People have God's Authority and then rebellious Subjects and ambitious Princes who overturn a lawful Government by Force have God's Authority for it for in respect to that Force and Violence he affirms that Governments are destroy'd and set up by God Thus in the transport of his Anger the Doctor forgets his own Principles and the Convocation's 2. Suppose those Passages do relate to Usurpers and to the very Force and Violence by which Empires are overturn'd How does it appear that God's setting up Kings and giving of Kingdoms must be expounded of God's positive and not of his permissive Will of his giving of Authority and not of his concession of Power whereby Rebels and Usurping Princes are enabled to accomplish their wicked Enterprizes If those Passages relate to the very Revolutions of Governments and the wicked Force and Violence by which Usurpers are advanc'd then certainly they must be understood of God's permissive Providence unless we will make God the Author and Abettor of the highest Wickedness and Injustice The Doctor will not affirm that those Passages do prove that Usurpers are set up by God when they are making their way to the Throne nor when they actually place themselves in it for till they are settled in it by consent he himself does allow that they have not God's Authority and yet they will prove this if they prove any thing for Usurpers for they limit not God's setting up to Consent and Settlement they make no difference between Kings in sieri and in facto esse between their ascending to the Throne their fitting and their settlement in it they intimate that all the Gradations and Steps of such Revolutions are alike from God that he bringeth about the whole Change and that the Invasions and Rebellions by which Kings are removed are as much from him as the Advancement of a new King to the Throne and his Establishment in it And therefore if they prove that Usurpers have God's Authority they prove it for Rebels and Invaders also But perhaps the four Monarchies which we supose to be Usurpations were set up by God's Authority because they were set up by the Decree and Counsel of God and foretold by a prophetick Spirit I have observ'd before that some of God's Decrees are permissive and such are his Decrees about wicked Events among which I reckon unjust Violence and Usurpations But they were foretold by a prophetick Spirit And what then Have Usurpers therefore God's Authority because God who is omniscient and sees future things as present does behold them committing Wickedness and foretels it by a Prophet or is God's Prescience a Conveyance of his Authority Among other Changes and Revolutions foretold by Daniel in the Judgment of very learned Men the setting up of Antichrist is predicted and that under the name of a King Dan. 11. 36 37 38 39. and I see no Reason why the setting up of this King may not as well be asscribed to God's Decree and Counsel as any other King in Daniel However it is said expresly of the Beast in the 13th of Revelations which is supposed to be the Antichrist that Power was given him over all Kindreds Tongues and Nations Here we have his Commission for an universal Empire And Power was given him to continue forty two Months Here is a Settlement for a long Tract of Time And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him Here is the Consent and Submission of the People to establish him and if this King has not God's Authority upon the Doctour's Principles and by virtue of as express words of Scripture as any he produces for Usurpers I wonder who can have it Let us know whether this Power of Antichrist was not given him of God and whether he could have it without his Will and Appointment A Power over all Nations must certainly be given him by God and yet I think this giving of Power is no Conveyance of Authority upon this Usurper nor does it inferr any Obligation to Obedience and this Instance overthrows all his Arguments from God's giving Power and Kingdoms for here is a Power and Kingdom which is given by God to which we cannot be Subjects without Apostacy from him The Doctor observes That under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Christ was to be set up and Antichrist was to appear and the Increase and Destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in humane Governments Hence he infers That since God has declared that he will change Times and Seasons remove Kings and set up Kings to accomplish his own wise Counsels it justifies our Compliances with such Revolutions he shou'd have added for otherwise Antichrist could neither be advanced nor destroyed Thus it was once argued for Resistence That God's hiding the lawfulness of it from the primitive Christians was necessary to help Antichrist to his Throne and now Compliance with Usurpers is urged to be lawfull as necessary to set up and pull down Antichrist that so God's Counsels may be accomplished and may it not as reasonably be inferred that since God has declared he will make Revolutions remove and set up Kings that therefore Rebellions and unjust Invasions are lawfull because they are the ordinary ways of effecting Revolutions No says he we must not contrary to our Duty promote such Revolutions upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophecies but when they are made and settled we ought to submit to them What! Can it be contrary to our Duty to promote Revolutions which God decrees promotes and effects Is it lawfull for no one to promote them And how then shall they be accomplished But why is it lawful to submit to them when they are made and settled Why because God has decreed them that must be a Reason for it or his Decrees and Counsels are here impertinently urged But we are sure that God has decreed the Kingdom of Antichrist and when his Kingdom is settled must all Kindreds Tongues and Nations pay Subjection to him If God's Decree be a a Reason for Submission we have no more to doe but to fall down and worship when we see his Decree accomplished in the Advancement of Antichrist And if this be not Enthusiasm there is no such thing in the World How vain is it to distinguish between promoting and submitting in respect to the fulfilling of Decrees and Prophecies Does not he that submits promote And what Ground is there for that Distinction in Scripture It was God's Decree that Cromwell should have the Administration of Sovereign Power and he might have foretold it by Prophecy but it was impossible it should have been accomplished without a general Submission Was that therefore a general Duty and was the Nation bound to it to fulfill Decrees and Councils What have we to do with God's unsearchable Decrees Our Rule is Law the Laws of God and Nature for religious and moral Actions the Laws of Kingdoms and Commonweals for those that
that he had no other way but to decline it by answering what was never objected Does not the Doctor teach that our Allegiance is extinguished when the King has not the Administration of Government in his Hands and that Allegiance and actual Government are essential Relatives Mr. Hobbs had taught the same before him That the Obligation of Subjects to their Sovereign is understood to last no longer than the Power lasts to protect them The Doctor maintains That when a lawful King is wrongfully deposed he has still a legal Right to the Crown but the Subjects are absolved from their Allegiance to him the Doctrine of the Leviathan is just the same The Right of the Sovereign is not extinguished yet the Obligation of the Members is The Doctor binds the Subjects to an actual assistance and defence of the Usurper so doeâ— Mr. Hobbs The Subject is obliged so strictly obliged that no pretence of having submitted himself out of fear can absolve him to protect and assist the Vsurper as long as he is able Thus it appears that they are Fratres Fraterrimi and it is not within the Power of Metaphysicks to distinguish them But what saith the Doctor That Power does not give Right and Authority to govern but is a certain sign to us that where God hath placed the Power he has given the Authority And is not this a manifest Confession of Hobbism That Dominion is naturally annexed to Power Mr. Hobbs does often call his Sovereign God's Lieutenant and his Vicegerent and Sovereign under God he affirms that he governs in God's stead and that from him and under him he hath Authority to govern He agrees with the Doctor then that the Right of Government does flow from God's Authority so that still it seems impossible to distinguish their Opinions Prop. 8. Is this Allegiance is due only to the King and the Reason this For Allegiance signifieâ— all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King and therefore can be due to none but the King He had told us before That by King he understands the actual Possessor and therefore it is his sense of the Proposition that Allegiance is due only to the Possessor a precarious Assertion repeated often and never proved But here he pretends to give a very plain Reason for it the suram of it is this That Allegiance is due only to God's Authority and no one has it but the actual King And if this be not a very plain Reason let every one be judge that can distinguish Reasoning from Affirming But Propositionmaking was by this time grown cumbersome to the Doctor he was forced to make up a round number by Tautologies and Repetitions and now having exhausted his stock of Postulates he endeavours next to fortifie them against two Objections which he imagined might be raised against them Obj. But if this â—e so What does a legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects Why according to the Doctor certainly it signifies nothing for the legal Right of the Dispossessed Prince can give him no Right to the Crown against the Right of divine Authority the divine Right to all intents and purposes must null the legal therefore if this continue still to be a Right it is a Right to nothing But a great Writer is worth nothing that cannot defend Absurdities and Contradictions and thus the Doctor endeavours it 1. He answers that ele legal Right bari all other humane Claims no other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right The plain meaning of this is That if the legal Right can be in one Prince it is not in another which â—â— an admirable Proof that the legal Right does signifie something When Oliver usurped Charles II. had a legal Right to the Throne but no Allegiance was due to his bare legal Title without God's Authority and yet this legal Right did signifie something for if Charles had a legal Right to the Throne than neither the French King nor the Grand Signior nor the Great Mogull could have a legal Title to it and though Oliver being setled in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power had a divine Right yet the legal Right did signifie something to King Charles though it was null'd by the Divine and though it made him not a King for that is the name of Power and left him no Subjects because no Allegiance was due to him Thus the legal Right of a Dispossessed Prince is only a Feather in his Cap it constitutes him only an Vtopian King yet without so much as imaginary Subjects But he tells us 2. That Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince as far as they can that is against all Mankind but not against God's disposal of Crowns But who is this such a Prince Is he a Prince dethroned and dispossessed of his legal Right Of such a Prince the Doctor is Discoursing and if such a one he means How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right as far as they can when they are bound as far as they are able to oppose it their whole Allegiance being due to the Possessor And thus the Obligation to maintain the dispossessed Prince must be expounded as a Duty to destroy him But if his legal Prince be such an one as is not dispossessed but has either a Right to the Throne upon the Demise of the Predecessor or is actually in Possession then I say he speaks not to the Objection for the Objection relates to the Case of a legal Prince excluded from his Right by the Intrusion of another the Case which he proposes in the preceding Paragraph When he who has the legal Right is not our King i. e. has not Possession and he who has not iâ— And he asserts upon it That all our Allegiance is due to him who is our King and not to him who is not though it be his Right to be so and upon this Case does the Objection proceed If this be so What does the legal Right signifie So that if here he speaks of a Prince Possessing the Throne or Claming it when it was Vacant Amphoram instituit urceuâ— exit he puts one Prince in the Objection and another in the Solution and in short he does not Answer but Evade and Prevaricate Well! but suppose a Prince with a legal Title to a vacant Throne How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right since they are not his Subjects and owe him no Allegiance For according to the Doctor Subjection and Allegiance are due only to Possessors and not to a bare legal Title without it Maintenance therefore In such a Case can be only a Debt of Justice because it is due by Law and Equity and the same Debt will continue when the rightful Prince is wrongfully Dispossessed for the legal Right is the same and the same Law and Equity for restoring a due as giving it at first But farther suppose that he means a
rightful Prince in actual Possession such a one hath both legal Right and God's Authority and yet the Doctor denies afterwards that Subjects in some Cases are bound to maintain them and thus as a legal Right does signifie nothing with him here so neither does God's Authority hereafter He eludes and trims and distinguishes them away as often as he has occasion he grants Allegiance to Power without Right and denies it to lawful Right and God's Authority together The other Objection he propounds is this If we have Sworn Allegiance to a lawful Prince and his Heirs and lawful Successors How can we pay Allegiance to any Prince while He or any of his Heirs and legal Successors are living and claim our Allegiance without violating our Oaths And the summ of his Answer is That an Oath of Allegiance made to any King can oblige no longer than he continues to be King i. e. in Possession for if it did it would oblige us against our Duty and so become aâ— unlawful Oath I acknowledge this Answer would be good if he had sufficiently proved that Allegiance is always and only due to the Possessor and whether that be done let every one judge as he sees Reason Were it here pertinent it would be easie to prove That our Oaths were intended to bind us to the lawful King and his Heirs even in the Case of Dispossession so all honest Men did understand them in the Age of Usurpations and till of late they were never otherwise Interpreted but by a few wretched Slaves of the Usurpers All the faithful Members of the Church of England thought them Obligatory when their Princes were Dispossessed they thought it no breach of Duty to stick so a righteous Cause when it proved Improsperous and as long as the Man was in bring they never looked upon the King as gone The truth is they were not wise in their Generation and they understood not that Jesuitical Evasion which would have been worth more than the whole World unto them That when the King is deposed tum definit esse Princeps which if it be true Doctrine the Consequence of Lessius the Jesuite is unavoidable quod quidquam licet in eum attentare he becomes a private Person and may be lawfully murthered In the next Paragraph he observes that we do not swear to keep the King and his Heirs in the Throne which may be impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion And who was ever so senseless as to imagine that we swore to keep them in the Throne when 't is impossible to keep them but I presume we swore that in case our King should be thrown out by a prosperous Rebellion we would not bind our selves to oppose his Restitution by transferring our Allegiance to his Rebel yet he argues that we did not because such an Oath would be unlawfull as contrary to that Duty we owe so the divine Providence which conveys God's Authority to the Usurper Thus the same precarious Assertions are everlastingly inculcated but a Million of Repetitions will never amount to one Argument for them And now having routed the Objections he concludes thus These seem to be very plain Propositions and to carry their own Evidence with them Very plain and self-evident Propositions And why then could not the Doctor discover them before the publishing of Bishop Overall and the Battel on the Boyne Is it possible so great so quick-sighted a Writer could be above a year in finding out self-evident Propositions Alas poor miserable Swearers and Non-swearers that cannot see that which is as clear as the Noonday and carries its own Evidence with it How unhappy are they that have not the Doctor 's Spectacles by which he is able to see clearly through Mountains and to discern things dark and invisible to others But after all 't is well these bright Propositions do carry their own Evidence and are known by Intuition for it seems to me that the Doctor hath given them no additional Lustre he has hitherto proposed them without Proof and if they are not innate Ideas they seem to be altogether as indemonstrable But if these Propositions are true they are a very plain Direction to Subjects in all Revolutions of Government And the Direction in short is this They must have no hand in the Revolution and oppose it as far as they can and not be hasly in complying but when such a Revolution is made they must pay Allegiance to the new Prince as invested with God's Authority Now his Direction is every whit as plain as his Propositions in the days of the Unlawfulness of Resistence the contrary Direction was then very plain and evident with him but it is the singular Prerogative of great Writers to alter the nature of Things with the Alteration of their Judgments and in all their Changes to carry Evidence Perspicuity and Demonstration with them But yet the Direction is not so very plain neither for even the Doctor himself was sensible there remained still a very considerable Difficulty which he labours next to remove and to give us more plain Directions about it The Difficulty is to know when a Revolution is so perfectly completed or when a new Prince is so fully invested with God's Authority as to have a Right to our Allegiance but the Doctor according to his way does very easily resolve it Obedience is due to God's Authority and when we can reasonably conclude that God's Providence has settled the new King in the Throne we must pay our Obedience to him But how comes Settlement here to be the onely Indication of God's Conveyance of Authority Does not all his Reasoning conclude as strongly for all Possession of Sovereign Power without respect to Establishment God removeth and setteth up Kings onely by his Providence and he sets up a King when by his Providence be puts Sovereign Authority in his hands every advancement to a Throne whether setled or unsetled is an Event and therefore ordered by God's Will and Appointment and peculiarly ordered by him at having so great an Influence upon the Government of the World and this will be farther confirmed when we remember that Kings are God's Ministers and are invested with his Authority all Authority is God's and no Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it is given and yet 't is very plain that Princes that are not fully settled are in Authority We must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings whom he does not make Kings for then we can never distinguish between God's Kings and Kings of their own making and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no And therefore a King whose Possession is not firmly established cannot be a wrong King because he is a King of God's making he has the Authority of Government in his hands and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull
any other Title Allegiance is not due to the Crown but to the natural Person of the King which is ever accompany'd with the Politick Capacity it is due to the natural Body by Nature God's Law and Man's Law cannot be forfeited nor renounced by any Means it is inseparable from the Person and it has been said to be due to him even when he is driven out of his Kingdom And lastly we have the Resolution of all the Lord's and Commons in the Case of the Claim of the Duke of York against Henry the Sixth that an illegal Settlement of the Crown by Acts of Parliament and the Settlement of 60 Years Possession without interruption were not sufficient to defeat the legal Title nor to settle the Usurper's against it Further it appears from the whole Sâ—…ies of our History from the constant practice of Usurpers and from the Acts and Recognitions of their Parliaments that no Possession whatsoever without a legal Right was ever esteemed a through Settlement by the Parliaments the People or by the Usurpers themselves they have always pretended to a Legal Right and got themselves to be declared Kings dejure by their Parliaments for the satisfaction of the People to what purpose but that they knew it was the surest Foundation of their Power that the People could never be brought to a plenary Submission nor their Government be throughly setled without a general Persuasion of it These Recognitions of Parliaments were as illegal as the Usurpations they could not alter the nature of things lawful Parliaments did always declare them to be invalid and null the whole Body of the Nation have rejected and made no account of them and they never yet were effectual to establish Usurpation But they who had no Right thought the Pretente and Opinion of it necessary to a Settlement they knew that Parliaments were the best Instruments to delude the People and therefore they made them to recognize Force and Usurpation to be Right and Inheritance and this constant practice of Usurpers is an evident Proof that it has been the Universal Sense oâ—â— the Nation that without a Legal Right there could be no hopes of Settlement Lastly I appeal to the Sense and Reason of Mankind whether according to the natural course of things there can be a through Settlement of an Usurped Power while the rightful Prince is actually prosecuting his Right Mankind are not so degenerate nor so much in love with Oppression and Injustice as to have no regard to Right nothing is more natural than to commiserate and assist the Oppressed and that may well be expected in the case of a Rightful Sovereign to whom the Subjects have sworn Assistance and whom they know to be wrongfully deposed The generality of Men will never so far shake off the bands of Reason and Equity as to think they are loos'd from the Obligations of rendring every Man his due and doing as we would be done by Brave and Generous Spirits will never be wanting who will dare even to dye for a Righteous Cause and will scorn to abandon a Prince because he is unfortunate Men may be câ—â—eated and deluded for a while with the plausible Pretences of Religion and 〈◊〉 Publick Safety but time does always discover the Imposture and when once the Fig-Leaves are remov'd the Usurpation and Injustice will be expos'd naked to their view and their Abhorrence will be heightned by the Briars and Thorns the Sweat and Labour and Misery they have produc'd and then they will strive who shall be the first in bringing back their King all this is natural to imagine what has often happened and what may be reasonably expected Usurpers are always in the state of Robbers they may be well arm'd and strongly fortisied but they can never be secure Usurpation will never want Enemies not Right its Friends and Defenders Nature and Religion and the Common Interest of Mankind do conspire for Right and Justice against Injury and Oppression and 't is not likely they should be establish'd in spite of so powerful a Combination Lastly it was never yet known in this Nation that a Legal Right to the Crown when prosecuted was totally deserted or a through Settlement acquir'd without it and therefore I conclude that Reason and Experience do assure us that Right is necessary to a through Settlement The Result is this that seeing the Civil Law the Law of Nations the Law of England the Practice of Usurpers the constant Sense of the People and even Reason it self do unanimously agree in proving the necessity of Right to Settlement it is very unreasonable to consider Settlement without it or when we meet with it in any Author to give it such an Interpretation as is warranted by no good Writer and is contradictory to Law and Practice Reason and Experience and when on the contrary it may fairly be interpreted in a sense agreeable to them The Doctor concludes this Section with repeating his former Prejudice and insinuating a new one That his Principles are so very useful in all Revolutions that Subjects have reason to wish them true and to examine over again those strict Principles of Loyalty which if pursued to their just consequences must unavoidably in some junctures sacrifice whole Kingdoms at least all Subjects who pretend to this degree of Loyalty and Conscience to the ill Fortune of their Princes Now this is nothing but Wheedling and Prevaricating if his Principles be false it is certain they are not useful to the Good of Mankind and 't is as impious to wish them true as to wish that Vice were Virtue as absurd as to wish that an Ox were an Elephant His Principles are useful enough to them who think sleeping in a whole Skin should be preferred to all Obligations and such is that Principle which was once vouched by the Devil Skin for Skin and all that a Man hath c. But the strict Principles of Loyalty are such as may sacrifice Kingdoms to the ill Fortune of a Prince so may the Principle of Passive Obedience to the Cruelty of a Prince so may the Doctrine of the Cross to the Fury of a persecuting Prince so it is possible that Obedience to any Law of God oâ— Nature may in some junctures be the destruction of a Kingdom must the Laws of God and Nature be therefore cancelled Must the Doctrine of the Cross and of Non-resistence be therefore rejected as destructive to Society Must the Principles of Honour Loyalty and Fidelity be sacrificed to ill Fortune Is our Allegiance due to Fortune And if a righteous Cause be unsuccessful is it our Duty to abandon and bind our selves by Oaths to oppose it We may thus briefly answer his Objection We will discharge our Duty and leave the Event to God But as for the Doctor 's Principles they are exactly the same with Mr. Ascham's and because he professes greatly to reverence the profund Judgment of Bishop Sanderson I will conclude
to submit to Vsurpers This indeed is to the purpose But where are these Examples to be found in the Prophecies of Jeremiah and the Discourses of our Saviour with the Scribes and Pharisees about paying Tribute to Caesar Let us now examine these Examples Our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the Possession of Power whose Image and Superscription hath it and if this be a good Reason it is good in all other Cases that we must submit to all Princes who are possess'd of Sovereign Power I refer the Reader to our Saviour's Discourse and let him satisfie himself whether this Proposition is in it That Allegiance is due to all Princes in Possession of Sovereignty or this other which is contradictory it to That it is due only to these Possessors that are setled by the consent of the People that I think cannot he infer'd from the Image and Superscription for Usurpers may coin Money before they are setled neither is it any Proof that a Prince is in Possession because his Coin is current if it is Allegiance is due to King JAMES or at least all the Money that has his Image and Superinscription Is the Doctor sure that the Coin presented to our Saviour had the Image of Tiberius Others say it had the Image of Augustus and then our Saviour's Argument could not relye upon Possession for the Coin of a Prince deceas'd could suggest no Argument that Allegiance was due to the Possessor Dr. Hammond I take to be the better Expositor thus he upon those Words Whose is this Image and Superscription The Inscription on the Coin is Caesar Agustus such a Year after the taking of Judaea this being a Record of the Conquest of the Romans â—ver this Nation and the Right by them acquir'd by the dedition of Hyrcanus and an expression of the Years since that taking about 90 Years for so long ago did Pompey subdue and take Jerusalem shew that now it is unlawful to seek change after so long continuance of that Power so fairly and legally setled So the excellent Dr. Hammond and in his Annotations he evinces historically the Legality of the Roman Government over Judaea Dr. Sherlock on the contrary supposes that Caesar was an Usurper and that our Saviour reprov'd the Pharisees for not submitting to an Usurper but he was pleas'd only to suppose it and I presume to affirm that it is impossible to prove it For an Usurper must have some Competitor who claims a right to the Sovereignty and let him name us that Person if he can that was Caesar's Competitor if he cannot he may suppose but he can never prove him an Usurper His other Instance is out of the Prophet Jeremiah and here he acknowledges that his Argument for Submission is Prophecy or an express Command from God to submit to the King of Babylon And was Nebuchadnezzar then an Usurper if Allegiance was requir'd to him by God's reveal'd Will Was he not King over the Jews by particular Nomination Did not the Sin of the Jews consist in their Disobedience to God's express Command And how can he prove that the Prophet would have condemn'd them if they had refused to submit without express Revelation or that he himself would have advised them to submit without it Before the first Conquest of Judaea under Jehoiakim the Jews could be under no Obligation to submit to Nebuchadnezzar but when their Kings had made a voluntary dedition to him and confirm'd it by an Oath then their Obedience was due to him as their lawful Sovereign Their Revolt is afterwards stiled Rebellion and the Violation of that Oath was punished with final Captivity and Destruction Ezek. 17. The Doctor pretends there was a necessity of an express Command to submit because they could not without it subject themselves to any other Prince while any of David's Family were living because God himself had entail'd the Kingdom upon his Posterity But this is a groundless Fancy and contradicted by himself for in his Vindication he maintains That whether there be a Divine Entail or no it is always lawful to submit to Force and then sure there was no need of a Revelation But where is that Reason to be found in Scripture Does the Prophet Jeremy mention it Had the Jews any Scruple then about a Divine Entail The Prophet declares from God that if Zedekiah would submit to the King of Babylon he should live in Safety chap. 38. and after his Captivity and the Destruction of Jerusalem he assures the remaining Jews that if they would still abide in the Land God would deliver them from the King of Babylon chap. 42. The only Motive which he urges to the King and People is an assurance of Safety by Submission But it appears from the Prophet Ezekiel that they were bound to it by Oath and Covenant and they are therefore branded by both the Prophets with Rebellion because they revolted from their lawful Sovereign But the Doctor argues hence That where the Entail of the Crown is only by Humane Laws there is no need of Prophecy to direct the People to submit to any new Prince whom God sets over them Well suppose there was need of Prophecy in case of a Divine Entail how does it follow there is no need of Prophecy when an Entail is by Human Laws perhaps it may follow from something else but I am not subtile enough to discern how it follows from his Premises It will follow as well that because a King by a Divine Entail cannot be depos'd without Prophecy there is no need of Prophecy to depose a King of Human Entail or because Abraham could not lawfully Sacrifice his Son without an express Command therefore other Parents may murther a Son without it When God sets up a Prince by his positive Will there is no need of a Prophet to prescribe Submission but there is need of a new Revelation to inform us when it is his Will to convey Authority to an Usurper for the Event is no Indication of it But since the Prophet's Motive for Submission to the Jews was Safety may we not for the same Reason submit to any King in Possession I answer the Case may be different for 1. The Jews were bound to submit to the King of Babylon for they were his rightful Subjects by Dedition and by God's express Appointment and though Safety is a good Argument to enforce Duty it is none against it 2. The case of absolute Conquest when the Lawful Prince is a Captive the Government dissolv'd and no possibility of restoring it is manifestly different from the case of a People deposing their lawful Prince advancing an Usurper supporting him by their Power opposing their Rightful Sovereign and still in a capacity of restoring him their Safety in this case is no Argument for persisting in Rebellion and if they are under any Necessity it is of their own making and continuing 3. Submission is not Allegiance and though the former is lawful when it is to
that we will not allow God to deliver us unless he do it by Law This is pretty and passionate but to use his own Eloquence is a very nothing It is often a Duty to refuse Deliverance when God does deliver us we are sometimes bound to suffer Martyrdom not accepting Deliverance A Master of a Family does cruelly treat his Wife his Children and Servants God delivers them by suffering a Robber to drive him out of his Possessions he offers to govern them gently if they will swear to resist the former Possessor and accept of him as a Husband Father and Master A Prince oppresses his Subjects many of them rebel and bring Deliverance to the rest with this Condition that they will swear to joyn in the Rebellion In these Cases is it lawful for the oppressed to accept Deliverance When a Deliverance is offered which cannot be enjoyed without Sin it is God's Providence that offers it not for our Complyance but our Tryal and to accept of such a Deliverance will make us liable to his Vengeance The Question then is whether it be a Sin to abjure our lawful Sovereign and to assist an Usurper against him we believe that it is a Sin against humane Laws and against the Laws of God and Nature and if it be a Sin then interests of Flesh and Blood cannot make it lawful and therefore to talk of God's Deliverance when the only Question is about the lawfulness of abjuring a lawful Sovereign is in plain English only Cant and Banter His 6th Argument wherein he undertakes to confute Bishop Sanderson has fallen into better Hands and there I shall leave it the summ of it is this That we must renounce our Allegiance to the dispossessed Prince for the sake of the publick Good the Necessity and Ends of Government and I shall only observe that here he Argues upon the Fundamental Principle of the Jesuites Republicans and Fanatiâ—ks who have written for Resistance and if the Doctor expects it I will make good this Charge against him His 7th Argument is this These Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the security of the Prince and Subjects and that is a good Argument to believe them true These Principles What are they Non-resistance Non-assistance and Allegiance to Usurpers A Prince who is in Possession is secured in Possession by them as far as any Principles can secure him against all attempts of his Subjects who must submit to him without Resistance though they are ill used On the contrary here is no Security for even the best of Princes his Subjects are indeed forbidden to resist him but if any attempt be made against him by Subjects or Foreigners he may be left to duel them all and to sight his Battles by himself against all his Enemies He will say that a good Prince must be defended by his Subjects and so say the Republicans that he must never be resisted and deposed But it is the unavoidable Mischief of their Principle that the Subjects are made the Judges of their Sovereign and they will often judge the best of Kings to be Tyrants And is not the Doctor 's Principle liable to the same Mischief If Subjects have a very bad King who notoriously violates their Rights they are not bound to defend him and are they not plainly then the Judges of his Crown They may judg the best of Kings to be a very bad one and then David look to thy self for Absalom or Sheba any Rebellious Son or Subject may destroy thee at their Pleasure there is but little difference between Resistance and Non-Assistance as to the Security of Kings the one exposes them defenceless to be murthered by the other this brings them to the Scaffold and that chops off their Heads and 't is the same thing to Princes whether they are betrayed or resisted abandoned or deposed assaulted by Assassins or exposed naked to them But The Doctor 's Principles will not serve the Revolutions of Government to remove one King and set up another and why so the Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative that is God may make Revolutions but the Subjects must not promote them and if God can change Governments without the Subjects Assistance why may he not do it without their Complyance But yet Subjects must comply and transfer their Allegiance and then the new King is secure till he disobliges his Subjects for then they who have Power from God will think they have a Call to execute his Prerogative and the rest will say in their Hearts let him go if he cannot defend himself and if sighting by himself he chances to â—e beaten then God removes him we must â—dore the rising Sun and Allegiance must â—e always a Lacquey to Success These â—re Principles sure that Princes have reason â—o be jealous of for whatever Service they may do them at one time they may do them as great disservice at another they advance Usurpers to the Throne and then tumble them headlong from it But when any Prince is setled in the Throne these Principles put an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience I may answer in his own way it is evident that these Principles were either unknown to the World and that is an Argument against them or else that they cannot put an end to Disputes of Right and Title for there have been such Disputes in all Ages and I believe will be to the end of the World If this be trifling let the Doctor answer for it But admit his Principles were generally receiv'd it is evident they can never put an end to Disputes of Right nor bind the Subjects by Duty and Conscience to an Usurper for he expresly acknowledges that the Providence of God removes and sets up Kings but alters no legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed to recover their Rights The dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right and Claim which he may lawfully prosecute by War And is not here an admirable end the Controversy about Right Oh! but this Controversy is between the Princes only upon these Principles it can be none among the Subjects for they are bound by Duty and Conscience to the Prince in Possession And what are they bound to Non-Resistance and Submission Is that any Security to the Sovereign when he is invaded by the lawful Prince Are they bound to Allegiance or to an actual defence of the Usurper against him That they cannot be for it would be a bond of Iniquity if the dispossessed Prince has a just cause of War and this is evident to the Subjects Is it lawful for them to support an unjust Cause against a just Cause It is generally agreed that a War cannot be just on both sides Grotius gives this Reason because in the nature of the thing there cannot be a moral Faculty unto contrary Actions a right in one
most glorious Designs of Providence have been accomplished by very wicked Means even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself Now this is a great Truth but nothing to the purpose God can certainly over-rule Wickedness without being the Author of it But what then Does God's over-ruling Providence convey Authority to persist in Wickedness Or does it alter the nature of Good and Evil and make the unjust Detention of another's Right to be no Injustice We have no dispute about God's bringing Good out of Evil We maintain that it is unlawful to detain another's Right and that God cannot give Authority to do that which is unlawful because it is contrary to his Goodness and Holiness And to say that God authorizes no Man to be wicked I am sure is no denial of his Providence nor any Argument against it But the Doctor speaks particularly to the Case of transferring Kingdoms he supposes No Man will deny but that God as the supreme Lord of the World may give the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases without doing Injustice to any Prince who can have no Right but by his Gift This I grant is his unquestionable Prerogative Then says he the only dispute can be about God's bringing such Events to pass by the wickedness of Men. I Answer we have no dispute about it no doubt it is God's Perogative to give Kingdoms and Riches to whomsoever he pleases but the Question is whether God does properly give them when they are unjustly Possessed and when it is a Sin to keep them if he does we think the Consequence is that he authorizes Wickedness and to this the Doctor Answers nothing but he laboriously proves what is nothing to the purpose that it is Just for God to bring Good out of Evil. God permits Robberies for good Ends but this proves not that Robbers have a divine Right to their Booty it is a Sin to keep it and as long as it is so we are sure they have not God's Authority for it He supposes farther that God may permit ambitious Princes to depopulate Countries to depose Princes and subdue their Kingdoms and then he asks Which most becomes the divine Wisdom to suffer such Men when they please to overturn Kingdoms only to gratifie their own Lusts or to give prosperous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World to pull down such a Prince or to chastise such a Nation And thus he Answers his own Question I am sure this much more becomes the divine Wisdom than a bare Permission of such Violence without any further Design which does not become it Thus he still disputes against his own Imaginations for no one else does imagine that God permits the deposition of Princes without any other Design than to gratifie the Lusts of Usurpers there are many good Ends for which he may permit it the Chastisement or the Punishment of the Princes themselves and of their Subjects the Disciplining of them by Afflictions the Tryal of their Faith and Patience the Illustration of his own Glory and many other Ends that are worthy of the divine Providence When Charles I. was deposed and murdered that execrable Violence was permitted for wise Ends but this was no Proof that God had authoritatively transferred his Kingdoms to his Deposers and Murderers And this is a plain Demonstration that it may become the divine Wisdom to suffer Princes to be deposed and Kingdoms to be subdued without any Design of transferring them to Usurpers But why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them Undoubtedly he may he may give them by the Conveyance of a lawful Right or by express Revelation but the dispute is not what God may do but what he does and whether he does properly give Kingdoms to Usurpers But the Doctor supposes again That it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to an Vsurper as to suffer a wicked Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title This he supposes but without Proof and against Reason God by Virtue of his absolute Sovereignty may give a Kingdom to any one as he can give any Man's Estate or Wife to any Man by the same Sovereign Dominion But First The Possession of an Estate Wise or Kingdom is no Evidence of God's Donation And Secondly When God does really give a Kingdom all former Rights are extinguished by a divine Right and it is no Injustice in him to whom it is given to possess and keep it But according to the Doctor 's Principle the Right of the former Prince is still valid and he may prosecute it by a lawful War and therefore it must be unjust in the new Prince to detain it from him and this does make a great difference between the Doctor 's Usurper and a Tyrannical Prince with a legal Title the later has lawful Authoririty from God which he can keep and exercise without Sin the Tyrannical abuse of it is yet wholly from himself and is only permitted by God for Ends agreeable to his Wisdom and Justice But the Doctors Usurper has Authority given him by God and yet the Possession and Defence of it against the lawful Prince is unjust and unlawful now this is a plain contradiction in the nature of the Thing and to God's Wisdom and Justice also for hereby God is made to authorize that which is formally unjust which is contradictory to his Justice and to give a Prince a Kingdom and yet oblige him to restore it which is disagreeable to his Wisdom But in short let the Doctor prove if he can that it is no Sin in an Usurper to possess himself of the Throne and that he is not bound to restore it and there shall be an end of this Controversie I will acknowledge that he has God's Authority and that his Principle does not charge God as being the Author of Wickedness but if that be impossible to be proved he may wash and varnish and lay on Colours till he is weary the Aethiopian will still retain his Skin and the Leopard his spots The next Objection he labours to remove is this That his Principle justifies an unreasonable and wicked Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice The summ of his Answer is this He acknowledges that it is impious to justifie Actions from Success or to conclude that is God's Cause which Providence prospers because it confounds the difference of Good and Evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice But yet it is a necessary Duty to discharge those Duties which the Providence of God lays upon us according to the Nature and Intention of the Providence and thus God's Providence may in some Sense be a Rule of Practice and may make or extinguish a Duty by changing our relations or condition of Life as in the present Case he must transfer my
Allegiance when he changes my King In another place he states it thus The Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil to us not his Providence but Providence lays new Obligations upon us by creating new Relations The Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him I Answer 1. That impious Doctrine which teaches that the Cause which Providence prospers is God's does seem the unavoidable Consequence of the Doctor 's Principle for he teaches that all Events are God's doing and that he positively decrees appoints accomplishes all Usurpations But if all Events are God's doing he is certainly the Author of that which he does and in such Events which are necessarily and inseparably accompanied with Iniquity he must be the Author of the Iniquity too And as to the Event of Usurpation if he decrees assists and accomplishes it if he does all this for Usurpers we must needs conclude that their Cause is Gods ' for it is impossible for God to do more than this for any Cause whatsoever 2. If the Laws of God and not his Providence are the Rules of Good and Evil to us then it follows undeniably that Providence of it self can never direct us how to distinguish between Good and Evil and therefore when the Question is whether an Action be lawful or not we must have recourse to Laws and not to Providence to determine it Thus when we dispute about Allegiance to Usurpers the Question must be whether there be any Law that requires it and if there be no such Law it is certain there is no such Duty It is true that the divine Providence does change our Condition and Relations and by introducing new Relations does oblige us to new Duties But it is also certain that all Changes which befall our Selves or the Persons to whom we are related do not extinguish our Relations and Obligations to them and therefore we must have some other Rule besides Providence to instruct us when they are extinguished When I am in Prison or my Father iâ— in Prison here is a providential Change but no Cessation of Relation or Duty When the Course of civil Government is interrupted by Rebellion and the Prince cannot actually administer here is a providential Change which affects my Sovereign but is no discharge of my Allegiance And how then shall I know when the Events of Providence do extinguish my Duty My Duty does not cease upon every Change in the condition of my Sovereign that is made by Providence and it is impossible that the Events of Providence should direct me when it is extinguished by any Event of Providence And therefore I must be directed by some other Rule which may inform me when any Duty is extinguished by a Change of Providence and that Rule can be nothing else but Law either divine or humane Law Thus it appears that though a Change is made sometimes in our Duties by the Events of Providence yet our only Direction is Law and thither we must appeal at last in all our Controversies about the Change of Duty and the result is that if there be no Law that requires Allegiance to Usurpers the Events of Providence cannot make it to be a Duty Providence 't is true does make Kings and God transferrs my Allegiance when he changes my King But the Question is whether Providence does not make Kings by Permission and whether when my lawful Prince is dispossessed my Relation to him is extinguished and the only way to determine those Doubts is by appealing not to Providence but to Law and Reason The Doctor tells us That we must conform our selves in the discharge of those Duties that Providence lays upon us according to the nature and intention of the Providence But how shall I know that it is the intention of Providence when an Usurper is advanced that I should pay Allegiance to him I know that God disapproves Usurpations and strictly forbids them and declares that he will punish them and I know also if Usurpation be so great a Wickedness that God's Providence does not assist or authorize it though he does not interpose his irresistible Power to hinder it this I am taught by natural and reveal'd Religion and I find no Precept in either to assist any Man in his Wickedness in the whole Progress of the Usurpation I find nothing but Injustice in the Rebellion or Invasion in setting the Usurper on the Throne and in supporting him on it and therefore I have reason to conclude that since my Assistance is unlawful neither the Nature nor the Intention of the Providence does require it There remain some other Objections and Evasions in the Vindication which relate to Providence and I will consider them as they occur He objects against our Principle that it opposes Providence to Providence the force of the Objection is this God does settle the Crown on any Family no otherwise but by his Providence and when an Vsurper is setled in the Throne he is advanc'd by Providence too and therefore to oppose an Hereditary Right which is made by the over-ruling Influence of Providence against God's setting up an Vsurper by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence Now there is no absurdity at all in opposing Providence to Providence A Divine Entail is nothing but an Act of Providence and yet the Doctor thinks that the Providential Advancement of an Usurper is of no validity against it and thus himself does oppose Providence to Providence God's Providence may make Kings by Nomination by the conveyance of a legal Right and by granting Possession without Settlement and Possession with it And if it be no Absurdity to oppose and prefer the first to all the others and the fourth to the third why is it absurd to prefer the second to the third and fourth It would be absurd indeed if the latter Providence were as clear a Declaration of God's positive Will as the former but that is the great Controversy between us All Men are agreed that when a lawful King is on the Throne he has God's Authority but not that an Usurper setled or unsetled is invested with it I am sure there is a Providence that is only permissive which conveys no Authority which we cannot possibly distinguish but by the moral nature of Events and I think it is no absurdity to distinguish Providence nor to oppose Wrong to Right a permissive Providence to a legal Right which is establish'd by God's Authoritative Providence And this single Observation that for all that yet appears an Usurper is advanc'd only by permissive Providence is a sufficient Answer to all the Reflections which he makes upon our opposing Providence to Providence He observes that this is to shackle and confine Providence and that we will not allow God's Providence to change and alter We only maintain that God's permissive Providence is no