is from God p. 10. This he rightly observes no man will deny him but an Atheist But then it ought to be proved That it is so from God as to exclude all Humane Rights and Titles or that God now bestows and conveys this Authority contrary to the Rules of Law and Justice amongst Men and in opposition to the Constitutions of particular Governments and the Agreement and Consent of the several Nations of the World That God by his Providence doth set aside all Humane Law and Right and doth give an extraordinary and immediate Right and Title to every Usurper who is got into full Possession of any Kingdom because no Man can have any Authority but from God is no Consequence unless there be no other way for God to rule the World but in this manner for if God may govern the World agreeably to the Methods of Right and Justice which Reason obliges men to observe towards their Sovereign and which by an Authority derived from God himself and settled and enacted in particular Countreys then it cannot be known but by Revelation that God does ever interpose to the Prejudice of Legal Right or absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to their Natural Sovereign by transferring his Authority to an Usurper Prop. 2. That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God than as he gives his Power and Authority to some particular Person or Persons to govern others Civil Power and Authority is from God in its Original Institution as well as in its Application and Donation to particular Persons But not to insist upon that The Person or Persons who are invested with it are either qualified for the Reception of this Authority from God by a just Accession to the Throne according to the particular Form or Constitution of the Government or they must be appointed by Divine Revelation which may discharge the Subjects from adhering to the Legal Constitution in performance of their Allegiance sworn to any other Person But the Exercise of Power may be in him who has properly no Authority but only a Nominal one that is Men are forced to call it so though it be really nothing less for meer Force and External Power gives no Right nor is any otherwise from God than are the Natural Powers and Force of Wild Beasts who devour Men and other Creatures not without the Permission and Concurrence of God's Providence and to use the Doctor 's Expression they cannot devour a Man whether God will or no. But if he Governs without receiving his Personal Authority from God he Governs without God's Authority No doubt of it he Governs when he has no Right and ought not to Govern for the Exercise of Authority may be usurped as well as the Ensigns of Authority or the Jewels of the Crown but the Right to Govern which is bestowed by God is not always in him who actually Governs but in him who ought to Govern tho' perhaps he does not Prop. 3. There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any Persons either by Nature or by an express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence This may be granted and yet the Disposals of Providence may be such as are agreeable to the Rules of humane Laws and Justice and it remains to be proved that there are any disposals of Kingdoms by God's Providence contrary to these Rules And whereas the Doctor says that by what bounds the Paternal and Patriarchal Authority was limitted we cannot tell I can see no Reason to make any scruple or enquiry concerning that matter according to his Principles for Men always had just as much Authority as they could by any means attain to the exercise of if they could enlarge their Dominions all they got by fraud or violence or by any way whatsoever of Injustice was the gift of Providence and if their Patriarchal Authority would not bear them out in it yet the Divine Authority which upon a full Possession they became invested with would never fail to give them an undoubted Right and Title If they could by any means deprive their Subjects of all the Priviledges they enjoyed and take from them all their Liberty and Property and reduce them to the vilest Slavery they were by God himself settled in an Absolute and Arbitrary Government And by the same Argument the King of France has a Divine Right not only to the Principality of Orange but to all the Despotick Power which his Adversaries say he exercises over his own Subjects since he is throughly settled in the Possession of both That God made Kings only in Jewry by a particular Nomination is a mistake Pag. 11. For he nominated Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus as particularly as he nominated David himself Nor is it true that God entailed no other Kingdom but that of Judah as the Doctor seems here to say For as he entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity indefinitely so he entailed the same Kingdom with many others upon Nebuchadnezzar and his Son and his Sons Son Jer. 27.7 And God entailed the Kingdom of Israel first upon Jeroboam and his Posterity promising him that if he would keep his Statutes and Commandments as David did he would be with him and build him a sure house as he built for David and would give Israel unto him 1 Kings 11.38 And afterwards he entailed it upon Jehu and his Children of the fourth Generation 2 Kings 10.30 There can be no doubt but that God ruled in all the other Kingdoms of the World as well as in Jewry and all other Kings ruled by Gods Authority as well as the Kings of Judah and Israel who were advanced by his command And therefore God sometimes interposed his immediate Command in the advancement of Kings in other Kingdoms as well as in those of Judah and Israel and he entailed other Kingdoms and might do so now if he pleased but this is no argument that he will do it nor that we are now to expect it since we are left to the guidance and protection of his Providence in the ordinary course of things and in our obedience to the Laws of that Constitution of Government under which we live which are to determin when the Authority of Sovereigns ceases and the Allegiance of Subjects and we are not to think their Power and Authority transferred unless it be transferred legally For God now Rules the World by no express Commands or extraordinary Declarations of his Will but Governs every People by the just Laws and Constitutions of their Country and whatever happens contrary to these he permits for good and wise Reasons known only to himself But Subjects are not to look upon themselves as discharged from their Duty and Oaths of Allegiance unless the Laws themselves and the Nature of the Constitution discharge them for we are not at liberty to have recourse to Providence for a Dispensation or Release from the most Solemn Obligations that Nature and the Laws of
require since I am not yet satisfied that any Settlement of an Usurper though it be in the highest Degree can confer any Authority upon him or cause any Obedience of the Subjects to become due to him merely upon that account But if any Man can prove That a thorough Settlement of an Usurper does of it self and upon its own Account before the Decease or Cession of the Rightful King and his Heirs entitle him to the Crown I will give him no Trouble to dispute with me about the Degrees of Settlement But since the Doctor supposes P. 17. That the Generality of the Nation have submitted to such a Prince and have placed him on the Throne and put the whole Power of the Kingdom into his hands and says expresly That he is indeed King while he administers the Regal Power And since he has told us before That it is impossible there should be a wrong King I cannot see why he should be so solicitous to define the Degrees of Submission and not think him throughly enough settled to have Right to an intire Allegiance while the dispossest Prince has such a formidable Power as makes the Event very doubtful For if God have once made him King as by the Doctor 's Supposition he has then by the same Supposition the Subjects owe him an intire Allegiance to day though they were sure that the dispossest Prince would recover his Kingdom of him to morrow For he that has once God's Authority has a Right to our Allegiance from the first to the last hours he has it why therefore may not Subjects obey him as their King now who perhaps may not be their King a while hence Nay though they were certain that his Royal Authority were to be taken from him in never so short a time yet this could make him have never the less Right to their Obedience while his Authority lasts If he be indeed King P. 8. he must be Rightful King with respect to God for all Kings are equally rightful with respect to him P. 14. and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. So that if he be King as the Doctor supposes he is Rightful King and may challenge the Allegiance of the Subjects by Vertue of God's Authority whatever Forces the dispossest Prince may yet have and therefore either he is now thoroughly settled or a thorough Settlement is not necessary to the obtaining God's Authority and when he is once King there can be no Reason why the Allegiance of the Subjects should in any measure be abated for any Apprehensions of Danger he may be in from the late Legal Possessors Arms. In the Fourth Section the Doctor proceeds to confirm his Doctrine by Arguments and to answer Objections His Arguments are 1. From Scripture 2. From Reason 1. From Scripture Pag. 19. His first Argument is from Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers for all Power is of God The Powers that be are ordained of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation He observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power or Authority which is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifies Force is sometimes used in the same sense with it and that these two words are sometimes used promiscuously in Scripture and that therefore unless there were some distinction set down by the Apostle in express words whereby we might know that by it in this place are to be understood only Rightful Powers we are to understand the word in its full Latitude so as to comprehend Usurpers likewise For the Scripture neither in this nor any other place distinguishing between Lawful Kings and Unlawful we are not to limit the signification of the words so as to exclude Usurpers from a Right to the Duties enjoyned in the Text or to say that they are not ordained of God 1. But if the various signification of words necessarily require that there be some express limitation added to determine them to one particular sense or if every word must be taken in the utmost Latitude of its signification unless it be so limitted we shall be at a great loss to know how to make sense of most Authors or to make them consistent with themselves For the same words often have opposite and quite contrary significations as they are differrently used and applied by the same Authors and yet they seldom give notice when they use them in one sense and when in another but think it sufficient that the senfe be limitted and determined by the subject to which they are applied or by the coherence and connexion which they have with the rest of the discourse And if the Acceptation of a word be still doubtful the most likely way to find it out is to examine in what sense the Author most commonly uses the same word But unless there be an evident Reason to the contrary every word is to be taken in its proper or in its usual sense for there needs no Reason to be given why a word should be understood properly or as it uses to be understood but he that will understand a word in an improper or unusual signification is obliged to produce his Reason for it because every word is supposed to retain its first and most genuine sense unless it be most frequently used Metaphorically and then it must be taken in its most usual signification unless it can be shewn that it is applied to another meaning than is commonly intended by it When we read in Scripture * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lak 22.53 of the Powers of darkness of the God of this World †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 13.2 and of the Power and Seat or Throne and great Authority which the Dragon gave the Beast in the Revelations the words are intelligible though taken very improperly without any express limitation And when St. Paul says Let every soul be subject to the higher powers c. We are to understand only Rightful Powers unless it can be shewn that any other are ordained of God For in its primary and natural signification and in its common use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be acknowledged to mean only Just and Lawful Authority and this every Man must understand by it unless the context determin the contrary which it cannot do here for here is no mention of any Powers but those which are ordained of God In some other places of Scripture it plainly appears from the Text it self that the word is used improperly and contrary to its ordinary signification but here the Doctor seems not to pretend any such thing but only argues that because it is used in an uncommon sense in some other places of Scripture it must be taken so in this because St. Paul makes no exception against Kings who exercise Civil Government without a Legal Title to it Whereas we
and that if this distinction between Usurpers and Rightful Kings be unknown to Scripture yet if it be not unknown to Reason that is sufficient to interpret this Text of St. Paul to be meant only of lawful Powers for the Scriptures always suppose and require that Men should bring their Reason along with them when they read and explain them or else they will make no more difference between Kings authorised by God and those not authorised by him than between Legal Kings and Illegal 4. But I cannot think that the distinction between Rightful Kings and Kings by Usurpation is unknown to Scripture but rather that St. Peter has expresly declared that it is to Rightful Kings obedience is due when he says submit your selves to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as supreme 1 Pet. 2.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He commands them to submit themselves to every humane Ordinance or Constitution of Government under which they lived Or as the Convocation quote this Text according to the old Translation to submit themselves unto all manner of ordinance of Man Pag. 144. I know there are different Interpretations of this Text but this seems the most probable for the King is here called the Ordinance of Man not because he is made King by Men but because the Constitution according to which he becomes King is an humane Constitution or Ordinance and not Divine as was that of the Jews St. Peter admonishes the Christians that they ought not to overvalue themselves upon the account of their Christian Liberty so as to imagine themselves exempted from those Duties which are incumbent upon the rest of mankind as Subjects to their Sovereigns or as Servants to their Masters but to behave themselves as free and not using their Liberty for a cloak of maliciousness verse 16. He had told them verse 9. that they were a chosen Generation a Royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People which was the Character given of the Jews Exod. 19.5 6. and now applied by the Apostle to the Jewish converts and lest they should have too high a conceit of themselves and vainly think as the Jews did that because they were Gods peculiar People they were bound to submit to no Government but what was of God's own immediate appointment and this was the Opinion the Gentiles had of them they spoke against them as evil-doers v. 12. and accused them of disobedience to Caesar and of Preaching another King one Jesus Act. 17.7 St. Peter therefore acquaints the Christians that so was the will of God that by subjection to all in Authority they should with well-doing put to silence the ignorance of foolish men verse 15. in as much as tho' the Frame of all Governments is not of God's appointment yet the Anthority in every Government is from him and therefore whoever is King according to the Legal Constitution of each Government Obedience becomes due to him for the Lora's sake because God makes him King and concurs with the Humane Act in ratifying what is done according to the Ordinance or Constitution of Man So that St. Peter calls particular Governments Man's Ordinance because they are of Humane Contrivance and Institution and he says they are to be submitted to for the Lord's sake because whoever is impowered to administer the Government according to the Constitution of it has God's Authority and in St. Paul's words is God's Ordinance St. Peter therefore speaking of Legal Powers and St. Paul only mentioning the higher Powers in general terms and both saying Obedience is due to them for the Lord's sake both must be understood of Legal Powers and St. Paul writing his Epistle to the Romans after this of St. Peter his words could need no distinction to be understood with that limitation which St. Peter here uses of every Ordinance of Man or of those Powers which are Just and Right by the Laws of Men. For as Bishop Sanderson has accurately expressed it Ad Magistratum Serm. 1. p. 94. Edit ult the truth is the Substance of the Power of every Magistrate is the Ordinance of God and that is St. Paul 's Meaning but the Specification of the Circumstances thereto belonging as in regard of Places Persons Titles Continuance Jurisdiction Sub-ordination and the rest is as St. Peter termeth it an Humane Ordinance introduced by Custom or Positive Law 5. But further we find this Distinction in express words in the Old Testament for according to the Doctor 's Interpretation it is impossible there should be any King who is not Ordained of God for he explains it of all the Powers that at any time be of all that are possessed of Supreme Power however they came by it Whereas besides what has been said of Abimilech and Ishbasheth and Athaliah God says expresly of the People of Israel They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not that is did not approve of it Hos 8.4 To this the Doctor answers Three things which I shall consider 1. This is not true P. 35. as to all the Kings of Israel after their Separation from the Tribe of Judah for some of the Kings were set up by God's own appointment as Jeroboam and Jehu and their Posterity So that this can be true only of those Kings who reigned over Israel between the Posterity of Jeroboam and Jehu and after the Kingdom was taken from the Line of Jehu 2. One of these Kings was Baasha 1 King 15.27.16.2 who slew Nadab the Son of Jeroboam and made himself King without God's express Nomination and Appointment and yet God tells him I exalted thee out of the dust and made thee Prince over my People Israel and all the other Kings who were not nominated by God nor anointed by any Prophet no more than Baasha was were yet set up by God as he was 3. The true Answer then is this Israel was originally a Theocracy as well as Judah and though God allowed them at their request to have Kings yet he reserved the appointment of them to himself and therefore as in the Kingdom of Judah he entailed the Crown on David 's Posterity so he appointed Jeroboam to be the first King in Israel and they ought when that Line was cut off to have consulted God and received his Nomination by his Prophets of a New King but instead of that they submitted to any who could set themselves over them which was a great Fault in a People who were under the immediate Government of God For hereby they fell out of the State of Theocracy into the common condition of the rest of the World where Kings are set up by the Providence of God c. 1. To this I reply 1. It is not pretended that the words of the Prophet can be meant of all the Kings of Israel nor of all neither who reigned either from Nadab the Son of Jeroboam to Jehu or after
God made him Prince over his People Israel So that he could not be of the Number of those whom the Prophet Hosea mentions that were made Kings but not by God for in those frequent Conspiracies and Murthers of the Kings of Israel which we read of it might often happen that the Right Heir was alive and excluded which alters the Case 3. It is precarious to say That God had reserved to himself the Nomination and Appointment of the Kings of Israel He gave indeed the Ten Tribes to Jeroboam and entailed the Crown of Israel upon his Posterity in the same manner as he had entailed that of Judah upon the Line of David on condition That he should serve God as David did 1 Kings 11.38 And he settled the Kingdom upon Jehu's Posterity to the Fourth Generation 2 Kings 10.30 But these were extraordinary Cases and therefore can be no Evidence That God did reserve to himself the constant designation of their Kings though he did sometimes nominate and appoint them God's Promise to David and his House was ultimately and principally to be understood of the Messiah who was to be the Son of Davia and it was absolute with respect only to him David and Solomon c. were Types of Christ and the Kingdom of Judah was Typical of Christ's Kingdom and the Scepter was not to depart from Judah till the coming of Christ So that God had a more immediate Care and Regard to the Kingdom of Judah than to that of Israel and yet the Entail of the Kingdom of Judah is scarce ever mentioned but with such express Conditions annexed as shew that upon the Violation of them it might by the very Terms of that Promise whenever God had pleased have been taken away from them in the same manner that other Kingdoms are alienated and transferred And there is no intimation That upon the Forfeiture of their special Favour and Privilege either Israel or Judah were to expect that God would afterwards nominate their Kings After the sin of Jeroboam wherewith he made Israel to sin and at once lost God's Favour both to himself and his Posterity and forfeited the Hereditary Right to the Crown God seems to have lest the Succession of the Kings of Israel to the Care of his ordinary Providence excepting only when he interposed upon particular occasions to put down one King and set up another For if it had been sinful for any King to ascend the Throne without God's express Order it is incredible that the rest of the Prophets should be so silent in a matter of so high a Nature who reproved and rebuked their Kings so freely and so severely too upon all other occasions A sin so notorious and so long continued in would probably have been taken notice of by all the other Prophets as well as by Hosea The Kings then whom this Prophet mentions that were set up but not by God must be such as were set up not only without God's appointment but without his Approbation or Authority And indeed if God had reserved to himself the Appointment of the Kings of Israel his permitting them to Reign without his Appointment and suffering them to settle themselves in the Kingdom by his Providence could be no evidence that he had bestowed upon them any Authority because this had been contrary to that Order of Government which God had instituted among them and in derogation from that Prerogative which he had determined to exercise over them and when God has declared his Will in any Case we must not conclude from any Events of Providence that he allows or authorises the contrary Pag. 35. This we are told in the Case of Joash and Athaliah and there is the same reason in this for God may as well be supposed by his Providence to set aside the next Heir to the Crown of Judah which was entailed by himself as to forgo the Theocracy which he had retained over the Kingdom of Israel so that either we must say that he confirmed Athaliah in the Throne by his Providence or else that the Kings of Israel whom he did not appoint could have no Authority from him notwithstanding any success or continuance of their Reigns It appears therefore from the Prophet Hosea that the People of Israel did set up Kings who had no Authority from God and made Princes when God knew it not or did not approve of it and who by consequence could be none of his Ordinance And how many or how few soever these Kings were it cannot truly be said that there was no Histinction to be found in Scripture between Kings who are invested with God's Authority and those who are not and therefore St. Paul could not be understood to mean all Kings whatsoever under the Denomination of the higher Powers ordained of God and since all are not set up by him there needed no distinction in express words to inform us that he meant only Lawful Kings for if he had intended by this Precept subjection to unlawful Kings too there would have needed a further distinction to know what unlawful Kings we were to obey since the Scripture speaks of some unlawful Kings whom we are not to obey unless we must obey such as are not set up by God or those Kings can be God's Ordinance whom he does not set up wherefore it would have been necessary for him to have distinguished between Usurpers that are set up by God and those who are not if he had not spoken only of Rightful Kings But it is urged that this sence of the Text would involve Mens Consciences in great perplexities for the Titles to Crowns being oftentimes very uncertain great skill in History and Law is required to sind out the Right Title and after all their search the most learned Men cannot agree about it and it is not to be imagined that all Mens Consciences should be concerned in such niceties which wise and learned Men are not able to decide especially the Titles of the Roman Emperours at that time and after wards for many Ages together being either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful the Apostle cannot be imagined to oblige every Christian of that and of succeeding Ages to examine the Titles of Princes Pag. 20. and this the Doctor takes to be little lefs than a demonstration that this Precept of Sr. Paul cannot be understood only of subjection to Powers that had a Legal Right I answer 1. I have proved that there may be Kings who are not God's Ordinance and the only way we have now to distinguish Kings that are set up by him from those who are not is to enquire into the Justice of their Cause and the Legality of their Titles And St. Peter speaks of the Ordinance of Man or of human Establishment according to which Kings are advanced to the Throne 2. If the Title be doubtful yet the Consciences of Subjects will not be so ensnared and perplext with niceties and difficulties
as it is objected for in such cases the Subjects may lawfully swear to the Possessor and are obliged to pay all Allegiance to him unless his Competitor can make it appear that the Right is his and not the Possessor's and then the Subjects not knowing this before are guilty of no breach of Allegiance to him but are bound as soon as his Right becomes known to them to yield him their Allegiance having taken an Oath or given any other assurance or proof of Obedience to the Possessor only out of ignorance that any other Person could make out a clear and certain Title 3. But granting that St. Paul had meant Usurpers as well as Lawful Powers in this Text yet the perplexities of Conscience would not have been much less than it is said they must necessarily be according to the contrary exposition For so learned a Man as Dr. Sherlock could not find out the true sence of the Text it seems till now upon this occasion and very few perhaps besides have been able to discover it since the Epistle was written * Case of Resistance p. 122. The Doctor acknowledges that St. Chrysostom is against him and produces no Father nor any other Author ancient or modern for his Opinion except the Convocation which I have shewn says nothing to his purpose And St. Basil says expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basil Tom. 2. Constitut Monast c 22. p. 715. that the higher Powers mentioned by St. Paul are such as attain to the Government according to Humane Laws and this appears to have been the sence of the Church in his time for he sets it down as a thing certain That the Civil Powers must receive their Authority in a Legal way and from thence proves that if they that resist those who receive their Power according to humane Laws resist the Ordinance of God then much rather must those resist his Ordinance who resist the Ecclesiastical Powers which are by Gods own more immediate Institution invested with his Authority according to the Divine Laws So that if Dr. Sherlock's Interpretation were true yet it would not much have eased Mens Consciences since it has been so little known and so lately discovered and by his own Confession was by himself so lately suspected of Novelty and Singularity 4. The Titles of the Roman Emperours were then neither stark nought nor very doubtful The Titles of Claudius and of Nero were not at all doubtful and under one of them this Epistle was written Claudius was saluted Emperour by the Soldiery and approved of by the Senate and Nero was adopted by Claudius and chosen by the Army and the choice confirmed by the Senate and they were both owned and submitted to by the whole Empire which is all that could be requisite to make them Lawful Emperours for it is evident beyond all dispute that the Roman Empire was not Hereditary Jovian c. 1. And when at any time the Title was doubtful they might have submitted with a safe Conscience to the Possessor as I before observed And thus much may serve in answer to his first Argument from Scripture out of Rom. 13. 2. He urges That we have no example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to the present Powers P. 21. whatever the Vsurpation were tho' we have examples of their being condemned for refusing to submit to them This he proves from the Prophecies of Jeremiah and from our Saviour's Argument in his discourse with the Scribes and Pharisees which relies wholly on the Possession of Power Whose Image and Superscription hath it I answer that the silence of Scripture is no Argument unless it can be shewn that the Prophets at the same time that they reproved the People for their other Crimes did not blame them for submitting to an Usurper while the Lawful King himself had not submitted nor was commanded by God to submit but had a Right to their Allegiance For in matters of History the Scriptures often give a bare Narrative without any remark or censure at all upon it We read of Lot's Incest and that both Noah and he were drunken but no Man I suppose will conclude that either Incest or Drunkenness is Lawful because the Scripture relates only the matter of Fact and says nothing more of it for they are Vices notorious enough in themselves and it was not the design of the Sacred History to inveigh against Vices but only to declare by whom and with what circumstances they were committed in like manner if there be any instance in Scripture where the Subjects abandoned their natural Sovereign and betook themselves to the Usurper and fought against him a bare Narrative of this can no more prove that it is lawful than that it is unlawful for an Historical Relation can prove nothing but that such a thing was done and in such a manner but the nature of the action it self with the circumstances of it or some command in Scripture must discover the goodness or the wickedness of it But in the present case the Scriptures are not silent but plainly enough declare that Allegiance is only due to the lawful King tho' an Usurper be never so well settled For St. Peter and St. Paul both declare this as it has been just now shewn unless we can serve two Masters for they teach subjection to the Rightful King which implies that it cannot be due to his mortal Enemy And when Jehoiada charged the People by their duty to God and to the King to submit to Joash and to depose Athaliah this was a sufficient Declaration against Allegiance to an Usurper in prejudice to the Lawful King 's Right But the case of the Jews under the King 's of Pabylon was such as made their Obedience to them a necessary Duty according to those Principles which are most contrary to the Doctor 's Opinion For 1. God had commanded both King and People to submit to these Kings 2. They did submit and take Oaths to them accordingly 3. Therefore the Kings submitting as well as the People there was none who could claim their Allegiance in competition with the Kings of Babylon And under these Circumstances either of a Divine command or of a joint consent and submission both of King and People no Man who maintains the Right of an Hereditary Succession and a Legal Title can with any Reason scruple to submit to a Foreign Conqueror But I shall speak more particularly to the Texts which the Doctor has produced 1. He acknowledges that the Prophet Jeremy 's Argument is Prophecy P. 21. or an express command from God to submit to the King of Babylon which he says because of the Entail that God himself had made of the Kingdom of Judah upon David's Posterity was necessary though other Kingdoms which are governed only by God's Providence ought to submit to any Conquerour or Invader in the same manner as the Jews did to Nebuchadnezzar without any Revelation to
the Terms of it And he may invest the King with his own Authority and make him as irresistible as if he had himself nominated him and not conferred upon him his Authority by any intervention of Subordinate Means I need not mention that in Ordination and in the Sacraments and in all the Dispensations of God's Grace and Authority under the Gospel Human Acts intervene from whence it is obvious to conclude That since in things of the highest and most Spiritual Nature God requires Human Acts and does by them confer his Grace and Power the irresistible Authority of Kings can be never the more doubtful or questionable because the People's Consent and Submission is ordinarily required to the conveiance of it in the first Erections of Kingdoms for God acts as powerfully and effectually by the Ministeries of Men as by an immediate Command or Designation 2. The Absurdities then which he would prove to arise from the asserting a Necessity of a Legal Right in them who are now invested with God's Authority are all upon a false Supposition 1. He argues If the Authority be wholly derived from the People who shall binder them from the taking it away when they see fit Vpon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can only choose for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had And what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years ago to choose a King for me These are the Absurdities he would bring all Men to who are not of his Opinion And upon the same wrong Supposition would afterwards prove that Passive Obedience is altogether inconsistent with any but his present Principles though he has effectually proved it upon other Principles in his Case of Resistance And if he will now suppose that by his former Principles nothing more can go to the making of a King whether he comes in by Conquest or Usurpation upon Defect of a better Claim by any other or by Compact or an Hereditary Right than the bare Choice and Consent of the People this is a little too much to be granted and yet if this be denyed all his Inferences fall of themselves to the Ground The thing to be proved is That Kings have not their Authority from God unless they be set up only by the Divine Providence without any respect to Human Law and Right which can never be proved unless it be shewn That God cannot or will not set up Kings in a way consistent with the Laws of Kingdoms and with the Consent and voluntary Submission of Subjects The Bond of Matrimony is never the sooner dissolved because Marriages are not made in Heaven as they say but Men and Women are at their Liberty and have a Power of choosing whether they will marry this or that Person or will not marry at all God may appoint the Persons and prevent or over-rule the Consent of the Parties and he has sometimes done it Gen. 24. He can appoint Kings and set aside the ordinary Forms and Laws of Government but this doth not prove That he will always do it nor that we are ever to expect it now much less may we conclude That he cannot or will not concur with Human Acts intervening and give them his own Sanction God certainly can and ordinarily does convey Power and Authority as effectually by concurring with Men and ratifying what they do as if he did it immediately himself unless we will say That God does nothing but Miracles and that subordinate Causes do every thing else without him But to use the Doctor 's own Words God not only places a single Person in the Throne P. 14. but entails it on his Family by Human Laws and makes the Throne a Legal Inheritance And after all the only difference between the Doctor and his Adversaries is That he says God's Providence makes Kings by Conquest or by Submission and long successive Continuance of Power or by Human Laws or against Human Laws because if Providence did not make Kings he could not prove that it unmakes them But those of the contrary Opinion deny neither the absolute Power of God nor the Effects of his Providence in setting up and putting down Kings but they suppose that unless it be when God declares that it is his Will to act by an Absolute Power without any regard to the Laws of Men he does not raise up and depose Kings in a way that is contrary to the Constitution of their Kingdoms so as to absolve Subjects from the Allegiance which the Laws of their Country require but so orders and disposes things that Kings shall as long remain invested with his Authority as they have a Legal Right 2. The Notion of a Legal Right he says P. 25. must ultimately resolve it self into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter For a legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People and if the People have such an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings be doubts they will challeng as much Authority to unmake them too That is as we were told before no Man is bound by his Ancestors Act and every Man too may undo what he has done himself when he thinks fit It has been already shewn that tho' the Prerogatives of Kings and the Constitutions of Kingdoms may be contrived and agreed upon by Men yet God gives Kings a Right to govern according to them and supreme and irresistible Authority to enable and secure them in the Administration of their Kingdoms P. 14. and entails the Thrones on their Families by Human Laws And though God may over-rule and alter the Rights of Princes yet his Providence is no sufficient Evidence that he intends to do it If we once knew it were his Will all Human Laws must forthwith give Place to it but since his Providence is not a Declaration of his Will in this Matter we must keep to the Observation of Human Laws and of our Oaths grounded upon them But to suppose the most and the worst that can be said If the People did set up Kings by Consent and Compact this is no Argument that they may depose them For a People who consent to the setting a King over them must consent to set one over them with Supreme Authority and the Supreme Authority is that which hath no Superiour and therefore cannot be resisted For if the Supreme Authority may be resisted then to be sure all Inferiour Authority may be resisted too and so all Government must be dissolved for want of any sufficient Authority to manage it It follows then That there must be a Supreme Authority somewhere in all Governments and in a Kingdom this Supreme Authority must be in the King and a People who upon this Supposition should make a King must choose one in whom they place the Supreme Authority that is who is irresistible at least unless they reserve
it But he answers There is a vast Difference between these two Cases which is granted or else the Objection would be needless or none at all But if nowtithstanding the circumstantial Difference between them they be both through Setlements it is unanswerable for we are concerned to consider none of those other Differences which he reckons up but only this of the Settlement of that Usurpation the Question being not about any particular manner of Settlement but in general of a thorough Settlement And the Doctor must say according to his Principles and the whole Tenour of all the rest of his Book that the most illegal and unnatural Usurpers who have murthered the best of Kings and excluded the right Heir who have overthrown both Church and State and have neither National Consent nor any other Pretence of Right but the Sword yet if they can once settle themselves in their Injustice and Violence to the utter Ruine of Church and State notwithstanding all this have God's Authority as much as Saul or David ever had And if the ancient Government be destroyed and another erected in its Room this is still the greater Evidence that they have God's Authority because it is the fuller Proof of a thorough Settlement But if all those Terms and Conditions are required which the Doctor remarks were wanting in the late Usurpations the Providence of God will be confined and limited almost as much as he complains it will be by maintaining a Legal Right For how can God set over Kingdoms the basest the most unworthy and wicked Men who will have no regard to Forms of Law and Government if the Fundamental Laws of a Nation can put any Bar to his Power and if they can is not the Legal Right of the King a Fundamental Law and the principal too of those Laws Nothing then can make a difference between one Usurper and an other as to this matter if both have a Thorough Settlement their Authority must be the same and the Duty of Subjects the same to yield an entire Allegiance to them The only thing therefore to be considered is whether there were such a Thorough Settlement as the Doctor maintains does infer Gods Authority in those Usurpations And the Doctor himself has determined the point For P. 33. says he no Man could have foreseen how King Charles II. should have returned who had a powerful Army against him all the Plots and Conspiraces of the Royal Party were vain and had no other effect but to bring some worthy and gallant Men to an unhappy end but what they could not do God did without them And when it was impossible to foresee that King Charles could ever return when all human endeavours proved in vain and to his disadvantage when God alone could by his Providence restore him this certainly was as full a Settlement of the Party which kept him out of his Kingdom as can be imagined For if that be not setled which God only can displace there can be no such thing as a Settlement in the World But there were many alterations and changes of Government in those times It is plain that their Government was never setled P. 47. it was frequently changed and modelled which was no Argument of Settlement and which was more than that they had not a National Consent and Submission Men who were forced submitted to force but the Nation did not by any National Act ever own them Yet when all those changes conduced nothing at all to the Kings Interest but on the contrary were all fixed and centred in this that he should not be suffered to return this might be interpreted rather to signifie that God had determined he should never be restored because tho' they quarrelled amongst themselves and their Frames of Government so often fell to pieces yet still new Models were erected against him to set him at a further distance from the Throne And Oliver Cromwel at least was setled for he was made Protector in the year 1653. and from that time till his Death exercised all the Power of a King He had brough the Three Kingdoms to an entire subjection so as to be able to crush those who would not submit whenever he pleased P. 9. which is the description the Doctor gives of a Thorough Settlement all the Bordering Nations feared his Power or sought his Friendship and he had a full and uninterrupted Possession for the space of five years It was the common Theme of his Flatterers and of all the Enthusiasts of those times That God had raised him up and they had certainly been in the Right if any Usurper from a bare Possession of Power can claim by Authority from God in prejudice of the Rightful King As for what he adds to make this Case Parallel with that of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes it has been already shewn that that was a quite contrary Case For if the Jews had made a National Submission to Antiochus they had injured no Body nor excluded any Right Heir by it But a National Consent in this case could have been of no force whilst King Charles the Second or any of the Royal Family had been alive And by the Doctors Principles the Authority of Kings depends not upon any Consent of Men whatsoever but solely and purely upon the will of God who puts an Usurper in full Power and Possession of any Kingdom If therefore God's Authority remained in King Charles a National Consent could not have taken it away if it did not remain it must be in Cromwel without any National Consent But a National Consent would have been an Evidence of a Thorough Settlement It would so but this does not infer that no other evidence but that could suffice The Doctor often says that by what way or means soever an Usurper becomes fully possessed of the Supreme Power he has God's Authority So that a National Consent and Submission may be the more regular and orderly way but if an Usurper come to the Throne against the Consent both of King and Subjects and settle himself upon the Ruins both of the Kings Rights and the Subjects Liberties this is no prejudice to the Title he receives from God For if the Sovereign Authority be obtained tho' by the destruction of the Government and the desolation of the whole Kingdom against all Laws both of God and Man when it is once acquired it is by these Principles as much the Ordinance of God as if he had succeeded as next Heir or had been nominated by God himself and were the best and most Rightful King for all Kings are Rightful with respect to God I have now considered all that concerns the point in Question in the Doctor 's Book the rest concerns the Obedience to a King de Facto by the Laws of England not as he is Gods Vicegerent and invested with his Authority But before I dismiss this Question I shall shew that it was the constant Practice of the
force as all Moralists allow such a mixt choyce and election to be But Flight is no Consent at all but a declaration of the contrary and therefore whether Forced Submission will transfer Allegiance or no 't is certain Flight cannot and that is all we are now to enquire after He argues P. 20. that Jaddus begged God's Directions not whether he should submit to Alexander or not for he was already resolved to submit but about the manner of his Submission that he might do it so as that Alexander would accept it after the Provocation he had given him by his denyal before Josephus does indeed say that Jaddus dreaded how he should meet Alexander who was provoked by his former Answer but what he means by his meeting him and to what intent and purpose he designed to meet him is not said much less that he was resolved to make an entire surrender of himself and the whole City unto his power and meeting an Enemy is a very different thing from making such a Submission to him He appointed publick Prayers and Sacrifices to be offered up for their Deliverance but whether they should be delivered by their Submission or by any other way we must suppose they left it wholly to God Almighty to determine And whatever Jaddus might think with himself it cannot be imagined he would come to a Resolution and would openly declare it too but since he sought to God for his direction and assistance in so extraordinary a way he would in all humility and devotion refer the whole matter and not only the manner and circumstance of it to his Determination Thus Jaddus ought to have done and thus probably he did and there is nothing in Josephus that contradicts it If Jaddus stood to his first Answer he could not be resolved to submit and it is most unlikely that he would appoint solemn Supplications and Sacrifices to be made to God about the Circumstance only and overlook the thing it self resolving with himself before he knew Gods pleasure in it to submit when he had so lately answered peremptorily that he might not do it so long as Darius lived this must be a great and sudden and a very improbable change and very rash and unwarrantable and not to be drawn into example if true For suppose that Jaddus was resolved to submit suppose he was resolved to do the thing which he but just before professed he ought not to do this makes no difference in the thing nor in the Judgment of the Convocation about it who mention his first resolution but take no notice of this new own nor of his Submission it self neither and perhaps for this Reason because they might not give much credit to the Account in Josephus of the Revelation and without this his Surrender could not be justified either by their Principles or his own But we are concerned only for the matter of Fact and for the Authority he had to act upon not for the opinion with which he acted He first refused Submission and that the Convocation approves he afterwards submitted and this the Convocation takes not the least notice of but if there were a Revelation for it his Submission was lawful if not it was contrary to that Duty which he so lately owned to Darius and to the Judgment of the Convocation The Doctor says if they believed any of the story upon Josephus 's Authority P. 19. they must believe all But why so some of it may be probable and that they might believe and other parts of it so improbable that his Authority might not be sufficient to give it Credit with them and it is likely they rejected what they did not mention when it was so very material to the Subject before them that if they had believed it they would scarce have omitted it The Doctor is forced to own P. 35. that Athaliah if she were throughly settled had God's Authority till the Right Heir was known to be alive though if she had it may be not only Lawful but a Duty to resist Gods Authority since he maintains that Jehoiada supposing her throughly settled was nevertheless bound in Duty to Joash to depose her and set him up But assoon as the true Heir appeared P. 35. she fell from her Power as much by the express Ordinance and Command of God as Joram did when Jehu was anointed for a Divine Entail as the Convocation asserts is equivalent to an express Nomination I Answer the Appearance of the true Heir respects only the Peoples Duty but the Question is concerning Jehoiada and what could the Appearance of Joash signify to him who all the while knew that he was alive and acted all along for his Right and Interest and was obliged at the first fit opportunity to make the true heir known and if so he must be found to do it by vertue of an Hereditary Right which was in Joash and by consequence he could not be bound to obey Athaliab though she were never so well settled for it is a contradiction to say that he was bound to obey her at the same time that he was bound to depose her or which is all one when he was bound to make the Right Heir known in order to depose her It may perhaps be said that Jehoiada was not bound in Duty to Athaliah it was only lawful for him to submit as the Doctor now distinguishes But if so then a Providential Right may oblige some Subjects to Obedience and not others which is as strange as any thing besides for sure Gods Authority must oblige all Subjects alike and if she were invested with Gods Authority or to use the Doctors word if she were God's Providential Queen I cannot see how any Subject in her Dominions could be exempted from Gods Authority nor consequently from Obedience to her while it remained in her Besides how did she fall from her Power assoon as the true Heir appeared According to the Doctor 's Principles she could never have fallen from it till she had fallen from her Actual Dominion and her Authority was at an end not because the Right Heir was known but because she was dispossessed for the Doctor tells us that Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power make a King P. 36. that it is certain he who has the Exercise of the Regal Power and Authority P. 38. P. 50. P. 56. is King and he is no King who has no Regal Power whatever his Title be and that it is certain no Prince can have Gods Authority who is not in Possession of the Throne and then no Allegiance can be due to him and the Doctor cannot guese how these Princes who whatever the Right be have no Authority of Government should have Gods Authority And if this be so very certain from the nature of the thing that Sovereignty is founded in the Actual Administration of Government or in the Actual Possession of Power and Authority to govern P. 37. if Possession of Power be of the very
not necessary to the constituting one of the Providential Kings Ib. P. 17. Afterwards the Doctor supposes that though the generality of the Nation submit to such a Prince and place him on the Throne and put the whole Power of the Kingdome into his hands yet it may be we cannot yet think the Providence of God has settled him in the Throne while the dispossessed Prince has also such a formidable Power as makes the event very doubtful But in the same Page he says he is indeed King while he administers the legal Right Power though we may not think him so well settled in his Government as to all intents and purposes to own him for our King So that Submission may make a King even before a Thorough Settlement though not perhaps to all intents and purposes Again I cannot see when to fix the foundation of Government Ib. P. 24. but in the Providence of God who either by the Choice of the major or stronger part of the People or by Conquest or by Submission and the long successive continuance of Power or by humane Laws gives a Prince and his Family Possession of the Throne c. In this place he joyns Submission and Continuance of Government together but makes Conquest as well as any of the rest to be alone sufficient and the Providence of God makes Kings by the choice of the stronger though they be not the major part of the People In the next Page Ib. P. 25. if the sole Authority of Government be from God and God gives this Authority only by placing a Prince in the Throne then by whatsoever means he does it is the same thing and therefore if he does it without the Submission or Consent of the People In the case of Antiochus Epiphanes the Doctor determines Ib. P. 48. that a long Continuance is required to settle a Government when there is no National Submission P. 51. And when there is nothing but mere Force it may admit some Dispute when the Government is settled By this it seems that though it may perhaps admit of some dispute whether Cromwels Government was settled or no yet a Government may sometimes be settled by mere Force and Continuance may be sufficient without a National Consent But in the Vindication the general Submission of the People is necessary to a thorough Settlement of such new Governments Vind. P. 32. Ib. P. 22. and the principal part of it is this viz. when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Ib. P. 67. though once more either Submission or Continuance will suffice But it must not be omitted that the Doctor now says that the Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was originally no more but Force into a Civil and Legal Authority Ib. P. 16. by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince this if Submission be necessary to a thorough Settlement takes away the subject of the question which is whether a thorough Settlement without any Civil or Legal Authority be of it self sufficient to entitle an Usurper to the Allegiance of the Subjects by virtue of Gods Authority notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which the dispossessed Prince can challenge to his Country Kingdome or Empire And besides this raises a new and a very nice dispute Whether the legal Kings civil and legal Right or the Usurpers civil and legal Authority make the better Claim and ought to have the preference 4. A National Submission and Consent is not necessary to a thorough Settlement by the Doctor 's Principles By his Principles the thorough Settlement is made by God himself and the People are not necessarily supposed to have any thing to do in it but only are obliged in conscience to submit when it is once brought about by the Divine Providence For if God be the Author of all events if all Kings be equally rightful with respect to God by whatsoever way that can be thought of they are advanced to the Throne and settled in it then a National Submission and Consent cannot be necessary to a thorough Settlement because a Prince may by Foreign Force or by an Army of his own Subjects attain to a thorough Settlement against the Consent of the People and without any but a forced Submission at most and this the Doctor will not allow to be sufficient For he cannot deny but that in the late times Men who were forced Case P. 47. submitted by Force and his only exception is that the Nation did not by any National Act own those Usurpations And this is all that what he has now added in his Vindication can amount to So that Cromwell was throughly that is fully settled because the whole Nation was forced to submit to him and could never rescue themselves from that Force till his Death he was not settled by any National Submission and Consent but he was settled by a forced Submission which is one way whereby a thorough Settlement may be attained and a National Act of Submission and Consent is another but by whatever way the thorough Settlement be obtained God must certainly be the Author of it if he be the Author of all Events and whatever kind of thorough Settlement Cromwell had 't is certain he had the Supream Power fully in his own hands and therefore by the Doctors Principles could not fail of having Gods Authority Case P. 15. For since Power will govern God so orders it by his Providence as never to entrust Sovereign Power in any mans hand to whom he does not give the Sovereign Authority Power does not give Right and Authority to govern but is a certain sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power be has given the Authority Now no man can say that God never places and settles Power without the Peoples Submission and Consent or that Cromwells Power was not settled for five years together as much as it could be without a National Consent and consequently he must have had Gods Authority by the Doctors Principles though the Nation did not by any National Act ever own him And it is the same thing as to the extent of Power for God cannot be confined to give just such a Measure of Power as shall suit with the Model of this or that particular Government Who will say that God cannot turn a Civil into a Despotick Government or can deny by the Doctors Principles that he has constituted him an Arbitrary Monarch whom he has entrusted with Arbitrary Power The Question is not whether God cannot make Kings by his Providence who yet may be limited in the Administration of their Government by humane Laws But whether God does not invest them with an unlimited Sovereign Authority who can by any means attain to a settled Possession of it or even but to the Exercise of it For I shall shew that by the Doctors Principles the Exercise of Power is sufficient without
in setting out Ch. 1. Can. 1. and describing the Deity and Dignity of our Saviour Christ by his Almighty Power and Universal Government of all the World as Heir of all things and Head of his Church Ch. 2. Can. 2. And therefore they first affirm that he created the World and gave the supreme Authority to Adam for his time and to the rest of the Patriarchs and chief Fathers successively before the Flood ordaining by the very Law of Nature that their Children and Off-Spring should fear reverence honour and obey them Ch. 6. Can. 6. After the Flood it was committed to Noah who by virtue of this Authority given unto him by Almighty God and also warranted by the Laws of Nature and Reason distributed the whole World among his three Sons and they again divided it among their Sons But Nimrod descended of Cham not contenting himself with the Patriarchal or Regal mild Government Ch. 8. Can. 8. ordained of God by the Laws of Reason and Nature became a Tyrant and Lord of Confusion And within few Ages after the Death of Noah's Sons their Posterity becoming dissolute batbarous and ungovernable cast off that Government which God had ordained and set up new Forms of divers kinds after their own Humours and Inventions Whereupon it is determined by the Convocation If any one shall affirm that the said Posterity of Noah's Children did well in altering either the Manner or Form of Civil Government which God had appointed by bringing in of Tyranny or factious Popularity or that it was lawful for such as then served God upon any Pretence to have imitated their Examples He doth greatly err Abraham with his Family being by God called out from among the wicked and idolatrous People of Chaldea Ch. 8 9 10. Can. 10. that Supremacy of Power which he had over his own Family was continued down to Jacob And tho afterwards this Authority was much weakened and diminished during the abode of the Chilldren of Israel in Egypt yet in Process of time according to Jacob's Prophecy the Scepter was bestowed on Judah In the mean time they were first governed by Moses and then by Joshua after a mild and temperate manner Ch. 11. Can. 11. After the Death of Joshua they had no constant Succession of Princes but God raised up Judges from time to time as Occasion required to deliver and to govern them But upon the Peoples impatience and importunity God appointed Saul for their King and lastly the Scepter came to the Tribe of Judah by David's advancement to the Throne Ch. 14. Can. 14. to which be was as truly called by God himself as Aaron was to the Priesthood And David 's Posterity had by God's Ordinance as Rightful an Interest to succeed him in his said Kingdom as either Aaron 's Sons had to succeed him in the Priesthood or Moses Joshua and the rest of the Judges notwithstanding that God himself did chuse and named them particularly bad in their Governments But after the Kingdom was thus become Hereditary Ch. 15. Can. 15. the Kings were as much obliged as ever to the Observation of those Laws which God had prescribed for them to govern by and that they might do this the better they had their Judges and Inferiour Magistrates which was no diminution of their Power but they thereby ordered their Kingdoms with such a temperate and fatherly Moderation as was most agreeable for the Government of God's People Then the Convocation shews by a brief recapitulation of the Particulars from the beginning of the World Ch. 16. Can. 16. that Kings by Gods institution have a Paternal Authority and that Subjects ow them the Obedience of Children to their Parenâ—s Ch. 17 18 19. Can. 17 18 19. And whether the Kings or supreme Governours were nominated and appointed immediately by God himself or succeeded by an Hereditary Right as in the Kingdom of Judah neither the Priests nor People had any share in conferring upon them their Regal Authority but this was immediately and solely from God The following Chapters and Canons to the 23d are spent in shewing and explaining the Authority of the Kings and supreme Governors among the Jews in Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Subjection and Duty of the Priests to them by which they were bound not to depose or rise up against them upon any account whatsoever And then by way of Objection against this Doctrin is brought the Example of Jehoiada's deposing Athaliah In answer to which it is said that the Right of Succession according to Gods own appointment was in Joash and that therefore Athaliah though she had sate six years on the Throne might lawfully be deposed as being still but an Usurper but that this ought not to be drawn into Example against a lawful King To obviate another Objection they observe Ch 25. Can. 25. that the Prophets under the Old Testament did often severely rebuke their Kings and sometimes anointed one King before the decease of another Thus David was anointed by Samuel in Saul's life-time to succeed him and Jehu was put into actual possession of the Kingdom of Israel by Elizeus and as God had commanded by the said Prophet he killed Joram before that time his Sovereign but then his Subject But these things were done by a direct and express Message from God and therefore were to be no Precedent to the Jews themselves much less to others unless God sent a Prophet with the same Order and Commission Another Objection is wont to be made against the Authority of Kings from Jer. 1.10 Ch. 26. Can. 26. which is likewise answered A fourth Objection might be raised from the Example of Otheniel Ch. 27. Can. 27. and more especially from the Example of Ahud who slew Eglon King of the Moabites to whom the Israelites had been Eighteen years in Subjection But these are shewn to be as extraordinary Cases as that of Jehu was But still another Difficulty arises for the Monarchical Government spoken of hitherto among God's own People Ch. 28. Can. 28. was mild and temperate but in other parts of the World the temperate and fatherly Government which Noah had prescribed unto his Off Spring and which God himself established afterwards amongst his own People was soon degenerated into Tyranny as we see by what the Scripture relates of Nimrod or into Republicks as amongst the Romans who rebell'd against their Kings and quite cast off Kingly Government and in like manner several Forms of Government were introduced in several other Nations In this Case the Convocation determins that tho it be sinful in them who by Invasion or Rebellion invert the Order of the World and set up degenerate Forms of Government instead of that temperate and fatherly Government which God has ordained yet when these Forms are thoroughly setled as that Tyrannical Government of Nimrod and the Bepublick of the Romans in Process of time were they must then be submitted to
For tho they were at first introduced by very wicked Practices yet God having vouchsafed to establish them and to invest them with his own Authority they must be obeyed as his Ordinance These things thus stated and cleared the Convocation proceeds to the remaining course of the Jewish History Ch. 29. Can. 29. and shews that the Jews owed Allegiance to the Kings of Persia after their return from Babylon who still continued by God's Appointment a supreme Authority over them And accordingly Jaddus the High Priest when Alexander required him to assist him in his Wars and become Tributary to him returned this Answer Ch. 30. Can. 30. that he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius liv'd But when Alexander 's Authority was setled amongst them the Case was altered Ch. 31. Can. 31. and they then owed him the same Subjection that before they had owed Darius After Alexander's Death the Jews became again a free People he leaving behind him no Successor Ch. 31. but they were miserably oppressed by the bordering Kings of Egypt and Syria especially by Antiochus Epiphanes whose Invasion and Government was most unjust and Tyrannical until Mattathias moved with the monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of the said Antiochus made open Resistance the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance The great disorders amongst the Priests brought many and grievous Afflictions upon the Jews both under the Government of the Grecians and of the Maccabees till at last Pompty took Jerusalem by the Assistance of Hircanus who had been displaced from the High Priesthood Ch. 32 33 34. Can. 32 33 34. his younger Brother Aristobulus getting into his room And tho Hircanus did very wickedly in taking this occasion to revenge himself of his Brother by enslaving his Country yet when the Jews had submitted to the Romans and had yielded themselves up to their Government they were utterly inexcusable in those Rebellions which they afterwards raised and which ended in their own Destruction Having thus far spoken of that mild and moderate Form of Civil Government which God at first establisht throughout the World Ch. 35. Can. 35. and afterwards preserved in some measure amongst the Jews till they by their perverseness and Rebellions brought utter ruin upon themselves they say lastly that Christ is the universal Lord and Governor of the whole Earth and the orders of the several particular Kingdoms and Governments of it as it may best conduce to the designs of his Wisdom and Goodness in the Government of the whole World which is but one universal Kingdom under him The Substance then of what the Convocation says is this First Christ as Creator and Governor of the World established a mild and temperate and fatherly Government which was to continue throughout all Ages in all Parts of the World but the Wickedness of men soon introduced other degenerate Forms either Tyrannical or Popular and these of several Sorts and Denominations Democratical Aristocratical c. 2. God calling Abraham out of Chaldea into Canaan and choosing his Posterity for his peculiar People continued this mild and Paternal Government amongst them and upon all Occasions did himself appoint their chief Governors till at last he ordained that the Government should be Hereditary and entailed it upon David's Posterity so that the Jews were governed all along after that original Form of Paternal Government which God instituted at the first Creation of Mankind and then again confirm'd after the Flood though this Form of Government was much defaced and diminished among the Jews in succeeding times by the great Abuses that crept in among them And in this Government First the Power was solely from God not depending upon the consent either of the Priests or People nor deriving any Authority from any Act of theirs Secondly their Kings had supreme Authority over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Thirdly their Power was irresistable and they were accountable to God only for it But against this several things might be objected from Examples among the Jews which they answer by shewing that in those instances God's particular Warrant and Commission had been revealed as in the Case of Ahud and Jehu or that his Will and Command was fulfilled in their maintaining that Hereditary Succession which he had appointed by deposing an Usurper and setting up the Rightful Heir and this was what Jehoiada did 3. As for other degenerate sorts of Government though they ought not to have been introduced yet when by never so sinful Arts and Practices by Usurpations from abroad or by Factions and Rebellions at home they had any where been throughly setled as the Governments of Babylon and Egypt and Rome were they must be submitted to because where the Original Paternal Government was extinct the Authority thereby devolved upon the Possessors of the supreme Power in these degenerate Forms whether they were Tyrannical or Republican because the supreme Governour of the World would not suffer so great a Part of Mankind to be without any rightful Government for so long a time and yet so they must be unless he either authorize these degenerate Forms upon the Extinction of the Paternal Original Government or restore it by an over-ruling Providence 4. When the Jews themselves were by God's Judgment upon them for their Sins placed under such degenerate kinds of Government they were to pay the same Submission to those Governors that they did to their own Kings they might not depart out of Egypt without Pharaoh's leave first obtained unless God would have warranted them to do it by his express Direction and Command they must not submit to Alexander whilst Darius lived and no Oppression of the Romans was a sufficient excuse for their rebelling against them This being the Sense of the Convocation it will not be difficult to understand what they mean by a thorough Settlement Their Words are these And when Ch. 28. having attained their ungodly Desires whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection or disloyal Subjects by their Rebellious rising against their natural Sovereigns they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their People the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the True and Lawful Possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly setled to be reverenced and obeyed c. These Words being an inference from the Particulars before related in this Chapter we must judg of them from the occasion and design of the whole Chapter and from the particular instances alledged in it First the design of the Chapter is to shew what Obedience is due to Kings or other supreme Magistrates where that mild and temperate Government which had been the Subject of
as then he had to rule with Majesty and Honour a very great Empire Answ First The Design of the Convocation here is to set forth Christ's Universal Empire over all the World and to shew that for all their Dignity and Greatness he did not leave Kings at liberty to do what they list but held himself the Helm of every Government and used their Services insuch sort as were they good or bad and their Designment holy or wicked he ever made them the Executioners of his own just Judgments will and good Pleasure according as he was minded either to bless on punish any Kingdom People or Country All which will be never the less true tho God should not dispose of Kingdoms merely by the events and Success of things without any regard had to Humane Law and Rights Secondly The Chapters here quoted by them are all concerning Nebuchadnezzar In the first Jeremiah prophesieth of his Victories over the Neighbour-Kings and commands them in Gods Name to submit to him And the two latter Chapters contain Nebuchadnezzar's Dreams and Daniel's Interpretation of them In his second Chapter Daniel tells him Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory v. 37. and then proceds to declare that by his Dream was signified the State of the four Monarchies In the fourth Chapter of Daniel is related that Judgment which from God befel Nebuchadnezzar and his Dream whereby it was foretold to him The in ent of which was that the living might know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of Men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men First then as to the four Monarchies we have here no intimation that God did raise up the first Founders of them or did approve of the Settlement they made The Assyrian Monarchy the Convocation takes notice of began in Nimrod contrary to Gods express Institution he having no Authority from God as afterwards Nebuchadnezzar had to enlarge his Dominions and make War against the bordering Princes Cyrus we know indeed was Gods Anointed and was Prophesied of by name long before his Birth and alledg'd his Commission and Charge from God in the Proclamation which he put forth in the first year of his Reign 2. Chron. 36.22.23 Ezr. 1.1 2. God had declared of him I have raised him up in Righteousness and I will direct all his ways Isai 45.13 or as our Translators have noted in the Margin I will make streight all his ways and the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Alexander if we believe Josephus was encouraged by Revelation to undertake his Expedition But the Roman Empire had only Gods Permission as far as we know and at its rise had no further Authority than the Justice of their Arms could give them So that this Prediction is no Evidence whether the first Erection and Settlement of these Monarchies were approved of by God or not if they were erected by his Command and Appointment or by a just Title they were approved of by him if by Injustice and Violence they were only made use of by him as all other Wickedness is to bring about by an over-ruling Providence his own just and righteous Decrees Secondly as to what concerns Nebuchadnezzar himself First all those Expressions have an immediate relation to an extraordinary Case wherein God had revealed his positive Will commanding the several Kings mentioned by the Prophet Jeremiah to serve Nebuchadnezzar and to put their Necks under his Yoak and threatning them with the severest Punishments If they would not do it with the Sword and with the Pestilence and with the Famine untill he had consumed them by Nebuchadnezzar 's Hand Jer. 27 v. 8. and afterwards in the Book of Daniel God takes away all his Power and Greatness to bring him to a sense of his perpetual dependence upon God and to an awe and reverence of the Divine Majesty Secondly God had declared by his Prophet that he had given all the Neighbouring Kingdoms into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon his servant and his Commands were in a publick and solemn manner given out and sent to all the Kings round about to charge 'em that they should without any Resistance or Opposition resign up themselves and their Kingdoms in subjection to him And this being some years before hand with such Zeal and Earnestness publickly and solemnly declared by Jeremiah and so notoriously known in all the adjacent Countries Nebuchadnezzar himself could not be ignorant of it for which reason he gave such strict Charge concerning Jeremiah that he should be used with all manner of kindness and respect Jer. 39.11 Afterwards Daniel in expounding his first Dream had plainly told him that the God of Heaven had made him a King of Kings and had given him a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory Yet Nebuchadnezzar ascribes all to himself and therefore this Judgment was inflicted on him to make him sensible that all his boasted Greatness was owing to God alone who has absolute Authority over the greatest of Kings and can advance to the height of Empire the basest of Men and those that walk in Pride he is able to abase Besides what relates personally to Nebuchadnezzar there is a further intention in the words which respects all Princes in all Ages of the World For Nebuchadnezzar is set as an Example of Gods Almighty Power and of the frailty of all Human Greatness to let the mighty Potentates of the Earth know that all their Power is from God and that he can deprive them of it whenever he pleases But Thirdly This does not prove that God will give or take away the Power of other Princes in the same extraordinary manner that he both raised and debased Nebuchadnezzar For as in ancient times there were-Prophets and Workers of Miracles so these Prophets were sometimes sent by God himself to declare in his name that he had bestowed Kingdoms or Empires upon certain persons as upon Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus c. And then these were no Usurpers because they acted by Gods Appointment and had a right precedent to any Conquest or Thorough Settlement But there wrre in all Ages many Usurpers too and they had no Authority from God nor were the People obliged to obey them having no Command from him to do it And as an Usurper can have no Authority for his Usurpations for if he had they would be no Usurpations nor he an Usurper so the continuance of his Usurpations cannot make him theless an Usurper but the greater and the more injurious Usurper Nebuchadnezzar was no Usurper from the beginning because he acted by Authority from God and if concerning any Prince can be shewn such a Commission now he is not an Usurper but a Rightful King and we must forthwith acknowledge his Authority without staying for a thorough setlement but if he be at first an Usurper he must
always be so unless he acquires a Right by some other means than a setled and habitual Injustice The Scripture no where informs us that God authorises Usurpers after a thorough Settlement but on the contrary that those are no Usurpers concerning whom God by his Prophets has given assurance to the People that himself had raised them up to the Throne Fourthly All are now to be lookt upon as Usurpers who invade the Rights of their Neighbour Princes for the same Reason that we esteem all pretenders to Miracles and Prophecys no better than Cheats and Impostors For Nebuchadnezzar had Prophecys delivered coucerning him which entitled him to the Kingdoms he possessed For tho he sin'd in Invading the Dominions of other Princes if he did not believe the Prophet or knew not of his own Title granted him by God himself to them yet he did them no injury because their Right was already transferred to him and therefore his Sin was only that of a Man who robs another of that which is his own not knowing it to be so But now Prophecys are ceased as well as Miracles and God acts by the ordinary course of his Providence as well as by the ordinary course of Nature Miracles were necessary to awaken Mens attention and put them upon a serious consideration of Religion and bring them to an acknowledgment of the Truth of it and so were such Revelations needful to manifest Gods infinite Power and Majesty and to make the greatest Princes stand in awe of him but when once these ends are served we are left to the Moral and Divine Laws of Reason and of Scripture for our Direction in the performance of our Duty as we are to the Physical Laws of Nature in the Provisions of Health and Life and to conclude that every Conqueror has the same Right to our Obedience that Nebuchadnezzar had to be obeyed by the Nations whom he had subdued is as groundless as to think that any man who comes with lying Wonders and confident Stories has a Power of Miracles and a Gift of Prophecys God many times by a wonderful Providence casts down Usurpers when they are most setled and secure in their unjust Possessions and it is the Glory of his Infinite Wisdom that when he suffers the World to go on in one constant Tenour and does not interrupt wicked men in heir enterprises and practices yet the still holds the Helm of Government and the most lasting and setled Usurpations cannot in the least prejudice the execution and accomplishment of his just and Holy Decrees And in this he exercises his Dominion over Mankind as he shews his Dominion over Nature by a steddy and constant concourse with natural Agents notwithstanding the many seeming Irregularities that appear in the World and we ought no more to imagine his Authority in any Usurpers from whom we promise our selves Protection then we may suppose a Miraculous Power in those Charms which sometimes cure Diseases The Earth is the Lords and all that dwell in it and it cannot be denied but God might if he had pleased frequently raise up Princes as he did Nebuchadnezzar but then he would send his Prophets to give notice of it For we must conclude in this case as the Convocation does in the case of Jehu that it is unlawful to follow such extraordinary examples except first that it might plainly appear that there are now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself Can. 25. with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf and that we might be assured of every such Prince as is by Usurpation setled in anothers Dominions that God himself had in express words required and commanded us to submit to him by Name as he commanded the Nations whom Nebuchadnezzar conquered to serve him declaring that he had given all those Lands into the Hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon his Servant Jer. 27 6. But we may observe that as Nebuchadnezzar was raised up by God himself so the Kings of those Nations were commanded to submit to him as well as their People and did submit or were subdued by him so that the Peoples part in that Revolution was no more than what Subjects may do now if such a thing should be brought about by Providence for when the King has submitted himself there is no Question to be made but that the Subjects may do so too II. Having considered the Arguments from the Authority of the Convocation I now proceed to the Arguments from the Reason of the Thing itself By an Usurper in this Question is plainly meant one who is in Possession of the Kingdom contrary to the Laws and Constitution of the Realm and without any Title but that of Possession and an Usurper In Possession is opposed to a Rightful King out of Possession whether he be either first actually dispossessed and driven out of his Kingdom or secondly have an undoubted Right to it but has been always kept out of Possession and could never come to the enjoyment of it But it 's granted that First If the Title be doubtful the Subjects are at liberty to submit to the Possessor and ought not to embroil the Nation with Wars and sacrifice the Peace and Happiness of it for an Uncertainty And in this case the Subjects are oblig'd to stand by him to whom they have sworn Allegiance till a clear Title be made out against him upon defect whereof the Oath was taken upon supposition that there was no precedent Obligation to another Prince and therefore must oblige till it appears that his Competitor claims by an Hereditary or other antecedent Right Secondly If in an Hereditary Monarchy after the thorough Settlement of an Usurper it should so happen that the Royal Line had failed and the Right of Succession were extinct the People might be oblig'd for their own and for their Countrey 's sake to submit to the Usurper and after their Submission he would become their lawful King For tho he could have deriv'd no Authority from his Thorough Settlement notwithstanding there were none surviving of the Royal Line and the Subjects might have yielded themselves up to the Obedience of any other Person if they had had a convenient opportunity so as to have done it without bringing damage and mischief to the Publick by it yet they might be obliged to submit to him to prevent that Slaughter and confusion which else would ensue and if they should have resused to do it they would have sinned against God in neglecting the safety of themselves and of their Country supposing nevertheless that no Injustice would have been done to the Usurper thereby and that he could have had no Right before their Submission The Question therefore is Whether an Usurper who has no claim to the Crown but that of Possession tho he be never so long and throughly setled in the Throne can have a Right to the Allegiance of the Subjects whilst their Rightful King who has an Hereditary or
whatsoever other undoubted Title by the Constitution of the Kingdom is alive and requires them to bear Faith and Allegiance to him The Sum of what can be said in the Affirmative seems to be this That as it is shewn at large in the Convocation Book Christ has reserved the Government of the World and the disposal of Kingdoms entirely to himself and can make or dispose Kings as he pleaseth notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Kingdoms and as he first ruled the world by frequent Revelations and Prophecies so since these are ceased he doth it by his Providence only for he always retains the same immediate Inspection with human affairs but now manifests his Pleasure and gives out his Commands as Governor of the world by the Declarations of his Providence that is by the Success and Event of things for he could not govern the World as supreme Lord and King of it or which is all one he could not require our Obedience in Compliance to his disposal of Kingdoms if his Will were not some way or other discovered to us and this being now the only way whereby he discovers it we must acquiesce in the Events of his Providence so as to obey Christ the Supreme Governor of the world in the Person of him whosoever he be whom he has set over us making no enquiry into the Justice of the Cause or into the means by which the Person now fully possessed of another Princes Power and Dominions came so possessed of them For God can take away and transfer any Right or Title as he pleaseth and the Conduct of his Providence in a Thorough Settlement of the Government is a sufficient evidence that he has transferred it because it is the only evidence we now can have And therefore we ought to look upon the Person thus setled as invested with God's Authority and to pay him a full and entire Allegiance as his Vicegerent with the same Submission and upon the same Reasons as if he had commanded us to do it by an express and immediate Revelation since his Providence is now the only Revelation or Manifestation of his will that we can expect and it must be instead of all other Revelations to us This seems to be the full of what can be fairly offered in the Affirmative and it is liable to the following Difficulties I. By Gods Providence must be understood either his Permission in concurring with Natural Causes to produce their Effects or his Appointment First If he only suffer or permit a thing to be done without denying his Concourse or interposing his Almighty Power to prevent it this by no means proves his Approbation of the Event or Success of it For he permits all the Wickedness that is committed in the World and suffers the worst men to prosper many times in their evil Courses Secondly If by Gods Providence be meant his Appointment this may signifie First that he from all Eternity decreed to permit the Event and designed and ordained it to advance his own Glory and to bring about some good to Mankind by it And so the Treachery of Judas was appointed Act. 2.23 that is God had decreed to suffer it to come to pass and had ordained it when come to pass for the Salvation of Mankind And there can be no doubt but the final Issue and ultimate event of all the worst Actions is ordained of God and approved of by him but the Case before us is of an intermediate and subordinate End which must be judged of whether it be good or bad by the Nature of the thing and not by any success or event That all will at last conclude in some good End in the long Series and Chain of Causes and Events which are ordained by God's Decree is most certain but then this doth not prove that the intermediate Causes and Events are approved of by him but we must enquire into the Justice of the Cause whereby we can only know whether the Event be pleasing to him or not Secondly By Gods Providence as it signifies his Appointment may be meant his Will or Command And this Will or Command is either for the doing of a thing or for our Submission and acquiescence in it after it is done His command for the doing of a thing cannot be known before the Event but by the Justice of the Action or by Revelation to neither of which the Doctor pretends And the Event cannot discover to us God's command to do a thing which is already done and past and I have in part shewn and shall more fully shew afterwards that it can as little discover to us his Approbation of the thing done or that it is his Will that we should acquiesce and submit to it II. Whereas it is said that since God now governs the World only by his Providence we must of Necessity acquiesce in the Event of things or else we should disobey him in not submitting to his disposal of the Governments of the World First God governs the World so as to require no Duty or Act of Obedience now of us but what the Laws of Nature or of Scripture enjovn And because Revelations are ceased it seems requisite that he should have revealed it in the Scriptures if he had required us to acquiesce in the Events of things and to look upon the most unjust Usurper as invested with his own Authority when he is once gotten into Possession of the Throne I say this seems necessary to have been revealed since Natural Reason cannot dictate it to us for in Gods permission of all othersort of Injustice in the World we never imagine that any Right can accrue to the Injuring Person by it Secondly God by his Power and Wisdom so orders things as to make the most unjust actions subservient to the Ends of Justice and Righteousness but not to reward Usurpation with the Investiture of his own Authority or to turn wrong into right And all that we learn from Scripture concerning God's Providence is that we must rely upon it for Protection in the performance of our known Duty and by consequence that we are to regard the Justice only of a Cause not the Success of it III. This would make it unlawful for any Prince who is dispossessed or excluded from the Throne to wage War against the Usurper in defence of his own Right For he is supposed to have no longer any Right after the Usurper is in full Possession because that Right which God gives to the Usurper the Lawful King must be divested of unless there can be two opposite Sovereign Authorities at the same time and both from God who severally retain the whole and entire Right at once to the same Kingdom But we read that David waged War against Ish-bosheth who was possessed of the Kingdom of all Israel for two years and against the Jebusites who were in possession of Jerusalem and he was in continual Wars before he
with wicked men by his Providence but concurs with them as if they were Natural not as they are Moral Agents by sustaining and enabling their Natural Faculties to produce their Effects he never inclines their Minds nor influences their Wills to Evil but oftentimes over-rules their first Intentions and diverts their Will already determined and resolved upon Mischiefs to certain Objects that the Evil may most tend to his Glory and the good of Mankind in the Punishment of Sinners or in the Exercise of the Patience and other Vertues of Good Men. As to the distinction of Events P. 12. That some God only permits and some he orders and appoints it is grounded upon this That he orders and appoints all that are good and just and permits the contrary But then this appointment is known to us not by God's Providence but by his Law For Providence appoints us to do nothing but only concurs with Men and assists them in the performance of what God's Laws appoint or command The most that can be said is That Providence may sometimes be an Indication to us of God's Will and Command but that can be only in Events that are miraculous and supernatural when there is nothing repugnant in them to his Will already known and declared For even Miracles wrought to carry on wicked Designs are to be looked upon as false and the Impostures and Delusions only of the Devil 2. Of that particular Providence which watches over Kingdoms and orders the Government of them and the difference of it from that Providence which guides and influences private Affairs I have said enough already and have shewn That God with his own Hand immediately directs the Motions of the great Wheels of Providence but permits none to move as they please themselves For I take it to be a very wrong Notion of the Permission of God's Providence that he leaves things to move as they please themselves No he rules and restrains and limits what he only permits and puts a check and stop to it when he pleases And by God's more immediate direction I understand not that God ever acts at a distance or leaves any thing in the world to it self but that he sometimes acts in a way to us more visible and remarkable though the steddy and unobserved Influence of Providence has as much of God's immediate Prefence in it as have the most extraordinary and miraculous Events The other Propositions are but Consequences of these Three and therefore need not to be particularly examined and if these Three only were but well proved and not laid down as if they were so very plain to his purpose as to carry their own Evidence with them P. 16. I should readily agree to all the rest and indeed to the whole Book as far as it concerns this matter except some few Particulars less material to the merits of the Cause But I despair of seeing these Propositions so effectually proved as to induce me to think that by what way soever that can be thought of P. 13. a Prince is advanced to the Throne he is as truly placed in it by God as if he had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were Or that it is impossible there should be a wrong King P. 14. unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. I believe the Self-Evidence of these Propositions can work in few men so much assurance as this amounts to The Fundamental Mistake is That the Doctor confounds the Exercise of Power or Authority with the Right of it and supposes that every one who has the Administration of Power has a Right to the Administration of it which are plainly Two very different things For the Administration or Exercise of Power is a Natural Act and may be without that Moral Qualification which is implied in the Right of Power or Authority Thus in his first Proposition That all Civil Power and Authority is from God If he mean the Exercise of all Civil Power I deny it because it may be exercised by him who ought not to exercise it If he mean the Right to exercise Civil Power and Authority the Proposition is true but nothing to the purpose So that either his Proposition supposes the thing in Dispute and is false or if it be true it is to no purpose And the same Mistake runs through the rest of these Propositions For if by Civil Power and Authority he understand only the Exercise and Administration of it he supposes that which ought to be proved if he understand the Right it self though these Propositions were true yet still they would prove nothing But the Doctor makes an Objection to himself P. 15. which has great weight in it If this be so that no Obedience is due to the Rightful King when another is settled in the Throne what does a Legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects He answers It bars all other Humane Claims No other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right and Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince as far as they can That is against all Mankind but not against God's disposal of Crowns and therefore when God transfers the Kingdom he transfers our Allegiance which is due and annexed to his Authority whether this Authority be conveyed by a Legal Succession or by any other means But notwithstanding all this the Legal Right can signifie nothing unless it be in that Interval of Time between the Dispossession of one Prince and the Settlement of another For if the Legal Possessor be in the Throne his Legal Title can be of no advantage to him because his Divine Authority would secure him while he is in Possession as well without it and when an Usurper is once settled it can then no longer be of any account to him for though it be good against all Mankind yet not against God in his disposal of Crowns but when God has given away his Kingdom to another the Rightful King must submit unless he may plead his Humane Claim against God's Donation Before a Settlement indeed he that has the Legal Right has the Odds on his side But Men are so partial in their Judgments in all things wherein their own Interest is so nearly concerned that every one who were exposed to any great Danger from the Usurper would easily perswade himself that he might become his Subject and that the Legal King had no longer any Right to his Allegiance the Usurper being in his Opinion settled enough to become invested with God's Authority So that a Legal Title would upon these Grounds be little more than an empty Word or Notion and would either be of no use at all or of little benefit when there should be most need of it I shall not much trouble my self about the several Degrees of Settlement P. 17. and of the Proportionable Submission which they
ought to conclude on the other side that since the Apostle gives no intimation that he uses the word in an improper and unusual sense therefore we are to understand it only of those who have legal Titles and the rest are excepted against plainly enough because they are not mentioned nor is the least intimation given of them when in the other places of Scripture it is manifest at first sight that the word is applied to a different sense than that which it commonly has in Scripture or in any other Book 2. If the Sriptures make no distinction between Kings who have a Right Title and those that are Usurpers who have only the Name and Title of Kings it is because there needs no other distinction than the Reason of the thing which sufficiently declares the difference The Scripture had never declared any distinction of Husbands yet the Woman of Samaria well enough understood that there must be one and therefore replied that she had no Husband though she had one who was called so and our Saviour answers her Thou hast well said I have no husband for thou hast had five husbands and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband in that thou saidst truly John 4.17 18. And if it should now be asked any Man who is not prepossessed with the Notion of a thorough Settlement whether St. Paul by the higher Powers ordained of God meant Rightful Kings only or Usurpers likewise he would scarce be able for some time to imagine what reason there could be to doubt whether Rightful Kings only were meant by those expressions or to conceive what interest Usurpers could have in that Text. And this Dr. Sherlock seems to own Pref. when he says That the Apprehensions of novelty and singularity had cramped his freedom and liberty of thinking Pag. 3. and that his Scheme of Government may startle some Men at first before they have well consider'd it So that it is evident that this Interpretation is a Novelty and Singularity which will startle most Men and that this Text in its most plain and obvious sense is to be understood of Rightful Kings and if others are to be comprehended in it this must be proved not from the words themselves but from other Reasons for the words do not naturally include them the utmost that can be said is that they may possibly comprehend them because they are not always used in a strict sense but that they are not so used here is the thing to be proved if usurped Powers are ordained of God the Text plainly commands subjection to them but if they be not ordained of him it as plainly commands subjection to Rightful Kings in opposition to them And it cannot be concluded from the different sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon different occasions that Usurpers are ordained of God but it must be first proved that they are ordained of him and then and not before it must be allowed that the signification of that word i◠to be so extended in the Text as to be understood of them as well as of other Kings 3. Besides if this Argument from the Scriptures making no distinction between Kings who have a Legal Title and those who have none prove any thing it must prove too much to make at all to this purpose For the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings who have both a Legal and a Divine Right and those who have neither but are Usurpers both against God and Man Thus Abimelech is stiled King Judg 9. without any manner distinction or explication though he was set up not only by the most wicked and bloody means but in opposition to the Authority of God himself who then governed the People of Israel by raising them up Judges to Deliver and to Rule over them and for this Reason when they would have made Gideon King he rejected it as a thing which would be agreat offence against God and a notorious contempt of him Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon rule thou over us both thou and thy son and thy sons son also for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian And Gideon said unto them I will not rule over you the Lord shall rule over you Judg. 8.22 23. And since that God was afterwards so displeased with the Children of Israel for desiring a King and said that in asking a King they had rejected him that he should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8.7 The People of Shechem in setting up a King of their own chusing without leave from God or asking counsel of him must be guilty of a much greater affront against God for they rejected him in a more insolent and provoking manner not contenting themselves with those whom God used to raise up for them and not regarding his choice Convoc Ch. 13. Can. 1 or expecting his pleasure in it they presumed to chuse them a Prince of their own Abimelech therefore could be King by no Authority from God but by his Permission only and yet the Scripture gives the Title of King to him as well as to Saul and David because he was in full Power and exercised all outward Acts of Supreme Authority though he had really no Authority but by Force only and fuccess in his wickedness assumed to himself the name of King Isbbosheth likewise was set up by Abner against David whom God had nominated and caused to be anointed King to reign over all Sauls Dominions after his death yet the Scripture says in the same words in which it speaks of all other Kings that Ishbosheth was made King over all Israel and that he reigned two years 2 Sam. 2.9 10. And Athaliah is said to have reigned over the Land six years 2 Kings 11.1 tho she had no manner of Right either from God or Man as the Doctor himself confesses and maintains because Joash was alive on whom God had entailed the Crown as being descended from David She is notwithstanding said to have reigned over the land in the same terms that are used in Scripture concerning the most Rightful Kings nominated and appointed by God himself The examples then of Abimelech Ishbosheth and Athaliah abundantly shew that Usurpers tho' they exercise the Supreme Authority and are in full Possession of it are not therefore the ordinance of God and that it is not impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no for Abimelech and Ishbosheth were Kings and Athaliah was Queen without any Authority at all and yet not whether God would or no but by his Permission And from hence it is evident that the word King or Queen doth not always signifie in Scripture a Person invested with God's Authority though it be used without distinction and that the sense of the same words in particular places of Scripture must be known not always from any distinction annexed to them but from the Circumstances and Reasons of things
strengthned himself by Lies and Perjury and continued his Usurpation by the Murder of Gratian and the banishment of Valentinian and was the same unjust Usurper till his death (p) Zos lib. 4. Zoâ—… indeed says that Theodosius h 〈…〉 nted that Maximus should be acknowledged Emperour and commanded his Statues to be set up that he might under a shew of Kindness and Friendship have the better opportunity to ruin him but this is against the Authority of all other Historians and Zosimus never omits any occasion to defame the Christian Emperours and particularly Theodosius And besides his hatred to Christianty which he exactly copyed from Eunapius whose History he is is said to abridg he is singular in other circumstances relating to this very Story (q) Omne judicium quod vafra mente conceptum injuria non jura reddendo Maximus infandissimus Tyrannorum credidit promulgandum damnabimus nullus igitur sibi lege ejus nullus judicio blandiatur Theodos cod lib. 15. Tu. 14. De infirmandis his quae sub Tyrannis aut Barbaris gesta sunt But it is more material to observe that Theodosius declared all the Laws and Edicts of Maximus to be of no Force or Authority and that this was no more than the Christian Emperours used to do in such cases Which implies that the Christians did not think Tyrants or Usurpers received any Authority from God for if they had all their Acts which had been according to natural Right and Justice must have been valid as being made by such as had God's Authority to enact Laws and decree Justice and it would have been sinful to declare them void ab initio and of no effect For if God had empowered them to act as Emperours against the standing Laws and Constitutions of the Empire he had authorized them to give out Edicts and Decrees which must have been as obligatory in Conscience as those of the Lawful Emperours themselves and whatever they wanted of the Formality of Law ought to have been supplyed by the Lawful Emperours and not all their Acts to have been declared invalid and never to have been of any Authority or Obligation St. Ambrose was not the Bishop that would tamely have seen Gods Authority in his Vicegerents thus despised but Theodosius would have found him the same Man that he did upon some other occasions if this had been the Doctrin of the Church But it may not be unfit to observe a little more particularly of Eugenius how well setled he was in this Usurped Power (r) Theod. lib. 5. c. 24. Niceph. lib. 12. c. 39. The Historians relate that the disproportion and inequality was so great between his Forces and the Forces of Theodosius that nothing less than that Miracle which was wrought for him could have delivered Theodosius out of his hands Eugenius was so confident and so secure of success that he said Theodosius had a mind to be destroyed and indeed if he had not been encouraged by a Revelation he would never have ventured a battel at that disadvantage but must have been forced to protract the War till he could have got together a much greater strength which the Commanders of his Army all advised him to but he was resolved to come to a Battel Eugenius retired and stayed at a distance expecting the news of the Victory and gave Order to have Theodosius brought alive bound to him And the overthrow of his Army was so unexpected to him and so incredible that when some of his own Soldiers who upon a conviction that God fought against them had gone over to Theodosius were sent to fetch Eugenius before him he asked them whether they had brought Theodosius along with them not suspecting but that they came to acquaint him with the Victory they had gained him (s) Secrat lib. 5. c. 25. Aug. Civ Dei lib. 5. c. 25. Eugenius had caused Valentinian to be strangled as Secrates relates tho' St. Augustine leaves it doubtful whether he was murthered or died by some other Accident (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib. 5. c. 24. but in Theodoret the Emperour Theodosius when Eugenius was brought to him puts him in mind both of his Treason against Valentinian and of his Rebellion and continued Usurpation afterwards till his defeat And not he alone but St. Ambrose as I have shewn after the death of Eugenius and I think I may say all Authors that have given any account of him have esteemed him no better from the beginning to the end of his pretended Reign than an Usurper who never had any Right either from God or Man I know of but one example in Antiquity that may seem to suit with the Doctors Notion and it is that of Theophilus of (w) Socrat. lib. 6. c. 2. Alexandria who at the Battel between Theodosius and Maximus had sent Isidorus with Presents and with Letters to both of them to be delivered to him that should come off Conquerour This some censure him for very highly and others think it a Calumny invented by his Enemies to defame him but it had been so far from any Aspersion if Maximus had been immediately to commence God's Vicegerent if he could but have subdued Theodosius that it had been no more than what all the other Bishops must soon after have done and he ought to have been commended rather for his zeal in attending the first Designations of Providence to pay a ready and early Obedience to the new Emperour and his Enemies had been strangly mistaken in reporting this as one of the worst Marks of Infamy they could fasten upon him I shall conclude all in Doctor Sherlock's own Words p. 54. That we must obey and submit to our Prince is a Duty which the Laws of God and Nature enjoyn And we must not suffer any Man be he Lawyer or Divine to perswade us that this is not our Duty But what Prince we must obey and to what particular Prince we must pay our Allegiance the Law of God does not tell us but this we must learn from the Laws of the Land FINIS An Appendix to The Title of an Usurper after a Thorough Settlement examined containing some Remarks on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of his Case of Allegeance THe Vindication has little new in it as to the main Controversy and not withstanding there be some variations I believe the Doctor will give me leave to say that if his Case of Allegiance be answered the Vindication of it will need no Confutation But because there are some things in it that may seem to obviate several Arguments that I have brought I shall briefly endeavour to remove those Objections and leave the rest to his learned Adversary The Convocation teaches Ch. 28. that when changes of Government are brought about either by the Rebellion of Subjects or the Invasion of Foreign Princes and the degenerate Formes of Government are established the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the
true and lawful Possessor being always Gods Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of these that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly settled to be reverenced and obeyed From whence the Dr. P. 8. argues that it is plain it is not a legal Authority by the Death or Cession of the Rightful King for we are to obey it as Gods Authority though it be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor and though the present Possessor should have no other visible Title to it but such unjust Force But why may not the Authority be said to be wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor when he is forced to resign his Right or quit his Claim May not Consent be extorted and Oaths extorted and may not a Prince be reduced to that condition as at last to resolve for ever to relinquish his Right when he has no hopes left of recovering it and does not History furnish us with such examples However that which is wrung from a lawful Possessor by Death is to be sure wrung by Force from him and the words do not import that the Possessor is supposed to be living after this injustice and violence And by these ways Authority may be said to be unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the true and lawful Possessor though the Authority it self properly and strictly speaking cannot be so obtained For in the Doctor 's opinion it is conferred by God upon a Thorough Settlement and in the opinion of others it is conferred by him upon the Death or Cession of the Person in whom it before was but whensoever it is transferred it is certainly given by God and cannot be torn or forced from the true and lawful Possessor but the external Power and Exercise of Authority may and when it is thus gotten it may afterwards be an accidental means of attaining to the Authority it self And this is that the Convocation speakes of that men by wicked Arts and Practices may arrive at Power and at last when there is no better Pretence or Claim may become invested with the Authority it self as well as exercise the outward Acts of it This the Instances subjoined of the Authority of the Egyptian and Babylonian Kings over the Jews shew to be the meaning of the Convocation for it would be absurd to take their words in such a sense as all the examples immediately added for the explication of them doe not explain but rather confute and contradict and if the literal Sense and Grammatical Construction as the Doctor urges seem to import this we must certainly reject it or else we shall make the Convocation argue as wise and learned men never did and then it will be to little purpose to enquire after their meaning be it what it will But indeed no Grammar nor Logick I think can prove from their words that the true and lawful Possessor is supposed to be alive and to assert his Right The Doctor 's observation concerning the mention of a King de Facto in the Convocation Book I cannot think will prove of any service to him and I believe he thought so himself too when he wrote his Case of Allegiance or else he would never have omitted it though now he makes great use of it But the plain meaning of a King de Facto there is no more than any Rightful King under whom a man lives whether he be his natural Sovereign or any Foreign Prince to whom he is become Subject justly and lawfully but not with prejudice to the Right of his own Sovereign For as the Doctor observes this is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon to whom the Israelites had been in Subjection eighteen years without any Competition of another Prince to their Allegiance Now Ahud was not their natural Prince but only the King under whom they then lived and who had then a Right to their Obedience so that if here is not the least intimation that a King de Facto is opposed to a King de Jure but the King de Facto under whom he lived is no more than the King under whom he de Facto lived that is whose Subject he actually was whether he were his Natural Sovereign or a Foreign Prince But it must be observed that this is not spoken only with respect to Ahud's killing Eglon but with respect likewise to Adonijah's Usurpation in the Reign of David his Father Can. 27. For they say that though a Subject should make never so specious and solemn pretences that God had called him to murder the King de Facto under whom he lived and should have first procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did yet this would not justify him nor his Adherents if he should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master which is just the same thing that was before expressed in other words by Murthering the King de Facto under whom he lived So that a King de Facto in this place cannot be opposed to a King de Jure unless David himself were only a King de Facto The Doctor moves a Dispute P. 17. what kind of Submission of the Rightful King may be sufficient to transfer his Right and whether a King does not submit when he leaves his Country without any legal Authority of Government and leaves his People in the hands of a prevailing Prince or whether nothing be a submission but renouncing his Right and making a Formal Resignation and Conveyance of Power To this I answer that it is of the Nature of Right that it cannot be transferred without the consent of the Person whose Right it is unless it be by some person who has a superior Right to the thing disposed of for what is a mans own cannot be given away from him against his will but by one who has a Superiour and better Right to it than that which he holds it by And it is sufficient if any Submission or Consent of the Rightful King be necessary to transfer Allegiance and if it cannot be proved that God the Supream Lord and Proprietor of all things is pleased to dispose of the Right to Kingdoms otherwise than he does of the Right which private men have to their Estates it must be nenessary that such Acts intervene as are required among men to convey a Right which can be no other than such as imply a Consent But what kind of Consent is necessary and how it ought to be expressed is quite another question which depends upon particular Cases and Circumstances and it is sufficient in the present case to say that a forced Submission is a forced Consent and that is some sort of Consent and not an involuntary Act though not so voluntary as if there had been no Force The Doctor cannot but acknowledge that such a Submission of men with respect to themselves P. 13. gives a Right for it is a voluntary Consent though extorted by
the Land and our own Oaths and God himself by his Authority in his Vicegerents by whom these Laws are enacted laies upon us But it is said g. 12. That it makes no difference in this case to distinguish between what God permits and what he does for this distinction does not relate to the events of things but to the wickedness of Men which is the only reason for this Distinction for the Scripture never speaks of God's bare permission of any events but makes him the Author of all the good or evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies The events of all things are in his Hands and are ordered and disposed by his Will and Counsel as they must be if God go verns the World but God cannot be the Author of any wickedness cannot inspire Men with any wicked Counsels or Designs nor incline their Wills to the commission of it and therefore this we say God only permits but when it comes to Action he over-rules their wicked Designs to accomplish his own Counsels and Decrees and either disappoints what they intended or gives success to them when he can serve the ends of his Providence by their wickedness and herein consists the unsearchable Wisdom of Providence that God brings about his own Counsels by the free Ministries of Men He permits Men to do wickedly but all events which are for the good or evil of private Men or publick Societies are ordered by him as the Prophet declares Amos 3.6 Shall there be evil in a City and the Lord hath not done it 1. I answer There is no Reason why we should distinguish in this case between the Counsels and Designs of wicked Men and their Actions in the execution of them for God concurs as much to the Physical Operations of the Mind in purposing and contriving Evil as he does to the corporal acts in the bringing it to effect for the Mind is as little capable of thinking as the Body is of moving without God's continual concourse both having a necessary dependance upon him in the exercise of their proper Faculties And the Resolution and Contrivance to do Evil is the event or result of Thought and Consideration as the success in the performance and accomplishment of the Evil designed and resolved upon is the event of the several outward Actions which are done in order to it so that God concerns himself no more in the events which proceed from the exercise of the bodily Powers in bringing about ill Designs than in those which proceed from the Operations of the Mind in the projects and contrivances of Evil he permits both and concurs with both as they are the acts of Natural Causes in the production of their effects but as they have a tendency to Evil he concurs with neither He leaves Men a Liberty of Acting and Thinking and concurs with them accordingly he suffers them to sin and does not take from them the use of their Natural Faculties of Body or Mind though they employ them to ill Purposes and about wrong Objects 2. Evil whether considered Physically or Morally that is as it signifies Affliction or as it signifies Sin is in the Action as well as in the Event and therefore the words of the Prophet Amos are applicable to both alike For not only the Events of all things but the Actions of all Creatures are in Gods hands and are ordained and disposed by his Will and Counsel and by the Doctors arguing in all Actions as well as in all Events there is no distinction between what God permits and what he does which he says relates only to the wickedness of Men and therefore it does not relate to the Actions of Men but only to the wickedness of humane Actions For God gives success he says to wicked Designs when they come to Action he sets up Kings he advances them to the Throne he gives them the Throne Pag. 12 13. that is he goes along with them and assists them in the attainment of the Supreme Power and at last puts it into their hands So that they have his concurrence and assistance as much before the settlement as after it and he that at last gives them the Plenitude of Power gave them all along the opportunity and the means of attaining it For God makes no immediate Donation of it but bestows it upon them by his Providence that is by affording them ways and means to come by it The plain consequence of which must be that God not only suffers Men by wicked means to get into Power and then bestows his Authority upon them but he conduct them in every step they take and at last when they arrive at the Throne he places them in it For what God gives by Providence he does not give all at once but by the several degrees of success by which it is attained and the success of every particular action must be his Gift as much as the event it self And if every Event be of Gods doing every Action must be so too because Events proceed from Actions and are no otherwise done or brought about than by the performance of those Actions which are requisite to produce them and to say that God is the Author of the Event but not of the Action is to say that he is the Author of the Effect but not of the Causes Acting whereas he cannot appoint the Effect without appointing the Cause to Act unless the Effect could be produced without its Cause 3. End and Event are both but relative Terms the end of one sort or series of Actions may be but the begining of another and the Event or Effect of one Enterprise the Cause of another For that which is an Effect in respect of its Cause is a Cause in respect of its Effect and that which in respect of the means is the Event is the means in respect of another Event If then the Event of all things is from God and therefore gives a Right a Rebel or Usurper would have a Right to every Fort or Castle he gets into his Possession in order to his Thorough Settlement in the whole Kingdom for that in its kind is as truly an Event as a Thorough Settlement it self is in a different kind for he that possesses himself of a Castle has gained his end as much for that time and in that particular design as he that is possessed of a Kingdom has gained his end in the full accomplishment of his desires and designs And when he has his wishes in this perhaps he stops not here but makes this End and Event only a step to another Enterprise upon a Neighbour Kingdom and then the obtaining the first Kingdom is but a means to gain the latter as the several degrees of success were the means of obtaining the first But all other Events whatsoever are as means in Gods Hands and are made use of by him for the bringing about the final Events of things God therefore does not