Kingdom of Judah six years Joash was the true King and so the Power ordained of God. 1. This Assertion meddles not with the Right to Answ but only with the Exercise of the Supreme Authority Now it is plain to Common sence and experience that a King out of Possession whilst he so continues cannot do any thing belonging to the Higher Power to do nor is he such an Higher Power as St. Paul represents for he doth not actually bear the Sword of Justice he doth not watch continually for that very thing he makes no Judges or Justices of Peace there are none Commissionated by him for the punishment of evil-doers or for the praise of them that do well He cannot be a terror unto evil works or a Rewarder of the good done in that Kingdom in which he hath lost all Power So that if it be necessary that we should always have a King under whom Justice should be executed and the Laws be maintained and he that is out of Possession for the time being cannot be that King it plainly seems to follow that for the said time he cannto be the Minister of God to us for Good intended by St. Paul. Again it is as plain that the King in quiet possession for the time being actually doth or may perform all these particulars and so in reference to them all may be the Minister of God to us for Good And why then may he not be deem'd the Ordinance of God for the time being Or why may not those Laws which make him the Supreme Power and the Executor of these Offices for the time being be also said to render him the Ordinance of God for the time being The Instances produced from the Old Testament have nothing in them parallel to our case Answ 2 or opponte to our Hypothesis as will be evident if we consider that the Possession pleaded for as being that which creates a Right to our Allegiance for the time being and renders any Prince the Ordinance of God for the said time is 1. Full and quiet Possession of Kingly Government without the Contest of any opposite prince in the said Nation for he who is not King can never be our Sovereign Lord the King. 2dly Possession given and received by the usual method viz. The Consent of all the Representatives of the People Governed and the Coronation of the Person Governing with the usual engagements to the Governed Which Coronation how unnecessary soever it may be to a Prince who hath an Hereditary Title to the Crown must necessarily be needful to make a King who is not so by Birth-right our Sovereign Lord the King for the time being For want of these two things though Oliver had engrossed the whole Government yet was he still a meer Vsurper and no legal Governor and therefore no Allegiance could by our Laws be due unto him he being no King much less a King chosen by the House of Lords and Crowned in the usual manner And by the enjoyment of these things it was that King Stephen John and the three Henrys though deficient in Title by Birth-right were notwithstanding in their respective times our Kings and so the Odinance of God for the said time This being premised the impertinency of all the instances produced will easily appear For 1. As for Absalom he never had any qiet possession of the Kingdom nor did ever David flee out of the Land for when the Battel was fought he was in Mahanaim a City of Refuge and a Sacerdotal City He had with him an Army of his own Subjects able to cope with Absalom besides those who in reality were for David though they pretended to follow Absalom 2dly Sheba was never Anointed or placed on the Throne he never had Possession or any deliberate Consent of the ten Tribes for he was presently pursued 2 Sam. xx 14. not only by the Men of Judah but of Israel also 3dly That Athaliah ever ruled by the consent and approbation of the People of Judah is not evident from the Sacred Records perhaps she did it only by meer force and violence 2 Chr. xxij 9. xxiij 3. because the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the Kingdom or because they knew of noen of the Seed-Royal that survived Moreover in all these instances there was an express Law or Declaration of the Will of God against all these pretenders For Absalom and Sheba rebelled against that David whom the Lord had expresly chosen to seed Jacob his Chosen Ps lxxviij 71. and Israel his Inheritance Athaliah was excluded by that Declaration Promise Oath of God whereby he had engaged that David's Kingdom should be established for ever Ps lxxxix 33 34 35. 2 Sam. vij 16. and that there should not want a man to sit upon his Throne Whence having found a Son of Ahaziah the Priests and People with one voice cry out The King's Son shall Reign 2 Chr. xxiij 3 as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David Now though 't is granted that no man can be God's Ordinance against his own immediate and express Appointment of another individual person so to be this hinders not but where there is a Law to make it so where the same ways are used which convey a good Title and where the exercise of the Government is conveyed by them whom God hath intrusted with the designation of the Individual Governor that Governor may exercise the Supreme Power for the time being even when the Right is in another or may at least be deemed God's Ordinance in so doing For whereas it is said that Civil Magistracy is by the Law of Nature Obj. but he that is only King de facto and so is King in prejudice to and violation of anothers Right cannot be a Magistrate by the Law of Nature but against it and so his exercise of that Authority is contrary to the Law of Nature I Answer Repl. that Magistracy is only by the Law of Nature because some government is so not because this Individual Governor is so If therefore Government may equally proceed under a King de facto as de jure they may be equally by the Law of Nature because those Acts of Government viz. the punishing Offenders the protecting of the Innocent and whatsoever else is of the Law of Nature because essential to Government which is so may equally be performed by both For a Conclusion of this Answer and this Section with it it may deserve to be considered That in these and all other cases of such Popular Elections and Revolts left on Record in the Old Testament we find not any person punished afterwards as Rebels for siding with the opposite Party against their Rightful King None that followed Adonijah and proclaimed him King none of the ten Tribes who Anointed Absalom or followed after Sheba none who submitted to Athaliah To which add a like Observation out of Daniel's History In the Life of Hen. 3. p.
King de jure out of Possession can be to no intents and purposes the Minister of God to us for good and the King de facto may be so to all the said intents and purposes then may he also be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God for the time being In a word the Lord Chief Justice Coke expresly saith Instit par 3. p. 7. That by the Law there is always a King in whose name the Laws are to be maintained and executed otherwise Justice should fail and if so then by the Law the King Regnant must be our King there being no other in whose name the Laws can be maintained and executed and the failure of Justice be prevented And if he be the Higher Power he must also be that Ordinance of God for the time being to which we owe the Duties mentioned in the Objection 3dly As for the first of these Duties An active execution and observation of all the lawful Commands of the King Regnant for the time being it admits no real Ground of Scruple for lawful Commands may lawfully be obeyed The Contribution of Taxes to his support and maintenance is by St. Paul declared to be due 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this very cause that he attends continually upon the Government and therefore due to him that doth so Our Assistance to promote the welfare of the Government we are under by our Prayers and Counsels seems plainly to be our duty by virtue of that Command which God gave to his own People and the continuance of the Reason of it Seek the peace of the City Jer. xxix 7. whither I have caused you to be carried away Captives and pray unto the Lord for it for in the peace thereof you shall have peace and of that Apostolical Injunction That prayers 1 Tim. ij 1 2. and supplications intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all that are in Authority or eminent Place As for our endeavours to keep them in their Station by our Arms it only can be so far our duty as it is lawful so to do Nor do I find St. Paul inculcating it as any part of our Subjection to the Higher Powers nor doth our Law since the Cessation of the Tenure of Knights Service require it personally of all Subjects At least we of the Clergy cannot be concerned in it because we by so many Statutes are exempted from bearing Arms. And lastly as for bearing Faith and true Allegiance you see our Law doth plainly and expresly make it due unto a King de facto And so I cannot fee why all these Duties may not as far as we can be concerned in them be paid to such a King for the time being It is damnation to resist the Power ordained of God in favour of any other person n. 12. Obj. 3. but can it be damnation to resist him who is only King de facto in favour of a King de jure if 2o then what just War can be made for the Recovery of his Right or why did Jehoiada not only depose but even cause Athaliah to be murthered for the sake of Joash 1. The word which we translate Damnation Answ in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Judgment Now by our Law Treason may be committed against a King de facto and that is punishable by the Judgment of Death and if this Treason be an offence against the natural Allegiance due to the King de facto as all Treasons are and I do thus offend by levying War against the King for the time being in this Realm by being adherent to his Enemies or giving Aid unto them I must be guilty of it by doing this in favour of a King de jure It therefore may be judgment to resist the King de facto in favour of the King de jure i. e. it may be an Offence which by the Law will render me obnoxious to judgment If the King de jure at his return to exercise the Government may punish me for any Treasonable action done against the King de facto and consequently for resisting such a King in favour of himself it must be an Offence deserving Judgment according to our Law thus to resist the King de facto in favour of the King de jure Nor doth it follow hence that the King de jure can make no just War for the Recovery of his Right for this he may do by the Assistance of his Allies by Foreign Aids or by those Subjects who have still adhered to him or will repair unto him only they cannot do it who have received Protection and lived for a time in quiet subjection to another Government If therefore Men will act up to their principle That their Allegiance is still due to King James they must immediately go out of the Realm and repair thither where they alone can pay it to him If they think it unlawful to own any Allegiance due to King William they must expect no Protection seek for no Justice from him pay no Taxes to him for if they repair to him as the Avenger of any evil done to them or as the Minister of Justice if they pay him any Taxes they thereby virtually own him as the Higher Power seeing these things are only due unto him and can be expected from him because he is the Higher Power and you are his Subjects To the Case of Athaliah I have Answered before §. 2. n. 17. and shall now only add That if she obtained any consent from the People it was by reason of their ignorance that she had any Competitor or that any of the Sons of Ahaziah were alive and that she could not have the Throne of Judah whilst any of the Seed-Royal lived by reason of God's manifest declaration to the contrary and therefore when the King's Son was discovered the Priests the Levites and the Chief of Israel do presently cry out 2 Chr. xxiij 3. Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the house of David Here therefore was the immediate Declaration the Promise and the Oath of God against her which whosoever in our case can shew will make this instance pertinent Moreover she who gained consent only on supposition that there was none of that Seed of David left of whom God had expresly said That they should sit upon the Throne could only be supposed to have their consent so long as no such Seed appeared The Power is the Minister of God n. 13. Obj. 4. or one commissionated and Deputed by him for the same dependance that a Subordinate Magistrate hath upon his Sovereign for becoming his Minister the same hath a Sovereign Prince upon God for being his Minister But can any one be Deputed or Commissionated by God to take away another Man 's right or wrongfully to detain it That the Supreme Magistrate is Commissionated by God to be his Minister Answ as well as the Inferior Officer
continuance there during life for he cannot cease while he lives to be descended of the Blood-Royal of the Realm which immediately constitutes him in his natural Capacity nor to be King by Birth-right inherent he therefore only in such cases ceaseth to be King and our Allegiance to him only ceaseth to be due because he hath separated from himself that politick Capacity which was before apropriated to his natural Person by the Law Ibid. by virtue of the Lineal descent of that Person from the Blood-Royal whereupon Succession doth attend 2dly Ibid. It is agreed on all hands that we cannot have two Kings at once and therefore either the King Regnant in possession only or the King de jure out of possession only can be our legal King or he who is in the eye of our Law our Sovereign Lord the King and the only Supreme Governour of this Realm 3dly It appeareth by what hath been already said and by the determination of the Judges in Calvin's Case P. 438. P. 439. That Ligeance is due only to the King that the Ligeance or Faith of the Subject is proprium quarto modo tot the King omni soli semper it is due therefore to every one who is Seignior le Roy and so to a King Regnant in possession though he be only King de facto if the Law make him Seignior le Roy. It is due soli to him alone if he alone for the time being be our Sovereign Lord the King. It is due unto him semper as long as he continues the King Regnant in possession upon the same account 4thly A. 9. Edw. 4. Term. Pasch Observe that in Bagot's Case it is determined that le Roy Hen. fuist Roy en possession il covient qu' le Royalme eit un Roy South qu' les leges seront tenus maintein doque per c ' qu' il ne fuist eins forsque per usurpation unc ' chescun act judicial fait per luy qu' touche jurisdiction Royal sera bon licra le Roy de droit quand il fait regress King Henry the Sixth was King in possession and it is necessary that the Kingdom should have a King under whom the Laws should be held and maintained therefore be it that he was only in by usurpation yet every judicial Act done by him which toucheth the Royal jurisdiction shall be good and shall bind the rightful King when he returns And it is there added that le dit Roy H. ne fuit merement comme usurper car le corone fuist taile a luy per. Parliament The said King Henry was not meerly as an Vsurper because the Crown was entailed upon him by Act of Parliament as now it is upon King William If then il covient qu' le Royalme eit un Roy The Realm must always have a King under whom the Laws shall be held and maintained the King Regnant in possession being he alone under whom for the time being they can be held and maintained he only can be our Sovereign Lord the King for the time being If every Judicial act done by him which concerns the Royal Jurisdiction shall be good though it be always done under the Title and Authority of our Sovereign Lord the King then must he be our Sovereign Lord the King to all intents and purposes of Law for the time being then must the Laws made by him be good also though they run in the stile of our Sovereign Lord the King or our Lord the King. And if all this be true of a King Regnant or in possession though it should be granted that he held the Kingdom meerly by usurpation it must more certainly be true of one on whom the Kingdom is entailed by Act of Parliament as in our case it is and who is therefore not to be looked on as a meer Vsurper 5thly P. 434. Observe that in Calvin's Case it is determined that Protectio trahit subjectionem subjectio protectionem Protection requires Subjection and Subjection Protection Quia sicut subditus Regi tenetur ad Obedientiam ita Rex subdiot tenetur ad Protectionem P. 436 437. For as the Subject oweth to the King his true and faithful Ligeance and Obedience so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects that Power and Protection draweth Ligeance and that the Ligeance of the Subject is of as great extent and latitude as the Royal Power and Protection of the King that though the King in his natural Person is subject to Death P. 438. Infirmity c. yet in his politick Capacity he is esteem'd to be Immortal not subject to Death Infirmity c. Now I would not hence inferr with others that I owe a King no Subjection or Allegiance any longer than he doth actually protect me or that if he neglect his duty in protecting me in my Goods or Body or of protecting the Laws according to these wordds of Foretescue Rex ad tutelam legis Cap. 13. corporum bonorum erectus est I may neglect my duty of Allegiance to him But yet I think it reasonable hence to inferr affirmatively From the King Regnant in possession I for the time being do receive Protection therefore to him for the time being I do not owe Subjection Protection draws Allegiance therefore Protection from him draws Allegiance to him The Ligeanceof the Subject is of as great extent and latitude as is the Royal Power and Protection of the King therefore it must extend it self unto all times and places in which and where this Royal Power is exerted and this Protection is afforded to me Rom. xiij 1 4. St. Paul doth found the reason of our Subjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the present Powers on this ground That they are unto us the Ministers of God for good or in the words of Christ that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors Luk. xxij 25. to whom we therefore own Subjection on the score of gratitude as far as we with justice can afford it Since therefore saith the Reverend Bishop Sanderson De legum Oblig lec 5. §. 18. we owe it to the Supreme Powers even when they are usurped that we enjoy what is our own that we live safe from slaughter and from rapine yea that we live at all since without them we neither could have remedy or safe-guard against the Lusts the Furies or the Injuries of wicked Men 't is the most equitable thing and that which the Old Law of giving and receiving mutually doth require that for so many and great benefits we should make some return unto that Power which affords them And what is that Return he doth sufficiently explain in the ensuing words Profecto perfecto perversissimae mentis est 'T is certainly an indication of a most perverse mind to desire to live under the Patronage of his Government whom you will not obey and to refuse to be governed by him
and threaten and much less to resist their Persecutors but only to commit their Cause to him that judgeth Righteously Now if after all these Declarations they indeed allowed all Christians to resist and take up Arms against their Governors when they conceived them guilty of Tyrannical abuse of Power when they became a terror to good Works and not to Evil only when they did not act according to Justice or established Laws or for the Good and Welfare of the Kingdom but the contrary surely they cannot be excused from a semblance of Deceit and of imposing on the Heathen World. 3. It plainly seems to make them guilty of the Murther of those many Christians who when they declared themselves * Vide Tertull. Ap. c. 37. ad Scap. c. 5. Cypr. Ep. ad Deme. r. Buseb l. 8. c. 1 4. Aust de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 6. sufficient both for strength and number to resist and overcome their Persecutors at the same time declared they durst not do it because it was forbidden by the Christian Laws And whereas against our Interpretation of the words it may be objected n. 7. First Obj. 1 That it makes wicked Magistrates the Ministers of God to us for good the Powers ordained of God yea that according to it even Vsurpers if they can once obtain quiet Possession and the consent of the Nobility and of the Commons must also be the Ordinance of God for the time being This I confess is true Answ but then it seemeth to be only that which Scripture which Antiquity which Reason and the Law of this our Nation doth allow and justifie For of those wicked Enperors forementioned it is that St. Paul saith They are the Ministers of God to thee for good to them it is St. Peter doth require Subjection 1 Pet. ij 14. as to men sent for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well And even of the Power of Pilate to condemn our Saviour Christ doth himself confess That it was given him from above Joh. xix 11. And Reason saith the same for even under wicked Magistrates Justice is executed Offenders against the Lives and Lively-hoods of others punished and Peace preserved and from their Government it is that we are kept from the Insolencies of Thieves and Robbers from barbarous Assassinations and all the miseries of Anarchy For take away the Higher Powers saith St. Chrysostom and all goes to wreck Chrys in Rom. Hom 23. Tom. 3. p. 191. neither will City nor Country nor Family nor Assembly nor ought else stand the stronger will devour the weaker and all things will be turned upside down So that we do in some measure receive that good from the most wicked and depraved Governors which without Government we could not have Accordingly the ancient Christians say in General of those Kings who were not very good at least many of them in their times That they are the Ordinance of God That by his command Kings are Ordained Theoph. ad Autol. l. 1. p. 76. That they were appointed by God That they received their Government from above That the Emperor derives his Government from him from whom he doth receive his breath Iren. l. 5. c. 24. Tertull. Apol. c. 30 33. ad Scap. c. 2. That he is the Man whom God chuseth and therefore must be loved by Christians who know he is appointed by God and that he makes them Governors over the Nations Legat. pro Christianis Apud Eus H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. Apud Athanas Ep. ad Solit. Vit. agentes Athenagoras saith of Aurelius and Commodus You have received the Kingdom from above Dionysius of Alexandria of Valerianus and Gallienus God hath committed the Kingdom to you Hosius of Constantius who laboured might and main to introduce the Arian Heresie into the Church against those Imperial Laws which had established the Nicence Faith That God had given to him the Empire Paulinus of Trier Lucifer of Calaris Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Millain That God gave to him the Kingdom Athanasius Apol. ad Constant De Civ Dei l. 5. c. 21. That God by his Word had given the Kingdom to his Servant Constantius He that gave the Government to Marius saith St. Austin gave it to Caesar he who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero he who gave it to the Vespasians most sweet Emperors gave it also to the most cruel Domitian and he who gave it to that most Christian Prince Cnstantine gave it to Julian the Apostate Tho he be wicked abominably wicked though he commit Ten thousand Evils and do the worst of mischiefs to us saith St. Chrysostom yet he is a King a Governor one to whom the Government is committed and therefore to be reverenced and not to be despised for his wickedness but revered for his Dignity But yet it may be said n. 8. How true soever this may be of an evil King who hath a lawful Title to his Government it seems strange and incongruous to assert That he who is only King de facto and so can only Exercise that Government which doth of Right belong unto another should be the Ordinance of God and it is liable to these great Objections and Absurdities 1st That which renders a man an Usurper of another Man 's Right without due Title or Admission to the Exercise of that Right can never render him the Ordinance of God to which I owe Subjection and Allegiance but that which makes him only King de facto in opposition to a King de jure makes him an Usurper of another Man 's Right without due Title or Admission to the Exercise of that Right 2dly The Precept Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers cannot agree to him who is only King de facto in opposition to him that is King de jure for this Subjection doth not only signifie a Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance but an active Execution and Observation of all his lawful Commands the Contribution of Taxes to his Support and Maintenance our Assistance and Endeavours to keep him in his Station by our Arms Purse our Counsel and our Prayers our Love Reverence and Honour of him In a word our Fidelity and Allegiance to him against all others Now can all this be due to a King de facto in opposition to him whose Right it is 3dly It is Damnation to resist the Power ordained of God in favour of any other person but can it be Damnation to resist him who is only King de facto in Favour of a King de jure to whom assistance must be due de jure If so then what just War can he made for the Recovery of his Right or why did Jehoiada not only Depose but cause Athaliah to be Murthered for the sake of Joash 4thly The Power is the Minister of God or one Commissionated and Deputed by him for the same Dependance that a Subordinate Magistrate hath