for it Case of Alleg. p. 6. Vindic. p. 9 Convoc p. 46. They are these they teach that the Lord in advancing Kings to their Thrones is not bound to those Laws which he prescribeth others to observe And therefore commanded Jehu a Subject to be anointed King over Israel of purpose to punish the Sins of Ahab and Jezebel But the Doctor seeing that this was by Gods express nomination and therefore nothing at all to his purpose he adds And what he did by Prophets in Israel by an express nomination of the Person he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms set up Kings when he sees fit without any regard to the Right of Succession or Legal Titles Convoc p. 53. For as they tell us elsewhere The Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires And can the Doctor say that by these words the Convocation means God's making Kings by Providence or that they make any such inference from them that a Person possessed of the Throne without Right and contrary to it is made a King by God and ought to be obeyed If the Doctor can say this I have done wondring at any interpretations he makes either of the Convocation Book or of the Scripture in favour of his Hypothesis For the Convocation in this very place does not only not refer to God's making Kings by Providence but is as express against the Doctor as any thing can be For the Convocation speaking of and justifying the facts of Jehu and Ahud in killing King Joram and Eglon as having an express warrant from God and being made Kings by God's express nomination they immediately add Both which examples being but in number two throughout the Histories of all the Princes Judges and Kings either of Judah or Israel do make it known to us that altho the Lord may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires yet foreseeing in his Heavenly Wisdom and Divine Providence what mischief private men under colour of these Examples might otherwise have pretended or attempted against their Sovereigns as being either discontented of themselves or set into fury by other malitious persons he did so order and dispose of all things in the Execution of these such his extraordinary Judgments as that thereby it may plainly appear to any that should not wilfully hoodwink himself never to be lawful for any person whatsoever upon the pretence of any Revelation Inspiration or Commandment from his Divine Majesty either to touch the Person of his Sovereign or to bear Arms against him except God should first advance the said person from his private Estate and make him a King or an Absolute Prince to succeed his late Master In his Kingdom or Principality And what they thought of such advancement with respect to other times is evident in the Canon to this Chapter where they say with respect to the same matter Except which is impossible he should first prove his credit in so affirming to be equal with the Scriptures and that men were bound as strictly to believe him in saying that God called and stirred him up to the perpetrating that fact as we are bound to believe the Holy Ghost by whose instinct the Scriptures were written when he telleth us that God raised up Ahud for a Saviour to his people And more to the same purpose Convoc p. 48. If any man shall affirm that it is lawful for any Captain or Subject high or low whosoever to bear Arms against their Sovereign or to lay violent hands upon his Sacred Person by the example of Jehu nothstanding that any Prophet or Priest should incite them thereunto by Unction or any other means whatsoever except first that it might plainly appear that there are now any such Prophets sent extraordinarily from God himself with sufficient and special authority in that behalf and that every such Captain and Subject so incited might be assured that God himself had in express words and by name required and commanded him so to do he doth greatly err From whence these Two things are obvious 1. That these words The Lord both may and is able to overthrow Kings c. notwithstanding any Right c. plainly refer to the facts of Ahud and Jehu and have an immediate respect to God's setting up Kings by his express nomination and in the Kingdom of Israel also and therefore very improperly alledged to prove that what God did by Prophets in Israel by express nomination he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms For that that is the sense of the Convocation the Doctor proves for that they tell us elsewhere that the Lord may and is able c. And yet this very elsewhere has the same reference with the other and respects the Kingdom of Israel and God's express nomination And where is the Consequence God by express nomination made Jehu and Ahud Princes and authorized them to kill the Kings whose Subjects they were before and he may do so again if he please therefore if any person can by Providence get the possession of another Princes Throne he is a King of God's making as much as Jehu or Ahud and has as good authority to act as they had 2. They limit and confine the practice upon this Doctrine to God's express Nomination They do not mention them either to allow or establish a general practice upon them but to prevent it And it seems as if they designed to prevent that very Inference the Doctor draws from them The Doctor infers That therefore whoever is possess'd of Power by Providence hath God's Authority And they infer the clean contrary that notwithstanding a special and express Warrant from him is necessary and granting that the Lord may and is able to overthrow Kings c. notwithstanding c. yet no man had any Authority from him except he was expresly and by name appointed by him And the Convocation is so far from substituting Providence in the place of Gods nomination that in the very Case upon the account of which they mention these words they say there can be no Authority without God's express warrant and that such a warrant is now impossible So that the Doctor 's Interpretation and Inference is directly contrary to that of the Convocation And by this time I suppose the Doctor may be satisfied there was no such need to call for an Answer and to tell me I did not think sit to take notice of these Passages And I do think fit yet further to take notice that he hath plainly alter'd the state of the matter with respect to these passages In his Case of Allegiance he produc'd this passage to prove Case of Alleg. p 6. That what God did by his Prophets in Israel by an express nomination of the Person
Power over Israel But the mischief is the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments c. that God had called him to murder the King de facto under whom he lived c. which says the Doctor is spoke with reference to Ahud 's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de facto in the jugdment of the Convocation And I suppose our Author knows what a King de facto signifies in opposition to a King de jure one who is King without a Legal Right I answer yes I do know that but the mischief is the Convocation does not speak of a King de facto in opposition to a King de jure but barely of a King de facto and I suppose the Doctor knows that a King de facto when it is not spoken in opposition to a King de jure does not mean a King without a legal Right And this is plainly the case for 1 it is barely and nakedly expressed without any opposition to a King de jure either mention'd or suppos'd 2. The matter plainly proves that it cannot be spoken in opposition to a King de jure which is that the King de facto may not be murdered by his Subjects but if a King de facto was spoken in opposition to a King de jure then a King de jure may be murdered by his Subjects 3. The Doctor tells us that this is spoken with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon and therefore King Eglon was but a King de facto But then this is a reason that the Convocation did not speak it in opposition to a King de jure for in the Chapter to this Canon they speak with reference to the same That the Lord may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countries Kingdoms or Empires These words were plainly spoken with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon and the Convocation prefaces thus Both which Examples i. e. of Jehu and Ahud do make it known to us that although the Lord may and is able to overthrow c. And the Doctor tells us but the page before P. 9. that there is no sense to be made of these words if they do not prove God's sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings c. and this was spoken with reference to God's pulling down King Eglon by Ahud But then Eglon was so far from being a King de facto in opposition to a King de jure that he was not only a rightful King but a most rightful King And therefore the mischief the Doctor speaks of that the Convocation in express words owns the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites to be only Kings de facto is no other mischief but that the Doctor contradicts himself but that is no mischief with him otherwise he would not use it so often And here we plainly see the Doctor 's admirable dexterity in interpreting the Convocation to his own purpose The Convocation says King de facto and no more but it seems that would not do and therefore the Doctor says they say only King de facto and but King de facto but these Additions which perfectly alter the sense are no bodies but his own and yet it seems it was not enough to put them in but he must tell us also the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto when the Convocation hath not any such word or any thing like it The Doctor proceeds Vindic. p. 11. Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author hath found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies and that is the submission both of Prince and People Well that is one of them but not all which says the Doctor he says I grant gives a legal Right Postscripâ— p. 2. whereas I only said that the submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so Very good let it differ as little or as much as he please it is nothing to me for if he will look again he will find that I only said the Doctor tells us that the submission of the Prince c. And I think also that saying he tells us differs a little from saying he grants So that I think this might have been spared But the Doctor had a mind to charge me with a fault and he hath thereby shew'd himself to be only guilty of it However I take this opportunity to tell him that it is indifferent to me whether or no he grants that the submission of the Prince and People confer a legal Right all the world besides grant it and that is sufficient for any ordinary Principle tho the Doctor should not think fit to like it nor any thing else tho never so plain if it contradicts his Hypothesiâ— But now the Doctor tells me The truth is our Author is here blundered for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous terms This is a terrible business if the Doctor could but shew us where this blundering and these ambiguous terms were I had told him as plain as I could speak that besides lineal descent a Right to a Government might be acquir'd by the death or cession of the right heir joyn'd with the consent of the People and by Prescription and when such a Right respectively was attain'd the Government was then a legal Government I think this is distinct enough and the Notions are clear enough and if the Doctor would have given a direct Answer he should have shewn that either a Right to a Government by these ways is not attain'd or if it be that the Governments the Convocation speaks of and requires Obedience to had not attain'd such a Right but instead of that he runs on with a company of distinctions about legal and learnedly shews how many several ways Powers may be said to be legal And what is all that to me and to the purpose By legal Powers I understand what he understands by them if he understands any thing by them and that is legal Powers in opposition to usurped Powers Usurped Powers are such as have no Right legal Powers are such as have a Right as well a Right acquir'd as by lineal descent and such Powers by the consent of all mankind are legal Powers and Usurpers the contrary And the Doctor knows well enough this is my sense and hath quoted it too but two or three pages before but the truth is Vindic. p. 6. the Doctor is blunder'd for an Answer and to avoid giving a clear and distinct Answer falls a
not commence from his anointing nor cease to Athaliah if ever they pay'd any to her upon his being in Actual Possession in the Doctor 's sense and as he would have it and immediately it follows which dutiful office of Subjects being perform'd that is the dutiful Office of Crowning and Anointing This it seems was the Office of them that were Subjects and not of such as by that act were to become so And to this purpose I had answer'd this matter before Postscr p. The Doctor knows well enough that his Anointing and Proclaiming did not make him King but that according to the Rules of Succession in that and other Kingdoms he was King all the while of Athaliah's Usurpation and Allegiance was due to him and uppon the account of that they restor'd him But saith the Doctor If the Convocation had not thought that there was some difference between killing Athaliah before or after the anointing of Joash they would not have laid so much stress upon the time when she was slain Now it is true the Convocation does mention the time and seem to lay some weight upon Joash's being in Possession and not without Reason this Example of Jehoiada and which the Doctor observes was urg'd by the Papists to justifie the Pope's Power of Deposing Princes and to refute this that Chapter and Canon seems especially to be directed And if we consult the Protestant Authors of those times we shall find the most insisted on these Two Answers the first respected the Character of the Person deposed Consult B. Robert Abbot de Suprem Potestat Reg. p. 32. Roffensis p. 913. the second the Authority by which it was done As to the First they say Athaliah was an Usurper and no Queen without Right and Title and what Jehoiada did any other private man might have done But not a word of the Doctor 's fine limitation of her sinking into the state of a Subject when Joash was anointed for they never thought her otherwise only they thought her a great deal worse The Doctor indeed sprucely calls her a Queen and is very tender as to the Point of slaying her but they bluntly called her a Robber and never troubled themselves about the Punctilio and Ceremony of killing her Bishop Robert Abbot says roundly Vt non hic ex auctorata Regina quae nulla fuit c. p. 33. This is not to be called a deposing a Queen who was no Queen but the taking vengeance of a cruel Robber and the discharge of the Allegiance of Subjects to their own King The other Answer respects the Authority by which she was deposed and slain And upon this they say that any man hath Authority to kill an Usurper And Bishop Buckeridge is very express P. 923. If Athaliah was not a true Queen but an Vsurper c. in this all are agreed that she may be killed by any Subject because no body is a Subject to an Enemy Furthermore saith he the order of that management is this Jehoiada shews and declares their true lawful and natural King the Princes and People accept him and then Jehoiada Crowns him and after all that they take Athaliah and slay her c. And now observe what follows If they had first deposed Athaliah and afterwards Declared and Inaugurated King Joash videri fortasse poterat perhaps it might seem that something had been done by the Authority of the Priest or Nobles or People but seeing that the true King was declar'd in the first place and in the second place punishment was taken of the false Queen and Vsurper those facts are known to be done by the Kingly Authority and not by any Priestly Authority or that of the Nobles or People From whence 't is plain there is not so much stress laid upon the anointing of Joash as if Athaliah could not have been lawfully killed before or without it as the Dr. fansies for they say any body might do it but being done after it was a clearer proof against the Pâ—pists that it was done by the Authority Royal and not Sacerdotal or Papal And upon this account it seems the Convocation was so punctual in reciting the order of it Bellarm. that the Proof might be yet clearer against the Papists For they urg'd that both the Deposing and Killing Athaliah and the setting up of Joash was done purely upon the Authority of Jehoiada as High Priest and the order of it as being done after Joash was Anointed and Crown'd was a proof without exception against them And hereby an Objection is prevented for if it had been done before it might have been pretended as some Papists and Common-wealths men pretend and the Dr. has given no small Countenance to it that Joash was not King and that he had no Authority 'till he was Crown'd and therefore it must be done by the Authority of Jehioada But it being done after refutes all such Cavils and therefore there was reason enough for their mentioning and insisting upon his being Crown'd before Athaliah was slain tho they might believe that Joash had sufficient Authority to perform all Acts of Government as well before as after such Anointing and Crowning And that they did so is as plain as words can express it For speaking of the Kingdom of Judah this they say expresly After that the Kingdom was held by Succâ—â—sion Convoc p. 52. the very being of the Kings Son the True Heir Apparent after his Father's death gave unto them all thâ— Actual Intere t Right and Possession as Possession in those Cases is to be expounded of their several Governments to do any act or acts as well before as after any subsequent Formalities and Ceremonies So thâ—t they never tâ—ought of Anointing as giving Possession or thaâ— they were thereby impow'red to do any Acts of Government and the Usurper might have been slain as justly by the Authority of Joash as well before as after his Anointing But all this is meer trifling and signifies nothing to the main Question For whether Anointing gives Possession or no whether Joash was in Possession before or not is all one in the Present Case For if he was out of Possession they put him in Possession if Anointing was so material they Anointed him and all this from a sense of their Duty and Allegiance and ev'n when the Government was actually administred by an Usurper Postscr p. 9. And then it follows as I said that Allegiance is due to a Prince tho his Throne be possessed by an Usurper So that let Anointing give as much Possession as the Dr. please and let him make what Inferences he thinks good from Athaliah's being slain after Joash's Anointing I am not able to see what he would prove from them And if they were granted him he cannot from thence prove that Allegiance is not due to a Rightful Prince dispossess'd or while an Usurper is upon his Throne or that the Jews did not pay Allegiance to Joash before he was
thoughts Why did not be produce any one Doctrine or oâ—e Expression of mine that tended that way There is one small reason for it because he could not I have nothing to say to the ingenuity of such a practice let the Dr. satisfie himself about that as well as he can But when he is so hard put to it to discharge his account of Providence from justifying an unreasonable and impious Doctrine when he hath not answer'd any one of my Arguments nor so much as offer'd at them as we shall see presently in the very same case to â—all a recriminating and crying out of disâ—â—â—â—ving and riâ—iâ—uâ—ing Providence is a strain of Bâ—llinâ—gaâ—e Logick and nothing else but out-facing an Argument instead or answering it And this will be yet more plain when we see his Reason For says he let me ask him this God in the Kâ—â—â—s in England or not But how comes this Question to prove that 〈◊〉 or â—iâ—â—cuâ—â— Providence For it is brought â—or th t â—â—â—son if his Particle For means any thing And if the proof depends upon answering this Question the Dr. should have â—â—id a little before he had told me what some people will suspect except those people would suspect also what I would answer And then I do not know how far a previous suspition may justifie the charge of a future fact or because the Dr suspected that I would give an â—pâ—curean Ignorant or Atheistical Answer therefore to fave further trouble and to dispatch the business all at once he might charge â—â—e with not understanding or ridiculing Prov dence by way of anticipation He goes on iâ— He does God makes Kings in England 〈◊〉 which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the Jure Divino with a witness and is that such a business Why may not a man renounce the Jure Divino as well as Legal Powers Pref. to Case of Alleg. if there be occasion is any man forbid to grow wiser and to alter his mind when he sees good reason for it Methinks be might let renouncing alone but if God does make Kings in England how does he make them he sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings But to save him the trouble of any more Questions I answer tho God sends no Prophets he sends Laws among us to tell us whom he hath appointed to reign over us God doth not govern mankind like Beasts in a Desert where every thing is Prey and Possession but by the Rules of Society which confine and determine Property and fix the bounds of it And it would be a wise Question to ask How does God make a man a Right Possessor of an Estate in England He does it by his Providence but it is according to Laws How did God make Kings in Judah after he had entayl'd the Crown why he made them by his Providence but it was according to that entail and so in other Kingdoms God makes Kings and private Proprietors by his Providence but it is according to the standards of Right and Justice that are fix'd and setled among men and authoriz'd and confirm'd by God himself and by the express declarations of his will And whatsoever exceeds and is contrary to these is Invasion and Wrong Robbery and Rapine expresly disallow'd and forbid by God himself And to say God gives by his Providence what he forbids by his Revealed Will is an Impious Doctrine and justifies my charge against the Drs. interpretation that it makes Providence a Rule of Practice against Right and Justice And a man may as well say that God gave to Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit tho he forbid them upon pain of Death to eat of it because all Events are by Providence and they were permitted by Providence to take it And this answers what follows Suppose says he a Prince ascends the Throne by the most unjust force and ungodly arts P. 59. who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's permission he usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making well let him call him what he please it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God rules in such a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne I say yes God does govern by his Providence but not by communicating his Authority to the Usurper And what does the Dr. think of those times of Usurpation in this Kingdom between 48 and 60 Did God govern in the Kingdom of England all those 12 years or not And therefore what he says for indeed will any man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not govern'd by his Authority or Minister is perfect fallacy by his own Principles for he himself says it and I ask him had the Rump or Cromwell God's Authority or not If they had then four or five Leaves of his Book and his account of their not being settled and all that he says on that Head is meer trifle and contradicts what he says here For if they had God's Authority they ought to be obey'd and no pretences of Loyalty could excuse it But if not then God may govern a Kingdom when those persons who actually govern for many years have not his Authority nor yet are his Ministers otherwise than as the Devil and wicked men are Ministers to execute the designs of his Providence but not as deriving any Authority from him or thereby claiming any Right by vertue of their Actual or Providential Government And thus his following Question is answer'd Does 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 universal Lord of the world never gave them Now here is a large compass and if the Drs. Argument signified any thing it would prove that all the Sinful Events that ever were or shall be in the world have God's Authority respectively annex'd to them for if it does follow that because Providence and Government do not signifie permission that because God does not meerly look on the affairs of the world therefore whatever Authorities and Powers men snatch and exercise and keep God who is the universal Lord of the World gives them Then it plainly follows that whatever Powers men have and whatever Possessions or Goods they snatch or keep tho never so unjustly they are all the Gifts of God and there is a Right and Property in them deriv'd from the Universal Lord of the World But to our Instance And then the Rump and Cromwell and the High Court of Justice exercis'd God's Authority and Charles the First was murder'd and his Son rob'd of his Crown by God's Authority For Providence and Government signified the same in those days as they do now And I wonder what the peoples consent signifies
thus the Drs. Argument is lost if to have it perfectly confuted from his own words is to have it lost But no matter for that let the Drs. Argument suffer never so much by it he will have me say that Athaliah was throughly setled and makes me believe he does me a great kindness to admit it for says he to gratifie our Author let us suppose the Convocation did own Athaliah to have been as throughly setled in the Throne â— 36. and a little after he tells me I will suppose that Athaliah was throughly setled in the Throne whereas I suppose and prove the clean contrary and if to suppose that Athaliah was not throughly setled be to suppose She was throughly setled then I do suppose it but the Dr. I thank him has a mind to make me to contradict my self as fast as he contradicts himself But the Dr. gives a reason why I have not given the true notion of a full and setled Possession for saith he he hath left out the principal part of it as I state it when the Estates of the Realm and the great body of the Nation has submitted to such a Prince Now it is true I have left it out and how should the Dr. expect I should do otherwise for he knows I do not believe that is the true notion of a Settlement and I do not believe that the Dr. can prove that it is But I suppose the Dr. means that because I said that Athaliah was fully possessed of the Throne and did not say likewise that the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation submitted to her therefore my Argument does not affect him And what the Convocation says of deposing and slaying Athaliah does not relate to a setled Government except it appears that according to the Drs. notion of it the Estates of the Realm c. had submitted to her and therefore a setled Government may have God's Authority and ought to be obey'd tho Athaliah had not God's Authority and might be depos'd because she was not setled according to the Drs. account by the submission of the Estates of the Realm c. This I take to be his meaning tho he has not express'd it but I know I must be careful of giving his meaning least he be angry and tell me again he will answer for none of my senses And therefore if this be not his sense Vindic. p. 71. I desire him in his next to tell me what is for I can make no other sense of it But methinks a man that is so very humoursom and touchy should be careful to deliver his sense a little plainer and not leave men to guess and to make it out for him But if that be his sense then I make this Answer 1. I do own that the People of Judah at least the more conscientious part of them did not submit to Athaliah so as to become her Subjects and Parties to her Government But I do believe notwithstanding that a great part of them and perhaps the greatest did side with her and abet her For it is plain that She had a Party enough to maintain her Government and those that would not own it were not able to oppose her Had Jehoiada been strong enough I think there is no doubt but he would have deposed her and established Joash long before But at the end of six years he had a great accession to his Party which probably he had at that time been preparing and working them into a sense of their duty to their lawful King and there can hardly be given any other account why he permitted the Usurpation so long for if the mere shewing the King would have done it and have turned the hearts of the People that might as well have been done some years before and the Kingdom have been set upon the Right bottom and the mischiefs of continued Usurpation have been prevented But it is no wonder that power and interest should prevail against Duty and Conscience Men in those days as well as others might have their Principles corrupted and their morals poysoned what Arguments they had to justifie themselves by does not appear the Drs. two Books would have stored them with abundance but a little Argument with a great Interest will go a great way And it is plain it was six years before they came to a sense of their duty and there is little doubt to be made but Jehoiada travail'd all that time with them to reduce them and probably upon just Conviction they deserted the Usurper and joyn'd themselves to Jehoiada But the Question is not What they did but what they ought to have done That a great part of the Kingdom did submit to her I think there is no dispute and it is as little that a great many did not and the Question is Who of these according to the Principles of the Convocation ought to be justified and who ought to be condemn'd 2. The Dr. himself asserts they did submit and so Athaliah was setled according to his Notion of a Settlement and then my Argument affects him 3. The Question is not What is the Drs. Notion but what is the Convocation's Notion of a Settlement and I readily grant that according to that Athaliah was not setled nor that they thought she was But the Reason is because she was an Usurper and the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive and not because the People had not submitted For if they did submit as the Dr. says they did that made no alteration in the Case they were bound notwithstanding to return to their Lawful Ki g and to Depose the Usurper whether they had or not submitted And the truth is there is scarcely any thing the Convocation more obviates than the Notion of Peoples Consent contributing any thing to the Government or to their own Duty They express it Civil Power Jurisdiction c. deduced by their Consents depend upon their Consents did receive any such vertue and strength from the people P. 3. P. 8. P. 28. Now 't s true these are spoken with reference to Lawful Governments But then I would fain see a good Reason why the Peoples Submission and Consent which signifies nothing with respect to Lawful Governments and their Duty to them should signifie so very much against the Lawful Government or if the Peoples Consent does not make Allegiance a Duty to Lawful Governments how comes it to make it a Duty to Usurpation in opposition to Lawful Governments 4. Altho the Dr. here tells us that the Principal part of a Settlement is the Submission of the Estates and the great Body of the Nation as he does also in his Case of Allegiance yet when he comes to prove this he himself hath left this Principal part quite out for the Answerer had said that Settlement is a Term of Law and in the notion of it denoted a Rightful and Peaceable Possession and in Reply to this
there is no difference for those pay as little Allegiance to an Usurper who anoint a King and then depose him as those who do it to restore â—n ejected one and I would fain know what difference there is as to Allegiance to an Usurper between anointing a new King and upon his Authority deposing an Usurper and doing the same thing upon the Authority of one already anointed The Doctor replyes I grant there is no difference where it is the duty of Subjects either to anoint a new King or to restore an old anointed King but this is a duty only where the Vsurpation is against God's Entail So that here is nothing but the Second Answer over and over again but the first Answer is perfectly lost and the Doctor cannot maintain it and has nothing to say for it and he might have said so and there had been an end but to quit it in the plain field and yet to pretend to stand to it to give nothing in Reply but the Second Answer and yet dress it up as if it had been the First savors more of Artifice then Ingenuity or Reason A little Ingenuity would have saved us both some pains But some men when they find fault with themselves and when it is for their turn can be contented to own themselves fallible and are not asham'd to own that they are still learners Preface to the Case of Allegiance but if any man else discovers their mistakes they cannot abide to own them but will shift and double and turn and wind any way rather than acknowledge a mistake But has the Doctor nothing at all to say for his First Answer Yes truly to do him Right he has something to say but it is next to nothing and he had e'en as good have let it pass in all points and assign'd the whole business over to the Second Answer as he hath done in every thing besides All that he says is this In the First Answer to confirm what he said that all that they amounted to was that when the Legal and Rightful King is possess'd Subjects may return to their Allegiance For says he Joash was first anointed and proclaimed before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah To this I answer'd Is the Doctor sure that Joash was actually possess'd of the Throne He was anointed indeed but is anointing actual possession And it will not be easie to prove it according to the Doctor 's notion of Possession of having the whole administration of affairs and all the Authority of the Kingdom in his hands To this he replies The Convocation affirms that King Joash was in possession of his Crown before Athaliah was slain Vindic. p. 30. And he further tells us That the Convocation thought it very considerable that the Princes Levites and People yielded subjection to their lawful King and having so done and their King being in Possession of the Throne joyned together for the overthrowing Athaliah the Usurper if the Convocation had not thought that there was some difference between killing Athaliah before or after the anointing of Joash they would not have laid so much stress upon the time when she was slain And saith he I wonder our Author should perceive no difference for tho it had been the same â—ing â—o Athaliah whether she had 〈◊〉 killed before or after the anointing of Joash yet it greatly alter'd the nature of the fact and that upon two accounts both with respect to the Authority whereby it was done and the Character of the Person who suffered The Convocation will not allow a private man to kill a King de facto and that was the Case of the Jews during Athaliah's Reign before Joash's Title was Recogniz'd and he anointed and placed on the Throne but when this was done they had the visible and actual Authority of their King to slay the Usurper And after Thus whatever Authority Athaliah had before when Joash was anointed she sunk into the state of a Subject and then to kill her was not to kill a Queen de facto but a Subject who had been an Usurper but now was a Subject again and therefore no Fidelity or Allegiance was due to her Is not this pure Doctrine from a Church of England-Man As if in an Hereditary Monarchy and one that was so by Divine Entail too which the Doctor lays so much stress upon the King could have no Authority to perform the Acts of Government till he was Anointed and Crown'd and his Title Recogniz'd by his Subjects We are hard put to it sure when we must gather up the very dregs of the Common-wealth Principles to support our Hypothesis At this rate Athaliah had hard fortune for if she had come a little sooner and before the Ceremony of Anointing had been over she had sav'd her Life and her Authority too and her crying out Treason Treason had been the true state of the Case and they had all been Traytors in violating the Allegiance and Fidelity they ow'd to her for the Doâ—â—â—r tells us that before the Recognitioâ— and Anointing the Jews were private â—â—nâ— and had no Authority aâ—d that 'till â—hen she was Queen de facto and was not sunk into a Subject and that Fidelity and Allegiâ—nce was due to her And I suppose had she come time enough by vertue of that Allegiance they ow'd her she might have commanded them not to have deposed her at least not to have slain her nay according to the Doctor they could not do it for they had no Authority and she was their Queen Now if the Doctor will answer me one Question I will thank him Did the Subjects of Judah owe Allegiance to Athaliah till such time as Joash was actually possess'd of the Throne i. e. according to the Doctor 'till he was actually anointed then I desire to know how he came to be anointed by her Subjects for that was not an act of Fidelity and Allegiance to her but a contradiction to it But if they did not owe her Allegiance 'till he was anointed then as the Doctor phraseth it she was sunk into lhe state of a Subject before Joash was anointed And her Character was lost before if ever she had any to lose for that the Doctor has not yet proved And I believe if the Doctor looks again he will find that their anointing Joash was an Evidence that they were his Subjects before and not as he tells us that they might return to their Allegiance when he was actually possess'd of the Throne i. e. in his sense when he was anointed for their very anointing him plainly shew'd they were his Subjects and so own'd themselves before and the Convocation is as express as can be Convoc p. 41. They altogether by a Covenant acknowledged their Allegiance unto him as unto their Lawful King and so dispose of things as presently after he was Crown'd and Anointed After what after they acknowled'd their Allegiance to him So that their Allegiance dâ—d
according to the Rule and Standard of Right in the Kingdom of Judah and the Dr. urges it to prove the unjustifiableness of acting in the same manner in the like case in any other Country at this rate the Dr. if he please may prove from the Convocation that Rebellion and Resistance is lawful in other Countries tho not in Judah for the Convocation refers to Gods Entail when it speaks of the obedience of the Jewish Subjects and therefore according to the Dr. Kings that are so by Gods Entail must not be resisted but Kings that are so by Humane Entails may And I wonder what reason he can give why the Convocation when they speak of Divine Entails to justifie the adhering to the lawful King and deposing an Usurper is to be understood any more in opposition to Humane Entails than when they speak of the very same to justifie the Duties of Obedience and Non-resistance but the truth is this is nothing else but shameless fallacy and howsoever it might look in another it is not very pardonable in Dr. Sherlock All that the Dr. proves is that the Convocation and Jehoiada himself when they justifie his adhering to his Rightful King and deposing the Usurper refer to the Divine Entail which was the foundation of the Regal Right in the Kingdom of Judah and upon the account of which he was the lawful King and the other an Usurper And from hence would make his Reader believe that they taught that in other Kingdoms where the Entails of the Crown are made by Humane Laws the Subjects ought not to stand by the Rightful King nor depose the Usurper but stand by him and assist him against the Rightful King which is a wild and extravagant as well as a sophistical conclusion and any man but the Dr. would conclude the direct contrary that because in the Kingdom of Judah the Subjects were bound to own their dispossessed King and assist him in the recovery of his Rights and depose an Usurper that wrongfully possessed his Throne because God by Entail had six'd and setled the Crown in one Family and by that had made the Right to the Government to be in them therefore in other Countries because the Laws had entail'd and fix'd the Crown in a certain Family the Subjects are bound to do the same to their Rightful King For tho the Entails be differing the Reason and Equity of both is the same the King of Judah had a Right to the Government by Divine Entail and the Kings in other Countries by Humane Entails but they both have right and the Laws of doing Right are eternal and immutable however the fixing and determining that Right may be various And I believe the Dr. is the first that from hence made a negative argument for tho there have been those who have said the examples of Government and Obedience in the Scriptures do not affect us because the Polity and Constitution of the Jewish Commonwealth was differing but to say that because the Jews were bound to observe their Laws of Government because they were appointed by God himself therefore the Subjects of other Governments are not bound to observe the Laws of their respective Constitutions is a strein beyond the Moon and fit only for the Dr. when he maintains paradoxes Upon the Restoration of Edw. 4. the Parliament and Kingdom did as Jehoiada had done before they had recourse to the Laws of the Land which were the Standard of the Right to the Crown and they did the same upon the Legal Entail as Jehoiada did upon the Divine Entail they establish'd the Rightful King and depos'd the Usurper and I believe it was never question'd but they acted as warrantably and justifiably as Jehoiada tho he did it by virtue of a Divine Entail and they by virtue of a Humane Entail but it must be confessed that the Drs. distinction tho it was then known yet the corrupt and perverse use of it was never known before 'till he hath now found it out to support an Hypothesis every way as absurd as the use he makes of this distinction I had further said with respect to the Convocation as the Dr. observes That they do not speak of this the distinctio between Divine and Humane Entails when they call Athaliah an Usurper and justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against her but the Reason they give is general The Right Heir of the Kingdom being alive which extends to all Kingdoms that are entail'd and go by Succession To this the Dr. replies that I make very bold with the Convocation for saith he they do not offer to justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying that the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive but only prove by that She was an Vsurper who had no Legal Right to the Throne the Right Heir being living But if our Author will think again I presume he will own that they are two very different questions whether such a Prince be an Vsurper and whether he may be deposed and murthered In answer to this I have only these things to observe 1. That here is one point gained and that is that according to the Dr. The sense of the Convocation is that the Death of the Right Heir makes a Legal Right to the Crown to him that Possesses it for he says that they prove from the Right Heirs being living that Athaliah was an Usurper and had no Legal Right to the Throne plainly implying that if he had been dead she had not been an Usurper and would have had a Legal Right to the Throne and he tells us that an Usurper is such a one as hath no Legal Right to the Throne And so the Dr. must grant me that a Legal Right may be conveyed as well by the Death as by the Cession of the Right Heir But then all his impertinent distinction vanishes when he talks before of Legal with respect to the Law of nature Vindic. p. 11. the Law of nations and the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation and saith he in this last sense Legal is understood by all men who understand themselves in this controversie of Legal Powers that those only are Legal Powers who have the rightful Authority of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom which they govern Now I suppose the Dr. will take it ill if I should say he does not understand himself and therefore by Legal he means Legal according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom then I hope whatever he had said before he will not now think it so great a blunder for me to assert that a Right to a Government may be acquir'd by the Death or Cession of the Right Heir for we are to suppose the Dr. understands himself Vindic. p. 11. and has clear and distinct notions of what he writes tho he will not allow it to his Answerer when he says the same things that he does But
to oppose it then he can have no Right done him by vertue of the Laws that give him his Right and that I think is equivalent to no Right at all The Doctor in his Case of Alleg. gives a pleasant account of this matter P. 26. He tells us That God's Providence in setting up an Usurper does not divest the dispossessed Prince of his legal Right nor forbid him to recover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligations to the Prince in possession to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his legal Right That is to say a Foreigner who is not concern'd in the Laws of the Country may do the Prince Justice according to the tenor of these Laws when the Kingdom whose Laws they are are in Justice and Conscience bound to the contrary The Prince hath his legal Right by the Laws of the Land and the People are under the direction and obligation of the Laws of the Land And if the Laws have any effect in all reason it must be on the People whose Laws they are and it is unaccountable how a Stranger may justly give the Prince his Right according to the Laws of the Land and yet the People whose Laws they are cannot in justice do it nay are bound in conscience to hinder it as much as they are able it is as much as to say that a Judge and Jury whose proper business it is ought not to do Right to the oppressed but the Mob or any body else may justly do it I know an injur'd Prince may crave aid of a Foreigner and he may justly assist him but it is in those cases only where his Subjects are bound to do him Right but will not But I would fain know how it is righteous in a Foreigner to do Right according to the Law of the Land and yet unrighteous in the People to do it nay very righteous to oppose it But the Doctor hath given us such a Legal Right that never was heard of A Right in Fiction and in nubibus which neither hath nor can be executed by vertue of the Laws nor the Provisions it makes The Law makes a Right and every person within the compass and extent of those Laws is bound to oppose it but any body else who is out of the bounds and power of the Law may honestly effect it in short it is such a legal Right which is under the cognizance of foreign force but out of the notice power or obligation of the Laws that make it it is such a legal Right which justifies any person who is not concern'd with the Laws to establish it But those who are under the direction of the Laws by which the Right is are bound to prevent it And that is it is a legal Riddle which no body can expound The Doctor goes on with his Questions Or would he prove that the standing Laws of every Country are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own Act and Choice and who denies this too Now I am not very well satisfied with the wording of this Free Act and free choice in setting up Kings is not very suitable to hereditary Kingdoms and in the same manner he expresses it a little after No man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. But supposing he means innocently however he hath express'd it This I say if it be the Duty of Subjects and they are bound to own their legal King then how comes the contrary to be their duty and they are bound to disown and reject him Force I grant may suspend a Duty and hinder the performance but can never make it none or alter the nature of moral duties This is a pure account of a moral duty it is the Subjects duty to own the King by legal Right when they are free but when they are under force it is their duty to kill and destroy him If it be a duty when they are free how comes the contrary to be a duty when they are under force The being free and being under force makes some difference as to t e actual performance but none as to the habit and obligation while the force continues the Act is suspended but the habit remains and the obligation continues and if it be a duty when they are free 't is a duty also when they are under force And the free choice and voluntary Acts the Doctor speaks of is no d fference in the duâ—y tho it may be in the performance of it Alleg. was due to Joash and to Charles the Second all the time of their dispossession tho their Loyal Subjects who were under the force of the Respective Usurpers could not perform it The Dr. says his Hypothesis is not concern'd in this Question But I think it is and that considerably for if the Question be admitted that the Subjects are bound to own and adhere to the King by Legal Right when they are free I would fain know how they become bound to the clean contrary to disown him and reject him when under force how it is their duty in Conscience to set him up when free and their duty in Conscience also to destroy him and kill him when under force But of this before As to what the Dr. says that no man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act I shall leave him to dispute the Point with the Convention And because we are upon Questions he may answer these Two when he please 1. Whether the setting up King William and Mary were not their own free and voluntary Act And 2. Whether it were agreeable to the Laws of the Land or in the Drs. own words Whether they made the Law their Rule If he answers the First affirmatively and the Second negatively 't is plain Satyr and Invective against them and the Convention I suppose will not take it well from him as he says the complying Nobility and Gentry will not take it well from me p. 65. if he answers both affirmatively His Hypothesis of Illegal and Vsurped Powers is a meer trifle and shews only how the Dr. can dispute about nothing to the purpose The Dr. hath not done with his Questions but hath three or four more which I am not concern'd to repeat nor can I guess for what end he made so many Questions or any at all He asks indeed what I would prove and then fills a whole Page with Questions But he understands it well enough for immediately after his Questions he adds The summ of his Argument is this that a Humane Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Country does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too for the People of other Kingdoms are
be sold for no longer time than till the year of Jubilee when all estates were to return to their old Proprietors again Right and this was the Law of Canaan and by virtue of that they did so return but had there been no such Law would the Land-once sold have then by virtue merely of a Divine Entail return'd to their old Proprietors But in other Countries men may part with their Estates for ever Right again because the Laws permit them so to do But if the Laws of other Countries had provided that all Estates should return to their old Proprietors at such a year they would have done so too tho the Provision had been made only by a Humane Law Thus saith he in the Kingdom of Judah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but whenever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at Liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Vsurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an inheritance sold for ever Thus that is just as an Estate in Judah and other Countries might or might not be sold but according to the Laws of each Country in like manner as in the Kingdom of Judah the Inheritance of the Crown was not alienable tho the Estates for a time were even so in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an inheritance sold for ever And that is to say again that as in other Kingdoms an inheritance may be sold by the consent of the parties interessed even so a Government may be lost without and contrary to the consent of the Proprietor and right owner For such Parallels as these otherwise or quite contrary might have served as well as Thus The Dr. tells me what I say in this Case is pretty because that between the Divine Entail and Gods express command concerning Canaan and the Possession by providence and a Humane Entail there is some likeness I am sorry I cannot return all his Complement this is very pretty indeed but there is no likeness at all We are come to the Drs. Answer to the objection P. 48. that the Laws of the Land are the measure of duty and Rule of Conscience c. and the sum of the Answer is they are so when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule but their obligation must give place to Divine Authority and suppose the Law should forbid owning any King but the Right Heir and the Law of God should command obedience to him that actually possesses the Throne we must obey the Law of God To this I answered where is this Law of God Postscript p. 11. that commands us to obey Usurpers where is it affirm'd in express terms or deduced from thence by evident consequence He replies he hath shewed it before and it is in his book still and there I may see it As if I had not at all consider'd what he had said in his Book in my Answer But to say that he would examine that presently would not have been so sharp nor half so magisterial as to say it is in my book still and there he may find it But by his favour I cannot find that he hath shewed it either in his former or in his new book and that he hath only said it but not shewed it will appear presently But I had said that this Law had need be very clear and evident and the Dr. had need be very sure of it when he builds not only his Book but his practice upon it in plain contradiction by his own confession to the Laws of the Land He replies I never confessed this was contrary to the Laws of the Land but on the contrary that the Laws of the Land if we will believe learned Judges and Lawyers do allow and justifie it I don't know what he means by confessing but if to maintain that a Person possessed of the Throne contrary to Law is to be owned and obeyed as King if to write a Book in justification of that Doctrine and to call that Book his Reasons be to confess it then the Dr. hath confessed it to the purpose And I don't know how I should prove this except I should reprint his Case of Allegiance with a new Title and call it his Confessions For there is not a page nor an argument but confesses it bating only some part of the Answer to this objection But the objection it self and the first answer as plainly confess it as words can do The ground of the objection is that it is contrary to the Laws of the Land and therefore contrary to our duty and the substance of the Answer is that what he hath said i. e. what he had said before concerning Providence and Usurped Powers is an Answer to it And it is so when the Laws do not contradict the Laws of God And yet he never confessed it and all for this poor shift because in answer to an objection and a second answer too Foreign to his whole Book he had said that according to the opinion of Learned Judges and Lawyers the Laws do allow it now the Question is whether his Hypothesis or his Arguments to prove it proceed upon any such allowance or have any manner of respect to it And I wonder what the Question of providence as he handles it has to do with his opinion of Judges and Lawyers or the Laws themselves for he debates the matter in direct opposition and contradiction to humane Laws And to say he never confessed what is the subject matter the whole scope and drift of his Book because ex abundanti and what does not in the least relate to his Hypothesis he had mention'd the Judges and Lawyers for the Laws is a mean Evasion and if the Dr. likes his own words better a childish piece of Sophistry and argues great contempt of his Readers p. 43. The Dr. tells us as to the evidence of this Law commanding obedience to Usurpers That the Scripture is plain in the Case and that he is pretty sure of it But saith he he proves the Scripture cannot be clear in the point my Words are that it is not clear is evident not only from the Controversies about it in the late dismal times of Vsurpation that saith the Dr. is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of controversie and thus we must either be Scepticks in Religion or seek for an infallible interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Articles of Faith Thus Papists dispute against the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith And whither these arguments will carry our Author I cannot tell but they look very kindly towards Rome and if that be his inclination I can pardon his zeal in this Cause what and is Dr. Sherlock come to take up with these sordid and scandalous arts to hunt his Adversaries by a cry of Popery I
is true enough and we are bound to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those duties as when God by his Providence puts us into a state of affliction it is our duty to conform our selves to his will and to perform the Duties that Providence points out to us by that dispensation to be patient constant and faithful to be sure to keep a good Conscience and not be affrighted from our duty nor discourag'd in the practice of it These are duties that are consequent upon such a state and which the Divine Providence directs us to and the nature and intention of the Providence is plain and evident But this is not at all to his purpose But if by the nature and intention of Providence the Dr. means that what things come to pass in the world by Providence it is our duty and the intention of Providence that we should comply actively with them own them and adhere to them This is manifestly false in a thousand instances and particularly in all Robberies Usurpations and Invasions of other mens Rights The Question therefore is not Whether we are to conform our selves to Providence and to discharge duties according to the nature and intention of Providence but whether it be the intention of Providence that we are to espouse and embrace and pursue the interest of Usurpation and all other Events that are manifestly unjust and unrighteous The Question therefore still returns What are the Duties and Obligations that the Providence of God lays on us and what are the Intentions of Providence Does God when he permits wicked and unjust Usurpations and other Villanies require us to fall down and reverence to joyn our selves to them and to plead the Cause of Unrighteousness This is to interpret Gods Providence in contradiction to his Laws But what is all this to Providence being a Rule which the Dr. said he would consider how far it might be He adds Thus the Providence of God in some sense may be the Rule of our Practice and may make that our duty which was not and that cease to be our duty which was so before And thus it always is when the Providence of God changes our Relations or condition of life as in the present case when he removes one King and sets up another for he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King that is to say when a Woman is married she is obliged to the duties of a Wife when her Husband is dead Providence hath set her free and she owes her dead Husband no duty So when God removes a King the duty of Subjects cease and when they have another Lawful King they owe him Allegiance Very true But the Question returns When is a King remov'd Is dispossession making him no King and discharging the Subjects Duty or is possession making the Usurper a King and obliging the Subjects or is that the intention of providence The Providence of God changes Relations but dispossession and distance is no change of Relation A Woman is not free by every providential removal of her Husband from her but by such a Providence only as puts an end to his Life or Right nor are Subjects free by every providential removal of their King but by such a Providence only as puts an end to his Right and Title And on the contrary if a man sets himself in the place of a Husband the hand of Providence is not to be own'd nor is he to be submitted to as a Husband of Divine Right A providential Husband is no Husband but an Adulterer and a providential King is no King but an Usurper And as to Providence being a Rule in any case Vind. p 44. the Dr. hath urged these very things before which I have already answer'd and shall not need to repeat And here the Dr. falls a Rallying for almost two Pages together This unreasonable and impious Doctrine of Providence Vind. p. 62. is the fault of my Case of Allegiance for some men cannot endure to hear God makes Kings for that argues there is a God A fine way of calling his Adversaries Atheists And so on he goes in the Rallying strain had he said any thing else he might have escaped as well as his neighbours but since he hath entitled God to the matter this spoils all and is an impious Doctrine And if that be his fault he is content to suffer obloquy and reproach for maintaining such impious Doctrines Now if the Dr. can rally off the Absurdity and Impiety of his Doctrine about Providence much good may it do him I shall leave such arguments to take their chance And I do not believe the Dr. has so mean an opinion of his Readers as to expect any great wonders from them but such things though they are not likely to convinâ—â— yet they may amuze and serve for a blind to prevent the perceiving the force of the argument against him and the weakness of his Answer whether the Dr. had any such end by this long Excursion he knows best But however it comes to pass my answer to him is perfectly lost and we have not here the least word of it nor the least intimation as if the Dr. knew of any such thing And therefore I shall beg the Reader 's Patience to lay it before him It immediately follows in the Postscript The Dr. had raised an Objection to his Hypothesis Postscript p. 13. Case of Alleg p. 34. Have not Pyrats and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper to the Crown Does not the Providence of God order and dispose of all these Events To which he answer the dispute is not about Humane and Legal Right in either case but about Authority now no man pretends that Thieves and Pyrats have God's Authority To this I answer'd What is this to the purpose I know Thieves and Robbers have not God's Authority neither hath an Usurper but have they not God's Providence as well as an Usurper And if Possession of Authority by Providence gives a Right to it Why does not the Possession of my Purse by the same Providence give a Right to it The Dr. puts it into the Objection Have not Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper to the Crown And it is certain they have as good a Title for they have the very same I grant taking a Purse and taking Authority are two things and so are also Vsurpation and Right But the Question is about Providence and that is the same he that takes a Purse takes it by Providence as well as he that takes a Throne and if Providence gives a Right the one hath it as well as the other But the Scripture saith the Dr. expresly tells us that Kingdoms are dispos'd of by God that all power is of God and does not the same Scripture tell us that the Earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof that he disposes of it as he pleases that when Job
and the Ordinance of God for otherwise it could not be said that an intruder into the Office Royal could never usurp or continue his power otherwise then by resisting some higher power or the Oâ—dinance of God and as he afterwards expresses it with respect to a Government by succession He the Usurper resists power much higher than his own And if the Right Heir or King out of possession be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God then he is the Person within the Precept of the Apostle in the 13th to the Romans and not the Usurper And therefore whatever may be due to an Usurper in the exercise of Royal Power in indifferent cases nothing can be due to him in prejudice of the Right Heir for our duty to the place and power the Usurper holds which is the utmost Dr. Jackson allows can never be interpreted to the wrong and injury of the Person to whom that place and power of Right belongs and whose it is For I hope no duty to Usurpers will excuse us for resisting the Higher Powers and the Ordinance of God and if the Right Heir be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God then whosoever resists him resists the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God And I would fain know if the Usurper by resisting the Rightful Prince resists the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God why also every man else that resists the rightful Prince does not likewise resist the Higher Power the Ordinance of God And the Dr. may trie if he has a distinction that can make it a duty to obey Usurpâ—rs in opposition to St. Paul who commands us to obey the Higher Powers and who are ordained of God And thus Dr. Jackson himself expresly determines it in the very case of Richard the Third He tells us 3. Tom. p. 881. They were not Traitors that and yeild obedience to the Laws made by him or submit themselves unto the Magistrates of his appointment save only in Cases wherein the Laws made by him might prejudice the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom or cut off the Right of Succession to the Crown But in case the Magistrates Earls or Barons created by him should have commanded their inferiors to taâ—e arms against the known and lawful heir to the Crown to have yeilded obedience to them in this case had been Treason as Rieh himself during all the time of his Reign was no better than a Traitor I have one thing more to observe from hence and that is that the Rightful King out of Possession is not only the Higher Power but that he has the Power actually annex'd to his Person for thus Dr. Jackson expresses it the Usurper openly resists Power much higher than his own whether the Power be yet actually annexed to some known Persons that have Right or Title to the Kingdom by succession which overthrows at least one half of his two books and all his Arguments about actual Authority c. And besides fully answers his little exception about receiving Commissions from them for it is ridiculous and a contradiction to talk of Power being actually annexed to the Person of a Prince when he cannot exercise any Acts of Power and Authority The Dr. comes to examine another citation I produced out of Dr. Jackson And ushers it in with this laudable preface But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out then to have betrayed so much dishonesty in his quotations These are hard words and the Dr. is bound in honour to make them good for it is shameless with a witness to charge a man at this rate and have nothing to say to justifie it And let us see what it is he does say He says he will give the Reader the entire passage 1. Jehoiada in that he was High Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the Power of Jurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This saith the Dr. our Author leaves out Right I did so and what reason was there to transcribe more than was necessary and concerned the question I wonder he did not charge me with dishonesty for not quoting the whole Sermon But he says it is very material because it shows by what Authority he did it as the ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne then it seems the Throne was vacant and I would desire the Dr. to tell me when according to his Principles when Athaliah was on the Throne it was fill'd with God's Providential Queen when Joash was crown'd it was fill'd with a King by Divine Entail but according to the Dr. it was never vacant and consequently according to him Jehoiada never had any such Authority But the truth is the Throne was vacant all the time the Usurper possessed it i. e. it was not legally fill'd And Jehoiada as a Prime Peer of the Kingdom was to take care and to exercise his Authority that the Right Heir might be restored as Dr. Jackson says In the Right of this Prince and for the actual annexion of the Supreme Power to his Person unto whom it was de jure annexed Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate did by force and violence depose her And not as the Dr. seems to insinuate that he had any power to make a Decision of a controversie between the Right Heir and the Usurper and which way soever he determined it the People were bound to acquiesce for Dr. Sherlock adds that is not merely in his Right of Priesthood as the Papists pretend nor merely as a Subject but as being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged as he had observed before what have we got here can the Prime Peer of a Kingdom judge authoritatively and judicially of Kings if the Dr. could persuade Dr. Jackson to say this it might do his Hypothesis of the Peoples consent in Parliament some service but his Doctrine about providence would suffer as much by it on the other hand for then there would be a Tribunal on Earth for the decision of differences between Kings and Usurpers Vindic. p. 46. and then the Events of Providence would make no difference between private injuries and usurpations of Government Let that go as it will he tells us Dr. Jackson had observed this before Now indeed Dr. Jackson did observe that an Usurper's Acts are of validity c. till he be declared to be an Vsurper by some Higher Power or Authority now transfer this to Athaliah and Jehoiada and see what wise work we shall make on 't that is to say all the time of Athaliahs Usurpation Jehoiada was the Higher Powers and then Athaliah's power must be inferiour to his and so at last he has made a pure Queen of her to have a Power inferiour and under the Authority of her own Subjects for he tells us Jehoiada submitted to her and ought to be justified in it