are not to be measur'd from Providence but from some other Rule Man and Wife come together by Providence but whether they are related and a relation is thereby contracted is not to be known by Providence but by the Rule that directs and appoints that Relation But if a Man and Woman come together but not according to God's Ordinance they are not Man and Wife nor is there any such relation between them tho one is by Providence as well as the other from whence nothing is more plain than that Providence is no Rule in such cases nor is any Relation to be known meerly from Providence but from some other Rule And this shews the fallacy of what follows I shall instance saith he only in the Case before us if the Providence of God can remove one King and set up another this does not alter the duty of Subjects to their Prince yet it changes the object of their Allegiance as it changes their Prince the Laws of God prescribe the duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him Now grant all this the difficulty still remains Is Providence the Rule whereby to discover whether or no the object of Allegiance is chang'd or whether one King is remov'd from being King and another set up When a Master is remov'd from his Family or a Husband from his Wife there are by Providence but if it be not according to the Laws of God in one Case and according to the Laws of the Society in the other the Acts of Providence are no Evidence that the objects of the respective duties are chang'd nor are a Rule for the Servants or Wife to pay the respective duties to those who possess the place or station of the Persons so remov'd by Providence But the truth is all this is Ambiguous and Sophistical God makes and removes and sets up Kings by his Providence and so he does Husbands and Masters But every Person that possesses the places of these by Providence is not therefore a King a Husband a Master but such only who posses them according to the respective Laws and Rules that constitute and appoint them And therefore altho it be true that God makes Kings Husbands and Masters by his Providence yet it is true likewise that Persons may by Providence sustain the places of them and yet be neither of these And therefore Providence is no Rule nor can determine our Practices and Duties but in all such cases we are to be judg'd by Laws and not by Providences A Woman is not determin'd by Providence whether a Man that co-habits with her be her Husband nor is a Subject determin'd by Providence whether the Person that Possesses the Throne be his King but by the Laws which direct to the Person as all other Laws do as well as to the Duty and which are a Rule to us warranted by God himself and back'd with his Authority and Providence is no Rule nor have we any waâ—â—ant or direction to observe it as such And therefore notwithstanding all the Dr. hath here said the charge stands good against him That the Dr. mistakes the Question Postscript p. we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule And now saith he let us consider the opposition he makes between Humane Laws of Entail and Providence for he confesses they do oppose Laws made by Divine Authority that is the Laws of the Land which entail the Crown to Providence or to the Providence of God in making Kings I do confess it and I thought I had told him wherein the opposition consisted that the one was a Rule and the other none but saith he that is they think themselves bound in Conscience to adhere to that king tho out of possession who by the Laws of the Land has a Legal Right to the Crown against that King who is actually setled in the Throne by the Providence of God Now if we will consider the sense of things and not the words this is no more than to say that they oppose the Providence of God against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence that is they will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever Reasons the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done that they are resolv'd to abide by whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to Shackle Does not tell me Vindic. p. 24. That I write at that Rate that some people may suspect that I had a mind to ridicule Providence and what does he think of this Reverend Metaphor when appyl'd to Providence to shackle and confine Providence that it shall not alter its usual methods in the government of the World or when it has disposed of the Crown once shall never be at liberty while that Family lasts to dispose of it again to any other what are these Laws which he says are made by the Divine Authority and are our Rule They are the Laws of Succession which entail ehe Crown And how does God settle the Crown on any Family by such Laws No otherwise but by his Providence And an Hereditary King by Humane Entail is as much a Providential King in respect of God as the first of the Family and to oppose the Laws of Entail against God's setting up a new King by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence c. Now the fallacy and weakness of these Arguments are discovered from what was said before that Humane Laws are a Rule of Practice and that Providence is no Rule of Practice and therefore Providence is not to determine us against the Laws but the Laws are to determine us against Providence nor does it make any manner of difference in this to say that the Laws were made by Providence and the Possession of the Throne contrary to these Laws is by Providence likewise and therefore to stand by the Entail against the Possession is to oppose a former to a latter Providence For is there no difference between Providence concurring to the making and establishing Laws which are Rules of Practice and so warranted by the Law of God and the bare Acts or Permissions of Providence which are no such Rule nor so warranted So that with the Drs. leave the opposition is not between Providence and Providence but between a Rule and no Rule and if we must speak so between Providence fixing a stated Rule and the bare Acts of Providence which are no Rule And here is the plain fallacy of his Argument it is true the Laws of Entail were made by the Providence of God but they do not receive their binding power and oblige the Conscience from Providence but from the Law of God Providence concurred to the making them Laws but the Law of God makes them obligatory And therefore
consersu These Examples says he are nothing to the purpose for these Governments were in their infancy scarcely constituted and confirmed c. And then immediately adds Governments indeed acquir'd by the Right of War by Prescription usually become lawful Imperia vero jure belli acquisita c. but in the Tribe of Judah the Kingdom by the appointment and promise of God belong'd to the male Heir of David 's line and the chief Priest Nobles and People could not transfer it and it had been impiety in them to have confirm'd Athal by consenting to her noâ— was it in their power or consent to neglect or laâ— aside the Heir of David and put these together Governments indeed acquir'd by the Right of War became lawful by Prescription but in Judah the Peoples consent signified nothing And what is this but Prescription joyn'd with the Peoples Consent nay he expresly joyns them in the Sentence immediately following Praescriptio Consensus Regni And is there a Disjunctive too The whole Sentence is Electio senatus populique vel Exercitus Praescriptio Consensus Regni P. 922. sive Reipublicae quae in aliis regnis Electivis aut nondum constitutis aut jure belli acquisitis locum habere possunt in Regnum Judae locum non habent In which short Sentence there are no less than four Disjunctives and what fair reason can be given why this only should be express'd by a Conjunctive except he had intended it should also be understood in a conjunctive sense So that if the â—octor had considered the whole of what I had cited and the place I had refer'd to he might have saved the trouble of crying out of prevaricating and corrupting But why did not I express this And what then must a man corrupt an Author because he does not cite his words tho he gives his sense But the reason was because it was not at all to the purpose for which I cited the Bishop My end was to shew against the Author of the Pamphlet that his Notion of a Thorough Settlement was inconsistent with the Sense and Doctrine of Bishop Buckeridge And therefore all the conclusion I draw from thence is this That the Author's full possession of Dignities Prerogatives c. to which our Allegiance is due is a Notion that before now never saw the light among the true sons of the Church of England Now that Author had said nothing of the Peoples Consent and I was not concern'd to obviate a Notion which the Author with whom I had to deal had not mention'd nor insisted on And that Answer was out of my hands and gone to the Press before the Doctor 's Case of Alleg. came abroad and his new business of the Peoples Consent took vent And I dare be bold to say that that Author nor any man else of the Church of England ever thought of it before except it had been with thoughts of abhorrence for 't is a Notion with a Commonwealth in the belly on 't and plainly centers in Commonwealth Principles for if the Consent of the People can make Allegiance become a duty contrary to Laws and Oaths their Dissent may make it no duty contrary to the same Laws and Oaths If their Consent can make one King or which is the same thing make their Allegiance due to him when by the Laws and their Oaths they have obligations to another they may make or unmaker Kings as often as they please for their consenting to one is the discharging another and at length all the business of Governments will be resolv'd into the Peoples Consent But to return But does not the Bishop say That Athaliah had not acquir'd a Right to the Crown neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six years Right but what follows is not so which shews what his judgment was that such an Usurper as Athaliah might acquire a Right to the Crown either by the Consent of the People or long Continuance Bellarmine indeed had objected That Athaliah's Government was approv'd by the Peoples Consent and that she had reigned quietly six years And the Bishop answers she had acquir'd a Right neither by the Consent of the People nor by Prescription But it does not follow that therefore he thought the Consent of the People in such a case as Athaliah's where the right Heir was in being and claiming would make a Right He proves indeed they did not consent because they ought not to have consented which is both against Bellarmine and against the Doctor and one of his Reasons is That Jehoiada had been a Traitor to the heir of the Crown and to the King himself And the Reason he gives of that is and let the Doctor observe it Filius enim in regnis haereditariis in â—â—so instanti articulo mortis paternae rex est ipso jure ipso facto p. 920. For in hereditary Kingdoms in the very instant and moment of his Fathers death the son is King ipso jure ipso facto He seems indeed to argue from Bellarmines Principles and sarcastically returns them upon him siccine vero is it so indeed What is the reason then that so soon as they hear of the then King Joash they so easily and so unanimously conspire against Athaliah Had they no scruple of Conscience no remorse to betray her whom by their own free Consent they had made their lawful Queen And it is demonstration that the Bishop answers upon supposition only and not upon his own Principles as if he had thought the Consent of the People in such a case would have made a lawful Prince and have convey'd a Right and Title to the Government for he expresly says in this very Case p. 922 That the Consent of the Kingdom in the Doctor 's phrase a National Consent had no place in the Kingdom of Judah and upon this occasion delivers a Doctrine in general concerning hereditary Kingdoms The Priests In vero rege haereditario declarando inaugurando potestatem habent sacerdotes Proceres populus at jus Regni confert deus natura non Respublica p. 923. Nobles and People have a power in declaring and inaugurating the true King but God and Nature confer the Right to the Government and not the Commonwealth Which is a sufficient evidence what the Bishops judgment was in this point and that his judgment was not as the Doctor says that such an Usurper as Athaliah might acquire a Right to the Government by the consent of the People But suppose it was What service would that do the Doctor the Doctor 's own iudgment is otherwise If the Bishop did think that an Usurper might acquire a Right by the consent of the People the Doctor thinks he is mistaken And how can such an instance if it were true serve his purpose But the Doctor is for drawing the conclusion without admitting the Premises nay he is for drawing the same conclusion from
there is no difference for those pay as little Allegiance to an Usurper who anoint a King and then depose him as those who do it to restore â—n ejected one and I would fain know what difference there is as to Allegiance to an Usurper between anointing a new King and upon his Authority deposing an Usurper and doing the same thing upon the Authority of one already anointed The Doctor replyes I grant there is no difference where it is the duty of Subjects either to anoint a new King or to restore an old anointed King but this is a duty only where the Vsurpation is against God's Entail So that here is nothing but the Second Answer over and over again but the first Answer is perfectly lost and the Doctor cannot maintain it and has nothing to say for it and he might have said so and there had been an end but to quit it in the plain field and yet to pretend to stand to it to give nothing in Reply but the Second Answer and yet dress it up as if it had been the First savors more of Artifice then Ingenuity or Reason A little Ingenuity would have saved us both some pains But some men when they find fault with themselves and when it is for their turn can be contented to own themselves fallible and are not asham'd to own that they are still learners Preface to the Case of Allegiance but if any man else discovers their mistakes they cannot abide to own them but will shift and double and turn and wind any way rather than acknowledge a mistake But has the Doctor nothing at all to say for his First Answer Yes truly to do him Right he has something to say but it is next to nothing and he had e'en as good have let it pass in all points and assign'd the whole business over to the Second Answer as he hath done in every thing besides All that he says is this In the First Answer to confirm what he said that all that they amounted to was that when the Legal and Rightful King is possess'd Subjects may return to their Allegiance For says he Joash was first anointed and proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah To this I answer'd Is the Doctor sure that Joash was actually possess'd of the Throne He was anointed indeed but is anointing actual possession And it will not be easie to prove it according to the Doctor 's notion of Possession of having the whole administration of affairs and all the Authority of the Kingdom in his hands To this he replies The Convocation affirms that King Joash was in possession of his Crown before Athaliah was slain Vindic. p. 30. And he further tells us That the Convocation thought it very considerable that the Princes Levites and People yielded subjection to their lawful King and having so done and their King being in Possession of the Throne joyned together for the overthrowing Athaliah the Usurper if the Convocation had not thought that there was some difference between killing Athaliah before or after the anointing of Joash they would not have laid so much stress upon the time when she was slain And saith he I wonder our Author should perceive no difference for tho it had been the same â—ing â—o Athaliah whether she had 〈◊〉 killed before or after the anointing of Joash yet it greatly alter'd the nature of the fact and that upon two accounts both with respect to the Authority whereby it was done and the Character of the Person who suffered The Convocation will not allow a private man to kill a King de facto and that was the Case of the Jews during Athaliah's Reign before Joash's Title was Recogniz'd and he anointed and placed on the Throne but when this was done they had the visible and actual Authority of their King to slay the Usurper And after Thus whatever Authority Athaliah had before when Joash was anointed she sunk into the state of a Subject and then to kill her was not to kill a Queen de facto but a Subject who had been an Usurper but now was a Subject again and therefore no Fidelity or Allegiance was due to her Is not this pure Doctrine from a Church of England-Man As if in an Hereditary Monarchy and one that was so by Divine Entail too which the Doctor lays so much stress upon the King could have no Authority to perform the Acts of Government till he was Anointed and Crown'd and his Title Recogniz'd by his Subjects We are hard put to it sure when we must gather up the very dregs of the Common-wealth Principles to support our Hypothesis At this rate Athaliah had hard fortune for if she had come a little sooner and before the Ceremony of Anointing had been over she had sav'd her Life and her Authority too and her crying out Treason Treason had been the true state of the Case and they had all been Traytors in violating the Allegiance and Fidelity they ow'd to her for the Doâ—â—â—r tells us that before the Recognitioâ— and Anointing the Jews were private â—â—nâ— and had no Authority aâ—d that 'till â—hen she was Queen de facto and was not sunk into a Subject and that Fidelity and Allegiâ—nce was due to her And I suppose had she come time enough by vertue of that Allegiance they ow'd her she might have commanded them not to have deposed her at least not to have slain her nay according to the Doctor they could not do it for they had no Authority and she was their Queen Now if the Doctor will answer me one Question I will thank him Did the Subjects of Judah owe Allegiance to Athaliah till such time as Joash was actually possess'd of the Throne i. e. according to the Doctor 'till he was actually anointed then I desire to know how he came to be anointed by her Subjects for that was not an act of Fidelity and Allegiance to her but a contradiction to it But if they did not owe her Allegiance 'till he was anointed then as the Doctor phraseth it she was sunk into lhe state of a Subject before Joash was anointed And her Character was lost before if ever she had any to lose for that the Doctor has not yet proved And I believe if the Doctor looks again he will find that their anointing Joash was an Evidence that they were his Subjects before and not as he tells us that they might return to their Allegiance when he was actually possess'd of the Throne i. e. in his sense when he was anointed for their very anointing him plainly shew'd they were his Subjects and so own'd themselves before and the Convocation is as express as can be Convoc p. 41. They altogether by a Covenant acknowledged their Allegiance unto him as unto their Lawful King and so dispose of things as presently after he was Crown'd and Anointed After what after they acknowled'd their Allegiance to him So that their Allegiance dâ—d
deal more Reason to believe that men may think it their duty to own Allegiance to a dispossessed King as the People of Judah did than to kill a Lawful King as Ahud did and to seek no further such a man as Dr. Sherlock being so long before he could perswade himself to the contrary is a demonstrative Evidence of it and consequently it required yet the greater Caution to prevent it But instead of that they speak laudably and commendably of it and rather give encouragement to it Convoc Can. 23. p. 42. and recommend it than otherwise If any man shall affirm that it was neither lawful for Jehoiada and the rest of the Princes Levites and People to have yielded their Subjection to their Lawful King nor having so done and their King being in Possession of his Crown to have joyned together for the overthrowing the Usurper or that Jehoiada the High Priest was not bound as he was a Priest Let the Dr. mind that both to inform the Princes and People of the Lord's Pâ—omise that Joash should Reign over them and likewise to Anoint him This looks very like encouragement and rather seems that they intended it for an Example than to prevent its being so and is very differing from the method they use in the Cases before mentioned And all that they add as Caution hath no manner of respect to the Deposing of an Usurper or paying Allegiance to a Rightful King while such a one is seated in the Throne but the contrary Or say they that this fact either of the Princes Priests or People was to be held for a Lawful Warraâ—t for any afterward either Princes Priests or People to have Dâ—posed any of the Kings of Judah who by Right of Succession came to their Crowns or to have killed them for any respect whatsoever and to have set another in their places according to their own choice But not one single word of Deposing an Usurper or any thing like it or of Cautioning Subjects from paying Allegiance to their Rightful King by that Example when an Usurper was on his Throne And the Pretermission of it is a clear Indication that they thought it Now a duty And I believe no good reason can be given why the Convocation should be so very express and particular in Cautioning against Resisting and Killing of Kings from those other Examples and yet give no manner of Caution against Deposing and Killing an Usurper from this Example except they thought those were not exemplary but this was And let any man consider the Method the Convocation uses and he will certainly find that when ever they mention any Examples which are not to be drawn into Practice in Succeeding Ages they plainly declare so with all possible Industry and Caution And their not doing so here and especially having from this very Example caution'd against Deposing a Rightful King it is a plain proof that they did not think that this Example of Jehoiada and the People of Judah was an Example of that kind but might so far as they justifie it be drawn into practice And this I think if men are not willfully blind is a sufficient evidence that the Convocation never thought that an Usurper might not be depos'd or that Subjects might not pâ—y Allegiance to their Lawful King tho his Throne was possessed by an Usurper or further that by a thorough Settlement they never meant usurped Powers and especially in opposition to a Rightful King Vindic. p. 25. But saith the Dr. tho the Convâ—cation does not answer a Question which they never propos'd if the setting up Joash and deposing Aâ—haliah be the Question the Convocation both propos'd and answer'd it yet saith he this is a good answer to it i. e. the Dr. thinks so but the Convocation did not for they do not make it by his own Confession But however he says it is agreeable to the sense of the Convocation in that place for they take notice that Johoiada when he had sent to the Levi es and chief Fathers c. acquainted them with the preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lords will that he should reign over them which plainly refers to that Divine Entail of the Crown upon David's Posterity so that 't is evident the Convocation it self answers the difficulties of this story by the Divine Entail What difficulties are these of owning their Rightful King and deposing the Usurper The Dr. indeed hath made some difficulty of that but the Convocation thought of none they plainly and roundly assert it was lawful and their duty so to do The difficulty of the High Priests Authority to depose a King they obviate and that the Person depos'd was an Usurper and what he did was as a Subject and not as High Priest but they make no manner of difficulty of their yielding subjection to their lawful King and then deposing the Usurper And I believe any man that attentively considers what the Convocation say in this Chapter and Canon will find that that is the main if not the only ground of their Answer that because it was lawful and a duty for Subjects to yield their Subjection and Allegiance to their Lawful King therefore what Jehoiada did in setting him up and deposing the Usurper was not peculiar to his office of High Priest but as a duty in common to him with the rest of the Subjects so that they are so far from disputing about it or using any Arguments to confirm it that they take it for granted and proceed upon it and ground their Answer upon the supposition of it But says the Dr. the Convocation taking notice that Jehoiada had acquainted them that it was the Lords will Joash should reign over them plainly refers to that Divine Entail And this he undertakes to prove more fully in the next page but to save him any further trouble I shall readily own that when the Convocation speaks of the Lords will and the Lords purpose that Joash should reign they do refer to that Entail upon David s Posterity And 't is next to impossible to think they should do otherwise for it was by virtue of that very Entail that Joash had a Right to the Crown and had there been no such Entail Joash would have had no more Right than Athaliah her self and therefore the mentioning of it was proper and necessary It was upon that account that Joash was their lawful King and Athaliah was an Usurper And it was highly reasonable that Jehoiada should juâ—tifie his proceedings upon it But what is this to the purpose do they mention this Entail in opposition to humane Entails not a word of that And how then can he say that his distinction and answer is agreeable to the sense of the Convocation For they speak it in one sense and he in another they speak it without opposition to humane Entails and he purely in opposition to them they urge it and so does Jehoiada to justifie his proceedings as acting
and when he answers that he will answer himself what is the Relation between Husband and Wife why truly if the Dr. will express it Logically it is in fine language Husbandhood and Wifeship And so by way of Logical Argument if the Relation of Husbandhood ceases the Wife is gone And it a man has a mind to prove that a Husband or Wife are or are not so related he must prove it forsooth from the Husbandhood and Wifeship and then it is as plain as can be and every body understands it for the Dr. tells us very Logically the Relative ceases with the Relation 2. That Actual Possession of Power and Allegiance are not the Relations which make the Relatives This the Dr. asserts and ought to have prov'd it for it is the foundation of this part of his discourse But instead of that he asks a Question or two what is the Relation of a King to a Subject his Dominion and Government Actual Dominion he means what is the Relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection and so the matter is fully proved it is so because it is so and this is very usual with him he takes for granted what hath most need to be proved and then builds upon his own suppositions and raises the force of his Arguments from them Here he tells us that Government and Allegiance are Relations and to prove this he turns it into Question and Answer and in that form says the same thing over again and then away he runs with it and draws his Arguments and Conclusions from it And then Dominion makes a King and Allegiance a Subject and if the Relation then of a King to his Subjects be Dominion and Government does he continue a King c. As if this was any more proved when it was in the form of a Question and Answer then when it was in a Proposition Well! tho he has not prov'd that Government and Allegiance are the Relations that make the Relatives he hath said enough in all Conscience to prove they are not so for he tells us that By Allegiance i. e. the Relation that makes the Relative of a Subject he means that subjection and obedience that is due to Government that is to say one Relation is due to another filiation is due to Paternity which is extraordinary fine And accordingly he asks what is the Relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection and afterwards in the next page he calls it the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance And are not these pure Characters of a Relation it would sound rarely to say the Duty of filiation or the obligations of filiation And so to avoid one piece of Logical nonsense we must make 2 or 3. And here we are at a loss again on one side of the leaf the Relation of a Subject is his due Allegiance on the other 't is the Obligations to Allegiance and due Allegiance it self and the Obligations to Allegiance are two things and which would he have us take for the Relation the Duty or the Obligation Allegiance it self or the obligations to it And all this blundering arises for want of laying down a clear and distinct notion of Relation which is nothing else but the respect the Relatives have to each other and because they have such a Respect thence arise the Reâ—pective Acts Duties and Obligations but these are not the Respect but flow from it and are consequential to it The Relation of a Father is Paternity that is a Father is related to his Son by being his Father for being the Father of a Son is Paternity But Paternal Authority or the duty of Parents are not the Relation but result from it The Relation of a Son is filiation that is a Son is related to his Father by being his Son And this is the same in all other Relations as the Relations of Husband and Wife Master and Servant King and Subject the Relations consist in the respect that the Relatives have to each other the Relation of a King to his Subjects is being their King But Kingly Authority is no more the Relation of a King than Paternal Authority is the Relation of a Father but only results from his Relation and is in nature consequential to it But I expect the Dr. will ask me what is the Relation of a King But he knows well enough of the complaint of penury of words in this point and that Aristotle says in such cases we must invent words if it be needful to express it But it is all one to me let him call it Government Sovereignty Sovereign Power Magistracy or Kingship or what he pleases provided he will but observe these two conditions 1. That the meaning of them be not extended beyond the notion of Relation for they and I think any other words whereby this may be expressed are words of ambiguous signification and as in one sense they may mean the Relation of a King so in another sense they may mean the acts or duties that result from it Government may mean actually governing and then it may be the Act of the Relative or the Act of one that is not the Relative but neither in one sense nor the other is it the Relation of the Governour and if it means that it is in an abstracted sense and is not to be taken for actual Government actual Administration or actual Power For no act or duty of the Relative can be the Relation but only for the bare and naked respect of the Governour to the Subject for Logicians tell us that Relationes sunt nudae formae per quas Relata referuntur 2. That they only terminate on the Relative for the Relative is the Subject of the Relation and the Relation is the Relation of the Relative but of no body else tho he should stand in the place of the Relative if the Dr. likes to call the Relation of a King Government be it so but then it is only the Government of the true King that is that Relation but not of another tho he actually administers the Government of Sovereign Power let it be so but then it is the Power of the true Sovereign that is that Relation not the Power of every one that gets into the place of the true Sovereign Paternity is the Relation of a Father but this Relation can be extended to none but the true Father what Power and Authority soever another man may get in his Family the Relation of a Husband call it by what name you will is confin'd to his Person and tho another man cohabits with his Wife he does not therefore stand in the Relation of a Husband to her nor she in the Relation of a Wife to him The truth is all the Drs. Actual Administrations actual Government actual Possession of Power are no Relations at all nor yet do they mean any thing but as they proceed from the Relative But if they proceed from
any other besides the Relative they neither make nor prove nor are any signs at all of a Relation Government is the Authority and Administration belonging to the Relation of a King and when it is administred by the King 't is valid and authoritative and draws the Allegiance of the Subjects after it but if it be administred by one that is not the King that Administration does not make him a King nor confer the Relation nor make him stand in such a Relation to the Subject All Kingly Acts receive their force and validity as they are Acts of the King and not as Acts of Power and the very same Acts done by another are nothing at all Actual Allegiance or the same Obedience that is due to the Rightful King may be performed with the same fidelity or with greater and may be sworn too to one that is no King But this does not make the Relation of a Subject at that rate a man may be a Subject when he please and to whom he please and he may discharge himself as oft as he please And I wonder what reason there is why actual Government should make a King any more than actual Allegiance makes a Subject for the Dr. tells us the Relations make the Relatives Government makes a King and Allegiance makes a Subject And if actual Government makes a King then actual Allegiance makes a Subject for according to him Allegiance is as much the Relation of a Subject as Government of a King This the Dr. seems aware of and therefore says 't is the Subjects due Allegiance But if it be due Allegiance that makes a Subject then I doubt it must be due Government also that makes a King and that is not meer Administration but Lawfull Authority 3. That actual Administration of Government or actual Possession of Power and Allegiance do not se mutuo ponere tollere Here the Dr. tells us They have a mutual and necessary respect to each other Allegiance has as necessary relation to Dominion as Subject to a King if there be no King there can be no Subject if no Dominion and Government there can be no Allegiance By this he means actual Dominion P. 38. as he says afterward where actual Dominion and Government ceases the Kingship is lost and the obligations to subjection and Allegiance with it Now it would be sufficient here to turn the Drs. Argument and Questions upon himself and to ask as he does what are the Relations between actual Government and Allegiance For it seems they are related as much as the Relatives themselves He tells us indeed that Government and Allegiance are the Relations between King and Subject But I desire to know what are the Relations between Government and Allegiance for these it seems have a mutual and necessary respect to each other Now 't is egregious Logick to talk of the Relation of a Relation and this is Progressus in Infinitum For if there are Relations between the Relations then what are those Relations between them for those Relations must have as mutual and necessary a respect to each other as the former Relations and so on without end And this is pure disputing and shews the vanity of such new methods of argumentation hitherto men have been satisfied that the Relations are between the Relatives and there was an end but to talk of Relations between Relations is absurd and ridiculous and makes the Question everlasting But as to the mutual being and ceasing of actual Government and Allegiance as to the reasons against it something hath been said before and more will be said presently I shall now only shew the absurdity of it from example but it is such a one as evidences the falsity of this assertion and the fallacy of the Drs. Reasonings to support it better than any Arguments or trains of discourse It is the Case of that glorious Martyr King Charles the First Now if this be true then when King Charles was kept Prisoner at Holdenby Hampton Court the Isle of Wight and St. James's He ceased to be King and the People of England owed him no Allegiance nor were his Subjects For I suppose actual imprisonment is not actual Possession of Power And so it seems the High Court of Justice was in the right and they did not murder their King but only Charles Stewart For tho the man was in being the King was gone and went away with his actual Power And the Dr. afterwards for when God has taken away his Government he has taken away his Authority to govern for God never gives the Civil Authority without the Civil Sword The actual Possession of Power and the Duty of Allegiance are Relations at least and saith the Dr. if the Relation of a King to his Subjects be Dominion and Government does he continue a King when he has lost his Dominion and Government or do his Subjects continue Subjects when he ceases to be King And so by plain dint of Argument it seems King Charles's Government was at an end some time before that horrid murder and no duty of a Subject was owing to him for one Relative cannot subsist by it self without its correlate Now the short of the matter is this either King Charles was King notwithstanding his imprisonment and notwithstanding his being divested of all actual Power or he was not if not then the attempting his life what crime soever else it might be was not Treason nor within the Stat. of the 25. Edw. 3. And the Indictment of the Regicides upon that Stat. was faulty and they ought to be indicted not as Traytors but as Murderers But if he was King all that time then actual Possession of Power actual Administration and actual Government and the Allegiance of the Subject have not such a mutual and necessary respect to each other as that the Allegiance of the Subject ceases upon the Princes not being in the Possession of actual Power Something of this I had said before in the Case of Joash That Allegiance was due to him before he actually administred the Government Postscript p. 10. nay when an Usurper actually administred it and so it was to David when he fled out of the Country But the Dr. it seems would trouble his readers no more about that case But here is another Case tho the reason be the same and if he please he may trouble himself to answer it and acquit himself from the Infamy that that Case charges upon his Doctrine and Arguments In the mean time how is the Doctrine he delivers here agreeable to the Answer he gives with respect to the times of Usurpation between 48. and 60. I had told him that his account of a Settlement would fit Cromwel and those Usurpers and tho he had mention'd some differences yet they made no difference in the Argument This the Dr. denies and says they were not setled according to his account of a Settlement not having a national consent and therefore
tho he be violently torn from his Subjects for the respect is mutual and the King hath no more Relation to the Subject then the Subject to the Prince But this same actual Administration serves many purposes In the Case of Allegiance it was a Relative a little before it was the Relation that made the Relative and now it is Fundamentum Relationis And what will it be next In the Case of Allegiance it was as certain as any proposition in Logick that Actual Administration of Government and Allegiance were Relatives and did mutuo se ponere tollere three pages before it was as certain as any proposition in Logick that they were Relations and did the same thing and now 't is as certain as any proposition in Logick that actual Administration does all the mutual business it self And it is as certain as any Proposition in Logick that when men leave the plain and beaten paths they get into a wood and know not how to get out again And now it is time to come to his Answer and when he had made us say what he pleas'd and tells us moreover we must say so one would have thought that at least he should have answered that But he will not vouchsafe any clear and plain answer to his own objection For to a Legal Right being the Fundamentum Relationis He thus answers Now to shorten this dispute P. 39. I shall only observe that a Legal Hereditary Right is not the Fundamentum Relationis And what then Legal Right may be the Foundation for all that There are different kinds of Legal Right and an Hereditary Right is one the objection is general of a Legal Right and the Answer is special of one of the Species But let us hear his reason for then there would be no Foundation for this Relation between Prince and Subjects in any but Hereditary Kingdoms and why so are there no Legal Rights to Government in any but Hereditary Kingdoms and may not an Hereditary Right in Hereditary Kingdoms be the Foundation of the Relation not as 't is Hereditary but as 't is Legal and other Legal Rights be the Foundation in other Kingdoms But saith he the same Râ—â—â—â—tion can have but one Foundation very well and then an Hereditary Right cannot be the Foundation but a Legal Right may For the Foundation may be one as 't is Legal tho divers as 't is Hereditary or Elective But saith he there are a great many ways whereby Princes are advanced to the Throne an Hereditary Right the Election of the People the nomination of God a Divine Entail and Conquest which very much differ from each other And what if they do differ in other respects They may not differ as to their being Legal for a Prince advanced to the Throne any of these ways or any other may have a Legal Possession of it And we are not now disputing when Conquest becomes a Legal Title But if all these be different foundations there must be different kinds and species of Kingship That may very well be though not because the foundations are different in this respect Different Laws and Constitutions may make different kinds of Government though all these kinds are Legal according to the differing Laws of the respective Countries And I wonder what the Doctor means when he immediatly adds whereas the Relation between King and Subject is the same in all Now he tells us that Government is the Relation of a King and Allegiance the Relation of a Subject and if the Relation be the same in all Countries then Government and Allegiance are the same in all Countries And that is that the Government and Allegiance in Poland is the same Government and Allegiance with that in England and both the same with that in Turkey and all three the same all over the World Now I always thought that the English Government and the English Allegiance were founded on the English Laws and Constitution as the Government and Allegiance in other Countries were founded on their respective Laws And then the foundation of the Relation between Prince and Subject is the respective Constitution of each Country which though they differ specifically as they are different Laws yet they agree in the general as they are Laws Now saith the Doctor we must find out such a foundation for this Relation as will serve all Sovereign Princes very well and here we have found it and that is the Laws of each Country But this will not serve the Doctor and therefore he says and that can be no other but the Authority of God by which Kings Reign and to which Subjects owe Obedience Very well and grant him that too the Question still returns Is the Authority of God the foundation of this Relation abstracted from the Laws of each Country or annexed to them if abstracted from the Laws then Government and Allegiance are the same in all Countries for where the foundation of the Relation and the Relation are the same the Government constituted upon that foundation and the duties flowing from that relation are the same likewise But if they are not the same as 't is plain they are not then whence arises the difference not from the authority of God abstracted from Laws for that is the same in all Countries but from the different Laws and then the Authority of God is the foundation of this Relation as that Authority is annexed to the respective Laws of each Country there is a plain difference in this matter all over the World and Subjects in one Country are bound in Conscience to observe Duties of Relation differing to what Subjects are bound in another and let the Doctor if he can give any other reason for it The Doctor indeed tells us that this is not always annexed to a Legal Right but is always annexed to a full and setled possession of the Throne No man can have God's Authority who has not the actual Power and Authority of Government But this is gratis dictum and if the Doctor will give me leave I should rather believe that God's Authority was with King Charles the Second in banishment than with Cromwell who was possess'd of his Throne for God's Authority is the Authority of Government it is so but it is the Authority of a Legal Government illegal Government is no more God's Authority than Injustice and Unrighteousness are God's Laws But when Princes fall from Government i. e. when they cannot actually govern so far they lose God's Authority but that does not follow for God's Authority is annex'd to the lawful Governors in and out of Possession as it was to Joash David and King Charles tho each of them was hindred from actual Administration by the respective Usurpers that possess'd their Thrones The Doctor adds I grant in all other Relations where the Relation it self does not consist in the Authority of Government nor the foundation of the Relation cease by falling from the actual Authority of Government
to oppose it then he can have no Right done him by vertue of the Laws that give him his Right and that I think is equivalent to no Right at all The Doctor in his Case of Alleg. gives a pleasant account of this matter P. 26. He tells us That God's Providence in setting up an Usurper does not divest the dispossessed Prince of his legal Right nor forbid him to recover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligations to the Prince in possession to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his legal Right That is to say a Foreigner who is not concern'd in the Laws of the Country may do the Prince Justice according to the tenor of these Laws when the Kingdom whose Laws they are are in Justice and Conscience bound to the contrary The Prince hath his legal Right by the Laws of the Land and the People are under the direction and obligation of the Laws of the Land And if the Laws have any effect in all reason it must be on the People whose Laws they are and it is unaccountable how a Stranger may justly give the Prince his Right according to the Laws of the Land and yet the People whose Laws they are cannot in justice do it nay are bound in conscience to hinder it as much as they are able it is as much as to say that a Judge and Jury whose proper business it is ought not to do Right to the oppressed but the Mob or any body else may justly do it I know an injur'd Prince may crave aid of a Foreigner and he may justly assist him but it is in those cases only where his Subjects are bound to do him Right but will not But I would fain know how it is righteous in a Foreigner to do Right according to the Law of the Land and yet unrighteous in the People to do it nay very righteous to oppose it But the Doctor hath given us such a Legal Right that never was heard of A Right in Fiction and in nubibus which neither hath nor can be executed by vertue of the Laws nor the Provisions it makes The Law makes a Right and every person within the compass and extent of those Laws is bound to oppose it but any body else who is out of the bounds and power of the Law may honestly effect it in short it is such a legal Right which is under the cognizance of foreign force but out of the notice power or obligation of the Laws that make it it is such a legal Right which justifies any person who is not concern'd with the Laws to establish it But those who are under the direction of the Laws by which the Right is are bound to prevent it And that is it is a legal Riddle which no body can expound The Doctor goes on with his Questions Or would he prove that the standing Laws of every Country are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own Act and Choice and who denies this too Now I am not very well satisfied with the wording of this Free Act and free choice in setting up Kings is not very suitable to hereditary Kingdoms and in the same manner he expresses it a little after No man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. But supposing he means innocently however he hath express'd it This I say if it be the Duty of Subjects and they are bound to own their legal King then how comes the contrary to be their duty and they are bound to disown and reject him Force I grant may suspend a Duty and hinder the performance but can never make it none or alter the nature of moral duties This is a pure account of a moral duty it is the Subjects duty to own the King by legal Right when they are free but when they are under force it is their duty to kill and destroy him If it be a duty when they are free how comes the contrary to be a duty when they are under force The being free and being under force makes some difference as to t e actual performance but none as to the habit and obligation while the force continues the Act is suspended but the habit remains and the obligation continues and if it be a duty when they are free 't is a duty also when they are under force And the free choice and voluntary Acts the Doctor speaks of is no d fference in the duâ—y tho it may be in the performance of it Alleg. was due to Joash and to Charles the Second all the time of their dispossession tho their Loyal Subjects who were under the force of the Respective Usurpers could not perform it The Dr. says his Hypothesis is not concern'd in this Question But I think it is and that considerably for if the Question be admitted that the Subjects are bound to own and adhere to the King by Legal Right when they are free I would fain know how they become bound to the clean contrary to disown him and reject him when under force how it is their duty in Conscience to set him up when free and their duty in Conscience also to destroy him and kill him when under force But of this before As to what the Dr. says that no man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act I shall leave him to dispute the Point with the Convention And because we are upon Questions he may answer these Two when he please 1. Whether the setting up King William and Mary were not their own free and voluntary Act And 2. Whether it were agreeable to the Laws of the Land or in the Drs. own words Whether they made the Law their Rule If he answers the First affirmatively and the Second negatively 't is plain Satyr and Invective against them and the Convention I suppose will not take it well from him as he says the complying Nobility and Gentry will not take it well from me p. 65. if he answers both affirmatively His Hypothesis of Illegal and Vsurped Powers is a meer trifle and shews only how the Dr. can dispute about nothing to the purpose The Dr. hath not done with his Questions but hath three or four more which I am not concern'd to repeat nor can I guess for what end he made so many Questions or any at all He asks indeed what I would prove and then fills a whole Page with Questions But he understands it well enough for immediately after his Questions he adds The summ of his Argument is this that a Humane Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Country does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too for the People of other Kingdoms are
be sold for no longer time than till the year of Jubilee when all estates were to return to their old Proprietors again Right and this was the Law of Canaan and by virtue of that they did so return but had there been no such Law would the Land-once sold have then by virtue merely of a Divine Entail return'd to their old Proprietors But in other Countries men may part with their Estates for ever Right again because the Laws permit them so to do But if the Laws of other Countries had provided that all Estates should return to their old Proprietors at such a year they would have done so too tho the Provision had been made only by a Humane Law Thus saith he in the Kingdom of Judah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but whenever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at Liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Vsurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an inheritance sold for ever Thus that is just as an Estate in Judah and other Countries might or might not be sold but according to the Laws of each Country in like manner as in the Kingdom of Judah the Inheritance of the Crown was not alienable tho the Estates for a time were even so in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an inheritance sold for ever And that is to say again that as in other Kingdoms an inheritance may be sold by the consent of the parties interessed even so a Government may be lost without and contrary to the consent of the Proprietor and right owner For such Parallels as these otherwise or quite contrary might have served as well as Thus The Dr. tells me what I say in this Case is pretty because that between the Divine Entail and Gods express command concerning Canaan and the Possession by providence and a Humane Entail there is some likeness I am sorry I cannot return all his Complement this is very pretty indeed but there is no likeness at all We are come to the Drs. Answer to the objection P. 48. that the Laws of the Land are the measure of duty and Rule of Conscience c. and the sum of the Answer is they are so when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule but their obligation must give place to Divine Authority and suppose the Law should forbid owning any King but the Right Heir and the Law of God should command obedience to him that actually possesses the Throne we must obey the Law of God To this I answered where is this Law of God Postscript p. 11. that commands us to obey Usurpers where is it affirm'd in express terms or deduced from thence by evident consequence He replies he hath shewed it before and it is in his book still and there I may see it As if I had not at all consider'd what he had said in his Book in my Answer But to say that he would examine that presently would not have been so sharp nor half so magisterial as to say it is in my book still and there he may find it But by his favour I cannot find that he hath shewed it either in his former or in his new book and that he hath only said it but not shewed it will appear presently But I had said that this Law had need be very clear and evident and the Dr. had need be very sure of it when he builds not only his Book but his practice upon it in plain contradiction by his own confession to the Laws of the Land He replies I never confessed this was contrary to the Laws of the Land but on the contrary that the Laws of the Land if we will believe learned Judges and Lawyers do allow and justifie it I don't know what he means by confessing but if to maintain that a Person possessed of the Throne contrary to Law is to be owned and obeyed as King if to write a Book in justification of that Doctrine and to call that Book his Reasons be to confess it then the Dr. hath confessed it to the purpose And I don't know how I should prove this except I should reprint his Case of Allegiance with a new Title and call it his Confessions For there is not a page nor an argument but confesses it bating only some part of the Answer to this objection But the objection it self and the first answer as plainly confess it as words can do The ground of the objection is that it is contrary to the Laws of the Land and therefore contrary to our duty and the substance of the Answer is that what he hath said i. e. what he had said before concerning Providence and Usurped Powers is an Answer to it And it is so when the Laws do not contradict the Laws of God And yet he never confessed it and all for this poor shift because in answer to an objection and a second answer too Foreign to his whole Book he had said that according to the opinion of Learned Judges and Lawyers the Laws do allow it now the Question is whether his Hypothesis or his Arguments to prove it proceed upon any such allowance or have any manner of respect to it And I wonder what the Question of providence as he handles it has to do with his opinion of Judges and Lawyers or the Laws themselves for he debates the matter in direct opposition and contradiction to humane Laws And to say he never confessed what is the subject matter the whole scope and drift of his Book because ex abundanti and what does not in the least relate to his Hypothesis he had mention'd the Judges and Lawyers for the Laws is a mean Evasion and if the Dr. likes his own words better a childish piece of Sophistry and argues great contempt of his Readers p. 43. The Dr. tells us as to the evidence of this Law commanding obedience to Usurpers That the Scripture is plain in the Case and that he is pretty sure of it But saith he he proves the Scripture cannot be clear in the point my Words are that it is not clear is evident not only from the Controversies about it in the late dismal times of Vsurpation that saith the Dr. is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of controversie and thus we must either be Scepticks in Religion or seek for an infallible interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Articles of Faith Thus Papists dispute against the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith And whither these arguments will carry our Author I cannot tell but they look very kindly towards Rome and if that be his inclination I can pardon his zeal in this Cause what and is Dr. Sherlock come to take up with these sordid and scandalous arts to hunt his Adversaries by a cry of Popery I
But then we are never the nearer to satisfaction The Question still returns Is Prodence in opposition to common Right such a Gift So that all this while we are but where we were The Dr. gives a Reason For I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to a Violent Vsurper as to suffer a Wicked Impious and Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a Legal Title which says he God often does Now here are two things to be observ'd 1. God may give a Kingdom to an Usurper if he please as well as he did to Jehu but then when he hath given it him such Gift extinguishes his Usurpation and he justly and honestly possesses it and whatever wickedness he might be guilty of before it is none to wear that Crown which God gives him So that indeed in such a Case God is not a Party to their wickedness but the Reason is not because God permits wickedness with a farther design or because he over-rules it to accomplish his own wise ends but because it is not Wickedness and Injustice 2. What the Dr. brings for a Parallel confutes him God may permit an Impious and Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne and he may likewise permit him to ravage and depopulate with a farther design to over-rule them to accomplish his own holy and just purposes But then this does not give God's Authority to his Impious and Tyrannical Acts. And I would fain see a good reason why God's having a farther design in permitting wickedness and over-ruling it gives his Authority to Vsurpation any more than it does to Tyranny And the truth is the Drs. account here furnisheth us with admirable measures of Justice and Righteousness and let us translate this Doctrine to other matters of Providence besides Government and see then how it looks and this we may do by the Drs. allowance for he tells us it is an argument not only against God's making Kings but against Providence in general And therefore I suppose no man will deny but God may give the goods of this world to whom he please he may take them from one and give them to another without injustice the only dispute can be about God's bringing this to pass by the wickedness of men and what hurt is there in this if God can over-rule the violence and rapine of men as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts which God for wise and holy reasons thinks fit to have done suppose a wicked and cunning man spurr'd on by covetousness whom God may permit by fraud and violence to wrong and oppress all his neighbors I ask any man which most becomes the Divine Wisdom to suffer such men when they please to spoil their neighbors only to gratifie their own lusts or to give them success when he sees fit to chastize and punish such persons in their goods or estates I am sure this much more becomes the Wisdom and Justice of Providence than a bare permission of such violence without any farther design And if God may permit such wickedness without being a party to it much more may he over-rule it for wise ends and make them the Executioners of his Justice in punishing wicked people And then why may not God give them those Goods or Estates which he hath taken away by them For I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give such Goods or Estates to a violent Robber or Oppressor as to suffer a Legal Proprietor to riot and revel to spend them upon his Lusts and Vices or to make them Instruments of Injury and Injustice And is not this pure Doctrine and admirably suited for the advancement of Righteousness And it is notwithstanding the true state of the Drs. Arguments here for such reasonings extend equally to all Cases of Providence to the Case of private property as well as to that of Crowns and Scepters And the whole Scheme is as applicable to one Case as well as the other The Dr. tells me upon another occasion P. 51. which I here return him he may if he please call this giving account of Providence but I doubt every body else will give it some other name and I hope he himself upon second thoughts will be asham'd of it The Dr. repeats my charge against his interpretation again That it justifies an unreasonable and wicked doctrine Vindic. p. 61. by making the Acts or permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice and says as for Right and Justice it has been consider'd already let us now consider how far the Providence of God may be the Rule for practice It is indeed saith he an impious Doctrine to justifie every action and every cause which has success God many times prospers very evil designs when he can serve any good end by them and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success to conclude that it is God's Cause which the Providence of God prospers confounds the differences of Good and Evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice Now the Drs. Hypothesis is this very same impious Doctrine For of two Persons claiming the Government who is and who is not King who hath and who hath not a Right to Allegiance That the obligation of an Oath made to the Person of the Governor ceases tho his Person and his Legal Right be still in being That 't is necessary and a duty to take an Oath contradictory to that to another Person all this is purely to be determin'd by Providence without any manner of other Right or Title and contrary to a plain and known Rule acknowledg'd by the Dr. himself and by all the world And if this be not to make external success the measure of Good and Evil and to conclude that to be God's Cause which is prosper'd by Providence I wish the Dr. would tell me what is And if he please likewise to favour me with the Solution of this Question Whether Usurpation be God's Cause if it be whether the Dr. hath any other proof of it besides external success and the Providence of God prospering it if it be not God's Cause what can justifie our swearing to abett support and maintain it So that either the Dr. must maintain this Impious Doctrine that God's Cause is to be measured by Success and Providence or another as impious that we are bound in Conscience to do the utmost to maintain that which is not God's Cause But saith he yet it is so far from being an impious Doctrine that it is a necessary duty to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those duties and obligations which the Providence of God lays on us according to the nature and intention of the Providence Now if by the nature and intention of Providence the Dr. means that God by such a Providence intends to lay such duties on us it
is true enough and we are bound to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those duties as when God by his Providence puts us into a state of affliction it is our duty to conform our selves to his will and to perform the Duties that Providence points out to us by that dispensation to be patient constant and faithful to be sure to keep a good Conscience and not be affrighted from our duty nor discourag'd in the practice of it These are duties that are consequent upon such a state and which the Divine Providence directs us to and the nature and intention of the Providence is plain and evident But this is not at all to his purpose But if by the nature and intention of Providence the Dr. means that what things come to pass in the world by Providence it is our duty and the intention of Providence that we should comply actively with them own them and adhere to them This is manifestly false in a thousand instances and particularly in all Robberies Usurpations and Invasions of other mens Rights The Question therefore is not Whether we are to conform our selves to Providence and to discharge duties according to the nature and intention of Providence but whether it be the intention of Providence that we are to espouse and embrace and pursue the interest of Usurpation and all other Events that are manifestly unjust and unrighteous The Question therefore still returns What are the Duties and Obligations that the Providence of God lays on us and what are the Intentions of Providence Does God when he permits wicked and unjust Usurpations and other Villanies require us to fall down and reverence to joyn our selves to them and to plead the Cause of Unrighteousness This is to interpret Gods Providence in contradiction to his Laws But what is all this to Providence being a Rule which the Dr. said he would consider how far it might be He adds Thus the Providence of God in some sense may be the Rule of our Practice and may make that our duty which was not and that cease to be our duty which was so before And thus it always is when the Providence of God changes our Relations or condition of life as in the present case when he removes one King and sets up another for he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King that is to say when a Woman is married she is obliged to the duties of a Wife when her Husband is dead Providence hath set her free and she owes her dead Husband no duty So when God removes a King the duty of Subjects cease and when they have another Lawful King they owe him Allegiance Very true But the Question returns When is a King remov'd Is dispossession making him no King and discharging the Subjects Duty or is possession making the Usurper a King and obliging the Subjects or is that the intention of providence The Providence of God changes Relations but dispossession and distance is no change of Relation A Woman is not free by every providential removal of her Husband from her but by such a Providence only as puts an end to his Life or Right nor are Subjects free by every providential removal of their King but by such a Providence only as puts an end to his Right and Title And on the contrary if a man sets himself in the place of a Husband the hand of Providence is not to be own'd nor is he to be submitted to as a Husband of Divine Right A providential Husband is no Husband but an Adulterer and a providential King is no King but an Usurper And as to Providence being a Rule in any case Vind. p 44. the Dr. hath urged these very things before which I have already answer'd and shall not need to repeat And here the Dr. falls a Rallying for almost two Pages together This unreasonable and impious Doctrine of Providence Vind. p. 62. is the fault of my Case of Allegiance for some men cannot endure to hear God makes Kings for that argues there is a God A fine way of calling his Adversaries Atheists And so on he goes in the Rallying strain had he said any thing else he might have escaped as well as his neighbours but since he hath entitled God to the matter this spoils all and is an impious Doctrine And if that be his fault he is content to suffer obloquy and reproach for maintaining such impious Doctrines Now if the Dr. can rally off the Absurdity and Impiety of his Doctrine about Providence much good may it do him I shall leave such arguments to take their chance And I do not believe the Dr. has so mean an opinion of his Readers as to expect any great wonders from them but such things though they are not likely to convinâ—â— yet they may amuze and serve for a blind to prevent the perceiving the force of the argument against him and the weakness of his Answer whether the Dr. had any such end by this long Excursion he knows best But however it comes to pass my answer to him is perfectly lost and we have not here the least word of it nor the least intimation as if the Dr. knew of any such thing And therefore I shall beg the Reader 's Patience to lay it before him It immediately follows in the Postscript The Dr. had raised an Objection to his Hypothesis Postscript p. 13. Case of Alleg p. 34. Have not Pyrats and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper to the Crown Does not the Providence of God order and dispose of all these Events To which he answer the dispute is not about Humane and Legal Right in either case but about Authority now no man pretends that Thieves and Pyrats have God's Authority To this I answer'd What is this to the purpose I know Thieves and Robbers have not God's Authority neither hath an Usurper but have they not God's Providence as well as an Usurper And if Possession of Authority by Providence gives a Right to it Why does not the Possession of my Purse by the same Providence give a Right to it The Dr. puts it into the Objection Have not Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper to the Crown And it is certain they have as good a Title for they have the very same I grant taking a Purse and taking Authority are two things and so are also Vsurpation and Right But the Question is about Providence and that is the same he that takes a Purse takes it by Providence as well as he that takes a Throne and if Providence gives a Right the one hath it as well as the other But the Scripture saith the Dr. expresly tells us that Kingdoms are dispos'd of by God that all power is of God and does not the same Scripture tell us that the Earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof that he disposes of it as he pleases that when Job
was rob'd he said the Lord hath taken away But if the Scripture had not said so the Dr. says it for he tells us all Events are God's Act and Deed and then it must follow that the possession of my Purse by a Thief is as much God's Decree and Council as the possession of the Throne The Doctor founds all this in God's Creation God saith he is the natural Lord of the World P. 15. because he made it and no Creature hath any Right to govern the World or any part of it but as he receives Authority from God And is not this the same in all other respects Are not all mens Estates Gods as well as Authority And has any man a Right to his Estate but what God gives him And does it thence follow that whatever any man can get by Providence tho it be never so much against the Laws and Common Right it is his own because God is not ty'd to Humane Laws and hath a Right to the World by Creation and may give it whom he please And I wonder what reason there is that 't is a more certain sign to us that the possession of power by providence gives any more Right to it th n the possession of Goods or an Estate gives a Right to them Of all this the Dr. hath not thought fit to take any notice He tells us indeed before P. 58. that he had already stated the matter about right and justice and had shewn the difference between the right of private men to their Estates and of Princes to their Thrones between a Thiefs taking a Purse and an Vsurper a Crown by the Providence of God c. Now I confess this he had said upon another occasion and when the foâ—ce of my argument lay another way but he ought to have considered my answer here For here it was that he himself rais'd the Objection and answers it and my answer directly affects him and his whole Hypothesis or if he would not reply to it in its proper place he ought at least to have took notice of the force of it he tells us he sheâ—'d the difference between a Thiefs taking a Purse and an Vsurper a Throne but where hath he shew'd any difference with respect to Providence Why a Thief hath not as good a Title to my Purse as an Usurper to the Throne when he hath the very same Where hath he shew'd any difference with respect to God's right by Creation which is the foundation of his Hypothesis and which affects all private Estates as well as Government and Authority And where hath he shew'd any difference in the Evidence that a Providential Possession of Power is a more certain sign to us of God's Gift and a Divine Right than the same Providential Possession of Goods or an Estate This is the force of my Answer which he hath taken no manner of notice of and which would have been evident had he answer'd this in its proper place But if he had not been pleas'd to answer it he might have bestow'd some of his complements upon it and have call'd it a Jest or a Banter or something as he does other arguments he cannot tell what to do with He proceeds to consider another of my Arguments against the interpretation he gives of the sense of the Convocation Vind. p. 63. That it is inconsistent with their main and fundamental Doctrines viz. Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance He replys But if the Convocation taught both as certainly they did it is a sign that whatever our Author thinks or whatever he can prove the Convocation did not apprehend any inconsistency between them Now methinks the Dr. might a little have consider'd my argument and not have given such a short answer especially when he complains so much of concealing what he says The sum of all was that that interpretation of a thorough Settlement Answer to the Pamphl p. 21. which best agrees with Passive Obedience we are in justice bound to believe that it is the sense of the Convocation as best agreeing with their fundamental Doctrines and the main design of the Convocation And to say that a Government is thoroughly settled when it hath acquir'd a Right by Prescription or the extinction and submission of the Right Heir does not in the least interfere with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience but when a Person hath got full possession of power and the lawful King is alive and is so far from submitting that he actually contests his Right and demands the Allegiance of his Subjects in order to it to say that they must quit their Lawful King become Subjects to the possessor transfer all their Allegiance and Duty to him do all they can to establish him in the Possession and as much to keep the other out become irreconcilable and mortal enemies to him and if need be to fight against him and kill him for all these necessarily follow from that notion This is such a notion of Passive Obedience as never was heard on And what now is the Drs. short Answer to all this why it is certain the Convocation thought this was not inconsistent with Passive Obedience that is they thought and taught that men for the interest of an Usurper might fight against and kill the Rightful King to whom they had sworn Allegiance and at the same time when they acknowledge the Legal Right to be in him which if any man that reads the Convocation can believe he may believe any thing in the World and one would have thought the Dr. should have shewed us how this was reconcilable with Passive Obedience before he had so dogmitacally asserted that the Convocation taught it And this is absolutely necessary to justifie his interpretation for the main design of the Convocation was to assert the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and that is plain and evident and if the notion of a thorough Settlement was not so evident their notion of Passive Obedience is to regulate and direct to their sense of a thorough Settlement and not the notion of a thorough Settlement to direct to their sense of Passive Obedience And therefore if the Drs. notion of a thorough Settlement be not reconcilable with Passive Obedience it cannot be their sense except we can also believe that they contradict the main Design and the Fundamental Principles of their whole Book But the Dr. tells us I observ'd in the Case that the Doctrine of Obedience and Allegiance to the Present Powers is founded on the same Principles with the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience viz. that God makes Kings and invests them with his Authority which equally proves that all Kings who have received a Sovereign Authority from God must be obeyed and must not be resisted Right he does observe this but then he hath left out in his repeating it that upon which the whole controversie turns and yet at the same time complains of concealing Case of Alleg p. 36. and
Answ p. â—â— for to what the Doctor repeated about a Right to a Government being acquired by Death Cession or Prescription I added Now all mankind are agreed that a Right to a Government by these wayâ— may be attained and tho the ways that are used to attain that Riâ—ht are always unjust as the Convâ—â—â—ion say by Ambition Rebellion c. yet when that Right is attained these Governments respectively are then lawful Governments and ought to be obeyed And this the Doctor takes no notice of tho it is a reasonable answer to all his objections about Prescription For if all mankind are agreed that a Right to a Government by these ways may be attain'd then little objections signifie nothing fix'd and stated rules lose nothing of their validity because a disputer can embroil them by wit and artifice He is a bold man that will oppose his single judgment to the World and say that Prescription does not make a Title when all Laws say it does And this likewise is a considerable reason for my interpretation of a thorough Settlement and against the Doctors For it is certainly very reasonable to expound the Convocation in a sense that concurs with the general judgment of mankind about Government it is as the Doctor allows agreed by all men that a Government by what ill means soever attain'd upon the acquisition of Right is a lawful Government and ought to be obeyed But for Usurpation that hath no Right nay actually opposes Right those that have asserted obedience was due to such a Government have been so very few in any age and so inconsiderable that the Dr. tho provoked to it either cannot or else is asham'd to name them So that if a thorough Settlement might be understood in the Doctors sense and without Right yet if it might mean also a Settlement by the acquisition of Right it is plainly more reasonable to interpret that to be the sense of the Convocation for what reason is there to put a singular sense upon their words if they will bear a received one what reason is there to make them deliver a new doctrine contrary to the sense of mankind when their words may be fairly reconcil'd to a Doctrine generally receiv'd and about which there is no controversie But let us hear the Doctor 's Arguments against it He observes P. 7. 1. That all the Convocation says relates to the visible and actual alterations of Governments and Governors and translation of Kingdoms brought about by the wickedness of men by divine providence c. Now says he this is matter of fact not of Right and his reason is unless all alterations of Government are Rightful and Legal Now this indeed would be something if the Convocation had required us to pay obedience to all alterations of Government But they do it with this limitation when such alterations are throughly setled and if they had thought all alterations of Government were to be obey'd it had been impertinent to add when they are throughly setled and I wonder from whence he draws this Conclusion And therefore the Settlement of such alterations is an actual not legal Settlement of them for suppose the alterations are matter of fact and not of Right does it follow therefore that the Settlement of these alterations are matter of fact and not of Right too Alterations and the Settlement of them are two very different things for by Settlement their very nature is alter'd and they receive a new Character and there is Duty and Allegiance belonging to them when there was none before And it is absurd and inconsequent to argue from the nature of the Alterations to the nature of the Settlement which puts them into a new State and cloaths them with Authority and gives them a Right to Homage and Subjection now a thorough Settlement either alters the nature of such alte ations or it does not if not then how comes Allegiance to be a duty to alterations throughly setled and not to these which are not so if it does alter their nature and property then how comes an Argument from the nature of such alterations to affect the notion of the thorough Settlement of them The Dr. adds This brings the dispute to matter of sense His eyes I suppose for if such alterations of Government and translation of Kingdoms may be made and setled without the Death Cession c. and Prescription then they are not necessary to the Settlement the Convocation speaks of I suppose that which follows he intends for a Reason for there may be an actual and visible Settlement without it which is all that is required to an actual and visible translation of Kingdoms And that is all the Convocation intended That is to say you must believe the Doctor whether he gives any reason or no For how does he prove that there may be an actual and visible Settlement without Right or that Kingdoms may be translated without it I grant that the Settlement that translates Kingdoms is actual and visible and so it must be if it be a Settlement but if the Doctor will give other People leave to believe their eyes as well as he His Settlement is neither Actual nor Visible for it is no Settlement at all But for all that the Doctor adds he who will venture to say that a new Prince can't be actually and visibly setled in the Throne while the old Rightful King is living and makes his claim shall dispute by himself for me now this is the whole dispute and 't is just as if he had said if you will not grant what I magisterially affirm I will dispute no longer A most admirable and grave Conclusion 2. The Doctor says The Convocation expresly teaches that the Authority which is God's Authority and must be reverenced and obeyed when such alterations are throughly setled is the Authority which is unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor Well the Convocation plainly says so and what then then says he 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 God's Authority tho it be wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor well so far is right but he adds and tho the present Possessor should have no other visible Title to it but such unjust force But where had the Doctor these last words They are fit enough for his purpose but the Convocation hath not a word of it nor any thing like it They speak indeed of Authority gotten and wrung by force but do they say that that is any reason why it ought to be obey'd and reverenc'd nothing like it but only when alterations are throughly setled and is it possible to believe that by throughly setled they mean nothing but force The Doctor himself does not think so for he says the consent of the People makes a Settlement and that is something more than force and therefore
force then they might become Subjects to her and the Doctor intimates that they did and ought to be justified in it and might swear to her and tye themselves as fast as she pleased for the Doctor says in Cases of force God's entail did not bind them But then how came they and as the Doctor says upon the account of that entail too to set up Joash and slay Athaliah why truely I doubt that is not a fair Question and the Doctor cannot answer it without contradicting himself again And this he does as plain as words can do it for he tells us The manifest difference between Kings set up by Divine Providence Vindic. p. 35. in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel subject to a Divine nomination and email and Kings set up by Divine Providence in other Kingdoms The first may be and are depos'd when ever God nominates a new King or the Right Heir appears tho they had all the Rights and Settlement of the Regal Power before But then what becomes of force or how does that take off the binding power of God's entails if assoon as the Right Heir appear such a Person who possess'd by force is depos'd and as the Doctor says sinks into the state of a Subject P. 3â—â— Why truely here is a very pretty business first force makes the Divine entail not binding and then the Dâ—vine Entail makes force not binding and so they alternately vacate each other according as the Dr. hath occasion But to do the Doctor Right he is here a little more consistent and he likes fâ—rce a little better than to part with it so for he tells us P. 27. Gods entails always oblig'd the Jews when they had power enough to take the King on whom God had entâ—â—l'd the Crown which was evidently their Case when Jehoiada anointed Joash and shew Athaliah but when they were under force as under the Babylonians c. no entail tho made by God himself could bind them so that force is the business still and then the châ—â—â—es run thus force on the side of Vsuâ—pation makes Gods Entâ—il not â—â—â—ing and force on the side of Gods Entail makes Usurpation not binding And so the People either have or they have not obligations to Gâ—â—'s Entail or â—o Vsurpation according as they have power if they are not able to fight with him and kill him the Usurper is their King and they are his Subjects but if they are then the Right Heir by God's Entail is their King and they are no bodies Subjects but his An admirable Scheme of Government and Obedience Men may talk what they will of Divine Entails and Covenants with God and Rights and Conscience but 't is all but words fâ—r force is the sum Total and Government is nothing else It makes it a duty to obey the Covenant with God and it makes it lawful to break it it makes Divine Entails binding and it makes them cease to bind And it seems this Brutal Principle of force is the Rule of the World and of Conscience too and Laws and Oaths Entails and Covenants with God vary their obligation and either bind or not bind either bind for or against them as they are back'd with power and according to the variation of Force Vindic. p. 17. The Doctor proceeds and tells us that all thâ—â— can be said 〈◊〉 thinks is that by submission which gives a Legal Right I mean the sumbission and acknowledgment of these in whom the Right is Well I do mean so Answ p. but that is not all I mean for I say joyn'd with the consent and submission of the People and therefore I except against the Doctors interpretation that is to say the submission of the People does not give a Legal Right but the submission of the King does whereas I had joyn'd them both together In answer to this as the Doctor calls it he has five Questions to ask and it might be eâ—ough to observe here that he does not deny it nor do any nor all of his Questions imply a denial of it the matter is plain before him does such a submission and acknowlegment of Fâ—rce and People given a Legal Right or does it not if it does 't is as much as I conâ—â—nd for if not let him disprove it And this would bring the matter into close dispute but the Doctor did not care for that be found where the shooe pinch'd and saw he could not deny it and if he own'd it then he must have prov'd that these Governments to which the Convocation say Obedience is due had not such a submission which he could not do neither and therefore instead of giving a direct answer he leads his reader about and through a maze of Questions to cloud and cover the defect of a plain and pertinent Answer And in truth to lead us quite beside the Question as we shall see in considering the particulars The plain Question between us is whether the submission of the Prince and People gives a Legal Right To which the Doctor Answers 1. In the first place I desire to know what submission of the King that is that gives a Legal Right That is to say the Doctor desires to make a new Question of it for whether submission dâ—â—â— give a Right and what that submission is that dâ—es it are different Questions suppose men should differ in opinion as to the nature degâ—â—es or forms of such submission does it therefore follow that submission it self does not give a Right because all men are not satisfied as to the kind or degree of submission this is an odd sort of arguing to deny the thing because we are not agreed about the Modus But since the Doctor is for asking of Questions he will give me leave to ask him one Vindic. p. 17. He says that the submission of the People gives a Right to Obedience tho not a Legal Right and I desire to know what submission of the People that is that gives such a Right is it a formal Recognition by the States and Representatives why possibly that may do something where there are such States and Representatives But what submission is that where are none as there were not in the Eastern Countries and about which is the present Question I suppose a Parliament was not call'd in Judaea nor the Sanbedrim neither if there were then any such Constitution to make a formal surrender of themselves to Nâ—buchadnezzar nor yet afterwards to the Romans The Doctor insists much upon the submission of Jaddus and if it were true what Convention of the People was there representing the Nation that formally submitted to Alexander Jaddus himself and the Priests and perhaps these at Jerusalem and what is all this to the great Body of the Nation which the Doctor makes necessary to a Settlement why truely nothing at all of this and what then is that submission of the People that gives a Right to obedience even a tacit
thus the Drs. Argument is lost if to have it perfectly confuted from his own words is to have it lost But no matter for that let the Drs. Argument suffer never so much by it he will have me say that Athaliah was throughly setled and makes me believe he does me a great kindness to admit it for says he to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly setled in the Throne â— 36. and a little after he tells me I will suppose that Athaliah was throughly setled in the Throne whereas I suppose and prove the clean contrary and if to suppose that Athaliah was not throughly setled be to suppose She was throughly setled then I do suppose it but the Dr. I thank him has a mind to make me to contradict my self as fast as he contradicts himself But the Dr. gives a reason why I have not given the true notion of a full and setled Possession for saith he he hath left out the principal part of it as I state it when the Estates of the Realm and the great body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Now it is true I have left it out and how should the Dr. expect I should do otherwise for he knows I do not believe that is the true notion of a Settlement and I do not believe that the Dr. can prove that it is But I suppose the Dr. means that because I said that Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne and did not say likewise that the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation submitted to her therefore my Argument does not affect him And what the Convocation says of deposing and slaying Athaliah does not relate to a setled Government except it appears that according to the Drs. notion of it the Estates of the Realm c. had submitted to her and therefore a setled Government may have God's Authority and ought to be obey'd tho Athaliah had not God's Authority and might be depos'd because she was not setled according to the Drs. account by the submission of the Estates of the Realm c. This I take to be his meaning tho he has not express'd it but I know I must be careful of giving his meaning least he be angry and tell me again he will answer for none of my senses And therefore if this be not his sense Vindic. p. 71. I desire him in his next to tell me what is for I can make no other sense of it But methinks a man that is so very humoursom and touchy should be careful to deliver his sense a little plainer and not leave men to guess and to make it out for him But if that be his sense then I make this Answer 1. I do own that the People of Judah at least the more conscientious part of them did not submit to Athaliah so as to become her Subjects and Parties to her Government But I do believe notwithstanding that a great part of them and perhaps the greatest did side with her and abet her For it is plain that She had a Party enough to maintain her Government and those that would not own it were not able to oppose her Had Jehoiada been strong enough I think there is no doubt but he would have deposed her and established Joash long before But at the end of six years he had a great accession to his Party which probably he had at that time been preparing and working them into a sense of their duty to their lawful King and there can hardly be given any other account why he permitted the Usurpation so long for if the mere shewing the King would have done it and have turned the hearts of the People that might as well have been done some years before and the Kingdom have been set upon the Right bottom and the mischiefs of continued Usurpation have been prevented But it is no wonder that power and interest should prevail against Duty and Conscience Men in those days as well as others might have their Principles corrupted and their morals poysoned what Arguments they had to justifie themselves by does not appear the Drs. two Books would have stored them with abundance but a little Argument with a great Interest will go a great way And it is plain it was six years before they came to a sense of their duty and there is little doubt to be made but Jehoiada travail'd all that time with them to reduce them and probably upon just Conviction they deserted the Usurper and joyn'd themselves to Jehoiada But the Question is not What they did but what they ought to have done That a great part of the Kingdom did submit to her I think there is no dispute and it is as little that a great many did not and the Question is Who of these according to the Principles of the Convocation ought to be justified and who ought to be condemn'd 2. The Dr. himself asserts they did submit and so Athaliah was setled according to his Notion of a Settlement and then my Argument affects him 3. The Question is not What is the Drs. Notion but what is the Convocation's Notion of a Settlement and I readily grant that according to that Athaliah was not setled nor that they thought she was But the Reason is because she was an Usurper and the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive and not because the People had not submitted For if they did submit as the Dr. says they did that made no alteration in the Case they were bound notwithstanding to return to their Lawful Ki g and to Depose the Usurper whether they had or not submitted And the truth is there is scarcely any thing the Convocation more obviates than the Notion of Peoples Consent contributing any thing to the Government or to their own Duty They express it Civil Power Jurisdiction c. deduced by their Consents depend upon their Consents did receive any such vertue and strength from the people P. 3. P. 8. P. 28. Now 't s true these are spoken with reference to Lawful Governments But then I would fain see a good Reason why the Peoples Submission and Consent which signifies nothing with respect to Lawful Governments and their Duty to them should signifie so very much against the Lawful Government or if the Peoples Consent does not make Allegiance a Duty to Lawful Governments how comes it to make it a Duty to Usurpation in opposition to Lawful Governments 4. Altho the Dr. here tells us that the Principal part of a Settlement is the Submission of the Estates and the great Body of the Nation as he does also in his Case of Allegiance yet when he comes to prove this he himself hath left this Principal part quite out for the Answerer had said that Settlement is a Term of Law and in the notion of it denoted a Rightful and Peaceable Possession and in Reply to this
anointed or at the same time that Athaliah was on his Throne But the Dr. starts a new Question and that is Whether a Private man may kill an Usurper and expatiates upon it and has it in I know not how many places in his Book tho it be nothing at all to the purpose Perhaps he would have me give some Answer to that because he can dispute about it I can tell him that Bishop Buckeridge and other Learned men have asserted it and if he have a mind to it he may try his faculty and dispute the Point against them But I do not know any reason to mix it in the Present Controversie which is about Submission and Swearing Allegiance to Usurped Powers And I think there is some difference between Killing and Swearing Allegiance to an Usurper I now come to his Second Answer which relates to his distinction of God's Entailing the Kingdom of Judah to David's Posterity of other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Providence and to this I had given several Answers 1. This Distinction is not in the Convocation Book Postscr p. 5. Vindic. p. 24. and so does not affect their sense To this the Dr. replies I grant it And then it seems there may be a fair account given of the Deposing and Slaying Athaliah without having recourse to the Drs. Distinction for the Convocation have done that and the Dr. grants his Distinction does not affect their Sense But then I would fain know how it comes to affect the Case of Joash and Athaliah so much that it can by no means be solv'd without it I know the Dr. says he did not concern the Convocation Book in the Story But I think that makes no great matter the Convocation concern'd themselves in the story and that may do as well as if the Dr. himself had concern'd them in it and very punctually declare and justifie Jehoiada's setting up Joash the Rightful King and slaying Athaliah the Usurper And that it seems may be done without the help of the Drs. Distinction for that does not affect their Sense But saith he tho the Convocation takes notice of the Story yet they neither make nor answer this Objection which the Dr. raised from the Story in direct terms But if the Objection be concerning the Anointing Joash and the Deposing and Slaying Athaliah they had made it sufficiently and as for answering it in direct terms if by that the Dr. means they have not answer'd it as he hath done it is true enough but for all that they have answer'd it directly enough and the whole Chapter and Canon were design'd for an Answer to it But still the Dr. tells us they had another design in mentioning it and fitted their answers wholly to that That no Priests in the Old Testament did ever Depose from their Crowns any of their Kings Convoc p 41. how wicked soever or had any Authority so to do And because the Example of Jehoiada used to be urged by them to this purpose they shew that no such thing can be proved from it Very well and so they do And do they not also tell us that Jehoiada the High Priest set up Joash and slew Athaliah and therefore tho it cannot be proved as the Convocation says that any Priests in the Old Testament did ever depose from their Crowns any of their Kings yet it can be proved that Jehoiada restor'd the Rightful King and slew the Usurper And if the Convocation had been of the Drs. mind and had thought that an Usurper now might not be deposed and that Subjects did not owe Allegiance to a Rightful King while his Throne was possess'd by an Usurper it is credible that they would not have intimated it to prevent the inconveniences that might arise from this Example In other Cases we see how very Nice and Cautious they were and there was but reason In the Case of Jehu they say Convoc p. 47 48. If any man shall affirm that any Prophets Priests or other Persons having no direct and express Command from God might lawfully imitate the said facts either of Samuel or Elizeus in anointing and designing Successors to Kings which otherwise had no Just Interest Title and Claim to their Kingdoms or that it is Lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whatsoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign or to lay violent hands upon his Sacred Person by the Example of Jehu notwithstanding that any Prophet or Priest should incite him thereunto by Unction or other means whatsoever except first that it might appear that there are Now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself with sufficient and special Authority in that behalf and that every such Captain and Subject so incited might be assured that God had in express words and by name required and commanded him to do He doth greatly err So likewise they say P. 53. with respect to the fact of Ahud killing King Eglon and of Jehu Both which Examples being but in number two throughout the Histories of all the Princes Judges and Kings either of Israel or Judah it seems they thought Athaliah was none of them what a Queen soever the Dr. hath made of her do make it known to us that altho the Lord may and is able to overthrow any King c. yet foreseeing what mischiefs private men under colour of those Examples might have pretended or attempted against their Sovereigns he did order c. as that it might plainly appear to any that would not wilfully hoodwink himself never to be lawful for any person whatsoever upon pretence of any Revelation Inspiration or Commandment from his Divine Majesty either to touch the Person of his Sovereign c. And this yet more fully and largely insisted on in the Canon Conyoc Can. 27. p. 54. which is level'd to prevent the drawing of that fact of Ahud into example and which I beg the Reader to peruse and he will soon be satisfied how wonderful careful the Convocation was when any extraordinary Examples came in their way and which were not to be followed in latter Ages to prevent all mistakes and abuses that might by corrupt minds be drawn from them And now let us compare with these the Case before us here is a plain Example of Setting up a Rightful King and of Deposing and Slaying an Usurper and that Example justified by the Convocation Is it possible for the Dr. himself or for any man else to believe that if the Covocationn had thought that in these days an Usurper ought not to be deposed or that men were not bound to pay Allegiance to the Rightful King when his Throne is in the Possession of an Usurper that they would not have taken the same care in this as they do in the other Examples and plainly and clearly have said that the practice of Jehoiada and the People was not Now to be drawn into president for certainly there is not less but a great
being conceal'd and says they might lawfully do it when he was hid and then to make me say so too asks me whether by my own Principles they might not have done it if they believ'd the whole Line was extinct A very grave Question and much to the purpose Well I see there is no dealing with such a Disputer that will make such turns upon his Adversaries I had thought there had been some difference between Possession against a Right and Possession when there was no better Right And I desire to know of the Dr. why they ought to have submitted to Athaliah or innocently might The Concealment of Joash will not serve the turn except the whole Family of David had been conceal'd likewise and the Dr. I doubt will be as little able to make that evident from the story as that Jehoiada and the People submitted The Dr. tells us Vindic. p. 37. he asserted in the Case that Government and Allegiance are such Relatives as do mutuo se ponere tollere the one cannot subsist without the other if the Prince can't govern the Subject can't obey Postscr p. 9. To this I had made a short reflection which the Dr. does not think fit to take notice of And therefore because they can't obey him they must fight against him and kill him and do their utmost to ruine him And yet I conceive there is some difference between actual obedience and actual hostility And I wonder where is the Consequence A King is hindred from actually governing his people and therefore the people are bound to do their utmost to hinder him still or to knock him on the head For says the Dr. And therefore as far as he quits his Government he quits their Allegiance and leaves his Subjects as he does his Crown to be possessed by another and must recover them both together Now say he This the Author says is as plain a fallacy as ever he met with and proves from the example of Joash that it is so But here the Dr. does not repeat fairly his own words nor mine For tho I had said it was a plain fallacy yet it was not only with respect to those words of his which he hath repeated but to the whole and more especially to that which follows and which he hath omitted for he adds in the Case of Allegiance He may have a Legal Right to both but he cannot actually have the Subjects Allegiance without the Crown nor can the Subjects pay him their Allegiance without his being restored to possession of the Throne no more than they can obey when he cannot command These I suppose the Dr. did not add as superfluous words but design'd by them either more fully to explain his meaning or to prove his Assertion and to these my Answer was more immediately suited at the foot of these to wind up his Argument the Dr. says this is as certain as any Proposition in Logick My Answer was it is as plain a fallacy as ever I met with and the instance before us of Joash lays it open The Dr. replys but I have said so much already to that Case that I will trouble my Reader no further with it A special Reply and let the Reader judge of it I said I ask the Dr. was the restoring Joash to the Throne an act of their Allegiance or no If not what duty was it But if it was then Allegiance follows the Person of the King tho he be out of the possession of his Throne And this is as direct against the Drs. Assertion as any thing can be for if the Restoring Joash to the Possession of his Throne when he was out of Possession was an act of their Allegiance to him then a Prince may actually have the Subjects Allegiance and they may nay they ought to pay him Allegiance without if before be without his being restor'd to the possession of his Throne But forsooth the Dr. did not think fit to trouble himself nor his Readers with an answer to it And I cannot blame him for why should a man trouble his Readers with any thing when he hath nothing to say to it It is a wise way to scorn an Argument which we cannot answer But to gratifie him what does he think of the Case of King Charles the Second I hope he may vouchsafe to trouble his Readers with an Answer to that tho he does not to the Case of Joash was the restoring him to the Possession of his Throne an Act of the Subjects Allegiance or was it not If not the Dr. will be very kind to tell us what it was some civility perhaps or kindness to him and his family but no act of duty And so the Parliamentary Acts of Recognition and owning him King all the time of his absence and the Act of Indemnity c. are meer Complements of State but in reality nothing at all For he quitted the Allegiance of the Subjects when he quitted the possession of the Throne and they ow'd him no Allegiance nor could they pay him any 'till he was restor'd to the possession And beside the Dr. hath told us Case of Alleg. p 2â— that there is a vast difference between maintaining and defending a Regnant Prince and restoring a dispossessed Prince But now if the Restoring him was an Act of their Allegiance then Allegiance is due to the Person of the King when he is out of the Possession of the Throne and they are bound to pay it to him before he is possessed of it And when the Dr. thinks fit to trouble his Readers he may answer it and if he does not think fit to answer me let him answer the Acts of Parliament and the Justice of the Nation And his fine business of Divine and Humane Entails giving very different Rights to Princes will signifie nothing here For King Charles was King not by Divine but by Humane Entail The Dr. proceeds upon my Answer and says that I say By Government he means the Actual Administration of it and then Government and Allegiance are so far from being such Relatives that they are no Relatives at all they are only the Acts of Relatives and to say the Acts of Relatives are Relatives is so far from being as certain as any Proposition in Logic that it is Logical Nonsense To this the Dr. replys Well! Logical Nonsense I hope is the best sort of Nonsense however Well! Best or worst Nonsense it is and if the Dr. had rather have it of the best sort with all my heart But saith he my meaning is plain enough and certainly true which is as much as any Proposition in Logick can be By Government I do mean the Actual Administration of Government not as that signifies the particular Acts of Government but the Actual Possession of Power and Authority to Govern By Allegiance I mean that Obedience and Subjection that is due to Government Something is the matter sure that we must distinguish so nicely
I wonder what is the difference between Actual Possession of Power and Actual administring it And if there was any difference whatever he means now in his Case of Allegiance he certainly meant the administring i. e. the performing the Acts of Government for his Argument is Case of Alleg. p. 42. If the Prince cannot govern the Subject can't obey And what does he mean by the Prince cannot govern but that he cannot perform the Acts of Government cannot exercise and administer it And the same he means with respect to the Allegiance of the Subject P. 43. The Subject cannot obey i. e. cannot actually pay his Allegiance And this he must mean if he means any thing And so he says after He may have a Legal Right but he cannot actually have the Subjects Allegiance nor can Subjects pay him their Allegiance i. e. cannot perform the Acts of it I know there is a difference between the Acts of Allegiance and the Duty of Allegiance A man may owe Allegiance where he cannot pay it and it may be due to a Person to whom the Subject cannot perform the Acts of it But this is so far from doing him service that it confutes his whole Argument for what if when the Prince can't govern the Subjects can't obey yet if the Subject may owe the Prince Obedience what if the Subject cannot pay the Prince Allegiance yet if Allegiance be due to him the Drs. Argument falls And what then makes him distinguish thus Critically Why truly I had said That the Actual administration of Government and Allegiance are not Relatives but the Acts of Relatives And to be even with me By Actual Administration he does not mean the particular Acts of Government and by Allegiance the Duty and not the particular Acts of it And what is this to the purpose Are they not the Acts of Relatives for all that What if Actual Administration should signifie Actual Posssession and Authority is it not an Act of the Relative when it signifies so as well as when it signifies particular Acts of Government What if Allegiance means that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government is not that an Act of the Relative as well as when it means the particular Acts of Allegiance Actual Authority is not the particular Acts of Government but it is the Act of the Relative the Duty of Allegiance is not the particular Acts of Allegiance but it is the Act of the Relative And therefore let the Dr. mean what he please by them it makes no Alteration in the Case For either way they are Acts of Relatives and therefore not Relatives themselves And this is the Single Question and I ask him If the Actual Administration of Government signifies Possession of Power and Authority to Govern and Allegiance means that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Goverment are they then Relatives Why truly the Dr. cannot say that tho he hath a great mind to it but says if the Author will be so severe as not to allow me to call these Relatives But the Dr. is mistaken if he thinks I contend with him only about a meer propriety of expression For the whole stress of the Argument depends upon it And if the Dr. mistakes the use of an Expression and argues and builds upon such mistake there is no reason to give up the Argument out of Complement to the Expression Relatives se mutuo ponunt tollunt But if the Actual Administration of Government and Allegiance are not Relatives then they do not se mutuo ponere tollore which the Dr. concludes from their being Relatives And this perhaps he would have me give him out of good manners for he hath not prov'd it nor does he now directly assert it But saith he they are the Relations which make the Relatives and do mutuo se ponere tollere Now if the Dr. can prove that Actual Possession of Power is the Relation that makes a King or if he can prove that the Actual Possession of Power he adds indeed and Authority to Govern but if he means by that more than Possession of Power he speaks ambiguously and ought to have explain'd himself and the Allegiance of the Subject do mutuo se ponere tollere I will not dispute with him about Terms and Expressions Now to prove this he asks What is the Relation of a King to a Subject His Dominion and Government What is the Relation of a Subject to a King His due Allegiance and Subjection Then Dominion and Government makes a King and Allegiance a Subject and Allegiance has as neccessary a Relation to Dominion as a Subject has to a King If there be no King there can be no Subject If no Dominion and Government there can be no Allegiance Paternity is the Relation that makes a Father and Filiation a Son and Paternity and Filiation have as mutual and necessary respect to each other as Father and Son These are call'd by Logicians Relative Acts i. e. Logicians call Paternity and Filiation Relative Acts This is extraordinary and the Dr. would have done well to have told us who those Logicians are that call them so Relations I know they are call'd but Relations and Relative Acts are two things But for all that the Dr. proceeds upon it and asks Why then may not I call Government and Subjection Relative Duties He may call them so if he please but if he has no better Authority for it than that Logicians call Paternity and Filiation Relative Acts he has none at all But saith he by which I explain'd what I mean't by Relatives The Dr. call'd Government and Allegiance Relatives Case of Alleg. p. 42. and argued upon the supposition that they were Relatives and from thence draw'd a peremptory Conclusion and said This is as certain as any Proposition in Logick and to extend Allegiance beyond the actual administration of Government is to preserve a Relative without its Correlate for when one of the Relatives is lost the Relation is destroy'd And I hope no body will be so obstinate as to say that by Relatives the Dr. meant Relatives but that he meant Relations or Relative Acts or Relative Duties or any thing rather than Relatives for by Government and Subjection being Relative Duties the Dr. had explain'd what he meant by Relatives i. e. he had said Government and Allegiance were Relatives and they are not Relatives And can any body believe the Dr. should mean things are what they are not tho he says so over and over For this is all his Explication He was speaking of Government and Subjection but he was speaking of them as Relatives and affirm'd them so to be but seeing they are not so therefore when he calls them so he does not mean what he calls them but something else Now is it not a thousand times better ingenuously to own the mistake of an Expression than to be put upon such shifts to disguise it and then to
colour the matter the better to laugh away the notice of it as the Dr. very gravely This I'm sure is only a Logical Banter and so let it pass Well! but the Dr. hath explain'd himself now and for once let us take a new account for an explication and see whether he hath mended the matter but here we are at some loss in the Case of Allegiance Government and Allegiance were Relatives but in the Vindication by way of Explication they are the Relations that make the Relatives and a few lines after they are Relative Duties and a little after Vindic. p. 11. they are Relations again I remember the Dr. told me I blunder'd for want of clear and distinct notions of what I wrote But mocking is catching And here the Dr. blunders to some purpose if speaking confusedly backwards and forwards be blundering and all for want of having or for want of laying down clear and distinct notions of what he writes For as to Government and Subjection being Relative Duties I doubt he must explain himself again For Duties it seems they are and I desire to know what Duties Are they the Duties of Relations If not I desire the Dr. in his next to tell me what Duties they are but if they are then they are not the Relations themselves but such as flow from the Relation And this is a plain contradiction to what he asserts before that they are the Relations that make the Relatives But truth will out And this is the plain state of the Câ—se for it is certain they are duties and relative duties too in the sense those words are generally taken that is such duties as arise from Relation and are due to Relatives And this plainly confutes the Drs. notions and arguments for then they are not nor can be the Relations that make the Relatives for the duty flowing from the Relation and the Relation it self are two very different things not do they mutuo se ponere tollere for the failure of the actual duties of the Relative does not destroy the Relation And this is the Drs. fundamental mistake he confounds the Relation with the duty of that Relation and accordingly he asserts That the actual Administration of Government as that signifies the actual Possession of Power and Authority to govern And Allegiance as it means that Obedience and Subjection which is due to Government are the Relations which make the Relatives and do mutuo se ponere tollere For what is the Relation of a King to a Subject His Dominion and Government what is the Relation of a Subject to a King his due Allegiance and Subjection then Dominion and Government makes a King and Allegiance a Subject and Allegiance has as necessary a Relation to Dominion as a Subject has to a King c. In answer to this I have these things to observe 1. This is an illogical and preposterous way of arguing 't is notum per ignotius the Relatives are well enough known but the Relations between the Relatives being abstracted things are not so easily and in some cases perhaps not at all understood The Relatives Father and Son all men understand and that there is a Relation between them but there are not many that have any formal Conception of Paternity and Filiation the Relatives Husband and Wife are evident enough but the Relations between them are not so and for ought I know have not a name in any Language and if they were expressed very few would be the wiser who notwithstanding would know well enough that there was a Relation between them And the Case is the same with respect to King and Subject and the Relations between them the Relatives are plain and obvious and well known but the Relations are abstracted things and not so distinctly apprehended And this is the reason why several Relations have no names and cannot be expressed without difficulty and artificial explication And hitherto men have not been very inquisitive about them and there was no reason for it as answering no end or no good end either a fruitless curiosity or worse to evade a Duty and perplex plain things For the Relation is inseparable from the Relative and when you have found the Relative you have found the Relation where a King is there is the Relation of a King and where is a Subject there is the Relation of a Subject it would be a wise course for a Son to seek his Father by inquiring into the Relation of Paternity or a Wife her Husband by inquiring into the Relation of an Husband at this rate we should soon have a mad World on 't and we should have as dutiful Children and obedient Wives as we have Subjects And this it seems pleases the Dr. best he is for seeking the Sun in the dark and the Subjects must find out their King by the Relations which is the backside of an Argument and begins at the wrong end In the Case of Allegiance the Dr. urg'd that Government and Allegiance were Relatives and did mutuo se ponere tollere And the Argument was proper and logical if he could but have prov'd it but when that would not do then he is for a new strein and contrary to all methods of argumentation is for proving the business by Relations and would feign know whether the Relative continues when the Relation is destroyed And this is the difference between the Dr. before and now in his Case of Allegiance the Relation ceased with the Relative but in the Vindication the Relative ceases with the Relation that is because a direct Argument cannot do it a preposterous one must and because the notion of a Relative which all men understand cannot be perplexed and intangled the Dr. is for proving his point by Relations which are not so well explained nor put into terms nor perhaps can be The Relatives in all Cases are plain enough but the Relations between them are not so plain nor are capable of being so and the Dr. thought it more for his turn when he was beaten out of the plain road to take by ways and according to some new Rules of Logick to prove a plain thing by an obscure one And this is an answer to his Question what is the Relation between King and Subject And let our Author think of any thing else wherein to place this relation if he can besides Actual Dominion and Sovereign Power on the one hand to make a King and the obligations to Subjection and Allegiance on the other hand to make a Subject And what if I could not think of any thing else nor of that neither do Relatives cease to be Relatives or must the Corrolate go round about the wood to look for his Relative because he cannot expresly name the relation between them There is a Relation between Husband and Wife Master and Servant and when he tells me what is the Relation between these Relatives it will be time enough to answer him
a good reason why the providence of God does not take effect against Legal Rights But how will this agree with the Drs. Doctrine and Argument Does God reserve the redress of these contrary to his own Decrees and Orders Do such reservings exclude himself and his own interpositions by providence When God has done this once shall he never be at liberty to dispose it otherwise and will not the Dr. allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever reasâ—ns the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done he iâ— resâ—lv'd to abide by whatever hâ— tâ—â—â—ks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and 〈◊〉 providence that it shall not after its usual methods in the Government of the Woâ—ld which are his Arguments but the very page before and if they prove any thing at all they are equally valid against such a Reserve as against any other Legal Right and if the Dâ— will answer them fairly he will save any man the trouble of answering his Book The Dr. adds But the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a Legal decision or any Humane Courts for the decision of which God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires And here the final determination of providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of the Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Sovereign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he please as he can best serve the wise and many times unsearchable designs of his providence by it To this I answer and because he hath the same in other places I shall do it distinctly 1. The Rights of Princes may and ought to be determined by Law as well as those of Subjects I have already instanced in the differences between the Houses of York and Lancaster where the Law hath decided the controversie and the Case hath been the same in other Kingdoms but I wonder whoever insisted on a Providential Title or thought it a sufficient competition for a Legal Tiâ—le There is never a Prince nor private Man in Christendom nor the Dr. himself that would change his Legal Title for a Providen ial one which is a preâ—ty plain Case that however some People may talk of it no body believes it But because there are no Judges and Juries appointed and the Rights of Princes are not to be tryed in Westminster Hall nor in other Courts of Judicature therefore Possession and Providence must determine it But this is manifestly false for the Law is as proper a Judge of the Rights of Princes as of any other their Persons are not under the Law but their Titles are and the Laws declare who is and who is not King as much as they do who is or who is not any inferior Proprietor And as to what the Dr. says of a Tribunal I suppose he means to inforce this upon the Subject for the matter is declared by the Law and there needs no Tribunal for that no more than there needs a visible Judge of controversies in matters of Religion 't is a duty under the direction of the Law and every Person concerned is bound to take notice of it But as for the other if the Law may take its course there are Tribunals enough But indeed when the Prince is dispossessed there is no Tribunal to force this and to punish the neglect that is there is no Power to hang a Man if he does not take notice of the Law and there is power to hang him if he does This makes some difference as to punishment but none as to duty for the obligation arises from the direction of the Law and not from the external force to compel the observance and the direction of the Law binds when there are and when there are not Courts of Judicature to put it in execution 2. There is no Tribunal for the Correction of Princes but Gods Very true And therefore they are not accountable to the People for mal-administration Their Persons are sacred their Authority irresistable and unalienable And these were the Inferences that hitherto the Men of the Church of England have drawn from this Doctrine but the Dr. hath found out a new Inference that the Subjects may resist him and shake off his Authority and kill him too if need be and all for this weighty Reason because they have put another in the possession of his Throne I know the Dr. calls it Providence but that is the English of it 3. 'T is true God hath reserved to himself the Correction of Sovereign Princes and somtimes he doth here actually correct and punish them and dispossession is sometimes design'd as a Punishment by God himself But still the Question returns is such a dispossession by providence a sufficient evidence that God hath given away the Kingdom from the dispossessed to the Possessor of the Throne and 'till that can be made out all these Arguments and Inferences signifie nothing And that is manifestly false in the Case of David he for the punishment of his sins was dispossessed by his own Son but God by that providence did not take away the Kingdom from David and give it to Absolom And God had then erected no Universal Tribunal for the decision of such Cases no more than he has now The Question therefore is not whether there are some Cases too big for a Legal Decision or Humane Courts or whether God hath reserv'd to his own judgment the correction of Princes and transferring Kingdoms But the Question is whether the Possession of the Throne by providence divests the Rightful King of the Crown and of the Allegiance of the Subjects while his Person is in being and his Legal Right remains And that the matters being reserved to God's own Tribunal does not prove the nature of the thing indeed proves that cases that cannot be redressed by publick Government are reserved to God's own judgment but their being so reserved which is the full of the Drs. Argument does not prove that therefore every Providential Possession of the Throne is God's final determination or any warrantable evidence to conclude from thence that God hath made him a King and the People his Subjects Dr. Sherlock makes another Collection from providence in this very case No Vsurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of the natural Prince such Vsurpers Case of Resist p. 132. the they have the Possession of the supreme Power yet they have no right to it and tho God for wise reasons may sometimes permit such Vsurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence he secures their Title too 4. The Dr. says that in correction of Princes
which is such a way of God's giving Right and men receiving a Right from him that no Casuist in the World ever dreamed of before 2. As for the Right to Allegiance The Dr. tells us it was the great design of his book to prove that Allegiance was not immediatly due to a Legal Right to the Crown but to Government that therefore he denies a Prince who has the Legal Right no Right which he can justly claim who denies Alleg. to him when he is out of the Throne And saith he methinks our Author should have answered all that I said upon this Argument before he had so dâ—gmatically told us that the general Rules about right and wrong which extend to all Persons and Cases made it needless for St Paul to have told us that by the higher Powers and the Powers that are he meant only Legal Powers Now I thought I had answered his Argument from providence and which also 'till now the Dr. tells me otherwise I took to be the great design of his book and his Argument that Government and Allegiance are Relatives was not quite neglected and the Dr. sound it so and what is it that I have not answered upon this argument why as he now repeats it That Allegiance is not due to Legal Right but to Government c. Now I have proved over and over that Allegiance is due only to the Legal Prince that it is not due to an Usurper who actually administers the Government but to the Legal Prince when he does not actually administer it And that I think is answering it but some men complain for want of answers when they have more already then they can tell what to do with But the Dr. is sure the Reason of things does not prove the contrary For when the Allegiance and Obedience of Subjects is a duty only for the sake of Government for the ease and safety of it it is very strange that it should not be due to a setled Government but due to a Prince who does not and cannot govern cannot govern who hinders him why as the Dr. puts the Case the Usurper and his Confederates and that is an argument that they owe him no Allegiance just as Cromwell and his accomplices first disabled the King and then cryed they ow'd him no Allegiance because he could not protect them But Allegiance is for the sake of Government and therefore whoever actually governs let him be who he will hath a Right to Allegiance but first arguments drawn from the sake and end of things to prove the transferring of Rights and Duties are absurd and inconsequent Marriage is for the sake of Conjugal Society and if a Husband is imprisoned or under force so as he cannot keep his Wife company it is very strange that she should not be a Wife to him that does keep her company and not to him who neither does nor can and just such another argument is the Drs. from the sake of Government But the Truth is Allegiance is not due to Government nor is it for the sake of Government but it is due and owing to the Person of the Prince by the Laws of God and Man and therefore follows his Person whether in or out of Possession But let us put the Argument into the terms of the Question and instead of Government put Vsurpation and then see what the Reason of things prove and then I think it is plain enough that the Allegiance and Obedience of Subjects is not a duty only or at all for the sake of Vsurpation nor were they ever intended for the ease and safety of Usurpation but the contrary what is a duty for the sake and safety of the Legal Government is for the prevention and destruction of Usurpation And it is somewhat extraordinary to say that was for the sake of Usurpation which was designed to prevent it The Dr. proceeds if I may have liberty to dispute with this Author upon his own Principles Vindic. p. 56. I desire to know of him whether Allegiance be due to any Prince upon any other account than his being invested with God's Authority Let him say it at the utmost peril of his Cause Now I confess I am not very fond of giving up my Cause gratis except the Dr. could give me some better reasons for it yet because the Dr. threatens and he intimates P. 65. that I am no very cool man and so may be apt to be provoked this I will say and let him make his best of it That Allegiance is due to the Prince upon the account or by the obligation of Humane Law Now this is either another account or the very same if another account then the Drs huffing Question means nothing and there is no peril in saying so if the very same then Humane Law in this Case is God's Authority and God's Authority is derived by Humane Law and then his Arguments mean nothing And this Answers his following Questions How then does God invest any Prince with his Authority of Government whom he does not immediatly nominate as in the Kingdom of Judah why truly just as he invests a man with a property to any of his Goods or Estate even by Law and Common Right But saith he it must be either by annexing his Authority to the Legal Office or by placing such a Person on the Throne by what means soever he does it or by both I do not know what the Dr. means by Both the controversie is when there is a competition between Legal Right and Vsurpation and then the Question is which of these are invested with God's Authority And then I say that God annexes his Authority to the Person who hath a Right to the Government and not to the Usurper who hath no Right And this is an answer according to my Principles which the Dr. pretends to dispute upon But if the Dr. had rather have it in hâ—s own expressions then I say that God does annex his Authority to the Legal Office And he whose the Legal Office is has God's Authority whether he be or be not actually possessed of that Office the Office is his who hath a Right to it and the Authority is his from God and no body else hath either the Authority or the Office but intrudes upon both and invades God's Authority as much as he does another mans Office But saith he then it is certain no Prince can have God's Authority who is not in Possession of the Throne and then no Allegiance can be due to him Now this consequence lies a great way of and at first sight a man would be apt to admire how it should follow from the premisses for tho it might do pretty well from one of the branches from placing a Person on the Throne by what means soever yet how comes it to follow from the other from God's annexing his Authority to the Legal Office The Propositions are complex and made up of several parts and the
objected to him Case of Alleg. p. 48. Posts p. 15. That the Friends of Monarchy were bound in Interest to restore the King And he did not know how to get off from it without inventing this new distinction which yet will not serve his turn for having applied what he said before to those times of Usurpation he adds This is so far from lessening and reproaching their Loyalty that it is greatly for the commendation of it that when they were not bound in conscience to submit to those Vsurpations tho by submission our Author intimates they might have made better terms for themselves yet they rather chose to venture their lives and fortunes to restore the King which is not as our Author insinuates to prefer their interest to their Consciences in serving the King but where Conscience was not concerned to the contrary to venture their interest ther lives and fortunes to restore the King Now here is a very pleasant state of the Case For 1. The Dr. tells us in such a state interest is to turn the scale and yet in the close of his reply he says it was to venture their interests lives and fortunes to restore the King this looks very like a contradiction for what does he mean by venturing their interests but venturing the loss of them And those who might have preserved their interests by submission to the Usurpations and which according to the Dr. it was lawful for them to do chose rather to venture their lives and fortunes to restore the King i. e. in short they chose rather to hazard their lives and interests than to preserve them And if interest must turn the scale it is plain enough that whatever Conscience did interest lay on the side of Usurpation And when so many of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy were utterly undone for their obstinate Loyalty in such a Case to talk of mens being Loyal for interest is to contradict common sense 2. The Dr gives an admirable account of the Grounds and Reasons why the Royal Party did not submit to those Usurpations and that is not Conscience but Interest not but that they thought it lawful for them to submit but they refused it upon other accounts even when they thought they lawfully might But where had the Dr. this fine account Is there the least intimation of it in any history of those times in any Pamphlet or discourse concerning it or did ever any man besides the Dr. say it there were some indeed that thought or pretended to think they were mistaken and they might lawfully own those Usurpations and the Drs. argument from providence was urged for that purpose But I think the Dr. is the first that ever affirm'd that they themselves thought so Their general arguments were drawn from the Duty of Allegiance the obligation of their Oaths and the Laws of the Land which plainly import they thought Conscience was concerned and that it was unlawful to own those Usurpations This therefore is nothing but fancy and imagination and the Dr. says it without any ground in the World He may make reasons for himself and coin new distinctions to justifie them but what warrant has he to make reasons for other men It is no wonder he makes thus hold with the Convocation who can fasten such a sense on the practices of those loyal sufferers not only without any manner of foundation but contrary to their express declarations if we must be making new Hypotheses and framing new Schemes of Government to justifie our selves let us prove them as well as we can but for shame let us never intitle other men to them who plainly acted by different Principles and have as plainly declared their sense to the contrary if the Dr. thinks this imputation severe let him acquit himself from it by shewing if he can but some few among those many Loyal Sufferers who thought Conscience was not concern'd in the Case and that they thought it lawful to submit and become Subjects to those Usurpations in opposition to their Legal King And this is yet more extravagant if we reflect on the dismal circumstances of those times and to how many difficulties and fatal miseries that Revolution exposed the Loyal Party a great part of which might have been prevented in particular men if they would but have comply'd and joyn'd themselves to the Usurpers In such a Case to Question whether they were acted by Principles of Conscience or to say that they thought Conscience was not concern'd either way is to scorn and abuse their sufferings and makes them self murderers and destroyers and lays all their desolation and ruin at their own doors for what can such men answer to God themselves or their families who suffer themselves to be undone and perish when they might lawfully have prevented it And this is that admirable Character the Dr. to save his own Hypothesis hath found out for these noble and conscientious Sufferers He was charg'd with reproaching their Vertue and Loyalty and to get himself off that he hath reproach'd them as much on the other hand 3. The Dr. distinguishes between when it is lawful and when it is a duty to submit and applies this distinction to those Usurpations thereby intimating that it was lawful tho not a duty for the Loyal Party to submit to them The consequence is they had no obligation in conscience to King Charles the second for if it was lawful for them to submit and become Parties to the Usurpation it was likewise lawful for them to discharge themselves of King Charles for they could not be the Subjects of both and then they were not bound in conscience to him they might respect him for their own ends and endeavour to restore him to better their condition as the Dr. says and for the sake of their interest but Duty they owed him none at all they ow'd him just as much as they ow'd Cromwell and no more He was charged with reproaching their Vertue and Loyalty and he hath now fairly compromis'd the matter and made them have no Loyalty at all For I pray what kind of Loyalty is that which is no duty They might love and respect the King or rather themselves but to be loyal to him they could not for that arises from Duty and Obligation and 't is mere name and complement when there is none And thus that renowned Loyalty which the world had in so much veneration is sunk into just nothing Between the Royalists and the other Party the scales were even in point of Conscience advantage might turn the scales and the whole is resolv'd into selfishness and private interest And what a hideous account is this of that glorious scene of invincible Fidelity Fortitude and good Conscience It is much for the honor of an Hypothesis that it cannot be vindicated but at the expence of the glory and reputation due to the best Men and the best Practices And which is yet more extraordinary the Doctor would make us
and Societies must hang together as well as they can For there are no Bonds and Ligaments of Duty and Conscience For he tells us very expresly that the Subjects were not in those days bound in Conscience to submit Vind. p. 66. to those usurped powers who notwithstanding actually govern'd and exercis'd the whole administration of Government for some years Well! I perceive some Objections will not be answer'd except a man contradicts himself but they must be answer'd however The Dr. goes on to tell us that since here was no such settlement as would oblige the Subjects in conscience to obey and submit Vind. p. 70. he shewed there were other very great reasons why they should not submit And this he sayes answers all my little objections Now we are once again to remember that the Dr. quarrels with me for altering his Order and Method and tells me there is more of art than honesty in it And here again he has done it himself For all that is said before on this Head was urg'd by him in the last place and accordingly in the same order answer'd and in his Vindication he hath begun with it and inverted his own order and 't is plain Artifice to disguise the weakness and insufficiency of those other matters he then urg'd for had he reply'd to them in the same order every Reader might have perceiv'd it The Objection which he calls a prejudice which he laid down Case of Alleg. p. 45 46. and which he was to answer was That his Hypothesis equally serv'd all Revolutions Rump Protector c. and yet under that Vsurpation the Loyal Party thought themselves bound in conscience to oppose it at their utmost peril And shall we arraign them all as resisting God's Ordinance His Answer is There is a great difference between the two cases and he undertook to shew it upon many accounts and adds And all together will be more than answer enough My Answer was Those were no differences as to the matter before us of Submission to Usurped Powers Postscr p. 14. And what does he reply to this with respect to those many differences he reckons up not one single word but resolves all his Answers into the former Reply For instance he had urg'd as one great difference The great Villanies of those days open and bare-fac'd Rebellion the murder of one of the best Princes I answer'd the Dr. maintains that submission is due to Vsurped Powers by what ill means soever they attain'd it that therefore makes no difference in his argument He replyes What not to prejudice wise and good men against all compliances He should have added what he says in his Case of Allegiance though they had been lawful and that would have shewn the unreasonableness of urging prejudices for the practice of wise and good men against what had been lawful He adds for who that could possibly avoid it and to explain this he tells us in a Parenthesis that is where strict duty does not oblige nor irresistable force constrain would submit to such men i. e. The former Reply of not being bound in conscience because that Government was not setâ—led He urg'd the barbarous usage of the King's friends c. I answer'd this made some difference in point of interest but none in point of conscience He replyes nor did I say it did only it created an Aversness He had before said it made it useless and impossible but now it created an averseness as more agreeable to his present Reply which was a Reason not to submit when they were not obliged in conscience the former Reply again tho not one word of it in his Case of Allegiance He urg'd the Church of England was overturn'd Bishops Deans c. turn'd out I answer'd the Case was concerning Civil Government not Ecclesiastical he replyes But yet whoever loves the Church will not choose to submit when they are not obliged in Conscience to such Vsurpations in the State as overthrow the Church The former Reply still and of which there is not the least mention in the Case of Allegiance but I think the direct contrary For I ask had they been bound to submit notwithstanding such invasions on the Church if the Government had been throughly setled This he intimates by his Reply P. 47. and then I would desire him to explain what he means when he says in his Case of Allegiance they had no way to keep their Livings especially if they were of any value but by renouncing the Church of England as well as by submission to that Government which says he I believe notwithstanding their ready complyance in taking the Oaths the Clergy at this day would more universally have refused than they did then What if it be a duty to submit and take the Oaths Does Allegiance to the Civil Government cease to be a duty if they overturn the Church This will reflect upon St. Paul's Doctrine and the practice of the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours And I doubt I had very good reason to make this Answer I hope the being disabled to keep a Living especially if it be a good one is not a sufficient Reason to rebel The Dr. is pleasant in his Reply and tells me he would desire me carefully to consider it for it did not concern them Very well but it concerns him or else his reason above is very ridiculous for if men may refuse to submit when it is a duty because they cannot hold a good Living according to the Constitutions of the Church Then I doubt it follows that Civil Duty is to be measur'd not by a Thorough Settlement but by Ecclesiastical Preferments Another difference the Dr. mention'd was The whole Government in Church and State was overturn'd which was the Fundamental Constitution of the Nation I answer'd This was but changing the Form of Government and the Convocation speaks of Degenerate Forms of Government and Usurped Powers are not to be limited to a King but to a Government and the usurping upon the Lords and Commons as well as upon the King is but Usurpation still He replyes I grant it but when such degenerate Forms are not thoroughly settled the subversion of the Fundamental Constitution is a reasonable prejudice against submission when it is not a duty So that we have nothing but the sâ—me Answer over and over In his Case of Allegigiance he mentions a great many differences and I had suited my Answers to them and shew'd they made no difference in the Argument and when he comes to reply he gives one Reply to them all And that is that all his differences are come to one single difference and the Question at last is come into a narrow compass and with respect to the duty of Submission to Usurped Powers the Question is not whether they attain the Usurpation by Villanies or by barbarous usage of honest and loyal people or by encroachments on the Church and the persecution of its
to do Now the Dr. has the best faculty of turning his Questions that ever I saw when he is to prove that God gives his Authority to Illegal and Usurped powers then the Question is Cannot God make a King without a Legal Title Is God confin'd to Humane Laws in making Kings And when he is to prove that these Usurpers are to govern according to Law then he is for asking Cannot God set up a King without a Legal Title but he must be presum'd to give him Authority to govern against the Laws of the Land No doubt but God can do both but that is not the Question And if we must answer by Questions his Question plainly turns upon him Cannot God make a King without confining him to govern by the Laws of the Land as well as without a Legal Title No doubt he can do that if he please And this brings us to the merits of the Cause which the Dr. would fain shift off And the Question is if a Prince in a Limited Monarchy possesses himself of Arbitrary Sovereign Power and actually administers it contrary to Law whether according to his Principles he hath not God's Authority and ought to be obey'd and we have not the same Evidence that he hath it that we have that Usurped Powers have God's Authority And that is Possession and Providence and if we must presume that God gives his Authority to an Usurper who is in possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law I would fain see a Reason why we must not presume that God gives his Authority to a Prince who possesses and exercises Arbitrary Sovereign Power contrary to Law And if the Law must be our Rule against the possession of Arbitrary Power why is it not also our Rule against Usurped Powers The one is as consistent with Sovereign Power as the other The one God may give as well as the other the Evidence that God does so is the same in both The one is as contrary to the Law as the other and the denyal of it as much confines God to Humane Laws as the other And here my Argument plainly affects him which he takes no manner of notice of The assuming an Illegal Power Postscript p. 16. is no more against the Laws than Illegal and Vsurped Powers And God when he gives Authority is confin'd to our Laws and Constitutions no more in the extent of Power than in the Person and the only Evidence that we have that God gives it is the possession of it by Providence and whatsoever Power a Prince is possess'd of hath the same Evidence and consequently is a branch of the same Authority And Arbitrary Power is not inconsistent with the notion of Sovereign Power and whatever limitations of Government there are now in the World they are only limitations made by Humane Laws and of no force against God's Authority But this it seems was so very ridiculous that the Dr. had not one single word to say to it And I must tell him that I am not only capable of thinking it an argument against him but I am capable of thinking it such an argument as he cannot answer without quitting some of his Principles And because he despises it so much I do here provoke him to it And in the mean time 't is very ridiculous to scorn an argument and when he comes to answer it to leave out the whole strength and force of it The Reason I added to confirm my Argument was For the formal Reason of Obedience to such a Prince is because he hath God's Authority and the Evidence that he hath that Authority is because he is possessed of Sovereign Power He answers Suppose this tho God's Authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a Prince yet it is not the Rule of our obedience Very well Then the Law is our Rule and why I pray is not the Law our Rule with respect to the Person as well as with respect to the duty we owe him The Law directs to the Person as well as to the duty and directs the duty only to that Person By the Law a Prince ought not to have Arbitrary Power and by the same Law an Usurper ought to have no power at all If therefore the Law be our Rule for the same reason that we ought not to obey the acts of Illegal Power we ought not to obey Vsurped Powers at all Vindic p. 72. But the Dr tells us The Authority of God is only an authority to govern according to the Laws of God and Nature or the Laws of the Land Now the Doctor knows well enough that in this Argument I oppose Arbitrary Sovereign Power not to the Laws of God and Nature but to the Laws of the Land even in the same sense the Dr. understands Vsurped Powers and if possession contrary to Law gives Authority to Usurpation why not to Arbitrary Power But that I doubt is a Ridiculous Question too for men do not love to be ask'd more Questions than they can answer He adds Tho Sovereign Princes may have such an Authority as must not be resisted yet in a Limited Monarchy they have no more Authority from God to transgress the Laws of the Land than in an Absolute Monarchy to transgress the Laws of God and Nature The Proposition couch'd in these words is this That in a Limited Monarchy a Power that transgresseth the Laws of the Land is not God's Authority And then farewel to Usurpation that has not God's Authority For the very being of Usurped Powers is a fundamental transgression of the Laws of the Land And if men have no Authority from Gâ—d to transgress the Laws of the Land then an Usurper hath no Authority at all Arbitrary Power transgresseth the Laws of the Land and therefore it is not God's Authority and Usurpation transgresseth it ten times more and therefore if the Reason be good that also is not God's Authority He goes on indeed Arbitrary Government is not the possession of Sovereign Power which is God's Authority but the Arbitrary Exercise of it What does he mean by this Is not Arbitrary Power God's Authority in an Absolute Monarchy as well as limited power in a Limited Monarchy If he means this he ought to have prov'd it and he may yet prove it if he thinks it will help his Hypothesis But it is the Arbitrary Exercise of it Of what of God's Authority or of Sovereign Power If Arbitrary Government be the Arbtrary Exercise of God's Authority then it ought to be obey'd for God's Authority ought to be obey'd in what manner soever it is exercis'd It or Sovereign Power then I desire to know why the Arbitrary Exercise of Sovereign Power is not the Possession of Arbitrary Sovereign Power as well as the Exercise of a Limited Power is the Possession of that Power The Dr. tells us over and over of the wonderful efficacy of Actual Government Actual Authority Actual Administration which are but other words for the
Exercise of it and which are the only Evidences that God gives it and 't is that whereby God invests them with it And why is not the Actual Exercise of Arbitrary Power or the Arbitrary Exercise of Sovereign Power for I know no difference as well the Evidence that God gives it and signs of his investing them with Arbitrary Government as Actual Government and Actual Administration is an evidence that God gives to them that Government they actually administer Arbitrary Government not confin'd by Humane Laws is one kind of Government and a Government limited by Humane Laws is another kind and why is not actual administration an equal Evidence that God gives one as well as the other that he makes a Legal King an Absolute Monarch as well as that he makes a Person who hath no Right a Sovereign Prince He that usurps upon the Rights of his people is no more an Usurper and generally much less than he that usurps upon the Rights of the Prince The Drs. main Principle of Providence and his main Arguments to prove it make no difference And it is a little mystical and must so remain till the Dr. explains it why the very same Reasons will not make it a duty to submit to Arbitrary Power contrary to the Laws of the Land as well as to submit to Usurped Powers contrary to the same Laws He adds And tho we must obey God's Authority it does not hence follow that we must obey the exercise of Arbitrary Power Now I wish he had given us a reason for this and then we should have seen the force of his Answer I confess because we must obey God's Authority it does not follow that we must obey the Exercise of Arbitrary Power And what is the Reason Because the Exercise of Arbitrary Power in a Limited Monarchy is contrary to the Laws of the Land and so is Usurpation too and if that be a good reason against our obedience to Arbitrary Power 't is as good a Reason against our obedience to Usurpers He goes on And yet I do not attribute God's Authority which we must obey in Conscience to the bare possession of Power but to the settled possession of it that is with the consent and submission of the People and could a Prince change a Limited into an Absolute Monarchy by a National Consent Subjects were then as much bound in conscience to submit to an Arbitrary Power as they are now to obey the Laws but then this would not be an Authority against Law but the Law would be changed And this I had said before and draw'd an Inference from it That an Illegal Power is not throughly settled Postscript p. 17. nor does bind the Subject to obedience 'till it becomes Legal for a National Consent may part with the Rights of a Nation as well as the consent of a Prince may part with his own Rights But this was very ridiculous too for the Dr. did not think fit to take notice of it tho it plainly confutes his notion of the Peoples Consent The people may pass away their own Rights but what have they to do with the Government and to give away the Rights of that And why may not the Consent of the Prince part with the Rights of his People as well as the Consent of the People part with the Right of the Prince And a man may as well say that the Consent of one man may give away the Patrimony of another as to say the Consent of the People may dispose of Government and the Rights of a Prince against his own Consent And here is the plain difference the Consent of the People to Arbitrary Power makes that a Legal Government and there is no wrong done but the Consent of the People to Usurpation violates the Rights of the Legal Prince and defrauds him of what by Law is his due He proceeds But do not I say that when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us but their obligation must give place to Divine Authority He should says he have cited the whole That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us So that the Laws of the Land must be the Rule of our obedience to Princes unless they contradict the Laws of God and I do not know that any of our Laws do that Say you so then the Laws of Succession must be the Rule of our obedience and we must obey none but the Legal King And he must find out a new notion of Contradiction before he can prove that the Laws of Succession in an Hereditary Monarchy contradict the Laws of God He adds It is a certain truth as our Author must confess that if the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us But this proves nothing in particular without proving the Laws of the Land are contrary to the Laws of God If then he can prove that by the Law of God we are bound to obey the Arbitrary Will of the Prince against the Laws of the Land whenever he will command things against Law and has power to crush us if we will not obey I will readily grant and so must he that it is our duty to do it but 'till he prove this he must not take it for granted there is such a Law Now here we have a strain of the Drs admirable Ingenuity An unwary Reader may be apt from hence to conclude that the Design of my Argument â—re had been to prove that it was a duty to obey Arbitrary Power against the Laws of the Land whereas it is the clean contrary and proceeds upon the supposition that it is not a duty and from thence I shew the absurdity of the Drs. Principles and Arguments which equally conclude for submission to Arbitrary Power as to Usurpation And yet by a fine piece of dexterity the Dr. would thrust the absurdities of his own Doctrines upon me and by a shameless insinuation make me appear to argue for obedience to Arbitrary Power when I only argue from his Principles and from thence shew the inconsequence and absurdity of his Arguments For thus it follows in the Dr. What he means by this argument Vind p 73. I cannot tell if he does think there is such a Law of God I suppose he intended in good earnest to prove that we must submit to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince and to condemn the opposition that was made in the late Reign to such arbitrary proceedings if he did not believe there was any such Law of God how ridiculous was it to pretend that we must submit to Arbitrary Will and Power against Law because when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us Now what kind of interpretation of the Convocation are we to expect from him who deals thus with
Vindic. p. 27. But the truth is Dr Jackson observ'd nothing at all of this by the Higher Powers he means the Right Heir and Lawful King as I have shewed before and in this very place the Dr. cites out of him he says Jehoiada was invested with the Power of Jurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power and I suppose next to the Higher Power is not the Higher Power it self And therefore Jehoiada deposed and killed Athaliah not meerly in right of his Priesthood nor merely in Right of his Peerâ—ge But Dr. Jackson says expresly in the Right of this Prince i. e. the Infant Joash unto whose Person The Power Royal was by Right annexed And to whom by virtue of his high Station and his Relation to him as being the Kings Uncle he might be Guardian and therefore the fittest to preside and manage that undertaking but it does not therefore follow that if he had neglected it or took part with the Usurper but any other Peer or Subject might have undertaken it in the same Right and by the same Authority and Dr. Jackson plainly intimates it by the inference he draws from hence which the Dr. conceals tho he told us he would give the Reader the intire passage Is it then all one in these mens Divinity for a Subject or Peer of any Realm to stand for the Right of his Leige Lord against a Stranger or Vsurper c. So then it seems a Subject or Peer and I hope or is a Disjunctive a Subject that is not a Peer may stand by the Right of his Leige Lord against an Usurper as well as a Prime Peer The Dr. here charges me with shamefully mangling this passage of Dr. Jackson and I shall leave it with the Reader whether he hath not shamefully interpreted it He adds This is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Jehoiada did this being the Kings Vncle and the chief Head and Prince of his Tribe that is not a private Subject but a chief Prince in the Kingdom of Judah Now the Dr. deals with the Convocation just as he hath done with Dr. Jackson and to shew what a fair interpretation he makes I shall cite the passage Now after six years that Joash the true and natural Heir apparent to the Crown had been so brought up Convoc p. 41. He the said Jehoiada being the Kings Uncle and the chief Head or Prince of his tribe sent through Judah for the Levites nd chief Fathers both of Judah and Benjamin to come unto him to Jerusalem who accordingly repairing thither and being made acquainted by him with the preservation of their Prince and that it was the Lords will that he should reign over them they altogether by a covenant acknowledged their Allegiance to him as unto their Lawful King and so disposed of things as presently after he was crowned and anointed which dutiful office of Subjects being performed they apprehended the Usurper Athaliah and slew her as before it was by the said States resolved In all the process of which action nothing was done either by the High Priest or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah which God himself did not require at their hands And what is all this to Jehoiada's being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged where is any judicial or authoritative Act of his he conven'd them indeed and which he might do as High Priest and Prince of his Tribe and acquainted them with the Preservation of their Prince and the Convocation attributes no more to him in particular but the acknowledgment of their Allegiance and the business of deposing and slaying Athaliah was resolved on by common consent by the said States There is nothing of Authority ascrib'd to Jehoiada in this and they express it yet plainer in their Canon Or that Jehoiada the High Priest was not bound as he was a Priest both to inform the Princes and People of the Lords promise that Joash should reign over them and likewise to anoint him Now as I take it informing is not commanding them nor directing them by an act of Authority And if Jehoiada had not done as he was bound if he had not informed them nay if he had informed them otherwise yet if they had been informed any other way I suppose they might have done their duty and have acknowledged their Allegiance to their natural Prince and have resolved together to depose and slay the Usurper what Authority soever Jehoiada had or how much soever he had informed or commanded them to the contrary was it their duty to adhere to their natural Prince or not if it was the interposition of Jehoiada's Authority either way could not influence that the great Authority of the High Priest might indeed facilitate and expedite the setting him on the Throne but could not make that a duty which was not nor make that cease to be a duty which was so before And now let me ask the Dr. where is the shameful mangling and dishonesty in my not citing this passage of Jehoiada's being a Prime Peer and invested with Power of jurisdiction next to the Higher Power For what is that to the purpose for which I cited Dr. Jackson The single question is whether it be lawful to obey an Usurper in possession of the Throne in opposition to the Right Heir out of possession and what was the heigth of his Station and the power of his Jurisdiction to that as high as he was it was not lawful for him and his fact plainly declares it His high dignity indeed made it reasonable for him to interpose his Authority in behalf of the Right Heir and was the fittest to conduct and manage an affair of that nature but it made no difference in the lawfulness of the thing for if it be unlawful for a Prime Peer to joyn himself to an Usurper in opposition to the Rightful Prince 't is unlawful for a private Subject And that was all that I was concerned in it was foreign to the question to meddle in the dispute with the Papists to whom this was an Answer for they urge this fact of Jehoiada as an Act of Authority annexed to the Priesthood And the Dr. says in express terms That this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction I will not return his scurrilous inuendo of looking kindly towards Rome but he hath given the Papist greater advantage in this Controversie than any Protestant ever did For if it be granted that this was an Act of Jurisdiction and Authority in Jehoiada the Question hath a new face and 't is splitting an hair whether that was the Authority of the High Priest or of the Prime Peer whereas all Protestants have fix'd it upon a clearer bottom and say that what he did was in the Right of his Prince and not by any Authority of his own and remove the controversie off of that bottom and admit that Jehoiada acted in a