the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans no Entail tho' made by God himself could bind them and then I hope it will be granted that no Humane Entails can bind any People who are under Force if a Divine Entail can't do it And thus our way is prepared to answer what he objects against the first Account I gave of this Case of Athaliah viz. That all that this Story amounts to is no more than this That when the legal and rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne Subjects may return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King prosecute the Usurper Our Author answers The Story amounts to a great deal more and that is That Subjects may set the rightful Heir upon the Throne altho' it be in the actual possession of the Usurper for so Iehoiada and the People did It is true it does signifie something more with reference to Ioash but I had regard only to the Case of Athaliah but yet it does not signifie so generally as he puts it but it signifies only this That Subjects by the express Command and Authority of GOD as the Convocation teaches may place the rightful Prince upon his Throne though it be possessed by an Usurper And this will do our Author no service for it will not reach to all Hereditary Kings but to those only of God's Appointing and Nomination or where God himself has made the Entail as it was in the Kingdom of Iudah I shewed this was the Case here that the rightful Heir was actually possessed of the Throne for Joash was first anointed and proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah To this he answers But is the Doctor sure that Joash was actually possessed of the Throne He was anointed indeed but is anointing actual possession And it will not be easie to prove it according to the Doctor 's Notion of Possession of having the whole Administration of Affairs and all the Authority of the Kingdom in his hands I reply The Convocation arffims That King Ioash was in possession of his Crown before Athaliah was slain and I believe if our Author thinks of it again he will confess that Anointing gives actual Possession to a rightful King thô a thorough Settlement of his Government is necessary to the full Possession of an Usurper and the reason of this difference is manifest for where there is Right nothing more is necessary to give Possession but that Subjects actually own and recognize that Right and accept him for their King for his Right makes their Obedience a Duty when he is in Possession how weak and unsettled soever his Government be But when a Prince has no legal Right to the Crown nor consequently to the Obedience of his Subjects it is only a thorough Settlement which makes Obedience a necessary Duty And yet if that will satisfie our Author the whole Administration of Affairs and all the Authority of the Kingdom was then in Ioash's hands and Athaliah had none of it for all the Princes and Levites and People that is all who had the Administration of Affairs and the Power of the Kingdom in their hands yeilded their Subjection to Ioash as to their lawful King and that put the whole Authority and Administration into his hands and what Authority Athaliah had left appeared in her Tragical End He proceeds But howevâ—r who Anointed and who Proclaimed him and who put him in Possession Why truly no body else but his own Subjects and those very Men that had lived six Years under the Usurper And then I perceive that Subjects may stand by the rightful Heir against an Usurper though possessed of the Throne for some Years But then where is that Fidelity Allegiance and Obedience that the Doctor says we are bound to pay to usurped Powers Answ. Truly just where it was before in the Convocation Book and in the Scriptures which requires our Subjection to the present Powers and in the reason and necessity of things but this was an exempt Case upon account of a Divine Entail and where God himself has made the Entail no Usurpation can cut it off nor absolve Subjects from their Duty to him whom God himself has made their King but it is not so with humane Entails of which more presently Now I said that for Subjects to return to their Allegiance and by the Authority of their King to prosecute the Usurper when the rightful Heir is actually possessed of his Throne is a very different Case from raising Rebellions against a Prince who is in the possession of the Throne to restore an ejected Prince To this he answers Was not Athaliah in possession of the Throne when Jehoiada anointed Joash I answer as I have before done She was in the actual and visible possession of the Throne but against a Divine Entail and therefore her possession was a nullity and when they knew the King's Son was living to whom by the Law of God they were to submit they were bound to look upon it as a nullity and not to consider her as their Queen but this is not the question the question is Whether Athaliah were possessed of the Throne after Ioash was anointed when Iehoiada gave Orders to kill her and that I suppose our Author will not say that she was in possession of the Throne when the rightful Heir was actually possessed of it But he says the question is concerning Allegiance to an Usurper in the possession of the Throne and as to that there is no difference For these pay as little Allegiance to an Usurper who anoint a King and then depose him as those who do it to restore an ejected one and I would fain know what difference there is as to Allegiance to an Usurper between anointing a new King and upon his Authority dispossessing an Usurper and doing the same thing upon the Authority of one already anointed Now I grant there is no difference between anointing a King and upon his Authority dispossessing an Usurper and doing the same thing upon the Authority of one already anointed in such Cases wherein it is the Duty of Subjects either to anoint a new King or to restore an old anointed King in opposition to the Usurper who is setled in the Throne but this is a Duty only where the Usurpations how thoroughly setled soever it be is against God's Entail which was the peculiar Case of Ioash and yet even in this Case the Convocation thought it very considerable that the Princes Levites and People yielded Subjection to their lawful King and having so done and their King being in possession of his Throne joyned together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper if the Convocation had not thought that there was some difference between killing Athaliah before or after the Anointing of Ioash they would not have laid so much stress upon the time when she was slain that having so done and their King being in possession of his Throne they joyned together for the overthrowing
Jezebel p. 46. And the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires These Passages our Author has thought fit to take no notice of for if they do not prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no right and place them in the Thrones of those who have the right there is no sense to be made of them Our Author's hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it for if no Prince can have God's Authority nor must be obeyed unless he have a legal Right either an old Hereditary Right or a new Acquired Right by the death or cession of the Royal Family or by a long prescription then God is bound to those Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribes to others that is to adhere to Humane Rights then God may not overthrow any Kings or Emperors who challenge their Countries Kingdoms or Empires by any just Claim Right Title or Interest Then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just right and claim For he cannot unmake a rightful King if he cannot absolve Subjects from their Allegiance nor make a King without a legal Right if he cannot give him his Authority and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects to him God can remove the Man by death but cannot unmake the King unless he unmake himselfe by resigning his Crown He can set a Man upon the Throne but cannot make a King of him without the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription Whereever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure this Convocation never taught it him To confirm this I observed that the Convocation teaches that Obedience was due to such Kings as never could have any legal Right to the Government of Israel as the Kings of the Moabites and Aramites of Aegypt and Babylon and yet says that the Israelites knew that it was not lawful for them of themselves and by their own Authority to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were though indeed they were Tyrants And that it had not been lawful for Ahud to have killed King Eglon had he not first been made by God the Iudge Prince and Ruler of the People On the other hand our Author affirms that all these Kings had a legal Right and were legal Powers and that it appears in all and every one of the Instances the Convocation gives of Government to which they say obedience is due that these Governments had such a Right This is a bold Undertaker unless he only play with equivocal words and that I believe is the truth of the matter for such legal Rights as he has found for these Princes will quickly transubstantiate all usurped Powers into legal Governments But our first Inquiry is What the Convocation thought of these Kings as for instance the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites who ruled over and oppressed Israel whether they thought them the legal and rightful Kings of Israel they call indeed the Israelites their Subjects as our Author observes and from thence proves that these Kings had a legal power over Israel but the mischief is that the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any man shall affirm that any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments which Wit or Learning could devise that God had called him to murther the King de facto under whom he lived yea though he should first have procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did and should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master ought therefore to be believed of any that feared God he doth greatly err Which is spoke with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de Facto in the judgment of the Convocation and I suppose our Author knows what a King de Facto signifies in opposition to a King de Iure one who is King without a legal Right and yet the Convocation asserts that such Kings de Facto must not be murdered by their Subjects which is an express Determination against our Author Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author has found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies which were successively Erected with the most manifest Violence and Usurpation And that is the Submission both of Prince and People which he says I grant gives a legal Right whereas I only said That the Submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so The truth is our Author is here blunder'd for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous Terms which if they were truly stated would clear all these Difficulties Legal Powers signifie such Powers as are according to Law but then there are different kinds of Laws and when we speak of legal Powers unless we agree by what Law we call them Legal we shall never understand one another Now we may understand Legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Laws of Nations or the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation or Kingdom and in this last sence Legal is understood by all Men who understand themselves in this Controversie of legal Powers that those only are legal Powers who have the rightful Authority of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom which they govern This is the reason of the Distinction between a King de Iure and de Facto which relates to the particular Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom a King de Iure is a rightful King by the Laws of the Land a King de Facto whatever other Right he may have is not rightfully and lawfully possessed of the Crown by the Laws of Succession proper to that Kingdom And if our Author will take the Controversie off of this Bottom and dispute only about legal Powers in general we will then admit his Plea of Submission and joyn issue with him upon that Point And this is all the Mystery I intended when I affirmed that the Moabites and Aramites Aegyptians and Babylonians could not have a legal and natural Right to Govern Israel that is that by the Constitutions of the Iewish Commonwealth they could not give the Power of the Government to a Stranger nor set up a Prince over them who was not of their Brethren and therefore no Strangers neither Aramites nor Moabites could be their legal Kings As for their Submission when under Force it shall be considered presently This made me smile to see how he was concerned to ward off a Blow which was
of Athaliah the Usurper And I wonder our Author should perceive no difference between these two for though it had been the same thing to Athaliah whether she had been killed before or after the Anointing of Ioash yet it greatly altered the nature of the fact and that upon two accounts both with respect to the Authority whereby it was done and to the Character of the Person who suffered The Convocation will not allow a private Man to kill a King de Facto and that was the Case of the Iews during Athaliah's Reign before Ioash's Title was recognized and he anointed and placed on the Throne but when this was done they had the visible and actual Authority of their King to slay the Usurper which is a parallel Case to that of Ahud and King Eglon. Before Ahud was made by God the Judge and Saviour of his People they teach that it was unlawful for him or any one else to have killed King Eglon but the Case was altered when God himself immediately had made him Iudge and had given him a full and absolute Authority independent upon any but upon him that gave it to undertake any thing that by God's direction appertained to his place Thus whatever Authority Athaliah had before when Ioash was anointed she sunk into the state of a Subject and then to kill her was not to kill a Queen de Facto but a Subject who had been an Usurper but now was a Subject again and therefore no Fidelity or Allegiance was due to her This is the Case of Iehu who was a Subject but commanded by God to be anointed King over Israel and accordingly Elizeus the Prophet caused Jehu to be anointed and God's Message to be delivered unto him who presently upon the knowledge of God's Will and the submission of the Princes and Captains of Israel to him as to their lawful King did put in execution the said Message by killing Joram before that time his Soveraign but then his Subject c. Now I suppose our Author will confess that there is a difference between killing with Authority and without and between killing a Soveraign Prince and killing a Subject by the Authority of the Prince and this was the Case of Athaliah when Ioash was anointed The Convocation was very careful not to encourage Subjects to rise up against their Prince though he were but a King de Facto and therefore from these examples of Ahud and Iehu expresly observe that God foreseeing in his heavenly Wisdom and Divine Providence what mischief private Men under the colour of these Examples might otherwise have pretended or attempted against their Soveraigns as being either discontented of themselves or set into some fury by other malitious Persons he did so order and dispose of all things in the execution of these such his extraordinary Iudgments as that thereby it might plainly appear to any that should not wilfully hood-wink himself never to be lawful for any Person whatsoever upon pretence of any Revelation Inspiration or Commandment from his Divine Majesty either to touch the Person of his Soveraign or to bear Arms against him except God should first advance the said Person from his private Estate and make him a King or an absolute Prince to succeed his late Master in his Kingdom or Principality If our Author will not yet I hope all impartial Readers will think this a sufficient Answer to the Case of Ioash and Athaliah But however he will not give it over thus but undertakes to prove that my Arguments will equally justifie submission to Athaliah in the Kingdom of Judah notwithstanding such Entail as to any Usurper in any other Nation Well! and suppose he can prove it what then Did I ever deny that it was lawful to submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and Ioash the true Heir concealed Does he find in Scripture that the Jews are condemned for submitting all this while to Athaliah If any one should have been condemned for it Iehoiada the High-Priest was the Man who knew that Ioash was living and yet for six Years together while he thought fit to conceal this Secret he submitted himself to Athaliah and acted under her Authority and neither blames himself nor any of the Nation for doing so Surely Iehoiada had not the same Notions of Loyalty which our Author has for then he durst not have submitted to Athaliah when he knew Ioash was living and was in his own keeping For says our Author while the Government is as unjust as the Rebellion and Encroachment a Man cannot justly become a Party to the Government no more than to the Rebellion for they are both equally unjust unless the stealing of a Purse is very unjust but the keeping it after it is stolen is very just He that partakes with Injustice as he certainly does that joyns with it partakes with the guilt too And if the Power be unjust then to abet to defend support and maintain that Power must be unjust likewise And I add to do this for six Years is unjust likewise and yet this Iehoiada did and is no where condemned for it So that our Author mistakes the question It is not enough for him to prove that my Arguments will justifie submission to Athaliah while she was in the possession of the Throne and of the Power of the Kingdom for let the Entail be what it will a Divine or Humane Entail it is always lawful to submit to Power but the question is whether my Arguments give as irresistible Authority to Athaliah who usurped the Throne contrary to a Divine Entail as they do to other Kings de Facto who are throughly setled in their Thrones contrary to meer legal Rights and humane Entailes if they proved this I should confess my Arguments were naught as proving too much but if they only justifie the present submission of the Jews to Athaliah while Ioash was concealed and they thought all the King's Sons had been cut off I see no hurt in this The Scripture does not condemn them for it and it is certain they ought to be justified in it and I desire to know how our Author will justifie them according to his Principles For we must observe the Convocation does not meddle with that question when it becomes lawful to submit to usurped Powers but when it becomes our Duty It is lawful to do it when we are under a Power which we can't resist but when such Usurped and Illegal Powers are throughly setled then it becomes our Duty to submit and to pay all that Obedience which Subjects owe even to the most rightful Powers Now we know the general submission of the People is necessary to a thorough settlement of such new Governments and therefore if such Governments may be setled without the sin of the Subjects it must be lawful in some Cases to submit before the Government be setled for the Government cannot be setled without their submission but
Dominion and Government makes a King and Allegiance a Subject and Allegiance has as necessary a relation to Dominion as a Subject has to a King if there be no King there can be no Subject if no Dominion and Government there can be no Allegiance Paternity is the relation that makes a Father and Filiation a Son and Paternity and Filiation have as mutual and necessary a respect to each other as Father and Son these are called by Logicians Relative Acts and why then may not I call Government and Subjection Relative Duties by which I explained what I meant by Relatives but this I 'm sure is only a Logical Banter and so let it pass But as to the matter in hand since we are got into Logic I desire to know of our Author whether the Relative continues to be a Relative when the relation is destroyed for we are told that the whole nature of Relatives relata secundum esse for I must speak cautiously consists in their Relation if the Relation then of a King to his Subjects be Dominion and Government does he continue a King when he has lost his Dominion and Government or do Subjects continue Subjects when he ceases to be King do they owe him Allegiance when he has lost his Dominion that is can one Relative subsist by its self without its Correlate He tells us indeed that the relation is only between King and Subject and the actual Administration of Government of the one hand and paying Allegiance on the other are but the acts of that Relation and consequential to it but are not Relatives themselves But I desire to know what he calls the relation between King and Subjects for King and Subjects are not the relation but Relatives as Father and Son are Relatives Paternity and Filiation the Relation now I desire to know what is the Relation between these Relatives King and Subjects the particular Acts of Government and the particular Acts of Allegiance I grant are but the Acts of that Relation but still we want to know what the Relation is to which these particular Acts are consequential and let our Author think of anything else wherein to place this Relation if he can besides actual Dominion and Sovereign Power on the one hand to make a King and the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance on the other hand to make a Subject from whence flow the particular Acts of Government and Allegiance now if the Relative ceases with the Relation where actual Dominion and Government ceases the Kingship is lost and the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance with it All that I know of that can be said in this Cause and which those men must say who make Allegiance inseparable from Right is only this that the Relation continues as long as the fundamentum relationis that whereon the Relation is founded continues and that being a Legal Right while this Right remains such a Legal King though he be fallen from Power is King still and Subjects are Subjects still and owe Allegiance to him Now to shorten this Dispute I shall only observe That a Legal Hereditary Right is not the fundamentum relationis the foundation of that relation which is between Prince and Subjects for then there would be no foundation of this relation between Prince and Subjects in any but Hereditary Kingdoms for the same relation can have but one foundation and yet there are a great many ways whereby Princes are advanced to the Throne An Hereditary Right The Election of the People The Nomination of God A Divine Entail And Conquest Which very much differ from each other and if all these be different Foundations there must be different Kinds and Species of Kingship whereas the Relation between King and Subjects is the same in all And therefore we must find out such a foundation for this Relation as will serve all Sovereign Princes by what means soever they are setled in the Throne and that can be no other but the Authority of God by which Kings reign and to which Subjects owe obedience the several ways of advancing Princes to the Throne are but the several ways of investing them with God's Authority but the Authority of God with which they are invested is the foundation of this Relation and this is not always annexed to a Legal Right but is always annexed to a full and setled possession of the Throne No man can have God's Authority who has not the actual Power and Authority of Government for God's Authority is the Authority of Government and when Princes fall from Government so far they lose God's Authority whatever becomes of their Legal Right and all Logicians grant that Relations are dissolved when the foundation of such Relations cease And therefore as in the nature of the thing Subjects cannot obey a Prince when he can't command nor submit to him when he can't govern so when he falls from his Government and another Prince is setled in his Throne the foundation of this Relation at present ceases for when God has taken away his Government he has taken away his present Authority to govern for God never gives the Civil Authority without the Civil Sword I grant in all other Relations where the Relation it self does not consist in the Authority of Government nor the foundation of the Relation cease by falling from the actual Authority of Government the Case is different as between Parents and Children Masters and Servants where the Relation is founded in Nature or Purchase or Civil Contracts under the superior direction and government of the Civil Authority tho the Master of the Family as he says be spirited away or taken captive his Servants and House and Family do not presently fall to the lot of the next Possessor but must be disposed of by the Laws of the Countrey and by the Authority of the Prince for such private and particular Interests are subject to publick Laws and a Superior Authority But the Authority of God is at his own disposal and Sovereign Power and Dominion to which the Divine Authority is annexed is the Relation of a King to his Subjects and when his Sovereignty is lost the Relation is so far dissolved and there is no higher Tribunal to appeal to but to that God who removeth Kings and setteth up Kings And this shews how inconsequent his Argument is from the incapacity of a Subject to pay Allegiance and a King to govern If says he a Subject be taken captive or otherwise hindred from paying actual Allegiance is the Relation lost and does he therefore immediately cease to be a Subject And therefore neither doth a King if he be hindred from the actual administration of Government cease to be a King but hath the same right to our Allegiance in and out of possession Now to wave all other Answers though I suppose our Author will not deny that such a Captive may become a Subject to another Prince these two Cases are not parallel in the
in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and though God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence would not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a providential King when it is in their power to set the right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Human Entail is only a providential settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is setled only by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by his Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Human Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws that are made by God's Authority and which are a Rule to us to Providence which is no Rule Now I would ask our Author Whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws If they be I ask Whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence for do they not refuse to obey a King whom the providence of God has placed and setled in the Throne upon a pretence that he is not King by Law And then I think they give greater Authority to the Laws of the Land than to God in making Kings which is to oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority To avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by Gods Authority but the Question is Whether they are Humane or Divine Laws It is a childish piece of Sophistry and argues a great contempt of his Readers to call Humane Laws Laws made by God's Authority because Sovereign Power which makes these Laws is God's Authority as if there were no difference between Humane and Divine Laws because they are both made by God's Authority though the one are made by the immediate Authority of God the other are made by men who receive their Authority from God whereas in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God which therefore are said to be made by God's Authority in the other case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws Sovereign Princes have their Authority from God but their Laws are the Laws of Men and the difference between them is this that Divine Laws which are made by God himself have a Superior Authority to Men and to all Humane Laws though made by a delegated Authority from God for God grants Authority to Men only in subordination to himself and the Authority of his own Laws He might as well have said That all the By-laws of a Corporation are the King's Laws because made by his Authority granted to them by Charter and therefore there is no difference between the private Laws of the City and the Laws of the Kingdom as being both made by the Authority of the King This may satisfy our Author That though Humane Laws in some sense may be said to be made by God's Authority yet when men oppose a legal Entail of the Crown to the Authority of God in making Kings they oppose Humane Laws to the Authority of God Well! but these Law are our Rule they are are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superior Authority but that they may be by the Authority of God And the Providence of God is no Rule to us If by this he means that we must not make Providence the Rule of Good and Evil to us i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do whatever the Providence of God does I grant it for the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence but if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our Duty cannot lay some new Obligations on us and discharge our old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand Instances every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some new Duties and lays some new Obligations on us I shall instance only in the Case before us If the Providence of God can remove one King and set up another tho this does not alter the Duty of Subjects to their Prince yet it changes the Object of their Allegiance as it changes their Prince the Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him And now let us consider the opposition he makes between Humane Laws of Entail and Providence for he confesses they do oppose Laws made by the Divine Authority that is the Laws of the Land which entail the Crown to Providence or to the Providence of God in making Kings that is they think themselves bound in Conscience to adhere to that King tho out of possession who by the Laws of the Land has a legal Right to the Crown against that King who is actually setled in the Throne by the Providence of God Now if we will consider the sense of things and not the words this is no more than to say that they oppose the Providence of God against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence that is they will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever Reasons the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done that they are resolved to abide by whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and confine Providence that it shall not alter its usual methods in the Government of the World or when it has disposed of the Crown once shall never be at liberty while that Family lasts to dispose of it again to any other For what are these Laws which he says are made by the Divine Authority and are our Rule They are the Laws of Succession which entail the Crown And how does God settle the Crown on any Family by such Laws No otherwise but by his Providence so over-ruling the hearts and counsels of Men as to consent to such an Entail which gives a humane Right to the Crown and bars all other humane Claim So that an Hereditary King by a humane entail of the Crown with respect to God is only a Providential King as much a Providential King as the first of the Family was who obtain'd it by Election or Conquest or worse Arts not by God's express nomination of the Person So that to opppose the Laws of Entail made not by God's immediate Authority as they were in the Kingdom of Iudah but by the over-ruling influence of Providence against God's setting up a new King on the Throne by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence God's Providenee in
from ruine This Objection has been answered more than once in my Case of Allegiance but because I find some men very unwilling to understand it I will try whether I can set it in a clearer light Now here are two things to be considerred 1. The Right to the Crown 2. The Right to Allegiance As for the first the fundamental prejudice and mistake seems to be this That men make no difference between a Legal Right to the Crown and the Legal Right of Subjects to their Estates and therefore think it as wicked and unjust for Subjects whatever their Circumstances are to own any other Prince but the Legal Heir as it would be for Tenants to pay their Rent to any but their true Legal Lord. But I apprehend a great difference between these two Cases and it is this That in setling an Estate there is nothing more required but a meer Humane Right but to make a Legal King besides an Humane Right to the Crown he must have God's Authority There is nothing but a Legal Descent and a Legal Possession that gives Right to a Legal Estate and therefore the Law must have its effect and is the only adequate Rule of Right and Wrong in such Cases And though the Providence of God allots mens private Fortunes though he makes rich and makes poor yet he gives no man a Right to an Estate which he has got by Fraud Injustice and Violence nor exempts them from Legal Punishments and Prosecutions but leaves all such meer Legal Rights under the general influence of his Providence to the care of publick Government But now if a meer Humane Right cannot make a King but it is God's Authority which makes a King if God reserves this Authority in his own hands to the free disposal of his own Sovereign Will and Counsel and does not inseparably annex it to Humane Entails of the Crown if God's Authority without a Humane Right can make a King but Humane Laws cannot make a King without God's Authority this may satisfy us that when God thinks fit to interpose his Authority a meer Legal Right is not a sufficient reason to adhere to a Prince whom God has removed from the Throne nor the meer want of a Legal Right a sufficient reason to disown a Prince whom God has set upon the Throne If meer Law made a King as it makes an Heir to an Estate it were very unjust in Subjects to own any but a Legal King but if the Sovereign Authority of God can remove a King who has the Legal Right and set up a King who has no Legal Right then meer Humane Laws are not the only Rules of Right and Wrong in this matter and there is no reason to charge any man who upon these Terms submits to a new Prince with the least injustice either in disowning his old Legal Prince or in submitting to a new one Secondly As for the Right to Allegiance it was the great design of my Book to prove that Allegiance is not immediately due to a Legal Right to the Crown but to Government and therefore a Prince who has a Legal Right to the Throne but has it not cannot have a Right to my Allegiance till he gains the Throne and I deny him no Right which he can justly claim tho I deny my Allegiance to him while he is out of the Throne And methinks our Author should have answered all that I said upon this Argument before he had so dogmatically told us That the general Rules about Right and Wrong which extend to all Persons and Cases made it needless for St. Paul to have told us That by the higher powers and the powers that are he meant only Legal Powers for if Illegal Powers in his Sense may be the highter Powers and the Powers that at present are who have the actual administration of Government and Allegiance be immediately due only to the Governing Powers then notwithstanding the General Rules of Right and Wrong the Apostle might mean our Author 's Illegal Powers I am sure the Reason of things does not prove the contrary for when the Allegiance and Obedience of Subjects is a Duty only for the sake of Government for the ease and safety of it it is very strange that it should not be due to a setled Government but due to a Prince who does not and cannot Govern And if I may have liberty to dispute with this Author upon his own Principles I desire to know of him Whether Allegiance be due to any Prince upon any other account than his being invested with God's Authority let him say it is at the utmost peril of his Cause How then does God invest any Prince with his Authority of Government whom he does not immediately nominate as he did in the Kingdom of Iudah it must be either by annexing his Authority to the Legal Office or by placing such a Person on the Throne by what means soever he does it or by both And then it is certain no Prince can have God's Authority who is not in possession of the Throne and then no Allegiance can be due to him If God's Authority be annexed to the Regal Office a Prince must be in the actual Administration of the Regal Office and Power before he can have God's Authority as a man must be actually married before he can have the Authority which the Divine Laws give to a Husband If God's setling a Prince in the Throne gives him this Authority then no Prince who is removed from the Throne can have God's Authority And this is agreeable to the Language of Scripture when God is said to remove Kings and set up Kings which when it does not signifie the express Revelation of his Will but the Acts of his Providence can mean no more than the removing one King from the Throne and placing another in it as it is elsewhere expressed He pulleth down the mighty from their seat and exalteth the humble and meek The truth is The Authority of Government is always God's Authority and that is the Reason Bishop Overal's Convocation Book gives why any degenerate Forms of Government when throughly setled must be reverenced and obeyed because the Authority so unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor is always God's Authority which they offer no proof at all of but what is supposed in their Reason that the Authority of Government when it is once setled is God's Authority and then how those Princes who whatever their Right be have no Authority of Government should have God's Authority I cannot guess For to call a Right to the Crown the Authority of Government is contrary to the Sense of Mankind when they speak of Sovereign Princes for he has the Actual Authority who actually administers the Government and it is Actual Authority which is God's Authority not Authority in Fancy and Idea for God does not give Authority to govern without the Power of Government which is a very
fruitless and insignificant Authority But to proceed our Author proves by a parallel Case that St. Paul by the Higher Powers could mean only Lawful Powers for the Apostle exhorts 13. Hebr. 17. Obey them that have rule over you meaning the Ministers of the Gospel now the Apostle makes no distintion between lawful Ministers and Intruders and yet we must understand it of lawful Ministers and by the same reason though St. Paul makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful Powers yet he means only lawful Powers for this is the force of his Argument though he has not expressed it But these Cases are by no means parallel For the Apostle to the Hebrews had no reason to make any such distinction which yet was necessary for St. Paul to have done had he intended his Precept of Obedience should be understood only of lawful Powers The Apostle to the Hebrews knew who had the rule over them at that time that they were lawful Ministers and exhorts the Hebrews to obey them and had he added such a distinction it would have insinuated that he knew some among them who were not lawful Ministers and such a Suggestion without naming the Persons would have made them jealous of them all and spoiled his Exhortation of obeying them The Hebrews knew whom St. Paul meant by those who had the Rule over them St. Paul knew they were such as ought to be obeyed and therefore there was no need here of any distinction between lawful Pastors and Intruders But St. Paul gives a general Charge to be subject to the higher Powers and generally affirms that all power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it of all Powers however they came by their Power he should have limited it to legal and rightful Powers He adds In short the Dr's Reason is against him There has ever been a distinction in the World between Legal and Usurped Powers and 't is probable enough that St. Paul who was so learned a Man knew it and if he had intended to enjoin Obedience to Usurped Powers 't is probable he would have said so in express terms but since be never said so we have reason to conclude he never intended it Now I doubt not but St. Paul did know this distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers and knew also that the Pharisees made this Objection against their Submission to the Romans and for that reason he affirms that all power is of God and that they must be subject to the Higher Powers without any distinction which he would not have done if any distinction ought to have been made when he knew the dispute was about the Romans whom they looked upon as Usurpers over Israel who were God's peculiar People and Inheritance and yet though there was a distinction between Legal and Usurped Powers there was no distinction made in point of Obedience to them but only by the Pharisees and therefore with respect to the rest of the World he ought to have made this distinction in express words if he intended any distinction should have been made I have insisted the longer on this because it gives a full Answer to his next Objection that the Interpretation I give of the Convocation Book justifies an unreasonable and impious Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Iustice. Now this I confess is a very unreasonable and impious Doctrine and were I sensible that any thing I have said would justifie this Doctrine I would immediately renounce it but I hope when our Author considers again that I have evidently proved that the Interpretation I have given is the true Sense of the Convocation he will be more favorable to it for their sakes But I have already stated this matter about Right and Justice and have shewn the difference between the Right of private Men to their Estates and of Princes to their Thrones and to the Allegiance of Subjects between a Thief 's taking a Purse and an Usurper a Crown by the Providence of God between the Providence of God in such matters as he refers to the Correction and Redress of publick Laws and publick Government and what he reserves to his own cognizance and disposal as he does the Revolutions of Government the removing Kings and the setting up Kings The truth is our Author writes at that rate that it is to be feared some People will suspect that he does not believe a Providence or does not understand it or has a mind to ridicule it For let me ask him does God make Kings in England or not if he does which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the jure divino with a witness how does he make Kings He sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings and to tell us whom he has nominated to Reign over us and therefore he can make Kings no other way among us but by the Events of Providence and how does God make Kings by his Providence truly this can be done no other way but by placing them in the Throne and setling them there with the general Consent and Submission of the People does then this Providential Settlement in the Throne which makes a King invest such a King with God's Anthority if it does not then it seems God makes a King without giving him his Authority makes a King without any Authority to govern which is a Contradiction if he does does not this make it the duty of Subjects to obey such a King Are not Subjects bound to obey such Kings as have God's Authority Again suppose a Prince ascends the Throne and obtains the Consent and Submission of the People by the most unjust force and the most ungodly Arts that can be thought on who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's Permission he Usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making Well let him call him King or Usurper or what he pleases but it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years it may be a hundred years for so long a Prescription our Author requires to give a Just Title to an Usurper without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God Rules in such a Kingdom while an Usurper fills the Throne The reason of the question is plain because the Prophet Daniel pronounces universally that God ruleth in the Kingdom of men and as a proof of it adds and giveth it to whomsoever he will and then it should seem that God does not Rule in these Kingdoms which he does not dispose of by his own Will and Counsel which he does not give to whom he will but suffers Usurpers to take the Government of them For indeed will any Man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not governed by his Authority or Minister Does
Providence and Government signifie only his Permission that God looks on and sees Men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is the universal Lord of the World never gave them To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such vast Consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World But it is objected that to say that Prosperous Usurpers when they are setled in the Throne are placed there by God and have his Authority is to make God a Party to their Wickedness Now this is another Argument not merely against God's making Kings but in general against God's Providence and Government of the World for if God cannot direct and over-rule the Wickedness of Men to accomplish his own Wise Counsels and Purposes without being the Author of those Sins whereby such Events are brought to pass there is an end of the Providence of God or of his Holiness and Justice for the most glorious designs of God's Grace and Providence have been accomplished by very wicked means even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself But to confine my self to our present Case of transferring Kingdoms and Empires as it was in the four Monarchies It is possible this may sometimes be done by very honest means but it is commonly done by great Injustice and Violence in Men and yet God very just and righteous in doing it No Man I suppose will deny but that God as the Supreme Lord and Sovereign of the World may give the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases without doing Injustice to any Prince who can have no Right but by his Gift No Man will deny but that God may be very just and righteous in removing some Princes from their Thrones and in setting up others And then the Translation of Kingdoms the pulling down one Prince and setting up another is no act of Injustice with God but is his Prerogative as the King of Kings and when it is done for wise and holy and just Reasons as we ought always to presume of what God does is a plain Demonstration of the Wisdom and Holiness and Justice of his Providence The only dispute then can be about God's bringing such Events to pass by the Wickedness of Men and what hurt is there in this if God can so over-rule the Ambition of Princes or the Faction and Rebellion of Subjects as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts which God for wise and holy Reasons thinks fit to have done It cannot be denied but that God does permit Men to do very wickedly and if he can permit the Wickedness of Men without being guilty of their Sins I hope to direct and over-rule their Wickedness to wise purposes to bring Good out of Evil and Order out of Confusion can be no blemish to Providence indeed I should be much puzzled to justifie the Divine Providence in permitting the Sins of Men especially such Sins as do great mischief to the World were I not very well satisfied that God over-rules all to wise and good Ends. Let us suppose an Ambitious Prince spurred on with Fame and Glory to grasp at an Universal Empire our Author will not say but that God may permit this Man to ravage and depopulate Countries to pull Princes from their Thrones and to bring their Kingdoms into Subjection to himself such Men there are in all Ages did not God think fit to restrain them and to fling Difficulties in their ways to make them tame and quiet Now I would ask any Man which most becomes the Divine Wisdom to suffer such Men when they please to overturn Kingdoms and to bring horrible Desolations on the World only to gratifie their own Lusts or to give the Reigns and to give prosperous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World to pull down such a Prince or to chastise and correct such a Nation I am sure this much more becomes the Wisdom and Justice of Providence than a bare permission of such Violence without any farther design which does not become the Wise Governor of the World And if God may permit such Wickedness and Violence without contributing to their Sin or being a Party to their Wickedness much more may he over-rule their Wickedness for wise Ends make them the Executioners of his Justice in punishing a wicked Age and transferring Kingdoms and then why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them for I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to a violent Usurper as to suffer a wicked impious tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title and yet this God often does witness many of the Roman Emperors whom I know our Author will have to be legal Princes and those who will not allow them to be legal Princes need not want Examples of this nature in Hereditary Kingdoms But our Author says that to own an Usurper who is setled in the Throne by Providence and to obey and submit to him as our King justifies an unreasonable and wicked Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice as for his Right and Iustice it has been considered already let us now consider how far the Providence of God may be the Rule for practice It is indeed an impious Doctrine to justifie every Action and every Cause which has success God many times prospers very evil Designs when he can serve a good End by them and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success to conclude that is God's Cause which the Providence of God prospers confounds the difference of good and evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice but yet it is so far from being an impious Doctrine that it is a necessary Duty to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those Duties and Obligations which the Providence of God lays on us according to the Nature and Intention of the Providence and thus the Providence of God in some sense may be the Rule of our Practice and may make that our Duty which was not and that cease to be our Duty which was our Duty before and thus it always is when the Providence of God changes our Relations or Condition of Life as to mention only our present Case when he removes one King and sets up another for he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King The truth is as far as I can perceive the great if not the only fault of my Case of Allegiance is this unreasonable and impious Doctrine of Providence for some Men cannot endure to hear that God makes Kings by his Providence for that argues there is a God others cannot bear the thoughts that Kings Reign by God's Authority for then they cannot make and unmake Kings as they please others will by
according to the directions of this Instrument never could make a National Consent or Submission for they were not chosen according to the ancient Customs and Usages of the Nation nor were they the Representatives of the Nation but only of a prevailing Party and Faction in it for by Article 14. it is provided That all and every Person and Persons who have aided advised assisted or abetted in any War against the Parliament since the first day of Jan. 1641. unless they have been since in the Service of the Parliament and given signal Testimonies of their good Affections thereunto shall be disabled and be uncapable to be elected or to give any Vote in the Election of any Members to serve in the new Parliament or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments So that a great part of the Nation were hereby wholly excluded from choosing or being chosen Members of Parliament When they were thus chosen this Election did not make them Parliament-Men unless they were approved of by the major part of the Council to be Persons not disabled but qualified as aforesaid Artic. 21. When they were thus chosen and approved they had no Authority to reject this new Model but it is provided Art 12. That the Persons elected shall not have power to alter the Government as it is hereby setled in one single Person and a Parliament The first Parliament met Sept. 3. 54. and began to be very busie about the new Government but the Protector sent for them to the Painted Chamber and taught them better that the same Government that made them a Parliament made him Protector and that as they are intrusted with some things so is he with other things That there were some thing in the Government fundamental and could not be altered tho this Instrument had no other Authority but his own and his Council of Officers as 1. That the Government should be in one Person and a Parliament and therefore he was sorry to understand that any of them should go about to overthrow what was so setled it seems then this Parliament at the beginning was so far from giving their Submission and Consent that they were about to overthrow this new Settlement and to prevent such great Inconveniences he was necessitated to appoint a Test or Recognition of the Government which was to be signed by them before they went any more into the House and it was this I A. B. do hereby freely promise and engage my self to be true and faithful to the Lord Protector and to the Common-wealth of England Scotland and Ireland and shall not according to the tenor of the Indenture whereby I am returned to serve in this present Parliament propose or give any Consent to alter the Government as it is setled in one single Person and a Parliament That day 130 Members subscribed it and took their Places in the House how many more did afterwards is not said And yet this very Parliament spent near five Months in their debates about the new Government and the Protector was glad to dissolve them at last and this does not look like a National Submission and Consent especially considering the Plot which was ready to break out upon it and the Declaration of the free and well-affected People of England now in Arms against the Tyrant Oliver Cromwell In the second Parliament Sept. 1656. many Persons who were returned by the Country for Members were not admitted into the House as not approved by the Council which occasioned their publishing a Remonstrance subscribed by near one hundred of them the reading of which will satisfie any man how far that new Government was from having a National Consent and Submission But this is enough for my present purpose to shew that those Usurpations were never setled by a National Submission and Consent but all the settlement they had was mere force and now let us hear what our Author says to this As for the Government being frequently changed he says every one of these changes was a settlement if the Dr's notion of a settlement be right but it is plain according to my notion none of them were settlements for none of them had the general Consent and Submission of the People and though the Power of the Nation was for some time in their hands the continuance of none of these changes was long enough to make a Settlement by Prescription without Consent He adds But as the National Consent in Parliament that is indeed part of our Constitution but what is that to Usurpation which may Usurp as well upon all Branches of the Constitution as upon one But I do not urge a National Consent in Parliament considered as part of our Constitution but barely considered as a National Consent for a National Consent and Submission is necessary to the settlement of any new Government and this must be declared by one means or other The Consent of a Parliament freely chosen by the Body of the People must be allowed to be a National Consent and that Consent the present Government has but where there is no Consent in Parliament in a Nation which never gives their consent any other way but by their Representatives when a Government dares not call such a Parliament nor ask their consent or if they do ask are denied it it is evident there is no National Consent What he says indeed is true that had Cromwell possessed himself of the Authority of Kings Lords and Commons had he been setled in this Possession by the general Consent and Submission of the People he had had God's Authority in all those respects and ought to have been obeyed but without such a Consent though the People might for a while have silently submitted to Power they were at liberty to cast off the Yoke when they had power and opportunity to do it This is my Notion of a thorough Settlement to which he appeals and let any Man try whether as he says it will fit Cromwell in all respects just as if it had been made for him viz. When the whole Administration of Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in the hands of the Prince when every thing is done in his Name and by his Authority had I added no more the Author might have pretended that the Government of the Rump-Parliament and of Oliver Cromwell had this Settlement but what follows spoils this Conceit when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him So that here was no such Settlement of these Usurpations as could oblige Subjects in Conscience to obey them and to submit to them and when it was not matter of Duty and Conscience to submit I shewed that there were other very great Reasons why they should not submit not such Reasons as ought to have over-ruled their Consciences had it been matter of Duty for there are no such Reasons to be had but such as were very reasonable and
great question still remains whether Subjects may lawfully take Commissions from the dispossessed Prince to fight against the Prince who is settled in the Possession of the Throne this Dr. Iackson does not say and therefore he can do our Author no service His next citation from Dr. Iackson is the case of Jehoiada ' s Deposing of Athaliah urged by the Papists for the power of the Pope to depose Kings But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out than to have betrayed so much dishonestly in his quotations I shall give the Reader the entire passage First Jehoiada in that he was High-Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the power of Iurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This our Author leaves out though very material because it shews by what Authority he did it as the Ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne that is not merely in right of his Priesthood as the Papists pretended nor merely as a Subject but as being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged as he had observed before And this is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Iehoiada did this being the Kings Vncle and the chief Head and Prince of his Tribe that is not a private Subject but a chief Prince in the Kingdom of Iudah The Doctor proceeds Secondly The Power Royal or Supreme was by right by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God annexed unto the Infant Prince whom Jehoiada ' s Wife had saved from the Tyranny of Athaliah as being next Heir now alive unto David In the right of this Prince and for the actual annexion of the Supreme Power to his person unto whom it was de jure annexed Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy did by force and violence Depose her who had Usurpt the Royal Scepter by violence and cruel Murder of her Seed Royal. All these words in a different Character are left out by our Author and some of them very material ones especially those by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God and the next Heir now alive to David which plainly refers to the Divine entail on David's Family and distinguishes this from the case of other Usurpers which is the very account the Convocation gave of it as I shewed before and overthrows all that our Author has said about the case of Athaliah and for that reason he suppressed them as any one will easily guess Thus he leaves out Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy which shews this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction which private Subjects must not pretend to and therefore would not serve his purpose and I believe by this time he thinks he had better have let it all alone He concludes his Postscript with rage aud venom and I have no answer to that I have indeed changed my Opinion about the Authority of Usurpers who are setled in the Throne by the general consent and submission of the People and of the Estates of the Realm and I have Scripture and Reason the Authority of the Church of England and the Laws of the Land for any thing our Author has said to the contrary to justifie this change and I assure him I will change my Opinion in any thing else upon the same terms and despise his censures of my Honesty for doing so and as for Authority I never pretended to any my self and will never own any mans Authority much less my own Opinions in opposition to Scripture and Reason the Church of England and the Laws of the Land But what a charitable Opinion our Author has of the present Government and of all that comply with it we may see in the Parallel he makes between my case and that of Hazael as if swearing Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary were as great as notorious as self evident an impiety and wickedness as all the villanies which the Prophet Elisha foretold Hazael that he would be guilty of I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the Children of Israel their strong holds wilt thou set on fire and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword and wilt dash their children and rip up their women woth child But let our Author consider who are most likely to be guilty of these Villanies those who quietly submit to the Government which is now setled among us or those who are for overturning all by bringing in a French Power to devour and consume with Fire and Sword and to enslave their Native Country if this be Allegiance and Passive Obedience I am sure what our Author calls Perjury and Rebellion are the greater vertues As for his parting Request I do affirm it again That I never was factious against taking the Oaths nor made it my business to dissuade men from it when my Opinion was asked I declared my own thoughts but never sought out men to make Proselytes and in this Profession I am not afraid of his or any other mens memories so much as of their inventions for there are some great Wits among them Let them produce the man if they can whom I endeavoured to dissuade by word or writing from taking the Oaths where my Opinion was not first asked and if my Opinion had any Authority with them then our Author knows it is more than it ought to have had and that was none of my fault unless he means that my Authority was considerable against taking the Oath but none for it which is the way that all Parties and Factions judge of mens Authorities But though our Author seems very well acquainted with the thing called Faction yet he is not willing to understand the word and therefore I must tell him that when I say I was never factious against the Oath I do not mean that I was never hearty and zealous against taking the Oath for I hope there may be Zeal without Faction or that when I was pressed to discourse the matter I did not talk with as much Warmth and Concernment as other Men. But Faction is quite another thing it shews it self in Separations and Schisms in Rancour and Bitterness Envyings and Emulations in violent Oppositions to Government in changing and confining Friendships with a Party in Censures and Reproaches in stigmatizing all Persons of another Perswasion as perjur'd Knaves whereas tho there had been a material Perjury a different Opinion may excuse from formal Perjury for no Man is formally perjured who does not know it I shall not explain this by Instances for if our Author is for writing Secret Histories I am not so at present And now I am at leisure to attend his motions and to consider his threatned examination of all my arguments whenever his due time for it comes and if he will promise to examine them well before he answers I shall
Imprimatur Jan. 14. 1690 1. Z. Isham R.P.D. Henrico Episc. Lond. Ã Sacris A VINDICATION OF THE Case of Allegiance DUE TO Soveraign Powers In REPLY to an ANSWER To a late Pamphlet Intituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government demonstrated from Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book with a Postscript in Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance c. By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1691. A VINDICATION OF THE Late CASE OF ALLEGIANCE c. IN a Postscript to an Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government demonstrated from Bishop Overal ' s Convocation Book the Author is pleased to Examine what I have said relating to the said Subject in my Case of Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers He writes with great triumph and assurance which it seems Men may do who are resolved never to own a Mistake though he thinks it unpardonable in me who have been so weak as to confess that I am not Infallible ever to believe my own Senses again He threatens an Answer to my Arguments in due Time and I will patiently expect till his due Time comes and apply myself at present to his Postscript and Answer as far as I am concerned in it but shall beg leave to follow my own Method and justifie what I have said in the same Order I have said it in his altering of which has more Art than Honesty in it The Mighty Place as he truly calls it is Chap. 28. Pag. 57. where the Convocation having given an Account of the Various and Irregular Revolutions of Government brought about by the Providence of GOD who for the Sins of any Nation or Country altereth their Governments and Governours transferreth setteth up and bestoweth Kingdoms as it seemeth best to his heavenly Wisdom they add these remarkable Words And when having attained their Ungodly Desires whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection or disloyal Subjects by their rebellious Rising against their natural Soveraigns they have established any of the same degenerate Forms of Government among their People the Authority either so Unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor being always GOD's Authority and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly settled to be Reverenced and Obeyed and the People of all sorts as well of the Clergy as of the Laity are to be subject unto it not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake This I then thought and think so still though our Author thinks not a very plain Testimony that all Usurped Powers when throughly settled have GOD's Authority and must be Obeyed And while I was transcribing this Passage there came to my hand the New Observator of Friday Dec. 5 1690 Vol. 3. Numb 12. containing a Letter written by King Iames the First with relation to this very Convocation which he says he transcribed Verbatim from the Original communicated to him by an eminent Person in whose hands it is the four last Lines of which are written with King Iames's own hand and the rest as he guesses by the then Secretary of State The Letter was written to Dr. Abbot I shall not transcribe the whole but such Passages as may satisfie us how King Iames himself understood the Convocation You have dipt too deep in what all Kings reserve among the Arcana Imperii And whatever Aversion you may profess against GOD's being the Author of Sin you have stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the matter That even Tyranny is GOD's Authority and should be reverenced as such If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom you leave me to seek for others to Fight for it for you tell me upon the matter before hand his Authority is GOD's Authority if he prevail This makes so much for our Author indeed that King Iames did not like the Doctrine of the Convocation no more than he does but then it proves against him that K. Iames understood the Convocation not in his but in my Sence For when he charges them with saying upon the Matter that is in sence tho' not in express words that Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenced as such it is the very Interpretation I there give of it That those Princes who have no legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority for by Tyranny the King meant such Princes as are Tyranni sine Titulo or Illegal Kings for as for Tyrants Exercitio who are Rightful Kings but govern Tyrannically neither K. Iames nor this Author would dispute whether they have God's Authority And if they may have God's Authority whilst they are in the first sence Tyrants or have no legal Right to their Thrones then their Government may be thoroughly settled as the Convocation speaks without a legal Right for till a thorough Settlement according to the Doctrine of the Convocation they have not God's Authority and when the King charges them with saying upon the matter That Tyranny is God's Authority he must conclude that they taught that such Tyrants might be throughly settled in their Government for if they cannot be settled till they obtain a legal Title they must cease to be such Tyrants before they have God's Authority And it is evident that K. Iames did not apprehend that the Convocation meant by a thorough Settlement as this Author expounds it a Settlement by the Death or Cession of the rightful King and all his Heirs or by a long Prescription of an hundred Years of which more presently for he was afraid that by this Doctrine the King of Spain should he claim by his Pontifical Right and prevail in it might while he himself lived be so thoroughly setled in the Kingdom of England as to have God's Authority and then his Subjects must not Fight for him their old rightful King against the King of Spain who by a thorough Settlement and Possession of the Throne of England would be invested with God's Authority and must not be opposed by the Subjects of England The King disliked this Doctrine so much that he thought fit to suppress it and to reserve it among the Arcana Imperii which was a much wiser course then to palliate it with such forced Interpretations as no impartial Reader can think to be the sence of the Convocation If I have mistaken the sence of the Convocation I have done no more then King Iames did who was nearly concerned to know what they meant if I err in following the Convocation I err with as great and learned Men as any Age of the Church has bred I err with the Church of England if we may learn the Sence of the Church from a Convocation But let us set aside the King's Letter and try if we
can learn the sense of the Convocation from the Convocation itself I observed in the first place from the Words of the Convocation That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority which I proved because the Convocation speaks of Illegal and Usurped Powers and yet affirms that the Authority exercised by them is God's Authority To this our Author answers The Doctor will not but the Convocation distinguishes between the means of acquiring the Power and the Power itself the means of acquiring Power may be very unjust and illegal and yet the Power afterwards may be very Legal But the Doctor resolves they must be all one and because the Convocation speaks of the Ambition of encroaching Kings and the Rebellion of Subjects as a means whereby Governments have been altered therefore by a Government being throughly setled they must mean usurped Powers As if it were impossible for such beginnings afterwards to acquire a Right and to terminate in a Legal Title and till that is the Government is as unjust as the Rebellion and Encroachment So that according to this Author a Government which is illegally and wickedly begun when it is legally setled has God's Authority and this is all that the Convocation meant by it As for what he says That I will not distinguish between the means of acquiring Power and the Power itself I do not indeed distinguish as he does but I distinguish as the Convocation does that the Means are wicked but the Power and Authority is Gods which is all the distinction the Convocation makes and I desire him to shew me where the Convocation says that the Government which is illegally acquired cannot be throughly setled till it becomes Legal if this had been their meaning it had been easily said and had prevented all mistakes about it which their words without this limitation are very apt to betray Men into I believe all unbiassed Men who are not prepossed with other Notions and concerned that the Convocation should be on their side would never dream of our Author's Sence of the Convocation For 1. If the Convocation meant no more than our Author says that a Government illegally begun when it is legally setled has God's Authority what a wonderful discovery is this that Legal Princes have God's Authority for who doubts of this What need was there to introduce this with such a long pompous Preface of the changes of Government by the Ambition of Princes and the Rebellion of Subjects For let Governments begin how they will when they are once legally setled no Man that I know of who owns the Authority of any Government to be from God disputes theirs Which makes me wonder at our Author's reason viz. Left it should be thought that wicked ways of obtaining this Right was a prejudice to the Right itself and people should from thence take occasion to rebel and disturb all the Governments of the World because they could not shew an express Order from God or derive the Pedigree of their Government even from Adam and Noah to prevent the terrible Confusion that such a Notion would make in the World they say That the wicked ways of attaining it or the wickedness of the persons that have it is no impeachment of the Right itself but when it is attain'd it is God's Authority and ought to be obeyed That is to say a wise and grave Convocation write a whole Chapter to confute a Notion without naming it or giving any hint at it which if ever it entred into any mad Man's Head yet never did never can disturb any Government till a Nation is fitter for Bedlam than to be directed by a Convocation whereas the Difficulties occasioned by the Changes and Revolutions of Government especially when a rightful Prince is dispossessed and another setled in his Throne are very great and worthy of the determination of a Convocation to direct Mens Consciences in such cases and which is the most probable account of this matter let every one judge 2dly When the Convocation speaks of the Settlement of Illegal Powers which began by Ambition and Rebellion it is manifestly unreasonable unless it had been expressed to expound this of a Legal Settlement by acquiring a new Legal Right Settlement I grant as our Author says is a Term of Law and used by Lawyers of a Legal Settlement and must always in reason be understood so in Law when the contrary is not expressed but yet a firm and stable possession without Right must be confessed to be a Settlement too though not a rightful Settlement I suppose our Author will not deny but that the Government was setled in fact under the Three Heneries tho' in his sense it was not a Legal Settlement Now as it is reasonable in Law to understand a Settlement of a Legal Settlement when the contrary is not expressed because the Law must speak of such Settlements as are according to Law so for the same reason when the Convocation speaks of the Settlement of Powers which are against Law it must be understood of the Settlement of Possession not of Right unless this had been expressed for the only ordinary way of setling illegal Powers is by Possession not by Right and that ever such Powers be afterwards legally setled is a great accident and therefore the natural and obvious exposition of Settlement in such Cases is a Settlement of Possession and it argues great perverseness of mind to reject that sence of the Word which is proper to the Subject to which it is applied for such a Sence as is forreign and unnatural It is plain that the Right and Settlement of Government are two very different things for they may be parted the first relates to the Title the second to the setled Possession and Exercise of Government and whenever a rightful King is dispossessed our Author must grant that his Settlement is gone tho' not his Right and if Right and Settlement may be parted I desire to know why there may not be a Settlement without Right and then it is ridiculous to conclude that Settlement must always signifie Right Nay the Addition of Thorough plainly refers Settlement to Possession and not to Right for there are no degrees of Right no more than there are of Truth for all Right in this Case of a Legal Title is Thorough Rite but there are degrees of Settlement as that signifies Possession for Princes may be more or less setled in the Possession and Exercise of Government which is reason enough to expound thoroughly setled of a thorough setled possession of Power and Authority or a compleat and perfect Administration of the Government 3dly Let us consider what our Author makes necessary to the thorough Settlement of such Powers as begin by Usurpation or Rebellion and try what sense it will make of what the Convocation says Now he tells us That a Right to a Government may be acquired by the death or
the right Heir was alive and therefore much more where God himself was their King as if God were not the King of Israel when he set Kings over them and then surely they might lawfully resist these Kings whose Subjects they were not nor could be and they needed no especial Commission or Direction to destroy the Usurpers as Ahud did Eglon but they might nay they were bound to do it as Jehoiada slew Athaliah For I hope God s Entail is not of greater force than his own immediate Government So that either their submission transferred a legal Right or else their submission was a sin This looks like something very deep but it is so very a nothing that I cannot devise what he would be at Would he prove that God was not the King of Israel against the Scriptures who say he was Or would he prove that the Israelites ought not to have submitted to the Moabites but have had all their Throats cut by a vain opposition Or would he prove against the Convocation that they were not the Subjects of King Eglon but any Israelite might have killed him without any such Commission from God as Ahud had Whatever he intends to prove if he knows that himself yet as far as I am concerned it is no more but this That while the Israelites were under no Forreign Force but had liberty to live by their own Laws they were bound to make him their Prince on whom God had entailed the Crown while they were under Force they might do as they could and submit to the Conqueror which submission could not give those Usurpers a Legal Right according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Iewish Common-wealth but according to the Laws of Nature which allow submission unto a Conquerour it did Now if the Laws of Nature when we are under the Protection of no Government allow us to submit to Force and Power then call it Conquest or what you will when I am under no Protection and under Force I am at liberty to submit whatever my former Obligations were and I become as firmly and entirely bound to such a new Power as ever I was to the most Legal Prince Thus far the Laws of Nature go towards making a Legal King and this is confirmed by the Laws of Nations which are nothing else but received Customs and Usages agreeable to the Laws of Nature and right Reason Now though different Nations have different Laws of Succession to the Crown yet they seem all to agree in this That he is the King who is in possession of the Throne with the consent and submission of the People The consent and submission of the People turn that which was originally no more but Force into a Civil and Legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince By this means Kingdoms and Empires are transferred and Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedent Right When God intends to pull down one King and set up another he gives success to the rising Prince puts the Nation into his hands and so orders it that by Force and Power or other Arts he obtains their consent and submission and then he is their King and is invested with God's Authority especially when he is visibly setled in the Throne by the united strength and power of the Kingdom Upon these terms I suppose our Author and I may very well agree that the Convocation does allow such Governments as were begun by wicked means when they are throughly setled to become legal and rightful Powers not by the Laws of the Land but by the consent and submission of the People and the Authority of God wherewith they are invested This I owned before that the distinction between Kings de Iure and de Facto related only to the Laws of the Land for upon other accounts those Kings who are set up by God and have his Authority are rightful Kings that is so rightful that our Obedience is due to them But this is all shuffling and playing with words for the single Question is Whether the Convocation by throughly setled means that such Governments as are begun by Usurpation or Rebellion or other wicked means cannot be throughly setled till they acquire a legal Right by the Laws of the Land which he says must be by the death or cession of the rightful King or by a long Prescription now this I say the Convocation could not mean as appears by the Instances they give of such Powers For the Aramites and Moabites could never by the Constitution of the Iewish Commonwealth be the legal and rightful Kings of Israel and a Common-wealth where there is a perpetual Succession of Persons in whom the ordinary Power resides can never die nor lose their claim to that Power which is given them by God though they might submit when under Force so that here was neither Death nor Cession and they were far from having such a Prescription as our Author makes necessary to give such Powers a Legal Right and this answers all his other instances where he argues only from the term lawful Now if submission in such Cases will give a Right to our Obedience in contradiction to the Laws of the Land that which justified the submission of Israel will justifie the submission of any other People to a prevailing Power and will give such Powers as good a Right as the Aramites and Moabites could challenge to Israel All that can be said here I think is this That by submission which gives a legal Right our Author means the submission and acknowledgment of those in whom the Right is That is to say the submission of the People does not give a legal Right but the submission of the King does 1. But for answer to this in the first place I desire to know what submission of the King it is that gives a legal Right Is swearing Allegiance a submission and acknowledgment What became then of the Right of the House of York when the Duke of York swore Allegiance to Henry IV. is yielding to Force and Power quitting the Administration of the Government and leaving the Throne tho' with an intention to recover it again when he can a submission If it be does not a King so far submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince Is not this as much a submission as if he had stayed at home and laid aside his Crown and submitted to a private Life without renouncing his Right and future Claim but if nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power I desire to know how our Author will prove that the Israelites thus submitted to the Aramites and Moabites Or what other submission they made but a bare yielding to Force and Power What other submission did the King and Princes and People of Iudah make to the
Crown upon David's Posterity as Iehoiada expresly told them Behold the King's son shall reign as the Lord hath said of the sons of David So that it is evident the Convocation itself answers the Difficulties of this Story by the Divine Entail and it is as true and proper an Answer to that Question Whether we may Murther a King de Facto to place the right Heir on his Throne since Iohoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah To say That the Divine Entail of the Crown made a vast difference between the Case of Athaliah and other Kings de Facto who are settled in their Thrones as it is to that Question Whether the High-Priest have not Authority to Depose one King and set up another since Iehoiada actually did so anointed Ioash and killed Athaliah To say that this was done not by any ordinary Jurisdiction which the High-Priest had over Kings but in Obedience to God who had Entailed the Crown on David's Posterity He proceeds They do no not speak of this when they call Athaliah an Usurper and justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against her but the reason they give is general The right Heir of the Kingdom being alive which extends to all Kingdoms that are Entailed and go by Succession This Author who would confine me so strictly to the Sence of the Convocation even where I don't appeal to it makes very bold with the Convocation himself For they do not offer to justifie the Proceedings of Iehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying That the right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by this that she was an Usurper who had no legal Right to the Throne the right Heir being living But if our Author will think again I presume he will own that they are two very different Questions Whether such a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be Deposed and Murthered The Convocation I 'm sure makes them two Questions when they will not allow of the Murder of a King de Facto But on the other hand the Convocation justifies Iehoiada from the express Command of God In all the process of which Action nothing was done either by Jehoiada the High-Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands Joash their late King's Son being then their only natural Lord and Soveraign although Athaliah kept him for six Years from the Possession of his Kingdom How did God himself require this at their hands Was it only by the Principles of Reason and Natural Justice in setting the right Heir upon the Throne No by its being God's Will and God's requiring it at their hands they plainly mean GOD's entailing the Crown upon David's Posterity which made it the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes Levites and People to yeild their Subjection to their lawful King and having done so and their King being in possession of the Throne to joyn together for the overthrowing of Athaliah the Usurper and that Jehoiada the High Priest was bound as he was a Priest to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's purpose which can refer only to this Entail that Jehoiada should Reign over them and likewise to Anoint him Which contains a particular Justification of all that was done and all resolved into the Will and Purpose of God that Ioash should Reign which was no otherwise declared but by God's Entailing the Kingdom upon the Posterity of David It was the Duty of Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes c. to yeild Subjection to their lawful King who was Heir by Succession for that they expresly make equivalent in the Kingdom of Iudah to being Elected and Named by God himself Can. 17. p. 28. And therefore Ch. 19. p. 30. affirm That they should receive such Kings as sent to them by God himself which proves that this cannot extend to Heirs meerly by Humane Succession which is not equivalent to God's Nomination Iehoiada sent thro' Judah for the Levites and chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come to him to Jerusalem Ch. 23. p. 41. and therehe discovers the King's Son to them Thus the Convocation says by the Constitution of that Government it ought to be that the Prince whom God had appointed should be made known to the People and they should chearfully submit to him Ch. 17. p. 27. and they add Afterwards also the like course was held upon the Death of every King to make his Successor known to the People Iehoiada who was High Priest gave this notice to the People and took a Covenant of them and Anointed their King and this also the Convocation says was his Duty As we have said of the People That when the Kings of Judah were to succeed one another their Duty was to come together with Ioy and Gladness to receive them for their Kings as sent to them by God himself and accordingly to submit themselves unto their Authority and Government So at such times the Priests for the most part besides their general Duties as Subjects had some further Service to be then by them performed the parts of which Service are all of them manifest in the Advancement of King Solomon to the Royal Throne of his Father David where the Priests by King David's direction did give Thanks to God and prayer for King Solomon and Zadock the High-Priest did himself Anoint him I suppose our Author may by this time be satisfied that the Convocation resolves all into the Authority of a Divine Entail and makes a great difference between a Divine and Humane Entail He adds And it is plain they thought of no such Difference as to this Matter but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and though attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Iudah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Iews was not attained by honester Means than Athaliah's and was as much contrary to the Entail upon David's House as hers and yet they justifie and require Obedience to them but justifie the slaying her And therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power in the Kingdom of Iudah as had the Babylonians Macedonians or Romans nor do they reckon God's Entail upon David's Posterity any ground of difference in this Matter for the Government of Iudah by the Babylonias was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now all this is answered in one word from what I have before discoursed The Entail God made upon David's Posterity did always oblige the Iews when they were at their own Choice and had Power enough to take the King on whom God had entailed the Crown which was evidently their Case when Iehoiada anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah but when they were under Force as they were under
no means allow that the Providence of God can make a King against the Laws of the Land can remove a rightful King and set up a King without a legal Title at least not without the death or cession of the rightful King or a hundred years Prescription but to say that the Providence of God gives his Authority to a King de facto who is setled in the Throne this is an impious Doctrine So that had I left out Providence I might have had fairer quarter on all hands though in effect the thing had been the same and I had taught the same thing viz. that when a rightful King is dispossessed Subjects may own and submit to the King who is setled in the possession of the Throne which is all I undertook to prove Had I only said that Conquest in a just War by the Law of Nations gives a Right to the Conqueror though the former King be alive and has made his Escape Had I only said that unjust Force and Violence makes it lawful for Subjects to submit when the Prince cannot protect them and such Submission and Consent of the People settles a Prince in the Kingdom I might have escaped very well as others have done Or had I only said that the Laws of the Land allow and require Subjects to pay Allegiance to a King de facto in possession of the Crown most of our Non-swearers themselves would have allow'd this a good Plea could I have persuaded them it was true for the Laws of the Land they must allow to be the rules and measures of our Allegiance But now to add that God by all these ways and means makes Kings and settles them on their Thrones and gives his Authority to them this spoils all and is an impious Doctrine that is any of these waies will make very good Kings without God but it is a very wicked thing to say that God makes them Kings or gives his Authority to them For it is a dangerous thing to allow that God makes Kings or that Kings have his Authority or that the Providence of God does not barely permit but Govern all the Changes and Revolutions of the World But I had learnt from Scripture and B. Overal ' s Convocation Book proves that those learned Men were of the same mind that Kings are made only by God and that it is God's Authority which makes them Kings and therefore I could not think it enough to say by what visible means Princes are advanced to the Throne without adding that the Providence of God by these means settles them in the Throne and gives his Authority to them on which the true resolution of Conscience depends in all such Revolutions And if this be my only fault that I assert the Right and Prerogative of God in making Kings and the Wisdom and government of Providence in all the Revolutions of States and Empires I am contented to suffer obloquy and reproach for maintaining such Impious Doctrines Our Author in his Answer has another Argument to prove that we misrepresent the Sense of the Convocation which he has thought fit to leave out in his Postscript viz. That the Interpretation we give of it is inconsistent with the main and Fundamental Doctrines of the Convocation Book viz. Passive Obedience and Non-resistance But if the Convocation taught both as they certainly did it is a sign that whatever our Author thinks or whatever he can prove the Convocation did not apprehend any inconsistency between them I observed in the Case that the Doctrine of Obedience and Allegiance to the Present Powers is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience viz. That God makes Kings and Invests them with his Authority which equally proves that all Kings who have received a Sovereign Authority from God must be Obeyed and must not be Resisted And therefore all setled Governments as the Convocation asserts having their Authority from God must be obeyed for the same reason for which we must not resist Sovereign Princes viz. because they have their Authority from God but this our Author thought fit to pass over For it is a plain Case that Non-resistance and Passive Obedience can be due only to him who is our King and if God can remove one King and set up another Non-resistance must be Due not to the King whom God has pulled down but to the King whom God has set up and therefore he may harangue as long as he pleases upon this Argument to no purpose unless he can prove that God hath not pulled down one King and set up another His next Argument against this Interpretation of the Convocation Book is this That it reproaches the Virtue and Loyalty of those admirable Men who Suffered between the Years 42. and 60. And therefore this cannot be the Sense of the Convocation for no doubt the Convocation in 603. had great regard to the Loyalty of those who Suffered between 42. and 60 by a Spirit of Prophesie I suppose And here our Author grows very angry both in his Answer and Postscript and gives many hard and spightful Words to his Adversaries but be that to himself I am resolved not to be angry This I answered at large in the Case of Allegiance p. 46. c. and shall now take a brief review of it I said it is a great Prejudice but no Argument for if these Principles be true and according to these Principles they might have complied with those Usurpations that they did not is no confutation of the Principles He answers I thought an Argument from Example had been an Argument though not always a very good one Right but Example is only a Prejudice not an Argument against plain Reasons which cannot otherwise be answered let Reasons be first answered and then when there is no Reason against a thing the Examples of great and wise Men without any other Reason carry some Authority with them especially when we have other good Reasons for doing any thing Example gives some new strength to them and thus the Example of Iaddus may be an Argument when other Examples are none though he knows the Example of Iaddus was alledged by me only to prove the sense of the Convocation and how Iaddus himself understood his Oath of Allegiance to Darius which is a very different Case from what he urges But to let pass his transport of Zeal and to forgive the froth and folly of it when he urges the Examples of these great Men there are many things he ought to have considered As 1. He should have considered whom he reproach'd in all this as well as whom he commended He reproaches all those who in those times of Confusion submitted to the Usurped Powers and lived quietly and peaceably under them and yet the King found a great many true Friends and Loyal Persons at his return among those Men He reproaches all those Loyal Persons both of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy
who suffered chearfully under those Usurpations and as chearfully comply with the present Revolution which as I observed before is an Argument that they make a great difference between these two Cases But if as our Authour argues to justifie our present Submission and Compliance be to reproach those Worthies who suffered for their King in that horrid Rebellion and Usurpation then he must upon his Principles accuse those Worthies who suffered for their King then with falling from their Loyalty by their present Compliance He reproaches all the Nobility Gentry and Clergy who have now Sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties and tho the Clergy he says are only a Company of Weather-Cock Divines and therefore it is no great matter for them yet I doubt the Nobility and Genty will not take it well from him to be thought Weather-Cocks or less Loyal than those who suffered for K. Charles were And if it moves our Author's Indignation to see the Worthies of the World and of our Church mocked and diminished and represented as Fools and Knaves which no body has done but himself a much cooler Man than he is may be a little moved if not with Indignation yet with Contempt to see all our present Worthies in Church and State so maliciously libelled 2ly If our Authour will argue from Examples he ought not only to consider what was done but upon what Principles they did it whether they were all of our Authour's mind that it is absolutely unlawful in any Case whatsoever to submit to a Prince who is possessed of the Throne while the legal King or his true Heir is living tho dispossessed It is probable some few might be of this mind but that this was their general sense can never be proved and that it was is very improbable for it was neither the Doctrine of the Church nor the Law of the Land And yet if our Authour cannot prove this he proves nothing to his purpose if they did not act upon his Principles though they suffered for their King then they might have complied now as some of them have done and yet don't think they have recounced the true Principles of Loyalty by it 3ly When he resolved to argue from Example he should have carefully considered whether there are not more and greater Examples on the other side whether supposing the Case to be as he represents it there be any thing like it in all Story either sacred or profane whether both Iews and Christians did not always submit to the present Powers when the Government was settled by what wicked means soever it began But I shall not enter upon this Argument now which will be managed by a more learned Pen. I shewed what a vast difference there was between the late times of Rebellion and Usurpation and this present Revolution this he cannot deny but says it makes no difference in the Argument let us then try that But to state the matter so plain that our Authour himself had he never so much mind to it shall not be able to mistake or misrepresent it I must first premise that they are two very different Questions as I have observed above When it is lawful to submit to Usurping Powers and When it becomes a Duty to do it It is lawful to submit when we are under such force as can compell us it is our Duty to submit when as the Convocation says the Government is throughly settled now while we are in this state that we are under mere force but the Government not setled we may either submit or not submit without Sin and then that which must turn the Scale are Arguments from Interest Now what I said upon this occasion in the Case of Allegiance had reference to both these viz. That Subjects were not in those days bound in Conscience to submit to these usurped Powers and not being bound in Conscience to do it there were many reasons which might move the Royal Party not to do it Now this is so far from lessening and reproaching their Loyalty that it is greatly for the Commendation of it that when they were not bound in Conscience to submit to those Usurpations tho by Submission our Authour intimates they might have made better Terms for themselves yet they rather chose to venture their Lives and Fortunes to restore the King which is not as our Authour insinuates to prefer their Interest to their Conscience in serving the King but where Conscience was not concerned to the contrary to venture their Interest their Lives and Fortunes to restore the King Tho Men are but Men and if what I said be true that there were many Reasons which touched their Interests why they should not submit to those Usurpations I cannot see what Dishonour it is to them to say that it may be supposed that the utmost Despair under a violent Usurpation and the only possible prospect of bettering their Condition by the return of the King might not influence their Consciences but inspire and quicken their Loyalty Now that they were not bound in Conscience to submit to those Usurpers I proved because their Government was never setled and tho the Convocation does not deny the lawfulness of submitting to Power before a Settlement yet they do not make it a necessary Duty and matter of Conscience to submit till the Government is throughly setled The Convocation alledges two ways whereby a Government wickedly and unjustly begun may be throughly setled viz. By a general Submission or by Continuance that they had not continuance enough to make a Settlement I proved because the Government was frequently changed and new moddelled which was no Argument of Settlement and as for Settlement by a general Submission they could not pretend to that for they never had a National Consent and Submission That they had no such National consent needs not be proved to any Man who remembers the story of those days I suppose no man will pretend such a consent to the Government of the Rump-Parliament when all the Representatives of the Nation were flung out of the House excepting those few Rumpers because they would not consent Nor will it be pretended that Cromwells Dissolving the Rump-Parliament and summoning some select Persons out of every County nominated by himself and his Council of Officers without any Election of the People to be the Representative of the Nation had a National consent Nor had the Council of State chosen by this Mock-House of Parliament any greater Authority than their Masters nor did their Resignation of their Power to Cromwell again give any Authority to him or carry a National Consent with it Nor will it be pretended that the Instrument of Government agreed on by Cromwell and his Officers which made Cromwell Lord Protector of the Three Nations had any National Consent It is plain it had no National Consent in framing it and it is as plain that it was never afterwards confirmed by any National Consent and Submission The Parliaments called
almost invincible Prejudices against Submission when Conscience was not concerned and this answers all his little Objections As 1. The great Villanies of those days in an open and bare-fac'd Rebellion and in the barbarous Murder of one of the best Princes in the World this he says makes no difference in my Arguments What! not to prejudice wise and good Men against all Compliances For who that could possibly avoid it that is where strict Duty does not oblige nor irresistible Force constrain would submit to such Men 2. The barbarous usage the Kings Friends met with This he confesses makes some difference in point of Interest but none in point of Conscience nor did I say it did but it justly created a great Aversion to those Usurpations and was a reason not to submit when they were not obliged in Conscience to do it since all the Interest they had in the World engaged them not to settle by their Submissions but to do all they could to overturn those Usurpations 3. The Church of England was overturned Bishops Deans c. turned out and their Lands and Revenues sold the Loyal Clergy were Malignants for what they had done and had no way to keep their Livings but by renouncing the Church of England To this he answers the Case is concerning Civil Government not Ecclesiastical But yet whoever loves the Church will not chuse to submit when they are not obliged in Conscience to such Usurpations on the State as overthrow the Church Whether they were obliged to renounce Episcopacy or not they saw it destroyed and not so much as an Indulgence allowed to the Worship or Government of the Church of England What he adds I would desire him carefully to consider for it did not concern them that to be disabled to keep a Living though a very good one is no reason to rebel against a settled Government 4. The whole Government in Church and State was overturned which was the fundamental Constitution of the Nation but this he says is only changing the form of Government as the Dr. knows the Convocation says when such degenerate forms of Government are throughly settled I grant it but when such degenerate forms of Government are not throughly settled the subversion of the fundamental Constitution of the Nation is a reasonable prejudice against submission when it is not a duty His parting Objection is so very ridiculous that had he begun with it I should have thought he had only intended it for a jest but I am now so well acquainted with his way of reasoning that I am satisfied he is capable of thinking it an argument and it is this If possession of Sovereign Power contary to Law be God's Authority and ought to be obeyed then whatever Sovereign Power a Prince possesses himself of is likewise God's Authority and ought to be obeyed If therefore a Prince in a limited Monarchy resolves eo be arbitrary to make his will the Law and to exercise an Illegal Power he must be obeyed as Gods Authority But where do I say that possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is Gods Authority He does not pretend that I say it in express words but this he supposes is the sense of what I say But I desire he would keep to my words for I will answer for none of his senses unless I were better satisfied both of his understanding and honesty I say indeed that a Prince who is settled in the possession of Sovereign Power though he have no legal Title to the Crown has God's Authority and what then therefore the possession of Sovereign power contrary to Law is God's Authority how does this follow cannot God settle a King upon the Throne without a legal Title but he must be presumed to give him Authority when ever he has power to govern by an Arbitrary will against the Laws of the Land cannot God make a King without giving him Authority to do all that he has power to do But the formal reason of obedience to such a Prince is because he hath God's Authority and the evidence that he hath God's Authority is because he is possessed of Sovereign Power Suppose this though God's Authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a Prince yet it is not the Rule of our obedience and therefore we are not bound to obey every thing he commands though he have God's Authority The Authority of God is only an Authority to govern according to the Laws of God and Nature or the Laws of the Land and tho Sovereign Princes may have such an Authority as must not be resisted yet in a limited Monarchy they have no more Authority from God to transgress the Laws of the Land than in an absolute Monarchy they have to transgress the Laws of God and Nature Indeed Arbitrary Government is not the possession of Sovereign Power which is God's Authority but the arbitrary Exercise of it And tho we must obey God's Authority it does not hence follow that we must obey the Exercise of Arbitrary Power And yet I do not attribute Gods Authority which we must obey in Conscience to the bare possession of Power but to the setled possession of it that is with the Consent and Submission of the People and could any Prince change a limited into an absolute Monarchy by a National Consent Subjects were then as much bound in Conscience to submit to an arbitrary Power in all matters which have no moral evil in them as they are now to obey the Laws but then this would not be an Authority against Law but the Law would be changed Thus it is not yet and we are in no danger now it should be so and therefore the Case of the Declaration and of Magdalen-Colledge c. are very impertinently alledged by our Authour and he had better reserve them till he can bring us under the Government of a French Power But do not I say That when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to Divine Authority He should have cited the whole That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us So that the Laws of the Land must be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes unless they contradict the Laws of God and I do not know that any of our Laws do that and then there is no danger in a limited Monarchy that we should be obliged by God's Authority to obey Arbitrary Will and Power It is a certain truth as our Authour must confess that if the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us But this proves nothing in particular without proving what Laws of the Land are contrary to the Laws of God If then he can prove that by the Law of God we are bound to obey the Arbitrary Will of the Prince against the