will say he was the subject of Authority And on the other hand we find Civil Authority separate from External Strength and yet for all that it is Authority As it was in Saul when on Mount Gilboa he fled before the Pursuers and Sought Death for the Anguish of his Wounds and that he might not fall alive into the Hands of his Enemies For all which Discomfiture and Desperate State David tells the Amalakite he ought still to have looked upon him as having the Inviolableness of God's Anointed And as it was in David when he fled out of the Land for fear of Absalom notwithstanding which Flight and Dispossession Shimei was still to have owned him as the Anointed of the Lord and was guilty of Treason against the Regal Authority in his Carriage towards him Thus also our Law owns this Authority in a Dispossessed King and under any Breach or Interruption of Possession Thus the Statute says of Q. Mary that for all the Interruption of her Possession by the Possession of Q. Jane the Crown with all Authorities thereunto belonging was all the time immediately from the Death of K Edward invested and by Law adjudged to be in her Royal Person And in Case of any of the Heirs of Henry VIII usurping the Crown before their time one taking Possession whilst another had the legal Right to the Throne every such Offence is made High Treason And the Dispossessed Heir I think has Authority if Treason can be committed against him King Charles the First was intirely Dispossessed of all the External Strength of the Nation when he stood Arraigned before the High Court of Justice but yet he was not Dispossessed of his Authority because all the Proceeding was Treason and is confessed by all so to be against his Authority And all the time of his Exile King Charles the Seond was under like Dispossession but yet he had the Regal Authority all that time else how came his Reign to commence immediately from his Fathers Death and all that was done against
For ways of Right 't is plain there are among Men of coming into these authorized States particularly as to Crowns among every People and in every place there is a way of Right according to their own Laws of accession to them And all Men that make any pretence to Crowns pretend a Right thereto Crowns being claimed and held by Titles or pretence of Titles as all other Estates are And if God doth not interpose by immediate Revelation he leaves Authority to go by these human and Legal Rights God's own Grant of Authority by immediate Revelation is agreed on all hands to be the best Right and to set aside any human or Legal Right to it But when he doth not thus interpose by immediate and personal Nomination but leaves Authority to go in the ordinary Course it must go by human and legal Right For in absence of Revelation Legal Right is the best Right and human Right is the only Right for as for the Author 's Right of mere Providence that as I shall show hereafter is no Right at all But Two Things the Learned Author opposes in this Point which together with that of the Providential Right are the main Foundations of his Book One is That Authority doth not go by human Right And the other That Allegiance doth not go or is not due merely to Authority but is tyed to the exercise of Authority or Administration of Government Which Two with the Right of Providence to be added for a Third are his Grounds in this Question about transferring Allegiance and what we have from him to remove the foresaid Difficulties And these Three Principles are next to be considered and examined in the succeeding Chapters CHAP. III. Authority goes by Rightful Titles FIrst as to Civil Authority he thinks it is not to go by human Right but only by being placed on the Throne without any regard to Precedent Right A Man that has the Human Right he supposes may be out of the Authority and another that wants the human Right may for all that without any special Revelation have the Authority And the bringing in the Question of Right he thinks p. 1. 18. has perplexed this Dispute But as there are confessedly human Rights to carry Authority so if personal Nomination and Revelation doth not interpose which is a better Right these human Rights must carry it I conceive to any Person or it must be uncarried Authority must be conveyed in such way of Right and it cannot be conveyed without it For to think of Authority coming to any one without good Title of Right thereto neither agrees I think with the Nature of things as Right and Authority or with the Purposes of him who is to have it nor with the Honour and Justice of God who is to give it nor with the Meaning and Obligation of the Commandment which is to carry and convey this Authority from God to the Person authorized I. First It suits not with the Nature of things as of Right and Authority or with the Purposes of him who is to have the Authority The Ends and Purposes which he has to serve that pretends to have the Authority are such as these 1. To claim Obedience It is for the Authority that any Obedience is due That is what the Scripture calls us to be Subject and obedient to Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be Subject to the higher Power or Authority And it is no Sin to disobey him who has no Authority Set aside any Man's Authority then and we set aside our own Obedience and are no longer his Subjects but our own Masters But now if he has no Right to the Authority what is the Offence of setting it aside It will offend him I grant who has external Strength and Power in his hand but what is the Offence to God To deny his Authority is not to deny him any thing that is his Right so there is no Unrighteousness in it If he has no Right to what is denied such Denial can do him no wrong and when they have righteously cast off any Man's Authority I see not but they may very righteously Disobey him 2. To have the Regal State his Property and exclude every one else For the Crown is one single undivided Authority and can go but to one it will not admit of Rivals and Allegiance as the Author observes p. 14. can be due but to one and we cannot have Two Allegiances or serve Two Masters So that he who is to have the Regal Authority must have it as a Property and have it to himself and bar out all other Men. Now can any thing but Right give Property Set aside Right and any one else that will venture for it has as much to do with it as he He must plead a Right to it among Men who would have a Property in it among Men. For his Right to it will make it his own and make it unrighteous for any one to take it from him or if they do it will be a part of Righteousness to return it him again Right cannot always secure Possession for a Man may be dispossessed of what he has a Right to but it secures Property which is an Effect inseparable from it He that has the Right is the true Owner and Proprietor and the unjust Possessor gets no Property What he holds is not his own he that has the Right is the Owner and the unjust Possessor is bound to restore him his own again Particularly he must so have the Authority as to bar him that stands Competitor for the same and this nothing but Right will do For leave the Competitor the Right to the Authority and that will make it his It is the nature of Right as I say to give Property and where there is no Right there can be no Property so that this way the Right will have Authority and the Wrong will want it And what is to be done then when the Right comes to claim and set up his Authority If he has Right to it the other can have no Right to hinder it for that is to pervert Right and be very unrighteous Nor can any of his Subjects help or stand by him in making Hindrance thereto for that would be to give an helping hand to oppose Right which would be as unrighteous in them as it is in him So that to think of placing Authority in any Man without a Right thereto is to talk of an Authority in him which another has a Right to take but he has no Right to defend nor any of his Subjects can righteously stand by and defend him in The Author indeed p. 26. is for having two good Rights to the same Crown in bring at the same time as the Providential and Legal Right whereby one may very righteously claim and take a thing and the other may as righteously hold and keep it But this I think quite overthrows the Notion and Nature of Right which is to make
opposition to this St. Paul tells them the Powers then in being were of God Rom. 13. 1. and to resist them would be to resist the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Ordinance or Precept carrying Obedience which called for it as much and as expresly to these Powers as to any the most Anointed King Thus is the meaning of the Commandment about Obedience to Princes to carry Authority and call for Obedience to rightful Powers or to those only who in absence of Divine Revelation have legal or human Rights to their Thrones And thus by Kings or Higher Powers and Authorities in these Commandments must be meant Rightful Powers Yea I add in all Precepts towards one in a State as towards a King an Husband a Master or the like Right is supposed The reason is because these are Things that go by Right and the Person is not vested with the State or it is none of his nor can be till he has a Right to it so Right is sufficiently imployed though it be not mentioned Thus Honour thy Father is Honour thy true and real not thy false and pretended Father And Husbands love your Wives as your own Flesh is your right and true Wives not your Concubines And Wives obey your Husbands is your true Husbands not any as they shall call so as Usurping their Husbands Place who are only nominal Husbands but real Adulterers In all which Cases Right is not only supposed as I say it must be in Things that come to a Person by Right but is judged so in the common Understanding of Mankind Nay the expressing the King or Husband simply without any Epithet of Diminution is a sufficient Expression of it for the Wrong is not the Person simply speaking but only with a Note of Diminution either expressed or imploy'd As in the Case of Kings they are not real Kings but real Usurpers and only pretensed Kings or Kings de Facto as the Phrase and Style of Law is And this takes off what the Author objects viz. That the Scripture makes no Exception or gives no express Caution against submitting to usurping or pretensed Kings for Caution enough it gives though not in express Words The Precept of submitting and keeping subject to Kings is sufficient Prohibition not to turn subject to Usurpers For since we cannot have two Allegianoes or two Kings as he rightly observes we cannot be subject to both and therefore the same Scripture that bids every Soul be subject to the King forbids them to turn subject to the Usurper who is not the King which being a State that comes to one by Right the Command means of the rightful Person And had there been no more express Prohibition in Scripture of Wives adhereing to an Adulterer than there is of a Subjects adhereing to an Usurper I suppose the Author would think that sufficiently forbid when she is Commanded to adhere to her own Husband Why not in the other Case then when Subjects are required to adhere to their King For Right is equally expressed and equally supposed and one is to go by Right as much as the other is I add in the last place That the World was in the Hand of rightful Rulers when the Apostles gave Subjects Precepts of Obedience So that as the Nature of the Thing admitted not and the use of Speech needed not so neither did the present Circumstance of Times and Persons prompt any Occasion to make Exceptions This the Author urges on the other side and imagines the very giving of these Commands of subjection to the Subjects of the Roman Empire is little less than a Demonstration that they were not meant only of legal rightful Powers But had not the Roman Emperors human Rights Yes the Empire was set up by Law when the Senate by joynt Consent in open Court Devolved their Sovereingn Power upon Augustus From which time by the Lex Regia it became the legal Government And the Emperors that sway'd this legal Empire Had some kind of Consent from the Senate says the Author himself Extorted by Fear or Flatery or other Arts. I know not what he means by some kind of Consent but this was a Consent of the Senate legally Convened and Sitting and Acting in open Court and giving every Man his Vote when it was put to the Vote And such a Consent in Form and in open Court is that which makes an human Right or such as the State of Rome had And as for Practices by Fear or Flatery or hopes of Preferment or other corrupt Arts they are not tyed to the Senate of Rome but are as lyable to be used on all Electors in Elective Kingdoms and on all Publick Assemblies But for all this if a Thing is Voted and pass in Form it makes a legal Right and there is no going to null the Acts by making such Exceptions So that as the Empire was a Legal Government the Emperors I think were Legal Governors at least those Emperors under whom our Saviour Christ and his Apostles gave these Precepts But for so many Ages together their Titles he says were all of them stark Naught or the very best of them very Doubtful Why were there so many then that Reigned without the Content of the Senate No that is not his meaning I suppose but only that Numbers of them and sometimes for several Successions set up and usurped upon their Masters and came to the Empire by Rebellion and Murder of the former Emperors These ways indeed were stark Naught And whilst their Lawful Emperor was alive they usurped on him and when he was dead till the Senate had put an end to the Usurpation by their Consent they usurped on them but when by the Murder of the Legal Emperor the Senate had no Emperor they were free to make one And when they had Consented and Voted this Usurper Emperor he would then be Rightful and have the same Right viz. their Consent as the formerr â—had And this was the way of these Usurpers when they had slain their Masters and possessed themselves of the Army and Power of the Sword they sent to the Senate for a Title and their Consent gave them a Right to it which Consent of theirs could wrong none Nor in an Elective Empire had they had no Consent but Ruled without Right could any Subjects have had the present Hindrances to voluntary Submitting by being under a contrary Obligation to any other Person But whatever the Emperors were over the Romans the Romans themselves he says were great Usurpers over other Nations and yet these Scripture Commands are for having those Nations keep under their Obedience But had not these Nations submitted the Kings themselves if alive coming into those Submissions to the Romans And so long as People only Consent to give up what is their Own not what is the Right of a Third Person such Consent gives an human Right So by means of this Consent and Submission
of themselves those Nations gave like Right over them to the Romans as the Romans by their Consent and Submission gave to the Emperors And as to the Jews in particular the Romans had not only this human Right over them by their own Consent and Submission but in our Saviour's days this had stood for well on towards an Hundred Years which gives another Degree of human Right that at least is a good Strengthner of the former and that is Prescription So that Submission required to the Powers in the Apostles Days speaks nothing but Submission to a rightful King And these Considerations I judge may be sufficient to show that the Submission and Obedience call'd for by the Scripture Commands is an Obedience to rightful Powers But against this he Objects several Things 1. First he says The Powers which these Scripture Commands call for Obedience to are the present Powers without Distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers But to make any Person the Power or Authority in being or the present Authority must imply Right He is not the present Authority unless at present he has it vested in him and it be his Authority and how can it be his but by some good Right or his having a Title to it So the present Power must be he who at present has the Right to the Power without a precedent Right to make it his no Person being capable to pretend to have any Authority which Subjects may either lawfully defend or are bound to obey which either God gives or the Command means and intends or calls for Obedience to as has been already shewed And this is enough for these Scriptures which in requiring Obedience to the present Powers require it only to the present lawful Powers And such the Powers were that were then Present or then in Being who are expressly meant therein as I proved before 2. He says We have no Example in Scripture of any People ever blamed for submitting to the present usurping Power Many Usurpations indeed the Scripture mentions particularly among the Israelitish Kings But the Scriptures not blaming Peoples Submission to such Usurpers is no Proof it was without Blame for the same Scriptures are Ordinarily content to relate and do not blame the usurping Kings themselves for making the Usurpation and yet I am sure this Reverend Person would blame them But it is not always blame-worthy to submit to Usurpers but only in them who at the same time are under Obligation to another's Right or to submit to an Usurper against a rightful Prince And these Scripture Submissions to Usurpers were not against any rightful Princes For against whose Right did the People submit or to whom else Were they under any contrary Obligation not to the former King for the Usurper had Murdered him to get into his Throne nor to any rightful Heir whom immediately on his Father's Death the Law made King For the Crown of Israel was not intailed by Law to lineal Descent and Proximity of Blood And the same may be said of other Scripture Submissions to the Egyptians Babylonians Persians or Romans or to any one else The People in Iury or elsewhere either submitted when they had no King nor any left that had Kingly Right over them or when the Kings themselves came together with the People into the Submission So these Submissions were against no other Person 's Right nor did any Third Person any Wrong And therefore the Scriptures might have no Cause to blame them and yet have Cause enough to blame others for turning subject to an Usurper whilst they have a rightful King of their own to whom they are under a contrary Obligation 3. Our Saviour's Argument he says relies wholly on Possession and the Image and Superscription of the Coyn if it be a good Reason for Submission will carry as much to an Usurper as to the most rightful King But when our Saviour shewed Caesar's Coyn to the Pharisees it was a good Reason in their Case When the Author produces it for Submission to an Usurper against a lawful Prince it is none in his The Reason is because they are two different Questions and what is a good Answer to one Question need not to be a good Answer to another The Question that puzzel'd and stuck with the Pharisees was not whether they ought to be subject to any other for no Body else had any pretence of Right over them nor could they have any exception to this Submission as being under a contrary Obligation to any Third Person But theirs was only whether they were subject to him not only whether his Heathen Power was the Power meant in the Commandment which is sufficiently decided by our Lord 's ordering the dues of Authority to be paid to it but whether it ought to be a Power over them as being an infringement of Jewish Freedom it was a Dispute between their own Liberty and his Authority whether they were Caesar's Subjects or their own Masters not betwixt Submission to him as I say and to any other more rightful Power Now in the Question whether they were their own Masters or Caesar's Subjects to show the Coyn is a good Reason for it shewed they were under his Subjection as a Token of their having receiv'd the Roman Yoke and submitted to their Power which gives a Right among Men and of this only our Lord was to give a Reason But as to the present Case of submitting to an Usurper against the Right of a Third Person or a rightful King that was not proposed to him 4. He says God Commands Submission to Usurpers and Condemns refusal thereof when he Commands the Jews by the Prophet Jeremiah to submit to the Babylonians This by Ieremiah he thinks was an Express Command from God to be subject to the King of Babylon If so I cannot understand what sort of Usurper the King of Babylon was for if God by a Prophet exspressly Commands that they shall be his Subjects he expressly Commands withall that he shall be their King And then he is King by Divine express Command which is the same as by Divine express Nomination which we both agree is the best Right and Title whereby any Prince can hold his Throne and so must absolutely exclude all charge of Usurpation Besides what sort of Usurper will he make Nebuchadnezzar before this Command Had not all both King and People before this submitted and given up themselves to him Nay even the King himself Zedekiah by name had accepted the Crown from him and had taken an Oath of Fealty and Allegiance to him and had broken that Oath in hopes of Succour from Egypt for which he is so severely threatned by God Ezek. 17. And this breach of Oath and Rebellion against his Leige Lord the King of Babylon was the very Thing that brought the Babylonian to beseige Ierusalem when Ieremiah came from God to bid the Jews under Zedekiah to submit to him Ier. 21.
Dispossessed The Government cannot be settled under the wrongful Possessor unless he that has the Right submit and so by his consent come in to make the Settlement For this says he I would very gladly hear a good Reason I will tell him what I think a very good one This Settlement of a Government is a Settlement of a Man in Authority And without Right there is no having and so no settling of a Man's self in any Authority So the Possessor must get Right before he can come to this Settlement And if the ejected Prince has this Right he must have it of him for he must have it where it is to be had And if he has it of him he must have it by his Consent for it 's a Man's own Will and Consent that gives away his Right and thus his Consent comes to be necessary to such Settlement And the Peoples Consent and Submission cannot settle the Possessor without him because it cannot give Right to the Authority which the Case supposes they have not in themselves but the ejected Prince has And as this is the Truth of the Case so I think I shall show him it was the meaning of the Convocation who take in Right into their thorough Settlement when I come to consider what he has offered on that Point Having thus shewed That in absence of Divine Nomination Civil Authority is to go by human Right I will here add something briefly in the IV. Fourth Place Of those ways of human Right which are to convey it Now what Right Men make their Consent makes When they give a Thing it is their own Will that gives it A Thing is their own when they may dispose of it as they will so their Will must part with it And when they have Consented that another shall have it they have parted therewith and transferred their own Power of Disposal on him or given him a Right to it What God has left to Men is not to give Authority that contains a Power of Life and Death which they have not over themselves and is to reach and lay Obligation on the Conscience which they are not Lords of but the Authority is Gods and he must give what is his Whence they are called Gods and God's Vicegerents and Ministers as Men Commissioned by him and bearing his Authority and standing in his Place And this Authority is derived from God in his Command which authorizes Princes and obliges Subjects as was before Discoursed But he has left them to agree upon the Form after what way it shall be Administred and to appoint the Person who is to have it or to give him a Right and Title to it which will make it his Authority It cannot be exercised unless some Person have it and it cannot be had without some Right and Title to it and this more especially since the ceasing of the Patriarchical Government God has left Men to give And their way of giving it or any thing else which is in their Power is by their own Consent either carryed in their Laws and legal Constitution for Laws speak the Consent of those concerned in them or in their Submissions and that is Consent too to those who have Conquer'd them 1. The First is a legal Right or what the Laws of any Nation make to be a Title to the Crown whether it be Proximity of Blood and Course of Descent as in Hereditary Kingdoms appropriate in some Places to the Males or common in others to Females in want of Male Heirs or it be the Election of those who are empowered by Law to chuse a King as it is in Elective Kingdoms and was Anciently the way in the Empire of Rome or whatever else that gives Title to the Sovereign Power by the National Constitution And this legal Right puts Men in Power in a Quiet and Peaceable Course of Things when a Nation are left to themselves and to the Power and Direction of their own Laws 2. The later viz. Submission of a People left without a King or of King and People to those who have conquered them I call for Distinction by the more general Name of an human Right 'T is not the particular way of giving Right by the way of their Nation which is a limited way of consenting and giving Right among them but it is Consent too which is the general way of giving Right among Men. And Mens Consent doth give what they have to give up though they do not consent in such or such a Method Not that mere Force or Conquest it self gives Right for Right is no more to be taken by Force than Authority is but the Consent and Submission of those who are conquered may give it to him who conquered them Till they submit to be subject to him as King he has only Force but no Authority over them But their Consent and Submission when it comes can give him all that depends on them that is a Title to Rule over them When Law makes a King Consent carried in Law gives the Right to him And why should not Consent without Law do the same But this says the Author p. 24. is only a forced and after Consent As for its being after it is after the Conquest but it is not after the Right for not the Conquest but Consent makes the Right And Consent will give him what it has to give him whether after or before he conquered them And as to its being forced it was not so forced but if they had preferred their Liberty before other Conveniences they might have refused it tho' in Love of Liberty and on other accounts they were loth to come under it But though they do come unwillingly to it consent they do and chuse to submit at last And this though not wholly free but on Consideration to prevent a worse thing is yet so much Freedom as transfers things among Men and makes an human Right For how many things do Men part withal as driven by Necessities and Considerations much against their Wills but still at last consenting that parts with their Right to them In Treaties at the shutting up of Wars do not the weaker Princes usually consent to things much against their Wills Yet such Concessions confessedly convey human Rights And was it not much against the Grane when the Jewish Kings submitted to hold of Nebuchadnezzar particularly when Zedekiah received the Crown from him and promised Allegiance upon Oath Had he not much rather have held the same independent and have received it from his Ancestors in way of Inheritance Yet this Submission and Oath gave Nebuchadnezzar a Right and God accounts Zedekiah as very unrighteous and punished him accordingly for breaking it And such an human Right all National Submissions gave to the four Monarchies and other Conquerors either over the Jews or over other Nations 3. Another way there is of giving Right by Submission and that is not Express but Presumptive viz. when he that
has it omits to make any claim of it so long till all conclude he has given it up which I conceive is the Right of Prescription A Man 's Right must affect all concerned to do him Right if he stands upon it but if he never shews he stands upon it the Presumption of Mankind comes to conclude at last that he is willing to let it fall or give it up Even by our own Law Men may lose Things by neglecting to claim them in some reasonable Time which the Law construes a Relinquishment of them And this giving it up by seeming to do so visibly in never claiming it gives that sort of human Right among Men called Prescription Not that Wrong grows Right by continuance as the Author objects but what makes it a Right is the other's Consent or Relinquishment notified sufficiently as Men presume by his never making claim thereof And if he that has the Right to a Crown will Relinquish it the Submission of the People is enough to give the Possessor a Right to it And though this Prescription is not always allowed against the rightful King by the Laws of particular Nations as the Duke of York pleaded it was not to bar his Title by our own Laws when he claimed his Right against Henry the Sixth Yet where it is left to that and is not by any National Provisions otherwise excepted it is thought to do so in common human Estimate and is made to give an human Right or however it is a good Strengthner of the former when the Consent and Submissions were express before Such as these are the ways of any Persons having or getting a Right to a Throne either a legal Right when the Crown is given him by the particular Laws of the Nation or a more general sort of Right by the Consent and Submission of those who are subject to him and own no other to have a Right over them which is still the more confirmed the oftener this Consent is repeated and the longer it is continued till Time has made it a Prescription as the Power of the Emperors was over the Jews in the Days of Christ and his Apostles And in absence of Divine Nomination the human Rights thereto are to put all Persons into any Authority that they may be the Father or Higher Power which the Commandments require us to be subject to And this may shew sufficiently how by this Plea of a mere King de Facto without Right the Difficulties against the Allegiance in Debate from the Fifth Commandment will still continue as well as those from the other Commandments If an ejected King be allowed to have the Right all the Laws of Obedience for ought I see are like to go with the Right So by this Supposition such transferring of Allegiance would be a most open Undutifulness against the Call of that Precept CHAP. IV. Obedience to rightful Authority not tied to actual Administration of Government HAving thus cleared the first Point That Authority is to go by Human Right I now procede to the second viz. to show That Obedience is due to Authority and not merely to the actual Exercise thereof or to Administration of Government The Duty of Subjects he thinks is only to submit to a Prince when he actually Administers If he doth not actually administer Obedience in his Notion is not his Right nor is paying that Obedience to him who doth actually Govern giving away his Right Obedience and Submission being due to him only whilst he is in Possession of the Throne And this is another main Point which he still supposes and builds on But as he who has the Right may appear from what is already said to have the Authority I shall now show That he who has the Authority must have the Duty and Allegiance which the Commandments call for to the Authority and that whether he be in Place to exercise it or no. Indeed when he cannot exercise his Authority Subjects cannot obey or disobey an ejected Prince in that Exercise As for Instance they cannot obey him in his due Proclamations or legal Commands when he can issue out none nor in Courts and Officers when they do not proceed in his Name or act by any Commission from him unless according to the Opinion of some for the Maintenance and Course of Justice he may be thought and shown to derive some Authority to them which I leave others to determine But the main of Obedience is keeping under Obedience or owning the Authority of his Person and our own Subjection and Obligation to him And there is no Breach of Obedience like to that of casting off all Obedience To disobey him in any particular Act of exercising his Authority is only ill as it is an Infringement and Violation of the Authority of his Person and to throw off all Obedience is an utter Abolition and absolute Denial thereof The former may be the Offence of a Subject but the later of one that owes no Subjection When a Man only disobeys him in exercising his Authority though he disobeys him in one thing he may be ready to obey him in every other thing But when he throws off his Authority and Obedience it self from that time he is for obeying him in nothing at all Though therefore as he says p. 26. there is no Duty Subjects owe to Princes as Subjects but to obey them yet is there Obedience to those that cannot actually govern and room enough for Subjects to disobey them Not to disobey them in actual Government but in what is worse than that To act any thing hurtful or prejudicial to their Persons Interests or Authorities is highly to disobey if it be any part of due Obedience affectionately to serve and support them And to throw off all Obedience and turn Subject to another Person is the hight of Disobedience such disclaiming of all Allegiance and Subjection being that which makes open Rebellion to be so much a more heinous Disobedience than breaking of a single Law or Proclamation Now this Obedience or keeping under Obedience and being ready to pay it actually as we can is due to the Authority and inseparably follows it and so to him that has the Authority whether he be in Possession or Place to exercise it or no. This I think may sufficiently appear from these following Considerations 1. From the Nature of Authority which as I formerly observed is to lay Obligation and that upon the Consciences of Men. Authority is no Authority unless it oblige and what is Authority to oblige to but Obedience And it must needs be a very strange sort of Authority which every one is free in Conscience to despise and no body is bound to obey So that leave any Man Authority and in the nature of things you leave a due Obedience to it also 2. From its being God's Authority It is a plain Case God's Authority must always have something Due that is Obedience due to it If
you could suppose no Obedience due to God's Authority you may suppose no Obedience due to God himself for all the Obedience due to him is upon the Account of his Authority And therefore leave any Person vested in God's Authority and there is no need of any Thing more for Obedience is immediately his Due 3. From the Commands requiring Obedience which fix it to the Authority Honour thy Father be Subject to the Higher Powers Obey Magistrates He that has the Father's Authority is without more ado the Father And he that has the Higher Powers or Prince's Authority is the Prince for it is the Regal Authority that makes him King or Prince And make him once the Father or the Prince as the Authority immediately doth and these Precepts ask no more for the Obedience they require Accordingly in all Authorities this Obedience is kept on payable and due whether they are under the Exercise of the Authority or no. What Exercise doth a Wife or Family receive of an Husband 's or Father's or Master's Authority when he is beyond the Seas which will put a stop to actual Government and Communication as much between them I suppose as between a Prince and his Subjects And yet all these though they cannot obey their Relatives in the Exercise of their Authority whilst there is or can be no Exercise of it are still bound to keep under their Obedience and act in what they can for their Authority and Interests and would shew themselves very Undutiful and Disobedient to them should they in their absence act any Thing directly against their Authority Persons or Interests especially should they go to disclaim and cast off their Authority over them or go to transfer and fix that Authority in another though thought by them a more deserving Person But as to these Precepts he says He is sure the only direction of Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government How is he sure of that One Scripture bids Honour the Father another Obey the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Authority or Higher Power and so in other Authorities And yet these Names of Father Higher Power Husband Master to whom they direct this Obedience speak only Authority not Exercise And Authority as I have shewn may reside and remain in them who for the present do not or cannot exercise it And I think he may be sure and according to Scripture too that the very Nature of Authority binds to Obedience and that God's Authority will challenge it without looking further to actual Exercise or to any Thing else And accordingly it has claimed a dutiful Regard to Persons in their worst Circumstances as to Saul when on Mount Gilboab fled from the Philistines and David when he left the Administration to save himself by Flight from Absalom as I observed above in case of the Amalakite's and Shimei's Carriage towards them Indeed all Authority is given to be Exercised and will be so if Men will suffer those that have it to exercise it and Obedience is due to that Exercise and to the Exercisers thereof And Obedience is called for in Scripture to such Exercise of Authority and to those that Exercise it particularly by St. Paul who design'd to make all Christians sensible not only in general of their Obligation to Authority but particularly to the then present Administration of Authority and to those who at that time Exercised it the Obeying of whom the Iudaizers question'd So that in Precepts about Authority 't is no wonder to find mention or reference to Exercise of Authority since all Authority is given to be Exercised and always is so when it will be allowed and is always to be Obeyed when 't is Exercised And the Publishers of these Precepts had not only a design to teach Obedience to future Authority but to those that then were and were actually Exercising it in the World But many times they bid them only to obey the Authority without any mention of Exercise and the Obedience to this Exercise is because 't is the Exercise of Authority So Authority is the Ground and Reason of the Obedience and then it will claim Obedience whether a Man has a free Liberty to Exercise it or is kept from it 4. From the Reason of the Dueness of Obedience to such Administration and Exercise Obedience is not due to it because it is Exercise of Government but because it is Exercise of Authority in him that Governs If he has no Authority though he may Exercise the Acts of Government yet he doth not exercise Authority for if a Man has not Authority he cannot Exercise it if a Man has not Authority he ought not to Exercise the Acts of Government but if he has got Possession of external Strength into his Hands he may Exercise the Acts of Government though for want of Authority to do it withal he ought not But in all those Acts being not possessed of Authority he must Act I think without Authority and cannot Exercise it before he have got it and when this Exercise of Government and Authority are thus separated What Obedience is due to it The Scriptures plainly bid us be Subject to Authority And all Conscience of Obedience must be in regard to God's Authority And Allegiance as the Author says is due only to God's Authority and therefore none can be due to him who has not that Authority as none is for that Reason as he observes to Thieves and Pyrates when they have got Power over any Persons So that let a Man assume the Place and Exercise the Acts of Government yet that claims no Obedience if he has no Authority to govern And whenever the Acts of Government are Obeyed 'ts because of his Authority that doth those Acts so that the Persons Authority is the true Ground of all Obedience And if it be only for the sake of Authority that any Thing else must be Obeyed it would be a Riddle indeed if there should be none due to Authority it self which would be to make that which gives all claim to Obedience to have no claim thereto 5. From the Obedience due to the Authority of Governours in unauthoritative Acts the Author I am sure will own that a King may retain his Authority even when he acts Illegally and that Subjects owe him Obedience even under such illegal Actings else there were no Passive Obedience due to King's breaking Laws But now to what Authority is this Obedience due to Authority in the Exercise or in these Acts of Government No in these actings against Law he doth not Exercise his Authority having no Commission to do thus or to tye up any Man's Conscience the effect of Authority to do what he Illegally injoyns him but acts without and against it To what Authority is it due then For all Obedience must be due to some Authority 'T is due to that Authority in his Person which he doth not Exercise by
of the actual Government has therewith got possessed of the Authority to govern God by course of Providence giving or taking both together as he conceives and never seperating them so as to have Exercise of Government without Authority or to leave Authority in one that cannot Exercise it and actually Govern which Points his Proofs still run upon Then possession of Power and actual Administration gives or carries Authority and the Settlement of that Possession only settles the Authority He that has a settled Possession has got a settled Authority and he that is unsettled in Possession has this way an uncertain and unsettled Authority and as often as Providence gives or recals Possession it will this way give and recal Authority But wherever God's Authority is or for how short a time soever it is it must be obeyed out of Conscience And therefore as to Point of Conscience I think by his Principles the Question should be whether any Usurper is possessed or at most is thoroughly possessed of the actual Exercise of Government That being the thing wherein Conscionable Allegiance is concerned But as to the point of Secure Settlement how long he is like to hold it or what appearance there is of its being alter'd that is not matter of Conscience to shew us our Duty but of Prudence to consult what may be wisest for our own Safety And that the Exercise and actual Administration of Government was possessed by the Rump Parliament and other Usurpers is too manifest to be disputed But as to this Seitlement he speaks of How long time must go to it He doth not say the present Government hath had the longest time to settle it and it had not had so much when he judged it settled enough to take the Oath And as for the Number of the Nation he knows That not many Weeks had passed for the Settlement thereof before the Imposers themselves were to swear Allegiance nor many Months before all the Clergy and all others in any Office obliged by Law thereto were called upon to do the same And those Usurpations were of a longer Term than any of these amount to So that there is no Pleading want of Settlement in them in point of time Again how much Quietness must go to Settlement 'T is thoroughly settled he thinks here though there is an actual Struggle and two great Armies in one Kingdom contending for the Throne and unsubdued Risings in another with Suspicion of Proneness in numbers more among them to do the same Whatever be made of the Diâ—contents there has been so much talk and Apprehension of here at home yet still he will say this is a thorough Settlement for all there are these Bars in the way to Quiet And those Usurpations might have shewn more Quietness than this all the three Kingdoms at some times being in a quiet State of Obedience And as to the frequent Changes he mentions they were short liv'd indeed for Forms of Government But yet for all that being possessed of Exercise of Government they must have God's Authority by this Principle and be owned and obeyed accordingly whilst they stood Possession would carry God's Authority and Subjects Obedience to change of Forms as well as to change of Persons But if frequent After-changes be an hindrance to thorough Settlement those are not knowable but by time And if such Change when it happens make all the Possession before to be no good Settlement in what a Case on the Author's Supposition of the Dispossessed King's Legal Right are all Swearers Consciences in such Revolutions For if they cannot in Conscience swear away their Allegiance from the Legal Right till a Possessor is well settled nor his Possession is well settled if it will be changed there would be no swearing Allegiance to the new Government on any such Change with a safe Conscience upon his Supposal of its wanting Legal Right unless a Man knew before hand it will not be changed And who can know that of this Government or of any other without a Prophetick Spirit which I suppose no Swearers had And then by these Principles for ought I see they swore to do what the Event may chance to make them forsworn in which Swearing is not to be justified And then as to want of National Consent p. 47. he means I suppose by a legal Representative of the Nation For a Practical Consent they had all publick Acts proceeding in their Name and publick Officers acting by Commission from them and all People submitting accordingly as they do now and acquiescing under them Not to mention any other ways of Peoples expressing Consent by Addresses and other Applications to them But why must we come to consent at all for giving a Right of Providence For consent is the way of getting and giving human Rights where the Consenters have any Right to give And if Providence be tyed to set up Kings only by human Consent that will put an end to the fancy'd Right of Usurped Possession and bring it to need a bottom of Consent or human Right to stand upon It will also confine the Power of God in setting up Kings which is p. 25. 37 38. one of his great Exceptions against the legal Right For God is confined if he cannot make a King over Men without human Consent as well as if he cannot make one without human Laws And accordingly This necessity of human Consent in setting up and authorizing a King p. 25. he expresly excepts against upon that Account And if Consent were necessary Why must it be National in the legal Form This would be to tye the Right of Providence to Laws when as the end of seeking a Right from Providence is to fetch Right from God not observing human Laws but acting above and beside them And if the Right of Providence were to be tyed to any Laws sure it is most fit to tye it to Laws for Right or legal Titles And this also would be not only a confining the Authority and Power of God in making Kings but confining it to human Laws which is the very thing he Objects against legal Rights for 't is certainly as much a confinement of him to Laws to confine him to legal Consent as to legal Titles Besides the Providential Right is to give Authority where Laws are changed and legal Constitutions or Representatives are alter'd it is to authorize change of Forms as I noted as well as change of Persons And therefore would authorize new Forms of Parliament and making Representatives as well as all other changes of the Constitution when once Providence had given Administration of Government and Possession of Power into their Hands Lastly This Consent in Form of Law is a particular Method of this Nation but the Right of Providence is to be a general Thing and so if it needed any would only require such a way as might be general and sufficient in every Nation So that such Consent would have been sufficient to settle
the Providential Right of those Usurpers over us as sufficed to settle the same in the Four Monarchies over the Jews or other Conquer'd Nations and such a Consent no Man will need to look far for in the present Dispute But besides this The Church of England has declared this Synodically I conceive and this it has done in Bishop Overal's Convocation Book which he has so unfortunately mistaken as if it were of his Mind Some instances I shall give him Of their preferring legal Right before his Right of Providence without other Title 1. The First is in the Case of Athaliah and Ioash Ioash had the legal Right and she Possession for Six Years or the fancy'd Right of Providence and Iehojadah and the Jews stuck to his Right and served him therein against hers And in this Competition the Convocation Declares That Ioash the legal Heir was their only Natural Lord and Sovereign though Athaliah had kept him for Six Years out of Possession That Athaliah was a Tyrannical Usurper the Right Heir of that Kingdom being alive And that nothing was done in the Process of that Action by Jehojadah or the rest which God himself did not require at their hands Joash being their only Natural Sovereign Here is Declaring the Legal Heir to be the only Natural Sovereign and the Allegiance to be Due to him against the Providential Usurper in Possession which I think is a plain Decision of this Question 2. The Second is in the Case of Jaddus and the Jews betwixt Two Competitors Darius and Alexander Darius had Human Right and to him they had Swore Allegiance Alexander by worsting Darius at the Battle at Issus got those Parts in his Power by the Author 's Right of Providence and he demands that they should assist him in his Wars contrary to their former Allegiance and become Tributary to the Macedonians as they had formerly been to the Persians Jaddus answered as the Convocation relates it That he might not yield thereto because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived being by flight escaped when his Army was Discomfited And in the Canon referring to it they say Having so Sworn he might not lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have sollicited others whether Aliens or Jews thereunto So preferring him that had the Right to him that had got the Possession and approving of not turning Subjects and transferring Allegiance to the Possessor whilst the rightful Prince was living To this he says p. 8. That the Convocation take no Notice that Jaddus having Sworn to Darius could not submit to any other whilst he lived in their Canon upon it But they recite it in the Chapter leading to the Canon and the Chapters declare the Opinion of the Convocation as well as the Canons and both passed with one Consent and were approved by both Houses And in reference to his Pretence Of the former Oath to Darius not to be infringed while he lived which he returned to Alexander's demand of Assistance they say in the Canon that having so Sworn he might not lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius or have sollicited others thereto He adds p. 8. that for all this Iaddus did submit when Alexander came to Jerusalem and that before Darius's last fatal Overthrow when in his Flight he was Murdered by his own Servants That the Convocation might believe too from Iosephus and yet think Iaddus's a good Answer about the Obligation of his Oath Because this Submission at last was upon the Direction of the Oracle and Divine Mandate For Iaddus as Iosephus relates on Alexander's coming to Jerusalem offered Sacrafice and appointed the People by Supplications to seek to God for Help and Direction And thereupon the Night after God appeared to him in a Vision and directed them what to do ordering the manner of their Procession and Reception of him which he and the People accordingly did with all Solemnity perform So what he first Answered they might put upon the Score of ordinary Rule and Obligation But what exemption he after practised they might impute to Divine Interposition and Special Revelation that controls and transfers all human Rights and Titles 3. The same may further appear I think from the Reason they give Why Antiochus's Usurpation over the Jews was not settled viz. it s not being either generally received by Submission or settled by Continuance for Submission and Continuance or Prescription are ways of human Right And the Romans who had received such Submissions and long Continuance thereof from the Jews they declare were their lawful Magistrates and lawful Authority And if they judged Antiochus's Usurpation not settled till it came to stand on these ways of Right What is this but to make Right necessary to their thorough Settlement And suitable to their Decision in these Cases was the Determination of the same Convocation not only in what they say thereto in this Book of Bishop Overal but also in the Book of Canons made before these and confirmed by King James Wherein they determine for the King 's legal and the Churches Canonical Rights against the Papal Providential Usurpations as I shall presently observe And from these instances he may see how the Convocation as I see a Learned Pen has lately taken pains to prove more at large when in case of Usurpations or Governments of an ill Begining they declare Obedience Due to them if once they are thoroughly settled take Right into the consideration of thorough Settlement not admitting an Usurper to be thoroughly settled in his usurped Power whilst there is a Competitor alive that has the legal Right and makes claim of it The Extinction of his Right by death or translation of it by his own Consent is necessary in their Account before the other can be settled And good reason they had to take Right thereinto because it is a Settlement of Authority which as I formerly shewed at large is to go by Right And if the consideration of Right which may be acquired by the Submission of People themselves when those are dead that had Right over them or by the rightful Competitors coming themselves into the Submissions must come into their Settlement he will own that his Providential Right can have no Confirmation from all those Passages he has cited from the Convocation I shall only add further on this Argument That Ecclesiastical Authority is God's Authority as well as Civil For God has instituted Government in the Church as well as in the State and the respective Rulers are his Deputies and Ministers in both And God's Providence equally sets any Persons up and advances them to their Authority in each Case and I think will be allowed in the Author's way of Arguing to have the Chief and Over-ruling Power in disposal thereof And then in any Dispute and Competition of Persons for Church Authority Possession or
the way of the Principles I have been hitherto laying down And as to what he says p. 27. 28. c. about the Difference betwixt a maintaining and defending and a restoring Allegiance I may take some notice of that anon 2. His next Reason p. 36. for this Right of Providence is That without it there is no defending the Doctrine of Passive Obedience But why so Because there is no irresistable Authority but that of God and unless Sovereign Princes received their Authority from God Non Resistance would be Nonsense But they may and do receive Authority from God and not by a Right of Providence but either by Divine Nomination as sometimes in Iury or by human Rights and Titles as in all other places And this way of Right doth give a Person God's Authority as I have shewn which his way of Providence doth not And his fancied way of Providence would not be more immediate nor so good and righteous a way of giving it And this Authority of God conveyed thus to a Person by Rightful Title is an irresistable Authority because it is God's and because it is a Sovereign Authority There is no resisting any Authority derived from God but under God or by seeking to have it by an higher Authority which is God's too And thus the Authority of Fathers or Masters which is God's Authority may be restrain'd and checkt when it is abused by the Authority of the Prince which is God's too and an higher Authority And so may the Excesses of any inferior Magistrate by the Authority of the supreme Magistrate All which opposing Authority by way of Regular Appeals and under Protection of an higher Authority is not the criminal resisting God's Authority but keeping under it and seeking to be relieved by it But when this Authority is not only given by God but is a Sovereign Authority then there is no Resistance or worldly Remedy against that because the Sovereign has none above it Thus may the Doctrine of Non Resistance be a Rational Doctrine without his Right of Providence The Law of Subjection to Sovereign Powers and not Resisting makes it a Sin to resist for 1 Ioh. 3. 4. Sin is the Transgression of a Law And Sovereigns having not only God's Authority but a Supream Authority under God on Earth is a Reason why it necessarily should be so But that they should come by this Divine and Supreme Authority by his Right of Providence is neither necessary nor just nor fit in my Judgement But the way of rightful Title either by Divine Nomination or Human Right is the best and justest and I think I may say from what I have Discoursed thereupon is the only true way of coming by it But though the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance may very well stand without his Right of Providence and still transferring and paying Allegiance to present Powers against rightful Titles I think on the other hand it is necessarily overthrown by it I know Numbers of those that Swear the Present Allegiance upon the Ground of a King de Facto are of another Mind and believe it is no Breach of Passive Obedience to one that has a legal Right to transfer and ingage their Allegiance to stand by another who is possessed of his Right which I judge only shews non Attention to the Nature and Import of such Actings For Passive Obedience implies above all Things To keep under a King's Obedience And to cast off his Authority is the highest Disobedience And in this lies the uttermost Heinousness and Aggravation of Resistance that thereby Subjects disclaim their King's Authority over them and throw off all Obedience to him and this is plainly done by transferring Allegiance from him They cannot bear Allegiance to Two nor have any more than one King as the Author truly says p. 14. So that in transferring Allegiance to another they throw off all to him and are as Men no longer under his Obedience and Subjection Besides it puts them among Resisters and so can be no good Payment of the Duty of Non Resistance For it ingages them as I observed the Nature of all Allegiance is to stand by the Possessor and to withstand the other some by Arms others by Prayers every one in his Station And since both Competitors cannot have the Crown and both seek it all that will stand by and support one will therein unavoidably resist the other who comes to recover and get it from him 3. Another Reason is p. 37. If we deny this Right of Providence to carry Allegiance to Usurpers against legal Titles we deny God's Authority to remove or set up Kings against human Laws But if God please to set up a King by particular Revelation that will make him a King against human Laws because God is above Laws and this no Man denies that denies this Right of Providence If God is not pleased to take this way of special Revelations he is pleased to leave Authority to be carryed by human Rights And I suppose he will think it no Impeachment of God's Authority in making or removing Kings to say he cannot do them but by human Rights when he will take no other way but is pleased to leave it to them Besides to come to ways of doing it among other Nations as well as among the Jews human Rights as I observed is larger than human Laws And when a Man cannot be set up or removed by the Laws God may do both according to human Right by the Death or Submission of Competitors If God please to take a King out of the World which is his great way of Removing them and is a way particularly referred to in this Scripture Phraise of Removing Kings as I before observed his Right is removed with him Or if he bring him to give it up by his own Consent his legal Right is that way too removed from him And the other gets Right over a willing People by his Competitors Oath or Submâ—ssion Though Kings then are denyed to be set up or removed by mere Providence without other Title yet is that no denyal of God's Setting up of Kings which he may do by all the ways of Setting them up viz. by all the ways of giving Right to Kingly Authority yea and that against Laws too if he pleases by all the other ways of conferring that Right viz. Special Revelation which is above Laws or Death of Competitors or Consent of Parties which departs from the Right that accrued by them And this limitting God in giving Right to 〈…〉 s of giving it is a limitation he has made himself and is very well pleased with And in matters of Right to be limitted to ways of Right seems no harder limitation than being limitted to be Righteous Indeed it denies his way of Setting them up viz. By Providential Possession without other Title But that I think is no denyal of the Authority of God in this Point because God doth not convey his
these Rules of Justice which are to limit all Pursuits thereof The great Prelate he disputes against on this point p 38. c is for binding all Subjects even those that adhere to the ejected Prince to seek the Benefit of Society And in order thereto to pay much Regard and to submit to the Usurper in the great Points thereof As to be obedient to him in Defence of the Country against Foreigners in his Administration of Justice and Preservation of Trade and Commerce and Observance of Laws Limiting them only herein by their Obligations to the Rightful King that they do not obey the Usurper in any thing against him or in violation of that Faith which they owe to him And to this he thinks they are bound in prudent Care of themselves in grateful return for Protection in conscionable Care of the Publick Benefit though they are not bound by the Authority of the Person as the Learned Grotius also taught in this Case de Iur. B. l. 1. c. 4. Art 15. Now what is there destroyed in Society yea or lost of the Benefits thereof which can Righteously be kept in this supposed Defective Unnatural and Forced State of Society His main Objection to it is p. 39. that there is a want of Authority And Authority and Obedience is Essential to Civil Government and Civil Society And want of a Perfect and Natural Course there is of both these as there is like to be in such an Unnatural State but no absolute want thereof There is no absolute want either of Authority or of Allegiance For the rightful King has Authority and the Subjects owe him Allegiance and betwixt these as the Head and Body is the Being of the Society But what is to be said then to Administration of Government should there not be Authority also in that Yes and always is when Government goes on in a Natural Course and would be in the Case supposed if he that has the Authority could be allowed to exercise his Authority and to govern by it But he supposes he is not allowed to that And the other who is possessed of External Strength but without Authority will administer the Government and usurp the exercise of all Acts thereof though he has no Authority for it So there will be Authority in this Society though he that has it is not allowed to exercise and govern by it And there will be Administration and Exercise of all Acts of Government though he that usurps this Administration has no Authority for it The want is neither of Authority nor of Administration in the Society but of an Union of these two so as that he who administers might do it with Authority This I grant is maimed and unnatural But the supposed State is maimed and unnatural And in an unnatural and lame State when the authorized King and People are kept apart like as when the Head and Members are in other Societies there must be an unnatural and lame Course of Government Now when one that has not the Authority which goes not by Strength but Right yet having got external Power in his hands will Administer the Government if the Subjects will all submit to him therein the Society will competently enjoy the Benefits of Administration The natural and best ground of Subjects Obedience is Authority indeed but that cannot do here in an unnatural State and in a Case that supposes he will Administer who has Possession against Right and so wants Authority for it But this Obedience the Bishop fetches from other Grounds and those of Conscience too as well as of Prudence and carries it as far as it righteously can be carried that is in all things that are not prejudicial to the true Owners Rights or to their Fidelity and Obligations to him And farther than this none must go in seeking any Benefits of Society they being always under the Restraint of this Limitation as I observed and never to be sought unrighteously The Bishop Sect. 21. fetches a Liberty for the Subjects to obey the Usurper in the forsaid Instances from the Rightful King 's presumed Consent And great Reason there is to presume he will consent to what is done to keep up Government and not to keep himself out For a People he would have kept together and some Order kept up among them and 't is to an United People that he claims a Right and hopes to be restored again And this presumed Consent some as the learned Author whom he mentions carry farther to derive Authority in these Acts to the Usurper and those that act under him from the Lawful King And whether this presumed Consent can give him or them Authority to do them or no 't is certainly very equitable that his Acts for keeping up common Order and Justice no ways prejudicial to the lawful King should stand good when they are done and be made authoritative when they can And so accordingly they use to be made by the Rightful King's Ratification at his Return As they were by Edward IV. by Q. Mary and K. Charles II. on their several Restorations to the Throne But this presumed Consent he thinks is not enough to derive Authority to the Usurper And not to dispute that Point whether it be or no doth he know of any better way If not all I can say is That no body is bound in my Opinion to find two Regal Authorities more than two Kings which he thinks an Absurdity for one Society p. 14. Nor to find Authority in him that has no Right to it since Authority can go by nothing else but Right And if a Man has it not of his own nor can borrow it I see no Remedy but he must want it However having external Strength he will administer all the same Acts of Government as he would do if he had Authority to do them And if all People submit in regard to private Interests and publick Peace where there is no Authority to have Regard to his Administration will not want good Effect of keeping up Order and Peace and Common Justice among them Indeed they that act in place of Authority under such as they suppose to have no legal Right are concerned to look more to the Authority they act by But as for others they will have Benefit by the Administration whether it be with Authority or no. One Objection he makes p. 40. viz. of the usurping Possessor that has Power enough in his hand to do it either destroying imprisoning or transplanting all that stand out And would not an obstinate Allegiance destroy Society in this Case He supposes all Subjects to do their Duty and stand out Which though all are equally bound to do in Right yet they are never like to do so in Fact the Course of this World giving little appearance of a whole Nation being unanimous in quitting all Temporal Interests for a good Conscience But suppose they should and the Usurper being too strong for them requires them all
defended so that if he has given away his own Legal Right he has given back their Oaths too from which though no other person may absolve them yet he himself may But since this Question has fallen into private hands this Allegiance has been endeavoured to be set on other Grounds This Reverend Author is not for entring into the Dispute about the Legal Right which seems to him not fit to be disputed That therefore I leave as he doth to stand or fall according to its own Evidence But he adds That this Legal Right is unnecessary in this Dispute and has perplexed this Controversie And that Allegiance is due to K. William and Q. Mary as settled in the Possession of the Throne and both may and ought to be sworn to them though King James should happen to have the Legal Right still So the business of his Book is to lay down Principles that wil clear the Allegiance required to K. Willi 〈…〉 and Q. Mary though they he supposed to have no Legal Right Which Principles of Possession of the Crown without Legal Right thereto advanced first by many others but now carried higher and improved by him how fit they are to remove the foremention'd Difficulties I come next to examine CHAP. II. Of the nature of Authority and how convey'd from God AS to this Ground of Possession of the Crown carrying Allegiance though the Possessor has no Legal Right it has been a Plea very generally used and much set by among the Writers for the new Oath pressing the dueness of Allegiance to a King de Facto That Plea if I mistake not and those several Authors I have not now at hand has run upon Possession of Power and actual Administration leaving the other still to have the best Right making Allegiance only a Tribute for Protection and the Due of actual Administration whether by a Person right or wrong But this Reverend Author goes further to make Possession carry a better Right along with it viz. the Right of Providence which he says by God's Order is to take place of any Right by human Laws Both these Pleas viz. of De Facto or Possession leaving the other the best Right and of Providence giving the Possessor a better Right are made use of to carry the Allegiance in Debate from K. James supposing him to have the Legal Right And if the Plea of Providence should fail in giving the Possessor a better Right several things are said by this Author which are used by others to press Allegiance on score of Possession and actual Administration though the best Right should lye on the other side And I shall consider both these Pleas and examine how fit either of them is to remove the former Difficulties out of the way of the Rufusers First then as for the way of King de Facto or leaving the Dispossessed Prince the best Right According to that his Possession only is gone but he has still the best Right either as Proprietor of a great Estate or as King of the Realm and both the Property and Authority are allowed still of Right to belong to him And this leaving him to have the Right whosoever has the Possession of his Right I think would leave all the preceding Difficulties untouched For to bind themselves by an Oath of Allegiance to keep his Competitors in such his supposed Rightful Power and Property and to keep himself out of it seems 1. To carry all the Injustice to him as a Proprietor against the Eighth and Tenth Commandments Grant as the Plea doth that what Subjects ingage to keep him out of is his Right and it needs no more to make it very unrighteous 2. All the 〈◊〉 to him as a King and Father against the Fifth Commandment For if he be allowed to have Right to the Authority he will have Right to the Obedience Obedience is due to nothing else but the Authority and therefore can be due to none else but him that has the Authority and that is he who has the Right to the Authority For in all righteous Estimate the Authority is his whose of Right it is This Authority cannot go to both it can belong but to one Whose is it then his that has Right to it or his who has none Not his that has no Right for that is not to judge righteously or to do Right and to give every Man his own He that has Right to the Authority then must have the Authoâ—ity and indeed Authority as I shall note is a thing which must go by Right It is a Spiritual thing not subject to Violence Force cannot take it but Right must convey it and God's way of giving it is by giving any one a Right to it So that having the Right to the Authority by this Plea he would be adjudg'd to have the Authority And then ought he not to have the Duty and Obedience which God makes due to the Authority if thâ—y will give him his Due Having the Authority he woâ—ld be the Faâ—her spoâ—e of in the Precept to Whom all are required to pay Hâ—nour and Support and Obedience and to keep Subject all which are paid contrary when the Allegiance is transferr'd as I before noted 3. All the Breach of the solemn Promises and O 〈…〉 hs For those were sworn on the account of his having Right to the Crown and for Defence of it The Oath of Allegiance expresly recognizes his Legal Right and engages that Faith and Allegiance to defend him in that Right to the utmost So leave him still in that Right and you leave what it swears to defend and the Swearers for ought appears in this Plea to bring them off are still bound to defend him therein according as that Oath engaged The First of these viz. Injustice to him as Proprietor seems plainly left by this Hypothesis Grant him Right as it doth and to oppose Right is plainly unrighteous And the Third viz. Breach of the Oath seems as plainly left too For the thing recognized and sworn to be defended in that legal Oath being the legal Right Grant that legal Right still to continue as this Plea doth and that Oath will have it to defend still as it had the first day it was made And to transfer and turn Allegiance to oppose him in that Right I think is not to bear Allegiance to Defend him therein But as to the Second viz. Undutifulness to him as a King and Father allowing him still to have the Right several and this reverend Person among the rest will be apt to dispute that Not but that Obedience must follow the Authority but because as they fancy he may have the Authority that wants Right and on the other side he that has the Right may want the Authority Authority goes not by Right as he thinks but by Advancement to the Throne by whatever means So that he who has Right if dispossâ—ssed has not Godâ—s Authority or as he says p. 21. is out
by a particular Revelation about that Person I do not see for I think if God immediately fix the Person he must immediately say this shall be the Person 2. Secondly As for the Authors way of Providence it is no more an immediate way of God's empowering the particular Person than this other of empowering him by means of human Ways and Rights For when Providence sets up any particular Person among Men it is by means of Men and I think by a much worse means for setting up by human Titles is setting up by means of Men acting Regularly by Right and Justice But his way of setting up by human Successes is by means of Men too but acting wickedly in Ways of Undutifulness and Unjust Violence And why God cannot as well be thought to put a particular Person into his Authority by Men keeping to their Duty as well as by the same Men breaking their Duty I do not understand 3. Thirdly the Survey of all Powers plainly shows That God's usual way of putting Men into the Authority of any State is not by giving it immediately to the Persons but by means of human Acts and Methods The State and Relation of a Prince a Parent a Pastor an Husband or Master are all States Divinely empower'd For God is the Fountain of all Authority and each of these in their respective States and Relations have God's Authority and there is a Command for each requiring Obedience to them which Command doth authorize each of them The States are of God's Institution and the several Authorities belonging to them are of God's and his Commands Conferring But if we look how any particular Person usually comes into any of these Divinely authorized States and Relations we shall find all come into them by means of human Acts and are not immediately fixed upon and placed therein by God himself To give Authority for Instance to the State and Relation of an Husband is the Act and Command of God but to make any particular Person an Husband whom God has thus Divinely authorized is left to his own Act or to his and his Wives joynt Consent and Matrimonial Agreement Thus the Relation of a Father comes to have Authority by the Law of God But Abraham becomes the Father hereby authorized by natural Generation of Isaac which is not a Divine but Human Act. The State of a Master God has empower'd but to become a Master if it be not over a Captive there is need of his and his Servant 's voluntary Contract And the Relation of a Pastor has God's Authority and is to be obeyed by Divine Precept But since Pastors ceased to be immediately called of God as the Apostles were and those they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by the particular Direction of the Holy Ghost as St. Clement says every particular Pastor becomes such not by personal Nomination of God but by means of human Choice And answerable to all these is God's way of fixing any particular Person in the State and Relation of a King The Estate is authorized by the Commandment and the Authority which the Command annexes to it is God's Authority as it is in all the other Authorities here mentioned But where he doth not interpose by special Nomination God leaves every particular Person to be advanced to this State by human Right and Method For how do Princes ever since the Government of the ancient Patriarchs claim to be admitted to the Regal State which the Command has Divinely authorized but by human Laws and Rights and the Laws of Men are the Acts of Men So an human Act must place a Person in the State and then the Law of God vests him with God's Authority to act therein And this is not to fetch the Authority of Kings or other Superiours from the People as the Author fears p. 25. For the Authority is God's Authority not the Peoples and that which carries his Authority is God's own Command But this Authority the Command carries to such a particular State which God doth not fully put Men into but leaves something to be done towards it by themselves And therefore what Part they act is only to place the particular Person in that State which not they but God has authorized yea and that with such Powers both of Life and Death and laying Obligation as to Conscience as they had not in themselves to give And this has nothing strange for the Consent of People which I think is evidently carried in human Laws to set up legal Monarchs and in Elections in Elective Kingdoms and in Submissions to Conquerors to put Men into a State wherein not their Consent but something else must give them Authority to act The Choice of the Corporation must put a Man into the State of Mayoralty but what he acts by when once in that State is not the Corporation's but the King's Authority And the Consent of a Wife or Servant c. must put one into the State of an Husband or Master but when once in that State the Authority of God carried in his Command is to authorize and empower them as I observed before But this way how is such a Mans power of God if God doth not immediately vest his Person with it Can Civil Authority be any otherwise of God than as he gives it to some particular Person says the Author p. 10. prop. 2. Yes otherwise than by such a Gift as your way of arguing doth suppose and seem to build on that is by giving it immediately Power I grant must be in some Person for only a Person can be empower'd and if that be God's Power as all Power is it must be given by God for no one can take God's Power out of his hand or have it otherwise than by his own Gift And Power being not a material thing but a Moral Quality there is no taking it by mere Violence out of any Mans hand it not being one of those things which can be forcibly taken away But God gives what he doth not give immediately and thus he gives all sorts of Authority to Men as I have shewn by means of human acts and ways that is where he doth not immediately interpose to give it by a Prophetical or Personal Nomination For then he leaves it to go to any Person by human ways and gives it to those who came to it by such human ways and owns their Persons to be as truly authorized and empowred by him as if they had been personally nominated by himself as St. Paul notes Rom. 13. 1 2. of the Roman Emperors against those Jews who thought that God's Authority did not go by Heathen and Human Titles Now from this That God's Authority carried in his Command comes to any particular person by means of human ways it is obvious for any to conclude that those ways must be ways of human Right So that he who has the human Right will have all the Authority and Obedience of the Commandment
by ways of Right Suits not with the Honour and Justice of God who is to give it The Authority is Gods and is not to be had but by God's Gift as we are both agreed and how will he give it In ways of Right or without Right in ways of Right surely I think For 1. He is a righteous God and a righteous God will be for planting Right among Men and this in every Thing All we have is derived from God both all the Power and all the Possessions of the World and all in the same way of Right which he is for having universally and unlimitedly Established So that whilst any man holds and claims only by Unrighteousness he doth not hold of God nor doth God look upon the Thing he holds as his till some way of Right makes it so Whilst he holds it by Wrong he rates him not as the Owner but Usurper and therefore bids him restore the Right Owner his own again and that is all any Man ever gets with him by mere unrigheeous Possession viz. no Property therein but only Guilt and Punishment and a Necessity of making Restitution So that as God is to derive this Authority among Men he derives it where he derives a Right to it and without Right he derives none upon any Person 2. If he derive it not in way of Right there is but one way left and that is To lay it in the midst and order it to go to the strongest Arm or to him that can take it But this is to throw it up as a Ball of Strife and set all in War and Confusion But God is the God of Peace and Order and there is no keeping Peace but by ways of Right If Right be to carry Authority it will carry it quietly but if he leave it to Strength and Power the way that Power has to get it is by War and Force which all men I think must needs see can never be the way of the God of Peace and Order If God be supposed to lay it in the midst and let it go to the Strongest then he is also supposed not to meddle in the Contest and then it is to make him cease to govern and direct human Affairs III. Thirdly It suits with the Meaning and Obligation of the Commandment which is to carry and convey this Authority from God to the Person authorized For 1. The Fifth Command ment and all others requiring Duty to Superiors are Commandments of Justice And St. Paul calling for the Duties to Princes bids them render to all their Dues Tribute to whom Tribute â— Rom. 13. 7. All Second Table Duties suppose Right in those that claim them 't is Unrighteousness to deny them and there is no Unrighteousness unless they are denied to those who have Right to them What is not against any mans Right is no Wrong to him So the Commandments carry no Obedience but to him who has Right to the Obedience then they must carry it only to him who has the Right to the Authority For if any Man has no Right to the Authority 't is no Breach of Right to set aside his Authority and then what Unrighteousness can it be for those that are not under Authority not to obey So the Commandments cannot be broke towards him that has no Right to Authority and therefore are only Command ments of Obedience towards him that has Right to it 2. The Fifth Commandment calls for this Obedience to the Father which carries it to Princes as well as Natural Parents In what sense are they Fathers Natural No but Politick To the Politick Father then Subjects must be obedient and he is the Politick Father I think who is the Father by the Rules of the Polity and those Rules of making any one a Father make the Legal Right Thus also when we are bid to be Subject to the higher Power or to honour and obey the King the Command or Law of God requiring the Subjection to him doth not make any Person King that is the proper Business of human Right or of the Laws of Men and God's Command doth not put the Person in that State but suppose him in it and that the Ways and Laws of Men to whom that doth belong have done it already Whom therefore the Law or Legal Right unless set aside by Divine Nomination which is a better Right makes a King him the Commandment backs and binds us to be Subject to Like as the Eighth Commandment makes no Property But when the Laws of Men or human Right have made it that Command comes in to guard and forbids any Person to invade it For 3. In these Commands Princes are supposed as set up by Laws or human Rights and the Commandment is to give Authority and carry Obedience to them when they are once got in by such Titles I mean in absence of Divine Nomination which alone takes place of them God's Law calls for Obedience to him who is got on a Throne that is legally and rightfully his own For these human Acts and Rights are supposed in the Commandments of the Second Table or the Laws about Society Society is to be a Society of Men and Men are left by God to order and set up some things therein and then the Commands of God come to guard or empower and carry Obligation to them And thus it is both with Gâ—vernment and Matrimony and Proâ—erty and Converse which are the great Business of Society and the greatest Comfort and Convenience of Life in this World When Men are placed in this World the Good Things of the Earth depend on Care and Industry and there would be no Enjoyment to encourage Industry without Property nor any certain Off-spring to be industrious and careful for without Matrimony nor any Guard either for our Properties or Families without Government nor any Society without Converse and Communication of Minds nor Converse without use of Speech and settled signification of Words Now as for this Civil Government and Matrimony and use of Speech and Property God has fitted all Men for them and made Mankind to need them and to have inducement enough from their own Necessities and Convenience to set up all these Things which he designs they should and is pleased when they do and has provided sundry Laws to empower and guard and give them Comfort by them when they have done so But after all Mankind themselves must set them up God leaves it to them to make their own Languages and chuse their own Wives and Husbands or contract Marriages and settle Properties and model Governments and appoint who shall be their Governours The Paternal Power in the long Lives of the Ancient Patriarcks carried the Matter of Government I conceive in the first Governments But as Men grew shorter lived and the Sense of Kindred wore out there would be a Necessity of other Ways of appointing Governours which therefore human Acts and Ways must settle as they did the
point of Properties and the other forementioned Things Now the way of Mens setting up these is by human Ways and Rights The vesting either of Power or Property for instance must be in some Persons that is some particular Persons must have the Power and the Property And this way of vesting the Power or Property in those Persons can only be by giving them a Right to them for it is their Right to them that must make them to become theirs So that human Acts and Rights must give every Man the State and Power of a Prince or of an Husband and the Property of an Owner and that must give Words their settled Meanings whereby any one that hears them may know what another means And as human Ways and Rights are to set up these States or Things so since human kind has every where the like necessity and the like ability therein these human Rights and Ways will set them up in all places And when these human Rights are in every place passed about them then comes the Law of God and Nature which are to be Laws for every place to empower or guard what such presupposed human Right has given The Fifth Commandment makes no particular Man a Prince nor the Seventh an Husband nor the Eighth and Tenth a Proprietor of what he holds among Men nor doth the Ninth determine any Speech's signification but all suppose them And if God has not done it by immediate Interposition since it must be done either by God or Men they suppose that human Rights have made these already And supposing all these things of Society in this State by human Right these Commandments come to secure their several and respective Duties towards them So that in absence of particular Revelation which alone can make not only a better but â—ndeed any other Right it is an Humanly Rightful and Legal Power which the Fifth Commandment and all other Laws of Obedience to Superiours require us to be subject to and to support and Rightful and Legal Property which the Eighth and Tenth Commandments forbid us either to seize or covet and Rightful Matrimony which the Seventh Command will not have violated by Adultery and Words of human Settlement and Institution wherein the Ninth Commandment forbids all Falsification So that what human Law fixes God's Law secures and to him that holds any of these things by human Rights the Commands of God call for this Obedience and other Duties And therefore he that has the legal Right has the Commandment on his side and must have all the Duty and Obedience which it requires And this I think may show That in the Question about transferring Allegiance the Case of Conscience is not a mere Point of Law as the Author p. 53. seems to intimate or such as doth not involve Moral and Natural Duties wherein he allows every Man may and must examine and understand for himself For tho' the Law must make any Man a Prince to have the Right to the Allegiance yet where the Law has given the Right these Moral and Natural Duties carry all their Obedience to it The Commandments take him that has the legal Right and require all the Duty and Allegiance they enjoyn to be paid to him and require none of it to any other Person So that in going against the Human Right we go against the Moral and Divine Precept which requiring all to him that has the human Right is either broken or kept according as we observe or reject the human Right Indeed if the Point of human Right should happen at any time to be more doubtful and really disputable it would be a less Offence to mistake it But so far as we pay our Duties and Obedience against the human Law and legal Right we pay them also against the Divine Law and Moral Duties But this Disobedience and Breach both of Divine and Human Laws in such Case would be the more pardonable as having the Plea of pityable Ignorance and the Mitigation of being in a dark and doubtful Case wherein Mistakes are less dangerous to honestly disposed Minds I observe still further from this That the Commandment is equally broke in being undutiful to him that has an Human Right as it would be by Undutifulness to one that had a Divine Right For the Commandment is equally for securing Obedience to those in Authority by any sort of good Right Therefore its words or expression of the Person is general to the Father the Higher Power the Magistrate all which must come to be so by some kind of Right and it matters not what whether Human or Divine so long as it is a good Right It is a Natural Precept which is equally for Jews and Gentiles and doth not alter the Style but is the very same and calls for one and the same Obedience to a King of Divine Right by a Divine Intail or Nomination as it doth to another of mere Human Right Which I note because in case of Ioash the Author thinks p. 35. there was a stricter and more unalienable Allegiance due to him on account he came to the Crown as he says by an Intail from God But admit his was a Divine Right the Commandments for Obedience to rightful Powers cary no more nor more unalienable Allegiance to it than they would to an human Right It calls for it only in the same Words and lyes equally open to both and makes no Distinction of either All it requires for Obedience is That they have Right They must be obeyed whilst they have it and no longer than they have it So that be the Right Ioash's or a King 's of any other Nation it will equally stand till a better Right has set it aside The Seditious Jews I think were for making a great difference in point of Obedience between Governments and Kings set up by Revelation and others by Human Right and so esteemed the Heathen Powers who had no Word or Revelation of God for their Government or Governors but only human Ways and Titles as no Powers to whom the Command required Subjection and Obedience This Was one great cause of their restless Endeavours to cast off those Powers One Pretence was recovering their own Liberty which St. Peter notes the Iudaizers used for a Cloak of Maliciousness or Cover of Rebellion the Insufficiency and Iniquity whereof is attempted to be proved and made plain to them in the Speeches of K. Agrippa and Iosephus But onother was Want of God's Authority in these Powers Much troubled they were with this in our Saviour's time and brought it as a Question of Conscience to him Whether it was lawful to own them They were more possessed with this when St. Paul writ to those at Rome and higher still when St. Peter writ being so generally filled therewith as made them ready to burst out into those Commotions in all places which brought their Excision and the final Overthrow of their City and Nation But in
were Held and Practised so in all Ancient time this would lead us and doth lead the Disputants of all Parties into another kind of Historical Search than this which he speaks of into our Laws and Chronicles And yet for all such a Question about the Reception of them in times past would draw on such an Historical Search the Author very well knows That all these Duties are bound by God on all Men's Consciences And now by all that has been said on this point I think it may sufficiently appear That if God doth not fix it in a Person by special Revelation Civil Authority must go by human Right Right is inseparable from it in the Nature of Things in the Gift of God in the Supposal and Intention of the Commandments that carry it and call for Obedience to it So that he who has no good Right to it has no Authority but he who has the Right to it has the Authority which the Commands of God require us to bear Allegiance and keep subject to And all this is agreeable to that Scripture and Common Reason which tells us That no man can put himself into Authotity No man takes this Honour to himself but must be called to it says St. Paul Heb. 5. 4 5. speaking of the Pastoral or Priestly Authority which is God's Authority as the Civil is And Civil Magistrates when Obedience is called for to them are likewise styled God's Ministers Rom 13. 4. all the Authority they have over others being as his Deputies and Vicegerents Authority then no man can have but by being rightfully Deputed and Called to it or having it duly committed to him By what Authority dest thou these things and who gave thee this Authority is a Question most natural to be put to every such Person and must be answered by shewing some good Call and Commission Now this calling a Man to Authority and Deputation of God must be by some Title of Right or rightful Way not by thrusting himself into it which is setting up uncall'd and if a man puts himself upon it without being call'd thereto and assumes it without any Title of Right he only puts himself in Commission which is no Commission And as his Commission is from himself his Authority is so too So such a Man will only be a King of his own making but there is no Authority of God derived to him nor Call of his to carry it or authorize him And therefore what he doth require must be in regard to himself and not to God who having never Commissioned or rightfully called him calls not the People to obey him The like I might also add of our own Laws which make the Regal Authority to go with the Legal Right and vest it in the Person that has the Right and that when another has dispossessed him and got the Possession from him Thus Q. Mary having the Right the Statute declares the Regal Authority to have been vested in her Person during all the Possession of Q. Iane. And in Richard II. during the Possession of Henry IV. And in the right Heir by Henry VIII Settlement during the Possession of the Usurper Under all which he that had the Right in the Eye of Law had the Authority And such Acts against Authority as the Law calls Treason were declared to be Treason against them As it was also in K. Charles I. who keeping his Legal Right kept his Authority when he stood dispossessed of all besides before the High Court of Iustice As K. Charles II. also did afterwards all the time he was driven out and lived an Exile as I formerly observed Chap. 2. But the Author thinks p. 14 15. 65. He that is in Possession of the Crown tho' without Legal Right is King in the Eye of Law and he that is turned out of Possession though he has Legal Right is not King in the Eye of Law He ought as he words it by the Laws of the Land to be King but is not As for the Possessor without Right I will tell him what kind of King in my Opinion the Law counts him If he were a Subject before it looks upon him in the height of his usurped Possession to be still a Subject to him that has the Right and is dispossessed of it and as a Subject to owe Faith and Allegiance to him To break that Faith in acting against him to be tryable by Law and attaintable as a Traitor and punishable for the same All which is plain from the Instances of Henry IV. of the usurping Heirs of Henry VIII and of Queen Iane. And in the several Mutual Attainders during the Contests betwixt the two Houses in which though every King served himself of Law on pretence of having Right in his own Reign yet when on any Turn the Law came to look upon him as wanting Right and only as an Usurper or King in Fact it still treated and tryed and attainted him as a Subject Here then if such an one be a King in the Eye of Law is he a Subject Traiterous Tryable Punishable King And whether this in the Eye of Law is the true Sovereign or the supream and unaccountable King I leave him to judge And as for him that has Right who as he fancies in the Eye of Law is no King he is such a No-King as in the Eye of Law has the Regal Authority as I have shown still vested in him as has Allegiance by Law due to him and Treason by Law committable against him As is plain from Q Mary K. Charles the First and Second and all the forecited Instances and will be further from what I shall note from Law of the Dueness of Allegiance to a dispossessed Prince And how such an one whom the Law vests with the Authority of a King and to whom it gives the Allegiance due to a King and against whom it makes Treason as against a King should yet for all this in the Eye of Law be no King I cannot imagine Though therefore I cannot say That Allegiance is due only to Right as the Author words it p. 1. which I think not so well expressed yet is it only due to him that has the Right Allegiance is due to Authority and in absence of Revelation by the Laws both of God and Men Authority must go by human Right So that he only that has human Right to the Authority is to have the Authority and by vertue of that the Allegiance too And therefore the Question of Legal Right must come into this Dispute of transferring Allegiance I conceive since it must not be paid from him that has or paid against him to another that has not Right and there is no way left to justifie such Translation of Allegiance without it And if what I have offered hereupon has proved this point I think it strikes home at the main Design of this Learned Person 's Book And this will show him why when a rightful Prince is
such Illegal acting And this Inherent and Unexercised Authority claims Obedience to him even at such time that is to keep under his Obedience and not cast it off and rebel against him And the same may be said in case of all other Misuse of Authority for few Mens Principles of Obedience are so loose but they will own it to be still due to ill Kings and Governor who abuse their Authority and 't is strange any Man should believe otherwise that believes the Scriptures But now do not I see why Authority may not have Obedience due it when it is not used as well as when it is misused For what binding Force should there be in misuse To my mind nothing is ever the better for being misused and if misuse can add nothing to it nor lend it any Force whereby to hold the Conscience I fancy it may bind as strongly to Obedience when it cannot be used at all 6. This confining Obedience to actual Exercise and Administration of Government is to make actual Protection or Administration the Condition of it And this will make a Conditionality in the Duty of Relatives aâ— Protection of Kings and Obedience of Subjects are One will be bound to obey if the other doth protect and so far and so long as he doth actually protect which he always doth most whose Administration is justest and keeps closest to the Laws which are the Cover or Protection they seek and expect who live under a limitted and legal Government And this way according to their keeping or degrees in keeping the Condition there would be one Obedience due to a Protecting and another or sometimes none at all to an Oppresive King one Obedience to a King in his good Days and another in his bad ones and not one and the same according to the Scripture Precepts which neither make nor admit of such Distinctions to all and at all times and like would be the Consequence thereof in the Duties of other Relations The performance of one being the Condition of performing in the other when one breaks the Bond is broke on both and no Tye left on either Whereas though the Persons are Relatives yet in all these States the Duties on each side are Absolute which one is bound in Conscience to perform whether the other do or no. The Author says p. 42. 43. Though Protection and Allegiance are not Relatives yet Government meaning actual Government and Allegiance are such Relatives as do se mut uo ponere tollere or infer or remove each other mutually And to extend Allegiance beyond actual Administration of Government is to preserve a Relative without its Correlate The Difference between Protection and actual Government is only this That actual Government is wider and takes in either actual protecting or oppressing whereas Protecting he there makes to be Administring justly and by Laws and opposes to Opressing Now Allegiance is the act of the Subject as actual Government and Protection are of the Prince Allegiance is the Subject's act only keeping his Duty as Protection is of the King keeping to his Duty But actual Government taking in both Protecting and Oppressing is the act of the King either keeping or breaking his Duty Now if Allegiance which is only the Subject's keeping must not be related to Protection which is the King 's keeping but to actual Government which is either his keeping or breaking his Duty methinks these Relatives are ill match'd and look as if they were not akin And if Allegâ—ance relate to any thing since it is only the act of the Subject keeping it should relate to Protection which is the act of the King keeping his Duty And if his other act of Government or Oppressing must have any Relative it should be their Breach of Allegiance which is to break with him as he doth with them For as Performance answers to Performance so should Breach to Breach I imagine in Likeness and Relation But these Acts on either side are not Relatives or Correlates to one another though the Persons are The Acts are the Acts of their several Duties on both sides and those Duties are absolute which each must perform without any regard to the other's Performance Otherwise there is no Duty from a good Wife to a bad Husband or from a good Child to a bad Parent more than from a good Subject to an ill King And yet That such Duty there is towards them is as certain a Rule in Morality and Religion as that he mentions about Relata is in Logick The Relation is between the Persons not between the Acts and Offices which are called Relative Duties though in their Obligaâ—â—on they be absolute only because they are Duties of Persons that stand mutually related And in the Persons his Rule is true Take away one Relative Person and you break the Relation and without its Correlate the Relative cannot remain But if the Prince cannot Govern saith he p. 42. the Subject cannot obey True he cannot obey actual Government when he cannot have it but he may keep under the Obedience of his Governor and obey it as he can as I shewed before till the Governor's Authority is gone or his Government comes to be actual again By all these Reasons I think it may sufficiently appear That the Obedience shewn before to be due to rightful Authority is not tyed to the Exercise and Administration thereof nor to follow Administration of Government without Rightful Authority But is the Due of the Authority whether the Person having and claiming it be in Place and Possession to exercise his Authority or no. 7. And for further Confirmation of all this I shall to all the foregoing Proofs from the Nature and Reason of things and Scriptures in the Seventh place add a Proof of the same which I think will be a good Proof among all English men in a Case of Allegiance required by Law and that is from our own Laws Now That Obedience in the Eye of our Law is due to Rightful Authority iâ— a dispossessed King is plain because in the Eye of Law Subjects may criminally disobey him If they ought him no Obedience they could not disobey him or deserve to suffer any thing at the hand of Law for not paying Obedience where by Law they ought none But what more common in Law than this towards a dispossessed rightful King Witness the Censure of Law on the Undutifulness shown to King Charles I. when arraigned before the High Court of Justice where he stood utterly dispossessed of all actual Admininistration and on like Disobedience and breach of Allegiance against K. Charles II. during his Dispossession and all the other forementioned Acts declaring Treasons the hight of Disobedience in Practices against dispossessed Rightful Kings as has been observed in Case of Richard the Second of Henry the Eighth's Heirs Q. Mary and others The same may be further evidenced from other Declarations of Law about the Dueness of Allegiance to such dispossessed Kings Whilst
had long been Proclaimed and Possessed King He adds p. 35. That in this Case God â—ad inâ—ailed the Crown 〈◊〉 where the Right comes upon a Person by a Divine Intaâ—l when the Person is known Subjects are never to submit to any Usurper's Government but to persecutâ— them to the utmost But what need of having Recourse to the Divinity of the Intail in this Case The Purpose of it is only to make Ioash's Right to be a better Claim and to stand Good against Athaliah's Unrighteous Possession and this is the common Effect of all Right whether Divine or Human. For all Rights whether Human or Divine equally oblige the Unrighteous Providential Possessor to restitution as I observed that being to give the same Guard to Rights out of Iury as to Rights in it And if human Right equally oblige to Restitution it will stand good against the Unjust Providential Possessor as much as divin 〈…〉 Right would for that could only oblige him to restore it And all Right obliging the violent Taker thus to Restitution makes that no Man can ever Ground a Right on doing Wrong The Validity and Goodness of Ioash's Right to the Throne then which Athaliah heâ—â— in her Unjust Possession was as it was a Right not as it was Divine And had the Intail been human his Right would have been as Good against her usurped Possession And having the best and only Right to the regal Authority he only had the Authority and then to him alone was the Allegiance Due Authority still being his who has the best Right to it and obliging Subjects to Obedience whether a Man is possessed or no of External Strength to exercise it yea and to as full and firm an Allegiance when it is held by an Human Title as when by a Divine Title as I have shewed before ch 3. pag. 23. And as for what he ascribes to the Divine Intail viz. when the Person is known to make it unlawful to submit to any Usurper against him Was not this Divine Intail as Strong for Iehojakim and Zedekiah as it was for Ioash they being all equally of David's Line And yet it did not make it unlawful for the Jews to submit to the usurping Kings of Egypt and Babylon whilst they knew of these Persons 2 King c. 23. c. 24. Nay God himself approved of that Submission and Subjection and threatens Zedekiah Ezek. 17. for his Perfidiousness and rebellious Breach of the same So the hindrance of Submission to usurping Athaliah lay not in the Divineness of the Intail which might as well have brooked Submission unto her as unto them and which differed not in this from other Intails viz. in giving such Right as would last and have its effect after another was wrongfully possest of it but such as the right Owner himself might part with and give up by his Consent But it lay in the Crown 's being intail'd at all to give a certain Person Right and in his standing upon that Right and claiming it What made the Difference in point of Submission in these Cases was because there was no Competition in their Case Iehojakim and Zedekiah coming themselves into those Submissions under the Egyptian and Babylonian Usurpers But in her Case there was Ioash claiming his rightful Throne which she was unrighteously possest of And when he made the Claim and stood in Competition his just Right was to carry it against her unjust Possession as it will do in the Case of any other Person no Right yeilding to wrongful Possession but obliging the Possessor to restore it back again And when his Right was good to carry the Regal Authority and make it his own it was of course to carry the Allegiance which was the Due thereof and that without any Hindrance from her Possession as has been formerly proved Chap. 4. Thus on all these Accounts doth this Principle of Providential Possession without other Title setting aside Legal Right destroy all that Obligation of Right which lyes in not holding or detaining or in making Restitution of what is unjustly got among Kings 2. Secondly as to the Obligation of Right in getting viz. its tying Kings up from violently taking each others Crowns which is the Justice of not seizing a Neighbour's Rights in my Opinion it will set that aside too The Reverend Author I know is by no means for allowing of the unrighteous Invasions either of ambitious Princes or rebellious Subjects on any rightful Princes Crowns which the Convocâ—tion as he observes p. 4. 5. from Bishop Oveâ— al 's Book has taken so great care to condemn Nor should the Principle allow aâ—d justifie it if he could hinder it But Principles of True and False Right and Wrong must rule us not we rule them And if this Principle of his Right of Providence or of God's granting a Right to what Providence without any other Title in Fact accomplishes and God declares he gives be true I think it will give them a Right to make the Attempts as well as to hold what they can take thereby And if they can shew the same Right for one as for the other if this be a true Principle of Right it will serve either and make them equally Righteous in both If Possession without other Title is the Right of Providence the means of Possession without other rightful Title is Power And this Power is exprest in all the intermediate Attempts and Successes to possess themselves So as Possession is the Right these Attempts that give Possession give Right And it would be somewhat strange for that which directly and immediately creates and gives Right to be it self unrighteous But the main Reason I shall here urge is These Attempts have the same Right of Providence which Possession it self has The Grounds of the Possessor's Right are because Providence which is God's Act helps him to it And because God declares in Scripture That he has given the Possessor what he has thereby got Which real Act of God in Providence and Declaration of Grant thereby he thinks is a good Grant of God whose Grant is the best Right and must set any human Right aside Now both these are as much for the intermediate Attempts either of Rebellious Subjects or Ambitious Monarchs to possess themselves of others Crowns as for holding them when they are possessed of them They have plainly the same Providence which as the Author says p. 12. Has a hand in all Events and doth order and dispose them Every intermediate step they take and advance they make in pulling down or setting up Kings is by and under Providence or as truly Providential as the last is They have as plainly also The same Scripture Declarations of God's sending or charging or giving Things into the hands of the Ambitious or Rebellious Attempters Thus 't is plainly said of as unjust Attempts as ever were of Ambitious Princes particularly of the Assyrian when he was going like a Ravenous Lyon to devour and prey upon all
the Neighbouring Crowns and Kingdoms In those unjust Attempts and Expeditions Is. 10. 6. I will send him I will give him a charge to take the spoil and tread the Nations down saith God calling him in these Executions ver 5. 15. the Rod and Staff wherewith he Smites and the Ax and Saw wherewith he Hews and Tears the People of his Wrath. And after of Cyrus the King of the Medes when he set out on a like Attempt to devour Babylon The Lord hath raised up the Spirit of the King of the Medes says the Prophet of the expedition of Cyprus against Babylon Thou art my Battle-ax and Weapons of War saith God of him with thee will I break in pieces the Nations and destroy Kingdoms With thee will I break in pieces the Horse and Chariot and his Rider Man and Woman Young and Old Shepherd and Flock Captains and Rulers And the same is as plainly said of Rebellious Attempts of Distoyal Subjects yea of Absalom when he rebelled and rose against David the best of Kings I willraise up Evil against thee out of thine own House saith God speaking of this Insurrection and I will take thy Wives before thine Eyes and I will give them to thy Neighbour to lie with them in sight of this Sun which Absalom did on Achitophel's Advice to assure all the People the Breach betwixt his Father and him was gon past Reconciliation And this I will do before all Israel and before this Sun Such as these are the Scripture Declarations concerning the Attempts of Ambitious Princes for Rebellious Subjects in this Case He says of the Attempters That he raises and stirs them up that he sends he charges he smites and hews and saws and breaks in pieces by them and gives and takes and doth what is thereby done All this they may plainly produce and plead as said by God to give Right to them in their Attempts to get a Crown And what more or fuller Declarations doth he pretend to give them a Right to wear it when they have violently got one So that if this help of Providence and these and such like Scripture Declarations must carry not only accomplishment but a Right from God to the Actors in the Things so spoke of they will carry as good Right to a Foreigner for Invading or to a Subject for Rebelling to pull down a King as they will to either for Possessing his Throne when they have got him down they are as full to make Right in the Unjust and Rebellious Attempts as in the following unjust Possessions And why should they not be as Effectual since Holding and Possessing is not less against Right than Attempting is And this way not only the unjust Holders of others Crowns but the Rebellious and unjust Attempters of them would have good Right for what they do and Men were unjust in their Censures that thought them either Wicked or Unrighteous I shall only add on this Point that this Success of Providence without other Title is to give Right both ways p. 12. both in pulling down Kings and setting up Kings And accordingly p. 11. 20 one of his Proofs for this Providential Right is that saying of Daniel ch 2. 21. That God removes Kings and sâ—â—s up Kings which he understands of God's Providence though without other Title not only accomplishing such Removal or Advancement but giving Right to it Now Providence giving Right to pull down Kings must be giving a Right to those that pull them down for Right cannot be given more than Authority can as he notes p. 10. Prop. 2. but to some Person And who are they that pull down Kings but either Ambitious Foreign Princes or Rebellious Subjects Therefore Providence must give this Right to them And if they act nothing without a sufficient Right of Providence Wherein should such injust Invasions or Rebellions be thought Unrighteous Thus would this Author's Principle of Providential Possession without other Title giving the best Right to Crowns Destroy all Obligation of Right and Wrong among Kings either in getting or in keeping Crowns And what a calamitous Misfortune would this be to them For what Men in this World have more to secure therein than Kings And the Obligations of Right and Wrong are the best Security to them as they are to all Mankind besides If they are under no Obligation to do Right they will have no claim to receive any but be left as Nature's Out-Laws and where there is no regard to Right the sole regard is to Power and then as all they can take of anothers is their own so all that will be anothers either Foreign Princes or Rebellious Subjects which can be taken from them Now this is a State that is not Human but Foreign It is the State of Beasts or Creatures of Prey that have no restraint but Power and catch what they can and would be aggravated and made so much worse in Men than it is in them because Men have Reason and they have none For Prey without Reason is infinitely less Mischievous than Prey with it if making a Prey of others is the only use to be made thereof And can this possibly be the State of God's Vice-gerents which doth not only Unking but Unman them and make their State worse than that of the Beasts themselves And this is to bring in all the mischievous Effects of Mr. Hobbi's Notion of Power in making his State of War for where all is lefe to Strength and Power there is a State of War Peace stands by Right which is to restrain Power for where Right Rules it will be held quietly and securely by the weaker against the stronger But War gets and holds all by Power And this is the most rightful way of getting and holding if Power carry away the best Right along with it So that whosoever has Power enough has Right to seize as much and to subdue as many as he pleases Mr. Hobbs he observes p. 15. makes Power and nothing else to give Right to Dominion But he makes a Derivation of Right from God who is Lord of the World by a Title of Right having made it And makes Power only to carry this Right from God which it carries inseperably though not naturally or as a certain Sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power he has given the Authority I will not here Dispute why it may not be left to Power or Strength to carry Right and Authority in the Spring as well as in the Stream and to give Right as well as inseperably to carry it But for all this Difference about the way how it came by it since Strength always has Right there will be no Difference in the Effect Strength or Power it seems still carryes Right from God inseperably along with it And Right always carried by Power is not a Right to settle Peace but to make War not a Right to secure the Weaker but to give all
to the Stronger So his Power carrying Right throws all into a State of War as much I conceive as Mr. Hobbs's Power giving it and adds the grant of God to boot as if in this way of getting all by War and the Stronger taking from the Weaker they all the while kept to that course of Right which God has given them to walk by Nay if at last by breaking the Strength of rightful Opposers in this way of power they come peaceably to enjoy such Gettings yet is not that the Peace which God intends which is a Peace with Justice or for every Man peaceably to enjoy his own not for one Man to live at Peace in possessing another Man's Rights and Properties which God all the while calls upon him to restore to him to whom of Right they do belong To this effect of its destroying all Obligation of Right and Wrong among Kings I add 2. Secondly That this Notion of Providential Right would confirm and authorize all illegal Invasions of Kings upon their own Subjects The Reason is because when he invades either their Liberties or Properties and grasps at more Authority or Possessions among them than doth by Right and Law belong to him all the Success he has is by Providence And these unjust Attempts upon his own Subjects have like Scripture Declarations as other unjust Attempts on any Neighbour Kings Let the Evil of the City be Arbitrariness and Oppression shall there be any Evil in the City saith the Prophet and the Lord hath not done it Am. 36. Do the Israelites labour under the heaviest Servitude and Oppressions whilst Subject to the King of Egypt God turned their Hearts to hate his People and deal subtilly with his Servants says David Ps. 105. 25. Doth Rehobeam's Heart devise Tyranical Rigours and Oppressions and his rough Answer threaten the people to Chastise them with Scorpions The Scripture tells us the Cause was from the Lord 1 King 12. 13. 14. 15. Unrighteous Ravenous and Oppressive Kings whom God calls his Rod and Staff and Battle Ax and the like are as much so when turned upon their own Subjects as when upon foreign Princes And whatever are the Counsels of the King's heart whether against Subjects or Strangers the Scripture declares in general That the King's heart is in God's hand and that he turns it whithersoever he will Prov. 21. 1. So that in their Domestick Invasions Kings have as good Plea of Providence and as good Scripture Declarations of God's turning their Hearts and causing and doing and acting by them therein as in any others And in Reason methinks if they were to get Right by any Invasion of Rights it should be most especially in invading the Rights and Liberties of their own Subjects The Consideration of their being Subjects may give more pretence and embolden him to take greater Liberties and bind them to more patient Sufferance than when the like is done to other Kings that stand with him upon even Terms and are no ways Subject to him at all But now 't is plain Kings do not get Right by such mere unrighteous Invasions without other Title of Subjects Rights and Properties As Abab did not by unjustly possessing himself of Naboth's Vineyard Nor Iehojakim by having his eyes and heart only for shedding innocent Blood and Oppression and Violence and by building his House by Unrighteousness and his Chambers by Wrong whom God did not look upon as having any Right therein but denounces a Woe upon him Jer. 22. 13. 17. And if this must be the Consequence of this Right of Providence to give as good Authority and Confirmation to any Invasions our Kings shall make upon our Rights as to any that other Princes shall make upon theirs I think neither Prince nor Subjects have any great Cause to be fond thereof 3. Thirdly It confirms the unjust Possessions and Invasions one private Subject shall make upon the Properties of another If Robbers or Pyrates possess themselves of other Mens Money or Goods by this Principle they have a better Right thereto than the legal Owners For their Possession is by Providence that delivered the Sufferers into their hands And it is as much authorized as the other by Scripture Expressions The Lord hath taken away saith Iob when the Sabean and Chaldean Robbers had taken and carried away his Substance Iob 1. 21. And 't is what the Lord hath sent is the Reflection of all serious persons upon these Misfortunes So there is as much Providence and as much said of it in private as in publick Robberies Both then have equally the Right of Providence And that says he is better than any Right the Legal Owners had by human Laws So that as it ousts Kings of their Crowns it will oust private Persons of their Purses and make all private Robbers as well as publick Usurpers to hold their Purchase by the best and most rightful Titles To this he says p. 34. That the Dispute is not about human or legal Right in either Case 'T is not I grant whether either Usurpers or Robbers have a legal Right to what they have got which no Man that understands what he talks of will Dispute but 't is whether they have not another Right viz. Providential Right which shall set aside both the Dispossessed Prince's and Private Owner's legal Rights And if Providence and the foresaid Scripture Declarations made such Providential Right 't is plain they are as much on the side of a private Robber as of an Usurper and so would give that Right to both if they did to either But the Dispute adds he ibid. is about Authority and no Man will pretend that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Authority which the Persons robbed are bound to submit to But who puts the Objection so What the Thief pretends to is the Purse which is matter of Property and what the Usurper claims is the Crown which is matter of Authority And Right is necessary to both in their respective pretences if they would hold them righteously This can be no legal Right which rests still with the dispossessed Prince and private Sufferers But the Author has found a Providential Right better than the Legal to give the Usurper the best Right to the Authority And that will serve as well for the Thief or Pyrate and give him the best Right to the Property And if he can hold his stolen Goods by as good Right as Usurpers may their Usurped Crowns by this Principle in the Eyes of God he may all the time be very Righteous For God is no respecter of Persons and so when he justifies one he will not condemn the other when he can make the same Plea and acts upon the very same Grounds If this Right of Providence is the best Right it will be the best for every thing that is to go by Right and then it will be the best Title to Property as well as to Authority Yea Goods and Properties are expresly mentioned in those
therefore is called God's sending and charging or giving and taking and the like in the foresaid Scriptures And all without the least Regard to authorizing and giving Right to the Actors which is not to be expected in unrighteous and punishable Actions and which God therein doth not at all meddle with What needs Right is going at all on such Errands and violently seizing what is their Neighbours And this they have not at all from him but the Bent and Disposition thereto is all their own But when they are set upon this by their own Avarice Ambition or other corrupt Passions Providence ministers Accidents and Opportunities which come not to them in way of authorizing but of trying as they do to every one else in an unrighteous Action And these Accidents and Opportunities to a mind so prepared will ascertain the Accomplishments and limit and over-rule it as God sees fit and so bear out all these Scripture Expressions of God's accomplishing without any thing of his giving Right and authorizing which no one must expect from him in an evil or unrighteous thing 3. Thirdly That this Right of Providence or mere Providential Possession without other Title doth not set aside Legal Right may appear from the Authority of our own Laws The constant Method of Law is To give any thing in Dispute to the legal Title against the illegal Possessor This is manifest in all private Rights If a Man has a legal Title to any thing the Law every Term ejects the illegal Possessor for all he has the Plea of Providential Possession against the other And 't is plainly so in the legal Title to the Crown too This appears by all the forementioned Proofs of the Laws looking upon the dispossessed Prince with legal Title still as King and making the Allegiance of all the Subjects to continue due to him yea of the Usurper himself if he were a Subject before And attainting him as well as them for Treasonable Breaches of the same so making the Providential Possessor a Traitor to the Legal Owner as I have shewn from sundry Acts of Parliament and judged Cases in behalf of the dispossessed rightful Kings All which establishing the legal King's Authority against the Providential Usurper's shew plainly That our Law thinks better of a legal Right than of the Author 's Right of Providence To which I will add the Judgment of the Parliament 39 H. 6. on a Competition betwixt these two Titles For H. 6. had the Providential Right and had Reigned King himself for almost Forty Years and all that the D. of York had to oppose against it was his Legal Right And yet that Parliament confess the Duke's Title of Legal Right could not be Defeated Indeed if Providential Possession were the best Right there would be very little use of the legal Right Yes says he p. 15. it would bar all other human Claims But the Right of Providence according to his Notion has barr'd these better And what use of a worse Title to do that which a better has done before If a Pâ—ince is in the Throne he needs not to hold by it for his Providential Possession will exclude all other Princes and oblige his own Subjects as effectually as any human Right would And if he is out of the Throne he cannot claim by it because it is the Possessor's by a better Right and no Man can honestly claim that from another which he has a better Title to than himself And if it is of no use to a King either for holding a Crown whilst he has it or for recovering it when he has lost it I think there is no great account to be made of it I shall now 4. Fourthly in the last place add some Authorities in this Case to shew how valid these Legal Rights have been held against Providential Usurpations and Possessions both by the Primitive and our own Church As for the Primitive Church they saw several Competitions of these Two Titles In one Part or other of the Empire some were still assuming the Purple and setting up in Fact against the legal Emperor and these were Possessed for their Time of the Countreys where the Defection was the People being all in their Power and publick Acts passing in their Names and this sometimes continuing for Years before they and their adherents were Overthrown or Reduced by the lawful Emperors If Providential Possession without other Right then carries the best Title here was the Title of Providence for so much as they possessed the whole Power of those Places being in their Hands and they being able there to crush all Opposers And if God grants Right where he grants Power here was a Divine Right to so much as these Usurpers had got into their Power But yet the Christians in those Places never thought this a Warranty to cast off their lawful Emperor as being this way disauthoriz'd by God and to turn Subjects to these Usurpers as having God's Authority in these Countreys put into their Hands So never any Christians would stick to them or act under them as in Obedience to God's Authority they should have done had they thought them now to be the Emperors of God's making among them Nunquam Albiniani nunquam Nigriani c. says Turtullian that is Their Enemies could never give an instance when they turned to any such Usurper or took part in such Defection Two whereof viz. that by Niger and another by Albinus were fresh in Memory at that time Herein keeping strictly and conscientiously to the Apostle's limitation who requires them to submit to the King as Supreme and to those sent to govern the Provinces only as to Governors sent by him and so not to submit and stick to them when they set up for themselves against him 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. As for our own Church of England we have had a like signal Competition between them in the long Usurpations till King Charles the Second's Restauration and as full a Declaration has been made of the Churches Sense therein and of the validity of the King 's legal Title against these Usurpers mere Providential Possession as can ordinarily be made by the Actings and Sufferings the Preaching and Printing of the Church Men both all the time of the Usurpations and for near Thirty Years together since And this I think is good Argument in this way of Arguing viz. from Authority though he says p. 45 46. There is only Prejudice but no Argument in it For such Preaching and Suffering for this Doctrine by the greatâ—st Lights and conâ—est Pillars of the Church during all the Days of Usurpation and such constant Maintenance of the same both by Books aâ—d Sermons on the Aniversary Days and other Occasions of treating on that Subject in all Places of the Kingdom ever since till this Revolution must needs clear this to have been the Churches Doctrine and that after it had been put most upon studying the Point and delivering its Sense therein
And this Churches Authority he says Is a venerable Authority and thinks there is good Argument in it when p. 3. c. he seeks to confirm his own Opinion from Bishop Overal ' s Convocation Book But a great Prâ—judice he says p. 46. the received Sense and Censure of those Usurpations is to his Right of Providence And very well it may upon many Accounts For a King in his Notion p. 12. â—s removed and disauthorized by God when Providence thrusts him from the Throne and â—akes the Government that is actual Government out of his hand And another King or Commonwealth for the Case is the same under any Form is set up and cloathed with God's Authority when Providence advances them to his Throne and puts the actual Government into their hand Now when King Charles 〈◊〉 stood arraigned before the High Court of Justice Providence had thrust him out of his Throne and taken the actual Government out of his hand and put it in the hand of the Rump Parliament Then had he none of God's Authority nor any Allegiance due to him Then his Tryal was no Tryal of the real but only nominal King God having first removed that Authority and actual Government from him which made him King and Allegiance due to him Then were his Judges no Traytors and his Murder no Treason Which is quite against the received Opinion of Church of England Men. Again as to his Son King Charles II. after his Death when he came into England with an Army at Worcester Fight the Râ—mp Parliament were Providentially possessed of all the Power and Exercise of Government and had been for two years and an half which is a longer time than has passed hitherto for the Possession of the same or Settlement of the present Government If then God's Authority goes with such Exercise and Possession they had God's Authority here and he had it not Then if he came as an Englishman he could be nothing here but a Subject Then was his leading an Aâ—my through England and Attempts to raise one in it against the Rump Parliament a Rebellious Arming against God's Authority and Ordinance and he and all his Adherents were Rebels against the Common-Wealth And all that stir'd in his Cause afterwards were Guilty of the Scriptural Resisting of Authority or higher Powers and their Sufferings were just Executions They deserved to dye for it here and without Repentance were in danger to be eternally condemn'd for it hereafter All which are likewise very cross to the Church of England received Opinions yea and to the Opinion of this Reverend Person who is far enough from charging these things upon them And his Endeavour in this point is to exempt his Principle of Providential Right from authorizing the Usurpers of that time or aspersing the Loyal Adherents of the Legal Right with the foregoing Imputation There is Difference he says p. 46. betwixt these two Cases and he instances in many particulars The only Question is Whether any of the Points of Difference assigned make a Difference in the Possessors Authority and Subjects Allegiance If not theirs was God's Authority by his Providential Right for all the Differences And the King and all the Loyalists resisting God's Authority would therein have been rebellious as is before alledged For what is the Ground of all Conscionable Allegiance God's Authority as he rightly observes p. 15. 34. and nothing else And what makes any Person or Body of Men to be God's Authority or Ordinance Is it coming well by their Power without Villanies or Murder of preceding Sovereigns Or is it good use of those they have Providentially got under their Power especially of such of them as had bore Arms in the opposite Cause and stand still well affected to it Is it their keeping up Bishops and Episcopal Clerâ—y and Church Revenues Or retaining Fundamental Laws and Constitutions yea or even Monarchy it self or Legal Parliaments all which are the Particulars of Difference assigned by him in this point p. 46. 47. No none of these makes any to be God's Authority or Ordinance according to his Principles but being set up by Providence in Possession of Power and actâ—al Administration of Government This makes both the Change of Fâ—rm and Government or the new Degenerate Forms of Government as he tells us p. 4. 5. from the Convaeation Book to be God's Ordinance And therefore as such we must own them when actually administring whether they be Monarchy or Commonwealth whether all Estates or only Commons whether a full House or a few Persons And also the Change of Persons ib. p. 34. how villanously soever the Change was brought about whether by the Injustice of Ambitious Neighbours or by the Treason and Rebellion of Disloyal Subjects Then for all the Villanies of those Usurpers and the Murder of K. Charles and their barbarous usage of his Friends and pulling down Bishops and Bishops Lands and turning out malignant Clergy and changing Monarchy to Common-wealth and a full Representative of the Nation to a Rump Parliament For all these I say since Providence had put them into Possession and Administration of Government God had put them into his Authority by this Principle and they were as truly a Power of his making and his Ordinance by this Plea as the present Power or any other Providential Power and Possessor is And having thus got into God's Authority What can make them lose it Will continuance of the same villanous Practices against the murder'd King's legal Heir or his Friends or the Church and Bishops No but only like Dispossession again by Providence Whilst in this Possession then they were God's Ordinance And for what Cause may Subjects Arm against God's Ordinance May they do it for their pulling down the Church of England or the King's Friends out of an abhorrence they have of past or for the Oppressions they feel by present Villanies No For what then would become of the Dâ—ctrine of Non-resistance And if they could not with a good Conscience be resisted for these What is like to become of those Rising Or Who can bring them off from being as Damnable a Resistance as any other Rebellions But he adds p. 47. lastly That their Government was never settled being frequently changed and having no National Consent As to Settlement by these Principles I do not see that Settlement in Possession should first give Right or Authority but only that it should settle and continue them for Possession gives Authority by his Account p. 15. 23. 25. 32. 36. Possession of Government must needs give actual Government and actual Government gives Right to Allegiance as his Discourse still asserts p. 26 27. 32. Yea all the Scripture Texts for Obedience as he thinks p. 21. require it to be paid only to him that Exercises Government And claiming Allegiance it must imply and carry Authority since Allegiance is only due to Authority as he also says pag. 15. 34. He then who has got Possession
either to Swear Allegiance or undergo these hard things then they must suffer as Confessors for their Duty in this as other good Men have done for Duty in other Instances And the Duty of Confessing is never the less because there is so great a number of Confessors And if that Society be broken up by this means it is not too good to be parted with to keep Innocence and a good Conscience All Civil Society and the Benefits thereof being under the Restraint of the Rules of Righteousness and never to be sought or preserved by breaking any of God's Laws about Society or any others but only so far as they can be had by keeping of them Men must never purchase any Society by Sin and Sin is never the less sinful for being required of them on that Condition But p. 45. is not Obedience to Government it self for the Preservation of human Society Yes as all other Rules of Righteousness which are Social Virtues But they are for it not as discretionary means which Men may use or omit as they see it serves turns but as standing Rules and Laws of God which they are to keep without Exceptions They must rule us in all Cases and Pursuits either of Society or any thing else And a Liberty to transgress these when it may seem to serve present turns would leave neither security in nor benefit by any Societies But as for this Objection against an obstinate Allegiance it is not peculiar to it but will lye equally against an obstinate Picty or any other Virtues when they fall into the hands of such Persecutors as will allow no benefit of Society without breach thereof In the Dioclesian Persecution he knows the Christians were removed from the Emperor's Protection and from all Claim and Use of Laws and what benefit of Society then if they would not first Sacrifice to the Heathen Gods And the like may be under any Idolatrous or Heretical Prince who will tyranically make any other Instances of Idolatry or Heresy the Condition of living under him or of Civil Society Or such a Decree as Nebuebadnezzar did to destroy all People Nations and Languages that would not worship his Golden Image Dan. 3. 6. And so it may in any Church when they will tyranically impose any Sins or Errors as Conditions of their Communion to all that live under them or of Church Society Which yet all good Christians are bound to seek for the benefit of their Souls as much as Civil Society for the benefit of their Bodies and worldly Interests So that Obstinacy in any Truths or Duties will as much destroy Society as Obstinacy in Allegiance when they fall into such Princes or Persons hands who will let none live in their Country or have any Protection there if they do without renouncing them And yet these are Duties then notwithstanding and Men are then called to lay down not only the benefits of Society but their very Lives for them 6. His last Reason is p. 43. That these Principles of his answer all the ends of Government for Security both of Prince and Subjects But First Do they answer all the ends of Justice and keeping the Commandments I think I have made it plain they do not do that because they do not give every Man his own but justifie unjust Possession and give Right to unrighteous Actions destroying the Obligations laid and the Securities given by Right and Wrong among Men. And Government and Civil Society are for having these things done and for being ruled in all things by them and the greatest Blessing that comes thereby is the Observance of them Then as to the Purposes of Princes his Principle indeed answers an Usurpur's Purpose which is to keep what he has unjustly got and it shews him he may very justly and conscionably do that and that he has the People as fast tyed and as far obliged to him for all he has no good Title as they would be if he had the best Title But yet all his Purposes it will not serve For he that is once possessed of a Crown would not have it lye at other Peoples Liberty if they can to take it from him but would be glad of some such Title and such an human Right would prove if once he came to acquire that as would make every one else afraid in Conscience if they make any Conscience of what they do to desire or attempt to wrest it out of his hands And this the Title of Providential Possession doth not do For as that way he holds it only by Strength any other that can make a greater Strength will start a better Title to it than he has And as for the Rightful King's Purpose I think it no way answers it For his Purpose and that a very reasonable and just one too would be to have his Right to hold it when he has it and to have it unlawful for any Man to disturb his Possession of it or to get it from him or when he has done so to keep it as his own and not restore it to him again Yea to have Right from his Subjects as well as from the Usurper That since it is his Right they should not help to hinder him of it and since he has Authority over them that they should keep under Obedience to him And as it is the constant Purpose of Authority to bind to such Obedience so it is the constant Purpose of Right to have these Effects not only in the King but in any other Person And lastly as for the Purpose of Subjects if they all purpose as they all should do in the first place to keep a good Conscience I think his Principles may appear from what I have said to be far from that since they would carry them to resist him that has Authority over them which would be Rebellious and to oppose Right and maintain Wrong which is very unrighteous And as to their Preservation and outward Security in this world though in making them more externally easie under the Possessor whilst he holds the Possession it would serve this end at that turn yet would it deserve it a great deal more as I before noted in destroying Right and Wrong the best Guard of their worldly Preservation and in multiplying such Changes and Revolutions all the Compassings whereof are the greatest Blow and Bane thereto And though I am sure this is no end either of Government or Governors who are not for serving but keeping out such Changes and Revolutions yet it seems a very natural and the most natural end of his Right of Providence And then as he p. 43. grants Princes themselves as well as Subjects have Cause enough to be jealous of it since whatever Servive it might do them at one turn it might do them as great Dissâ—â—vice at another For to give Authority to Revolutions and to justifie those that act in them I think are the great ways that any Principles can serve
whom Subjects are under a contrary Obligation The ways of taking off these Difficulties Cahp 2. Of the Nature of Authority and how Convey'd from God The Pleas of Allegiance from Possession or a King de Facto Whether this removes the Difficulties Of the Nature of Authority and its being distinct from External Strength How carryed from God to the Person authorized Chap. 3. Authority goes by Rightful Titles This proved 1. From the Nature of Right and Authority 2. From God that gives it 3. And from the command that carries it By Higher Powers St. Paul means Rightful Powers The Romans then were such Objections answered from Scripture requiring Obedience to Present Powers Not blaming it to Usurpers From our Saviours shewing the Coyn. From the Command to the Jews to submit to the Babylonians From perplexities of Conscience if tyed to Rightful Titles 4. From our own Laws Of the ways of human Right which are to convey Authority Chap. 4. Obedience to Rightful Authority not tyed to actual Administration of Government What Obedience is payable to a Rightful King out of actual Administration The dueness thereof to such proved by six Arguments A Proof of the same from our own Laws The Statute of H. 7. cleared and his Authorities from Law consider'd Treason not against a mere King in Fact Who to take cognizance of King's Rights Chap. 5. Of the Author's Right by Providential Possession without other Title It destroys the Obligations by Right and Wrong Of his Right by Providential Possession without other Title It destroys the Obligations by Right and Wrong 1. Among Kings Iustifying their detaining each other's Right when they have unjustly got them Proofs against this And of the Case of Joash And justifying the unrighteous Attempts to get them The calamitousness hereof to Kings It brings in Mr. Hobbs ' s state of War 2. From Kings towards their Subjects justifying their illegal Invasions 3. Among private Persons Chap. 6. This Right by mere Providential Possession disproved by other Arguments This shown Secondly from the use of Providence What the part of Providence is in unrighteous Actions Thirdly from our own Laws Fourthly from the Opinion of the Primitive Church and of the Church of England on Competition between Legal Owners and Usurping Possessors Of the Case of our late Usurpations Of Bishop Overal ' s Convocation Book as to this point Chap. 7. Of his Scripture Proofs and some of his Reasons for his Right by Providential Possession An Answer to his Scripture Proofs His Reasons for the same are 1. It s giving the most intelligible Account of fetching Authority of Governors from God This considered 2. It s necessity for Defence of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience which is Answered 3. Or to maintain God's Authority in setting up or removing Kings which is cleared Chap. 8. Of his Remaining Reasons for the same 4. His Fourth Reason for it is because else we should limit God's Providence in Governing Kings and Protecting injured Subjects this Answered 5. To preserve human Societies and Government upon any Changes which is considered and cleared 6. It s Answering all the Ends of Government for Security both of Prince and Subjects which also is examined Of his Distinction between Maintaining and Defending and Restoring in the Oath of Allegiance Without translation of Legal-Right all the first-mentioned Difficulties in Force against transferring Allegiance Advertisement SInce the writing and sending away of this Answer the Reverend Author has published A Vindication of his Case of Allegiance c. In Reply to an Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government demonstrated from Bishop Overal ' s Convocation Book c. I see no Cause to alter any thing in the foregoing Papers from any Matter he has suggested in this Vindication Nor do I apprehend That to an intelligent and attent Reader of these Papers any great Difficulty will be raised by any thing he says therein against any of those Arguments which I have here urged against him What I sincerely seek in this Dispute is to clear up Truth and Righteousness not I bless God a Criminal and Contemptible Affectation of being thought able to maintain a Cause And accordingly my Business is to reduce the Debate of his Case of Allegiance to Principles to establish and clear up such as are opposite unto his and fairly to examine and answer his Arguments Which is a Thing that he tells his Answerer p. 80. in the Conclusion of his Vindication He is at leisure now to consider If upon consideration of what I here offer to him he shall find nothing but Truth and Reason in these Papers like a Man that is Conscientiously Studious in these Disputes how he may do Honor to the Laws and Truths of God more than how he may come off without seeming to be worsted in his Argument I hope he will give God Thanks for the same and Heartily and Joyfully embrace and acquiesce therein But if he think still that he has not only Show and Evasion but solid Reason and Truth to reply in further Maintenance of his own Opinion I shall be like to hear from him And then as by God's Grace I shall apply my self sincerely to seek Truth not Victory in considering what he shall offer anew So as for any of those Evasions in his Vindication which concerns any Argument here urged against him I think it will not cost much Pains to shew the Weakness of them if he think fit to insist upon them And in the mean time I shall leave the consideration of his Vindication to that Learned Author whose Book has occasioned and who is particularly concerned in it Pref. Matt. 15. 5 6. 1 Tim. 5. 4. Mat. 5. 33. l. 1. c. 10. ib. l. 2. c. 10. p. 12. 2 Sam. 1. 6. 9. and 1 Sam. 31. 4. v. 1416. 2 Sam. 16. 1 Mar. Sess. 2. c 4. Stat. 28. H. 8. c. 7. and 35. H. 8. c. 1. and 1. Ed. 6. c. 12. Rot. 1 Ed. 4. n. 9. c. as cited in the true and exact Hist. of Success of the Crown of Eng. p. 30. pag. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In â—oc p. 10 11 36. p. 12 23 24. Clem. Ro. 1. Ep. ad Cor. c. 42. p. 89. Ed. Ox. * vid. p. 12 13 14 15 16. 21 23 25 32 36. p. 26 27. Rom. 13. 1 5. p. 15. 34. p. 52. Rom. 13. 7. p. 26 27. chap. 2. 1 Cor. 14. 33. 1 Pet. 2. 16. Ap. Ios. de Bel. l. 2. o. 1. l. 6. c. 11. Matt. 22. 17. Stat. 1. Ed. 4. c. 1. p. 18 19. p. 14. p. 20. Dâ—ol 54. p. 570. c. and 576. p. 21. p. 20. pag. 21. pag. 18. pag. 21. page 21. page 21. ibid. p. 19 20. 2. page 19. pag. 2 19. Mat. 21. 23. page 9. Ex. 22. 28. Ps. 82. 1. 6. Rom. 13. 4. 6. pag. 24. Rot. Par. 39. H. 6. n. 16. p. 26. 27. 28. 32. 15. 16. 21. pag. 21. Rom. 13. 1. pag. 5. p. 15 34. †p. 798. * p. 10. 11. * See the Act for a Poll towards reducing Ireland passed 1 Guil. 1 May 89. and the Act for Relief of their Majesties prâ—t Sub. in Irel. passed 1 Guil. Jan. 27. 89. * Vid. Tryal of Râ—gicid †Bishop of Salisb. Life of Iudge Hale p. 23. Page 14. * Bishop of Salisb. Hist. Reform p 2. p. 242. and Sir Rich. Baker in the Râ—ign of Q. Mary †Stat. 1. Mar. Sess. 2. c. 16. Rot. Parl. 39 H. 6. Nu. 20. a Tryal of the Regicides p. 〈◊〉 145 146. and his Speech to the G 〈…〉 Iury p. 15. p. 12 13 15 16 23 24 25 27 28 34. p. 12 14. a Is. 14. 4. 5. 6. 20. b C. 21. 2. c Nâ—h 2. 11. 12. d Hab. 2. 5 9. e V. 12 8. f Nah. 2. 12. * ad loc Habak 2. 5 6. Chap. 23. Can. 23. †De jur B. P. l. 1. c. 4. Art 18. Jer. 51. 11. Is. 10. 26. Jer. 51. 20 21 22 23. 2 Sam. 12. 11 12. Ch. 16. 21 22. Is. 10. 7. Râ—t Parl. 39. H. 6. Nâ— 18. * Apol. c. 35. ad Scap. c. 2. †Chap. 23. and Can. 23. p. 41 42. vid. 1 Can. 17. p. 28 29. * Chap. 30. p. 64. †Can. 30. p. 65. * Conv. Book p. 92. Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. Ch. 31. p. 76. Can. 34. p. 82. and p. 119. * An Answer to a Pamphlet intituled Obedience and Submission to to the Present Government demonstrated from Bishop Overal's Convocat Book Chap. 3. Can. 1. †Cone Eph. Can. 8. Prov. 21. 1. p. 32 33 34. p. 42. p. 38. 39. sequ * B. Saunders Praeâ—ect 3 de Oblig Leg. Hum. Sect. 16. 17 18 19 20. p. 19. 20. 69. 70. 71. * Lact. de Mort. Per. sec. c. 13. 15. †Vid. p. 14. and 25. * Stat. 7. Iac. 1. c. 6.