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.
Extremities Towns are reduced to the Jurisdiction of those to whom they were sworn not to submit but to destroy and upon their Surrender the must swear Allegiance to another Master and to destroy those whom before they were bound to preserve if they afterwards be re-taken by their former Prince he cannot look upon them as Traitors or Revolters for he could neither expect Allegiance from them when it was impossible for them to give it or the refusal of Allegiance to the Conqueror when it was impossible they should refuse it without being put to the Sword. The Reasons which justifie such particular places justifie a more universal such as are whole Kingdoms which are made out of such particular places and are subject to the same Fate and necessity of War to the same Confusions and Revolutions of Government and so to the same opposite Allegiance This therefore can be only such a Law of Nature as binds under such circumstances and ceaseth when those circumstances cease viz. When Power of Protecting Governing and Preserving cease without my fault and I can have them only from another upon condition of Allegiance 3dly Let us considerately peruse the Grounds of natural Allegiance n. 14. or the Foundations upon which according to the learned it relies and they perhaps may somewhat contribute unto our satisfaction in this case The foundation of legal Allegiance is the natural Law of Fidelity which obligeth us to be true unto our Promises and Oaths and this the Objection grants may cease The grounds of natural Allegiance are by our Judges in that famous Case of Calvin declared to be two 1. Protection and Government and from this Ground it is demonstratively evident that my natural Allegiance must cease to be actually due to him who cannot govern and protect me and must be due to him who actually doth so 2dly The Necessity of Government and the Profit of it for the preserving the Society of Man 't is necessary because the Prince cannot attain the ends of Government unless his Subjects yield him due Obedience 't is profitable because Peace is preserved and Justice hath its due uninterrupted Current whilst the King who protects and governs finds Obedience from his Subjects Now both these Grounds as hath been shewn in Bagot's Case and from the Reverend Bishop Sanderson require Obedience to the King in Possession for the time being for if there be a necessity when we have lost our Governor de jure and he is out of Possession that we should still have Government and we cannot have it but from the King de facto there must be a necessity that we should yield Obedience or Allegiance to him for they are words of the same import and used indifferently for the same thing in the Old Statute of Allegiance the Old Oath being commonly called saith the Act for the abrogation of it P. 188. The Oath of Allegiance or Obedience Peace also is preserved and Justice hath its Course under the King in Possession and cannot have its Course under him who is out of Possession 3dly Case of Engag P. 109. Bishop Sanderson saith That Allegiance is a Duty that every Subject by the Law of Nature owes to his Country and consequently to the Supreme Power thereof for the same Law which we may call the Law of Nature at least in a large acceptation which inclineth particular Men to grow into one Civil Body of a Common-wealth must necessarily withal imprint a Sense and tacite acknowledgment of such a Duty of Allegiance in every inferior Member of the Body to the Sovereign Power by which the Common-wealth is governed as is necessary for the preservation of the whole Body It therefore say I must imprint an acknowledgment of such a Duty of Allegiance in every inferior Member of the Body to the King de facto in full Possession of the Government because he is Caput communicatis and is for the time being that Sovereign Power by which the Common-wealth is governed And this he elsewhere proveth in our very case by this cogent Argument Whatsoever is to be done for any end Lect. 5. de leg §. 19. is so far to be done as it seems necessary and profitable for the obtaining of that end but the end of Civil Government and of the Obedience due to it is the safety and tranquillity of humane Society and therefore every Subject is bound to obey the Commands of him who de facto is Supreme Governor as far as the safety and tranquillity of that Society requires that Obedience Now three things are necessary for preserving of humane Society 1. Defence of our Country against Foreign force and the attempts of her Enemies Add And by parity of Reason against those who would create Seditions in her bowels for surely they are opposite to the safety and tranquillity of the Society 2dly The administration of Justice by which Rewards and Punishments may duly be administred as by Law established 3dly The care of Trade and Merchandice for in these three things the welfare of Manking doth so much consist that without them all things must run to ruin all places will be filled with Rapines Murthers Frauds and Injuries The Lives and Fortunes of the most innocent Subjects will become a prey to the Lust of the more powerful the only remedy against which Evils is That good Subjects remember that it is their duty to obey their Commands and Laws in all things which relate unto the publick safety by whose Sword and Authority they are defended from the injuries of wicked Men. I know he concludes with this exception That we must so yield Obedience to the Invasor §. 20. as not to violate the Right of the Lawful Heir or do any thing to his prejudice Which exception shall be considered in the following Head. 4thly Allegiance may be grounded on that Law of Justice which enjoins us to give every one his right But then according to our Laws according to that Old Rule Protection doth require Allegiance according to those known Principles That there must be always a Government under which the Laws may be preserved and Justice executed and where there is a Government there must be Obedience I say according to these Rules Allegiance for the time being must be the Right of the King in possession for the time being Moreover in many things which are in general enjoined by the Law of Nature humane Laws determine both of the exercise and measures of them for instance Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not defraud another of his Right are Laws of Nature but yet the Law of Man determines what shall be esteemed stealing and what defrauding others of their Right Thou shalt not kill is another Law of Nature but yet the Law of Man determines when I may kill without committing Murther and when not so in like manner the Law of Nature requires Allegiance to my Sovereign but for any thing I can see to the contrary
Fundamentals of this Government he may not have forfeited it And Fourthly Whether he may not have done it by actually subjecting part of it to a foreign Power and both it and himself to Papal and French Power Again on the part of King William he must know Whether he had not a just cause of War and if he had Whether that do not create a right to the thing gained by it Whether King James by disbanding his Army and withdrawing his Person did not virtually yield him the Throne And must not the Decision of these things if it be necessary to be made by every Soul in order to the paying that Obedience to the Higher Powers he stands obliged to yield them for Conscience sake cast many honest Souls into great Mazes and under insuperable difficulties And must it not then be very reasonable to conceive that God hath given them some way more easie And fitted to their mean capacities for satisfaction in this case and what can that more likely be than this of yielding actual Obedience to him whom they find in actual Possession of the Government whilst they enjoy the benefit of his Protection and of his Government Thirdly God saith the Apostle hath called us to Peace n. 7. 1 Cor. vii 15. i. e. to peace even with Pagans and to a peaceful Deportment in our conjugal and oeconomical Relations for unto that he in that Paragraph seems more immediately to referr 1 Pet. ij 12. And the Apostle requires the Christian to yield Subjection to the present Powers that by this good Behaviour their Adversaries might be convinced of the peaceable Deportment of Christians and how free their Religion was from causing any disturbance to the Government Now if Christianity did indeed enjoin them to yield this peaceable Subjection to the Powers then reigning and having full Possession of the Government without a scrupulous enquiry into the justness of their Titles they must be then obliged to live peaceably under all Governments and give disturbance unto none but if it did enjoin them first exactly to enquire and satisfie themselves of the validity of every Princes Title and refuse Subjection as ost as they found reason to dispute the Justice of it it might then often happen that all of them might be obliged to disturb the Government and the Jewish Converts at that very time who scrupled the Title of any Heathen Ruler over them might lie under continual Temptations to Disobedience and Tumults Again even in our present Case if we can bring our selves to this perswasion That Allegiance is due to a King in Possession for the time being we may not only pray for all that are in Authority 1 Tim. ij 2. that under them we may live peaceable and quiet Lives in all holy Conversation and Godliness but we shall actually do so But if after the Wisdom of the Nation in the most solemn Assembly hath conferred the Government on such a Person and given him the Title of our Sovereign Lord the King and put him in full Possession of the Crown every private person may still not only Question whether they ought to own him as such but even deny him their Allegiance and maintain that by an immutable Law of Nature they stand bound to give it to another it is in vain to pray we may live peaceable and quiet lives under his Government to hope for any Settlement of such a Government or any peaceable subsistence of it since we conceive our selves indispensably obliged to promote and to abett all struglings to disturb and overturn it But against this Discourse it may be urged n. 8. Obj. That Allegiance is a Duty we owe unto a lawful Sovereign not only by virtue of our Oath which is stiled legal Obedience but by virtue of the Law of Nature Now though our legal Obedience may cease as being that which only is imposed on us by Law and so may be removed by such a Law as rendereth it impracticable or transferrs it to another yet our natural Allegiance must be immutable because the Obligations of the Law of Nature are so To strengthen this Objection let it be considered out of the famous Judgment given in Calvin's Case First P. 440. That our Ligeance is due to our natural Leige Sovereign descended of the blood Royal of the Kings of this Realm Secondly Ibid. That by the Law of Nature is the Faith Ligeance and Obedience of the Subject due to his Sovereign or Superiour because Magistracy is of Nature for whatsoever is necessary and profitable for the preservation of the Society of Man is due by the Law of Nature but so is Magistracy Seeing as Tully saith Sine imperio nec domus ulla nec civitas nec gens nec hominum universum genus stare nec ipse denique mundus potest Without Government no House City Nation nor the whole Race of Mankind could stand Thirdly Ibid. That seeing Faith Obedience and Ligeance are due by the Law of Nature it followeth that the same cannot be changed or taken away Fourthly P. 441. That when a Man is out of the Kings legal Protection as a Man Out-law'd a Man attainted with a Premunire he is not out of his natural Protection but notwithstanding any Statute the King may protect and pardon him And so in like manner it seems reasonable to distinguish betwixt legal and natural Obedience or Allegiance and to affirm That by these Statutes and Judgments we seem to be absolved indeed from our legal but cannot by them be absolved from our natural Allegiance I think I have made the Objection as strong as the most scrupulous person would propound it and if I can really tender a clear and satisfactory Answer to it I hope my foregoing Argument will hold good even in the judgment of the most impartial I therefore Answer n. 9. Repl. 1. That what is granted seems to yield Advantage enough to us viz. That legal Allegiance may cease to be due to a King de jure and may be due to a King de facto though natural Allegiance cannot this last is due Antecedently to all Laws Promises and Oaths whereas legal Allegiance is that which we by Law do swear and promise Natural Allegiance is due to our natural Liege Lord descended of the Royal Blood of the Kings of this Realm Legal is that which the Laws exact to the King for the time being though he should not be thus our natural Lord. Natural Allegiance is due because he to whom I owe it is rightful King. Legal because he is King Regnant and actually affords me that protection which calls for Subjection This is undoubtedly mutable the other is esteem'd immutable Well then supposing but not granting what this Objection doth suppose That King William were King only de facto no natural Allegiance can be due to him but only legal and mutable that therefore only is required by the Law imposing this Oath and that
unjust Possessor of the Throne Moreover by a particular consideration of them it will be evident that they partly have received a sufficient Answer and that 't is easie from the Premises to give a full Solution to them To reassume them therefore in their order it is Objected That which renders a Man an Usurper of another Man 's Right n. 10. Obj. 1. 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 maketh any person King de facto only in opposition to a King de jure maketh himan Usurper of another Man 's right without due Title or Admission to the exercise of that Right Ergo. To this I Answer That a due Title may be either such Repl. as according to the strict Rules of Justice bears that name as being obtained by due means and conferr'd without injustice or injury done to any person and so it must be granted that a King de facto or an unjust Conqueror can have no due Title against a King de jure Or 2dly that may be stiled a due Title which is legal or allowed of by the Law and which is conferr'd with those Formalities of Law and with those usual Ceremonies and Rites which customarily are observed in the most Regular Collations of those Titles A Title just in the first sence cannot be necessary to render a Prince the Ordinance of God or any other Secular and Ecclesiastical person capable of being owned as such for then none of the jewish High Priests in the times of our Saviour could have been owned as God's Ordinance they having seldom obtained that Office by due means nor having it conferr'd upon them without the injury of him to whom by God's direction it belonged for life viz. The eldest Son of the house of Aaron for the Procurator of Judea made that Office Annual it was usually bought and sold Vide Ham. in Luc. 3. not c. Josephus reckons no less than twenty eight of these irregular Advancements to that Dignity and yet St. Paul owns one of these very persons as the Ruler of the People Act. xxiij 5. Our Lord owns those who were sent by their Authority as men who could not be resisted lawfully Matt. xxvj 52. Joh. xi 49 51. The Holy Ghost doth own them as High Priests and even assisted one of the worst of them to prophesie whilst he held the Office Nor doth our Lord himself deny his Right unto that Title Moreover those Bishops which received their Power and Investiture from those Popes who wrested it from Kings and others who had right to nominate and to elect them could not upon this supposition be God's Ordinance nor as such obeyed in prejudice to the Rights of kings and these Electors 3dly No Conqueror of a Rightful king could be God's Ordinance notwithstanding any consent afterwards obtained from the People 4thly The four great Monarohies could not be the Ordinance of God with respect to the greatest part of their Dominions which they obtained only by the Sword. 5thly Most of the Roman Emperors in the Primitive Times could not be truly stiled God's Ordinance as being advanced to the Imperial Throne rather by the Arbitrary choice of the Army than the free Antecedent choice of the Senate Then lastly had we of this Nation no Ordinance of God in being during the Reigns of Henry the Fourth Fifth and Sixth that is for the space of sixty years they being accounted and in one of our Acts of Parliament often stiled Kings in Deed 1. Edw. 4. and not of Right And if a due Title in the Second sence be sufficient to render a person the Ordinance of God then be it supposed though not granted that King William and Queen Mary are only King and Queen de facto yet may they have a due Title because they have a legal Title from those Laws which declare the King and Queen for the time being to be our Sovereigns within the parvien of the Statute The Government also being conferr'd upon them by consent of the Nobility and Commons representing all the Coverned they being Crowned King and Queen after the usual manner and so having the Government conferr'd upon them with those Formalities of Law and with those usual Ceremonies and Rites which customarily are observed in Collating of it The Precept n. 11. Obj. 2. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers cannot agree to him who is only King de facto in opposition to him who 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 Flim 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 1. Our Law seems very plainly to require most of this to a King de facto for the time being as making it our duty Answ to do him true and faithful Service and Allegiance and that because for the time being he is our Sovereign Lord the King and so the Higher Power to which we are to be subject for the time being and if he may be the Ordinance of God as I have shewed he is most of the things here said to be included in Subjection must be due unto him by St. Paul's Injunction 2hly I have shew'd already that a King out of Possession while he continues so to be cannot do any thing required by the Office of the Higher Power he cannot bear the Sword of Justice he can Commission none to punish evil doers or reward the Good he cannot be the Minister of God to us for good And yet it is on these accounts that St. Paul lays a necessity of Subjection on us Not only for Wrath but Conscience sake and that he tells us we are to pay tribute because he is continually attending on these things I have also shew'd that from a King de facto in full and peaceable Possession of the Government we do or may enjoy all these benefits and in all these particulars He may be unto us the Minister of God for good and that from Him alone it is we can receive actual Protection and all the benefits of Government if therefore it be necessary that we should always have a King under whom Justice should be executed and the Laws have their course it seems as necessary that the King for the time being should be received as our King if Protection doth require Allegiance and we for the time being do receive it only from him it seems as evident that for the time being we should yield it only to Him. If then the
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