setling the Crown in such a Family by a legal Entail against his Providence in setling a new King upon the Throne It is all but Providence still and I desire to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other Act of Providence which gives a Setled possession of the Throne What follows is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the Twelve Tribes by God's express Command and this answers to God's Entail of the Crown on David ' s Family the possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a humane Right and Title to the Crown Well! there is something of likeness between them and what then And therefore according to the Doctor 's way of reasoning every Man who wrongfully possessed himself of another Man's Estate in that Land Canaan must be made to restore it for God had expresly given it to the other and to his Family But in all other Countries if a Man by Providence get his Neighbour's Estate he must have it for the event is God's Act and it is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it Now the fundamental mistake which runs through all these kind of Arguments is this That they make the events of Providence in private injuries Thefts Robberies Encroachments of one Subject on another Subject's Rights to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects whereas all private injuries are reserved by God himself to the correction and redress of Publick Government and Humane Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights 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 determinations of Providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Soveraign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases as he can best serve the Wise and many times the unsearchable designs of his Providence by it which shows how much our Author is out in applying what I said of God's making Kings to God's disposal of private Estates It is to say that God as well as Men is confined to humane Laws In making Kings I said In disposing of Estates saith our Author as if disposing of Estates and making Kings were the very same thing whereas God has erected humane Judicatures to Judge of the first but has reserved the second to his own judgment and when God himself judges he judges with Authority with Wisdom with Justice superior to all humane Laws Our Author might as well have said That we must not resist private Men or Inferior Officers when they are injurious because we must not resist a Sovereign Prince when he illegally oppresses us as that we must not dispossess a private Subject who has injuriously possessed himself of our Estates because Subjects must not pull down a Prince who is setled in the Throne without a legal Right The Poet would have taught him the difference between these two Cases Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Iovis Subjects are under the Government and Correction of Princes Princes under the Government of God And besides this according to my Principles Kings must be thoroughly setled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them and then if he will make the Cases parallel He who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly setled in it before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the possession of his Estate given him by Law and when he has whether right or wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again but in Causes superior to Laws as the revolutions of Government and the translations of Kingdoms are there may be a thorow settlement by a setled possession without Law and must be so where Laws cannot determine the controversy that is where there is no superior Tribunal to take cognizance of it So that as our Author has stated the Case it signifies nothing to the present purpose for whether private Mens Estates be setled by a Divine or Humane Entail it is the same case if they suffer any Injury from their Fellow-Subjects they must seek for Redress from publick Government but I could have told him a way how to have applied this case to the purpose but then it would not have been to his purpose but to mine In Canaan where God allotted every Tribe and Family their Inheritance none could pretend a Right to any Portion of Land but what was allotted them but in other Countries which were left in common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Thus in Iudah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those who were nominated by God or had the Crown descended on them by a Divine Entail but in other Countries Possession and Occupation gave a Right to the Allegiance of Subjects In Canaan when God had setled such an Inheritance in a Family it could never be perpetually alienated but tho it were sold it could be sold for no longer time than till the year of Iubilee when all Estates were to return to their old Proprietors again but in other Countries Men may part with their Estates for ever Thus in the Kingdom of Iudah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but when ever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Usurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an Inheritance sold for ever In Answer to that Objection That the Laws of the Land in such Cases as these are the measure of our Duty and the Rule of Conscience and therefore we must own no King but whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is in an Hâ—reditary Monarchy the right Heir I granted 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 but their Obligation must give place to a Divine Authority Suppose then there were an express Law that the Subjects of England should own no King but the Right Heir and notwithstanding this Law as it will sometimes happen and has often happened in England a Prince who is not the right Heir should get into the Throne and settle himself there if the Divine Law
Providence and Government signifie only his Permission that God looks on and sees Men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is the universal Lord of the World never gave them To resolve Providence into a bare Permission especially in matters of such vast Consequence as the disposal of Crowns is to deny God's Government of the World But it is objected that to say that Prosperous Usurpers when they are setled in the Throne are placed there by God and have his Authority is to make God a Party to their Wickedness Now this is another Argument not merely against God's making Kings but in general against God's Providence and Government of the World for if God cannot direct and over-rule the Wickedness of Men to accomplish his own Wise Counsels and Purposes without being the Author of those Sins whereby such Events are brought to pass there is an end of the Providence of God or of his Holiness and Justice for the most glorious designs of God's Grace and Providence have been accomplished by very wicked means even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself But to confine my self to our present Case of transferring Kingdoms and Empires as it was in the four Monarchies It is possible this may sometimes be done by very honest means but it is commonly done by great Injustice and Violence in Men and yet God very just and righteous in doing it No Man I suppose will deny but that God as the Supreme Lord and Sovereign of the World may give the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases without doing Injustice to any Prince who can have no Right but by his Gift No Man will deny but that God may be very just and righteous in removing some Princes from their Thrones and in setting up others And then the Translation of Kingdoms the pulling down one Prince and setting up another is no act of Injustice with God but is his Prerogative as the King of Kings and when it is done for wise and holy and just Reasons as we ought always to presume of what God does is a plain Demonstration of the Wisdom and Holiness and Justice of his Providence The only dispute then can be about God's bringing such Events to pass by the Wickedness of Men and what hurt is there in this if God can so over-rule the Ambition of Princes or the Faction and Rebellion of Subjects as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts which God for wise and holy Reasons thinks fit to have done It cannot be denied but that God does permit Men to do very wickedly and if he can permit the Wickedness of Men without being guilty of their Sins I hope to direct and over-rule their Wickedness to wise purposes to bring Good out of Evil and Order out of Confusion can be no blemish to Providence indeed I should be much puzzled to justifie the Divine Providence in permitting the Sins of Men especially such Sins as do great mischief to the World were I not very well satisfied that God over-rules all to wise and good Ends. Let us suppose an Ambitious Prince spurred on with Fame and Glory to grasp at an Universal Empire our Author will not say but that God may permit this Man to ravage and depopulate Countries to pull Princes from their Thrones and to bring their Kingdoms into Subjection to himself such Men there are in all Ages did not God think fit to restrain them and to fling Difficulties in their ways to make them tame and quiet Now I would ask any Man which most becomes the Divine Wisdom to suffer such Men when they please to overturn Kingdoms and to bring horrible Desolations on the World only to gratifie their own Lusts or to give the Reigns and to give prosperous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World to pull down such a Prince or to chastise and correct such a Nation I am sure this much more becomes the Wisdom and Justice of Providence than a bare permission of such Violence without any farther design which does not become the Wise Governor of the World And if God may permit such Wickedness and Violence without contributing to their Sin or being a Party to their Wickedness much more may he over-rule their Wickedness for wise Ends make them the Executioners of his Justice in punishing a wicked Age and transferring Kingdoms and then why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them for I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to a violent Usurper as to suffer a wicked impious tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title and yet this God often does witness many of the Roman Emperors whom I know our Author will have to be legal Princes and those who will not allow them to be legal Princes need not want Examples of this nature in Hereditary Kingdoms But our Author says that to own an Usurper who is setled in the Throne by Providence and to obey and submit to him as our King justifies an unreasonable and wicked Doctrine by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice as for his Right and Iustice it has been considered already let us now consider how far the Providence of God may be the Rule for practice It is indeed an impious Doctrine to justifie every Action and every Cause which has success God many times prospers very evil Designs when he can serve a good End by them and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success to conclude that is God's Cause which the Providence of God prospers confounds the difference of good and evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice but yet it is so far from being an impious Doctrine that it is a necessary Duty to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those Duties and Obligations which the Providence of God lays on us according to the Nature and Intention of the Providence and thus the Providence of God in some sense may be the Rule of our Practice and may make that our Duty which was not and that cease to be our Duty which was our Duty before and thus it always is when the Providence of God changes our Relations or Condition of Life as to mention only our present Case when he removes one King and sets up another for he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King The truth is as far as I can perceive the great if not the only fault of my Case of Allegiance is this unreasonable and impious Doctrine of Providence for some Men cannot endure to hear that God makes Kings by his Providence for that argues there is a God others cannot bear the thoughts that Kings Reign by God's Authority for then they cannot make and unmake Kings as they please others will by
who suffered chearfully under those Usurpations and as chearfully comply with the present Revolution which as I observed before is an Argument that they make a great difference between these two Cases But if as our Authour argues to justifie our present Submission and Compliance be to reproach those Worthies who suffered for their King in that horrid Rebellion and Usurpation then he must upon his Principles accuse those Worthies who suffered for their King then with falling from their Loyalty by their present Compliance He reproaches all the Nobility Gentry and Clergy who have now Sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties and tho the Clergy he says are only a Company of Weather-Cock Divines and therefore it is no great matter for them yet I doubt the Nobility and Genty will not take it well from him to be thought Weather-Cocks or less Loyal than those who suffered for K. Charles were And if it moves our Author's Indignation to see the Worthies of the World and of our Church mocked and diminished and represented as Fools and Knaves which no body has done but himself a much cooler Man than he is may be a little moved if not with Indignation yet with Contempt to see all our present Worthies in Church and State so maliciously libelled 2ly If our Authour will argue from Examples he ought not only to consider what was done but upon what Principles they did it whether they were all of our Authour's mind that it is absolutely unlawful in any Case whatsoever to submit to a Prince who is possessed of the Throne while the legal King or his true Heir is living tho dispossessed It is probable some few might be of this mind but that this was their general sense can never be proved and that it was is very improbable for it was neither the Doctrine of the Church nor the Law of the Land And yet if our Authour cannot prove this he proves nothing to his purpose if they did not act upon his Principles though they suffered for their King then they might have complied now as some of them have done and yet don't think they have recounced the true Principles of Loyalty by it 3ly When he resolved to argue from Example he should have carefully considered whether there are not more and greater Examples on the other side whether supposing the Case to be as he represents it there be any thing like it in all Story either sacred or profane whether both Iews and Christians did not always submit to the present Powers when the Government was settled by what wicked means soever it began But I shall not enter upon this Argument now which will be managed by a more learned Pen. I shewed what a vast difference there was between the late times of Rebellion and Usurpation and this present Revolution this he cannot deny but says it makes no difference in the Argument let us then try that But to state the matter so plain that our Authour himself had he never so much mind to it shall not be able to mistake or misrepresent it I must first premise that they are two very different Questions as I have observed above When it is lawful to submit to Usurping Powers and When it becomes a Duty to do it It is lawful to submit when we are under such force as can compell us it is our Duty to submit when as the Convocation says the Government is throughly settled now while we are in this state that we are under mere force but the Government not setled we may either submit or not submit without Sin and then that which must turn the Scale are Arguments from Interest Now what I said upon this occasion in the Case of Allegiance had reference to both these viz. That Subjects were not in those days bound in Conscience to submit to these usurped Powers and not being bound in Conscience to do it there were many reasons which might move the Royal Party not to do it Now this is so far from lessening and reproaching their Loyalty that it is greatly for the Commendation of it that when they were not bound in Conscience to submit to those Usurpations tho by Submission our Authour intimates they might have made better Terms for themselves yet they rather chose to venture their Lives and Fortunes to restore the King which is not as our Authour insinuates to prefer their Interest to their Conscience in serving the King but where Conscience was not concerned to the contrary to venture their Interest their Lives and Fortunes to restore the King Tho Men are but Men and if what I said be true that there were many Reasons which touched their Interests why they should not submit to those Usurpations I cannot see what Dishonour it is to them to say that it may be supposed that the utmost Despair under a violent Usurpation and the only possible prospect of bettering their Condition by the return of the King might not influence their Consciences but inspire and quicken their Loyalty Now that they were not bound in Conscience to submit to those Usurpers I proved because their Government was never setled and tho the Convocation does not deny the lawfulness of submitting to Power before a Settlement yet they do not make it a necessary Duty and matter of Conscience to submit till the Government is throughly setled The Convocation alledges two ways whereby a Government wickedly and unjustly begun may be throughly setled viz. By a general Submission or by Continuance that they had not continuance enough to make a Settlement I proved because the Government was frequently changed and new moddelled which was no Argument of Settlement and as for Settlement by a general Submission they could not pretend to that for they never had a National Consent and Submission That they had no such National consent needs not be proved to any Man who remembers the story of those days I suppose no man will pretend such a consent to the Government of the Rump-Parliament when all the Representatives of the Nation were flung out of the House excepting those few Rumpers because they would not consent Nor will it be pretended that Cromwells Dissolving the Rump-Parliament and summoning some select Persons out of every County nominated by himself and his Council of Officers without any Election of the People to be the Representative of the Nation had a National consent Nor had the Council of State chosen by this Mock-House of Parliament any greater Authority than their Masters nor did their Resignation of their Power to Cromwell again give any Authority to him or carry a National Consent with it Nor will it be pretended that the Instrument of Government agreed on by Cromwell and his Officers which made Cromwell Lord Protector of the Three Nations had any National Consent It is plain it had no National Consent in framing it and it is as plain that it was never afterwards confirmed by any National Consent and Submission The Parliaments called
almost invincible Prejudices against Submission when Conscience was not concerned and this answers all his little Objections As 1. The great Villanies of those days in an open and bare-fac'd Rebellion and in the barbarous Murder of one of the best Princes in the World this he says makes no difference in my Arguments What! not to prejudice wise and good Men against all Compliances For who that could possibly avoid it that is where strict Duty does not oblige nor irresistible Force constrain would submit to such Men 2. The barbarous usage the Kings Friends met with This he confesses makes some difference in point of Interest but none in point of Conscience nor did I say it did but it justly created a great Aversion to those Usurpations and was a reason not to submit when they were not obliged in Conscience to do it since all the Interest they had in the World engaged them not to settle by their Submissions but to do all they could to overturn those Usurpations 3. The Church of England was overturned Bishops Deans c. turned out and their Lands and Revenues sold the Loyal Clergy were Malignants for what they had done and had no way to keep their Livings but by renouncing the Church of England To this he answers the Case is concerning Civil Government not Ecclesiastical But yet whoever loves the Church will not chuse to submit when they are not obliged in Conscience to such Usurpations on the State as overthrow the Church Whether they were obliged to renounce Episcopacy or not they saw it destroyed and not so much as an Indulgence allowed to the Worship or Government of the Church of England What he adds I would desire him carefully to consider for it did not concern them that to be disabled to keep a Living though a very good one is no reason to rebel against a settled Government 4. The whole Government in Church and State was overturned which was the fundamental Constitution of the Nation but this he says is only changing the form of Government as the Dr. knows the Convocation says when such degenerate forms of Government are throughly settled I grant it but when such degenerate forms of Government are not throughly settled the subversion of the fundamental Constitution of the Nation is a reasonable prejudice against submission when it is not a duty His parting Objection is so very ridiculous that had he begun with it I should have thought he had only intended it for a jest but I am now so well acquainted with his way of reasoning that I am satisfied he is capable of thinking it an argument and it is this If possession of Sovereign Power contary to Law be God's Authority and ought to be obeyed then whatever Sovereign Power a Prince possesses himself of is likewise God's Authority and ought to be obeyed If therefore a Prince in a limited Monarchy resolves eo be arbitrary to make his will the Law and to exercise an Illegal Power he must be obeyed as Gods Authority But where do I say that possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law is Gods Authority He does not pretend that I say it in express words but this he supposes is the sense of what I say But I desire he would keep to my words for I will answer for none of his senses unless I were better satisfied both of his understanding and honesty I say indeed that a Prince who is settled in the possession of Sovereign Power though he have no legal Title to the Crown has God's Authority and what then therefore the possession of Sovereign power contrary to Law is God's Authority how does this follow cannot God settle a King upon the Throne without a legal Title but he must be presumed to give him Authority when ever he has power to govern by an Arbitrary will against the Laws of the Land cannot God make a King without giving him Authority to do all that he has power to do But the formal reason of obedience to such a Prince is because he hath God's Authority and the evidence that he hath God's Authority is because he is possessed of Sovereign Power Suppose this though God's Authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a Prince yet it is not the Rule of our obedience and therefore we are not bound to obey every thing he commands though he have God's Authority The Authority of God is only an Authority to govern according to the Laws of God and Nature or the Laws of the Land and tho Sovereign Princes may have such an Authority as must not be resisted yet in a limited Monarchy they have no more Authority from God to transgress the Laws of the Land than in an absolute Monarchy they have to transgress the Laws of God and Nature Indeed Arbitrary Government is not the possession of Sovereign Power which is God's Authority but the arbitrary Exercise of it And tho we must obey God's Authority it does not hence follow that we must obey the Exercise of Arbitrary Power And yet I do not attribute Gods Authority which we must obey in Conscience to the bare possession of Power but to the setled possession of it that is with the Consent and Submission of the People and could any Prince change a limited into an absolute Monarchy by a National Consent Subjects were then as much bound in Conscience to submit to an arbitrary Power in all matters which have no moral evil in them as they are now to obey the Laws but then this would not be an Authority against Law but the Law would be changed Thus it is not yet and we are in no danger now it should be so and therefore the Case of the Declaration and of Magdalen-Colledge c. are very impertinently alledged by our Authour and he had better reserve them till he can bring us under the Government of a French Power But do not I say That when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to Divine Authority He should have cited the whole That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us So that the Laws of the Land must be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes unless they contradict the Laws of God and I do not know that any of our Laws do that and then there is no danger in a limited Monarchy that we should be obliged by God's Authority to obey Arbitrary Will and Power It is a certain truth as our Authour must confess that if the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us But this proves nothing in particular without proving what Laws of the Land are contrary to the Laws of God If then he can prove that by the Law of God we are bound to obey the Arbitrary Will of the Prince against the
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 and then we need dispute this matter no further at present But what he means by this Argument 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 our Prince against Law 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 I shall only observe farther that our Authour charges me with saying in the Case of Resistance that this may easily be that a Prince in a limited Monarchy should resolve to be arbitrary when he has all the Power of the Kingdom in his hands and must not be resisted Whereas I bring this in by way of objection against Non-Resistance and only say it is possible but shew by several Arguments how difficult it is and that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance does not destroy the distinction between a limited and absolute Monarchy But at this rate he uses to cite Authours that unwary Readers will easily be imposed on if they give too much credit to him Thus I have particularly answered all the little appearances of Reason and Argument in the Postscript and made it appear that according to the Sense of the Convocation those Princes who have no legal Right may yet have God's Authority and have so when their Government is thoroughly setled And now had been the proper time to enquire what the Convocation meant by a thorough Settlement but he did not like this order and therefore chose to begin with the Notion of thorough Settlement for when once it had appeared that the Convocation spoke of the settlement of illegal Powers he must have been ashamed to have pretended that they meant a legal Settlement by acquiring a new legal Title either by the death or cession of the right Heirs or by a long Prescription I shall only add that when the Convocation speaks of a Settlement they mean the Settlement of the Government within it self not with respect to foreign Force and Power for so they express it when they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their own People and then the Government may be throughly setled within it self before it have a peaceable Possession and Settlement so Alexander's Authority was setled at Ierusalem before Darius was finally conquered and so are K. William and Q. Mary setled on the Throne notwithstanding all the expectations some have of a French Invasion and Conquest And since our Authour insists so much upon a legal Settlement Possession of the Throne with the Consent and Submission of the Estates of the Realm gives a legal Settlement in England if we will believe our best Iudges and Lawyers as I shall be inclined to do till I see a fair Answer to what I have said in this Cause in the Case of Allelegiance and then we have the opinion of our Lawyers for a Settlement and of the Convocation for Obedience to a setled Government For the Conclusion of his Answer he alledges the Authority of Bishop Andrews and Bishop Buckeridge two Members of this Convocation and of Dr. Iackson a very learned Divine against that sense we give of the Convocation The thing then he is to prove from these reverend and learned Men against our sense of the Convocation is this that those who ascend the Throne by Usurpation without a legal Right have not God's Authority and must not be obeyed and that such Princes can never in the sense of the Convocation be setled in their Thrones or have God's Authority till they gain some new legal Right by the Death or Cession of the rightful Prince or by a long Prescription Let us see then how he proves this to be the judgment of these Learned Men. Now what he quotes from B. Andrews has not one word of this matter The whole of it is no more but this that the Bishop will not allow the Name of King to any but Kings of lawful and true descent they are Kings the they reign not as Ioash was others are no Kings but Usurpers tho they reign as Athaliah did and what is this to the purpose Does not the Convocation allow Ioash to be the true Heir while he was kept from the Crown and Athaliah an Usurper tho she reigned Six Years Does not the Convocation call such Kings Kings de facto which is a little softer Name than Vsurper but signifies much the same thing viz. One who is possessed of the Throne without a legal Right And yet what the Convocation's Doctrin was about Obedience to such Kings I have already proved and Bishop Andrews might be of the same mind tho he would not allow them the Name of Kings But the Bishop will not allow that such Kings reigned by God Right but then he does not mean that such Kings do not exercise God's Authority but that God did not by his antecedent Will and Appointment place them on the Throne Thus S. Chrysostom on the 13. Rom. allows all Power and Authority to be of God and to be ordained by God and therefore not to be resisted whoever has it but yet will not say that all Princes who exercise this Power wickedly and tyrannically whatever their Title be are ordained of God He thought it a Reproach and Blemish to the goodness and justice of Providence to say that wicked impious tyrannical Princes were ordained by God but yet granted that the Authority they exercised was Gods and must be obeyed The Bishop and others will allow what S. Chrysostom would not That the most wicked Tyrants who have a legal Title to their Thrones are ordained by God but are afraid to own that Princes who ascend their Thrones by unjust and wicked means are set up by God but it does not hence follow that they denyed their Power and Authority to be Gods or that Subjects ought to obey it The Convocation it self affirms no more in that mighty place as our Authour calls it than that the Authority which is exercised in those Governments which begun by the Ambition of Princes or the Rebellion of Subjects is always God's Authority and therefore can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it and therefore must be obeyed So that Learned Men may differ in this Point whether illegal Usurpers are placed on the Throne by the over-ruling Counsels and Appointment of God or only by his permissive Providence