the Terms of it And he may invest the King with his own Authority and make him as irresistible as if he had himself nominated him and not conferred upon him his Authority by any intervention of Subordinate Means I need not mention that in Ordination and in the Sacraments and in all the Dispensations of God's Grace and Authority under the Gospel Human Acts intervene from whence it is obvious to conclude That since in things of the highest and most Spiritual Nature God requires Human Acts and does by them confer his Grace and Power the irresistible Authority of Kings can be never the more doubtful or questionable because the People's Consent and Submission is ordinarily required to the conveiance of it in the first Erections of Kingdoms for God acts as powerfully and effectually by the Ministeries of Men as by an immediate Command or Designation 2. The Absurdities then which he would prove to arise from the asserting a Necessity of a Legal Right in them who are now invested with God's Authority are all upon a false Supposition 1. He argues If the Authority be wholly derived from the People who shall binder them from the taking it away when they see fit Vpon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can only choose for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had And what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years ago to choose a King for me These are the Absurdities he would bring all Men to who are not of his Opinion And upon the same wrong Supposition would afterwards prove that Passive Obedience is altogether inconsistent with any but his present Principles though he has effectually proved it upon other Principles in his Case of Resistance And if he will now suppose that by his former Principles nothing more can go to the making of a King whether he comes in by Conquest or Usurpation upon Defect of a better Claim by any other or by Compact or an Hereditary Right than the bare Choice and Consent of the People this is a little too much to be granted and yet if this be denyed all his Inferences fall of themselves to the Ground The thing to be proved is That Kings have not their Authority from God unless they be set up only by the Divine Providence without any respect to Human Law and Right which can never be proved unless it be shewn That God cannot or will not set up Kings in a way consistent with the Laws of Kingdoms and with the Consent and voluntary Submission of Subjects The Bond of Matrimony is never the sooner dissolved because Marriages are not made in Heaven as they say but Men and Women are at their Liberty and have a Power of choosing whether they will marry this or that Person or will not marry at all God may appoint the Persons and prevent or over-rule the Consent of the Parties and he has sometimes done it Gen. 24. He can appoint Kings and set aside the ordinary Forms and Laws of Government but this doth not prove That he will always do it nor that we are ever to expect it now much less may we conclude That he cannot or will not concur with Human Acts intervening and give them his own Sanction God certainly can and ordinarily does convey Power and Authority as effectually by concurring with Men and ratifying what they do as if he did it immediately himself unless we will say That God does nothing but Miracles and that subordinate Causes do every thing else without him But to use the Doctor 's own Words God not only places a single Person in the Throne P. 14. but entails it on his Family by Human Laws and makes the Throne a Legal Inheritance And after all the only difference between the Doctor and his Adversaries is That he says God's Providence makes Kings by Conquest or by Submission and long successive Continuance of Power or by Human Laws or against Human Laws because if Providence did not make Kings he could not prove that it unmakes them But those of the contrary Opinion deny neither the absolute Power of God nor the Effects of his Providence in setting up and putting down Kings but they suppose that unless it be when God declares that it is his Will to act by an Absolute Power without any regard to the Laws of Men he does not raise up and depose Kings in a way that is contrary to the Constitution of their Kingdoms so as to absolve Subjects from the Allegiance which the Laws of their Country require but so orders and disposes things that Kings shall as long remain invested with his Authority as they have a Legal Right 2. The Notion of a Legal Right he says P. 25. must ultimately resolve it self into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter For a legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People and if the People have such an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings be doubts they will challeng as much Authority to unmake them too That is as we were told before no Man is bound by his Ancestors Act and every Man too may undo what he has done himself when he thinks fit It has been already shewn that tho' the Prerogatives of Kings and the Constitutions of Kingdoms may be contrived and agreed upon by Men yet God gives Kings a Right to govern according to them and supreme and irresistible Authority to enable and secure them in the Administration of their Kingdoms P. 14. and entails the Thrones on their Families by Human Laws And though God may over-rule and alter the Rights of Princes yet his Providence is no sufficient Evidence that he intends to do it If we once knew it were his Will all Human Laws must forthwith give Place to it but since his Providence is not a Declaration of his Will in this Matter we must keep to the Observation of Human Laws and of our Oaths grounded upon them But to suppose the most and the worst that can be said If the People did set up Kings by Consent and Compact this is no Argument that they may depose them For a People who consent to the setting a King over them must consent to set one over them with Supreme Authority and the Supreme Authority is that which hath no Superiour and therefore cannot be resisted For if the Supreme Authority may be resisted then to be sure all Inferiour Authority may be resisted too and so all Government must be dissolved for want of any sufficient Authority to manage it It follows then That there must be a Supreme Authority somewhere in all Governments and in a Kingdom this Supreme Authority must be in the King and a People who upon this Supposition should make a King must choose one in whom they place the Supreme Authority that is who is irresistible at least unless they reserve
worst King can be But the present Doctrin which the Doctor maintains brings Mischiefs upon both King and People which the contrary to it would prevent and so is worse than that in its Effects and Consequences There is no Doctrin that can secure Kingdoms from all Dangers and Calamities but Passive Obedience is as effectual to that end as the State of Human Affairs will admit and the Divine Providence takes care of all extraordinary Cases And when it is proved that a Doctrin is delivered in the Scriptures and has been taught by the Catholick Church from the Apostles Times and is the best and most beneficial to Societies that can be taught no good Man will dispute the Truth of it though great Inconveniences may sometimes happen which neither that nor any other Doctrin can prevent But if the Doctrin of Passive Obedience should expose Subjects to never so many and great Inconveniences the Doctor 's Notion must expose Men to the same and much greater For Passive Obedience teaches only That Kings may not be resisted by their Subjects But the Doctor goes further and must say That if Kings can once get fully possessed of the Properties of their Subjects and throughly setled in their Encroachments upon their Rights and Liberties they have from thenceforth a Divine Right to them and their Authority over their Subjects is increased and extended with their Power and Usurpations for all is the Gift of God by his Providence after a through Settlement Again he objects P. 34. But have not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown which he seizes by a manifest Force and Violence Does not the Providence of God order and dispose all these Events And are we not bound then as much to submit to Pyrates as to Vsurpers To which he answers That the dispute is not about Human and Legal Right in either Case but about Authority But neither is the Objection concerning Human and Legal Right but Divine Right for the Conveyance of Authority by God's Providence supposes a Right to enjoy and exercise it and that Objection is That Pyrates and Robbers have as good a Right to their Booty as an Usurper's Right and Title can be to his Crown and that the Divine Providence may as well be said to dispose of the Properties of Subjects as of the authority of Kings For though an Indictment may be brought against Robbers in Human Courts yet by being in full Possession they may by the same Reason be said to have a Divine Right to the Goods they have taken and that they are not obliged in Conscience to make Restitution by which Usurpers are said to have a Divine Right and Authority from God to Rule the Dominions in which they have unjustly setled themselves And this I think I have already proved or if I had not the Doctor himself has granted it Has he forgot that he told us before P. 12. That the Scripture never speaks of God's bare Permission of any Events but makes him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or Publick Societies What then can his Distinction between Human and Legal Right and Authority signifie I cannot but think notwithstanding this Distinction that a Purse may rather be transferred by Providence than a Kingdom for a Purse may be lost and found as a Kingdom can hardly be Yet if a Man should find a Purse of Gold I suppose it would be no Excuse for him to say that Providence had given it him if he should refuse to restore it to the right owner though in this Case he came by it without any Fault of his without any Expectation or Fore-sight it was his good Luck or Fortune or in other Words it was the pure Act of Providence and if Providence dispose of any Rights it must be in such Cases where only Providence without any Human Act or Endeavour takes away from one and gives to another But if the Right to a thing can remain after it is lost it must surely remain after a Man is by Fraud or Violence deprived of it unless it be not the Possession but the Sin in acquiring it which transfers the Right That which he observes of Athaliah that she was not killed nor deposed before Joash was proclaimed King and placed in the Throne is only a Circumstance of Time not at all material I shall not enquire Whether Joash had the whole Power of the Kingdom in his Hands or whether he could on the sudden be throughly setled in his Government when Athaliah yet appeared as Queen and cryed out Treason not apprehending herself totally divested of all Power as the Argument supposes But if it be lawful to dispossess an Usurper it must be lawful to pay Allegiance to the Rightful Prince before the Dispossession of the Usurper for it is lawful to dispossess the Usurper for the sake of the Rightful King and the very Act of Dispossession is the most considerable Act of Allegiance And for this Reason the Doctor maintains That in all other Kingdoms it is unlawful for the Subjects who live under the Usurper to dispossess him in behalf of the Rightful King because there is no Allegiance due to him till he gets into Possession But in the Case of Joash he acknowledges it was otherwise and the Convocation justifie the whole Process of that Action So that by the Doctor 's own Principles in that Peculiar Case where God himself had entailed the Kingdom they might as well have deposed and slain her first and then have set up Joash if it had been as convenient and easie to be done But when the Right Heir had been six Years concealed it could not be Safe for them to depose the Usurper till be had been proclaimed and shewn to the People to give them full Satisfaction that he was yet alive and this way was taken as the most Safe and Easie not that it was upon any other Account of the least Consequence which was done first What he says besides in answer to this Objection and of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah has been spoken to already There is nothing till we come to his Sixth Argument which has not been considered in answer to the foregoing Parts of his Discourse For if God does not confer Sovereign Authority upon Usurpers if he does not remove Kings and set up Kings against Human Laws if he limits his own Providence so as not to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance during their Rightful King's Life then it is in vain to say That those who refuse to comply p. 37. must renounce the only Principle whereon Passive Obedience is reasonably grounded and consequently renounce the Doctrin it self That those are bold Men who will venture to say in plain Contradiction to Scripture That God cannot remove or set up Kings and that this limits the Providence of God in governing Kings and protecting Innocent and Injured
the foregoing Chapters was not retained but other Forms set up in its room For as the rebellious Humours of the People declining from their Obedience did in many Countries alter that temperate and fatherly Government which Noah had prescribed unto his Off-spring and which God himself established afterwards among his own People So did the ambitious and insatiable Dispositions of sundry no less elsewhere impeach the same as by the Beginning and Progress of the Four Monarchies it is most apparent And therefore they now declare what is to be thought of all these Aberrations from the said mild and temperate Government before specified And they determine That Almighty God who for the sins of any Nation or Country altereth their Governments and Governors transferreth setteth up and besloweth Kingdoms as it seemeth best to his Heavenly Wisdom having in his Wisdom suffered wicked men to introduce and establish these new Forms we are to look upon them as his Ordinance and therefore to pay them all that Obedience which is due to the Paternal Government of his own Institution Secondly we may learn what is meant by a Thorough Settlement from the particular instances here mentioned and these are the Assyrian Monarchy the Roman Commonwealth the Kingdom of Egypt and all the Four Monarchies When therefore any degenerate Forms of Government or Aberrations from the mild and temperate Government before specified are so setled as these were we must in Conscience yield all Obedience to them and not think that they have no sufficient Authority because they deviate from the first Pattern of Government prescribed by God himself and preserved amongst his own People It is indeed said that the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor is God's Authority and therefore receives no Impeachment from the wickedness of those that have it Which seems to suppose that the true and Lawful Possessor may be still living and may still claim the Allegiance of his Subjects and that the Invader or Usurper keeps Possession as wickedly that is as much against all Human Law and Right as the first got into it But if we observe the instances immediately added it will appear that no such thing can be concluded from this Passage For they instance in the Kings of Egypt who oppressed the Israelites after Joseph's Death and in the Kings of Babylon when they had brought the Jews into Subjection and had carried away the whole Nation into Captivity But the Kings of Egypt after Joseph's Death had undoubtedly as good a Right as they had before it and the Kings of Babylon had such a Right to the Allegiance of the Jews as no other Princes could pretend to when the whole Jewish Nation were brought under Subjection to them and their Kings themselves had made a Covenant with them and taken an Oath to them Ezek. 17.16 and were strictly commanded by God himself to serve the King of Babylon Jer. 27. Yet these are the only Instances brought to shew that God's Authority receiveth no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it that is as no wicked means in the acquiring of Power can hinder but that after a long and uninterrupted continuance as in the Four Monarchies these Forms of Government are confirmed by God's Authority so neither can the abuse of this Authority by Oppression and Tyranny when any such Alterations are throughly setled invalidate the Authority itself but it is always God's Authority and is still to be reverenced and obeyed as such And therefore all the Severities and intolerable Burthens which the Jews endured in Egypt and in Babylon could not warrant their taking up Arms against those Kings so that the Jews themselves when brought under these new Forms of Government were obliged to submit to them and not by any Insurrections or Violence endeavour to restore themselves to that Primary Institution of Government which God had appointed these having his Authority as much as that itself when they are throughly setled and when there is no other Objection to be made to them but that they are irregular and corrupt in their Constitution or had an ill beginning or are oppressive and Tyrannical in their Management and Administration If all who had any Right or Interest in the former Government have submitted to the new one and are under the Obligation of Engagements and Oaths to it which was the Case of the Jews they must be obedient to it however different from the former or how much worse soever it may be But the Convocation acknowledge no other settlement 1. Mac. c. 1.2 3. Joseph Antiqu l. 12. c. 7 8 9.11 tho never so full to have been sufficient to debar the Jews from entring into Arms against an Usurper For they justifie Mattathias and his Sons in their open Resistance they made against Antiochus Epiphanes because his Government was neither generally received by Submission nor settled by continuance Now Antiochus was called in by a prevalent Faction and had two years peaceable Possession of Jerusalem for so long it was before Mattathias took up Arms against him that Antiochus han entred into Jerusalem by the Treachery of that Faction without any opposition and it was three years longer before it was recovered out of his Hands by Judas Maccabeus so that he held it in all five years yet because that Faction only that invited him in had submitted to him and the contrary Party who had the Right on their side were not subdued nor brought to a Compliance by this continuance of his Government it was not such a Continuance as is required to that thorough Settlment which the Convocation mention But tho he had for so long time been in full Possession of Jerusalem and of their whole Country and had as the Convocation observe spoiled the Temple and profaned it with his Idols and exercised all the cruel and wicked Acts of the most absolute and tyrannical Conqueror he had notwithstanding no better Right still than at his first Usurpation So that the Convocation cannot mean a bare Possession though it be never so full by a Thorough Settlement but such a Settlemâ—nt only as both supposes Submission or Continuance and no Claim of Right in any other Person And that the meaning of the Convocation could not be that an Usurper by being got into full Possession may have any Right or just Title against the true Heir appears from what they determine about the Deposing of Athaliab after six years Possession Ch. 23. For the Reason they give to justifie the Proceedings of Jehoiada therein is that Joash their late King's Son was then their only Natural Lord and Sovereign although Athaliah kept him for six years from the Possession of his Kingdom It may here be objectted that this is a peculiar case and that this Reason would hold good only in the Kingdom of Judah where God himself had appointed and settled the Succession of their Kings in the line of David and that
therefore Jehoiada said to the Congregation Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David 2. Chr. 23 2. and the Convocation observes that he acquainted them that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them and that God himself had required all that they did at their Hands For when God has given his Promise we must interpret no occurrences of Providence in contradiction to in and therefore we see that when the Kingdom was taken from David's Posterity it was not done without an express Revelation But where God has made no Promise to a King and his Successors that they shall enjoy the Kingdom he may by his Providence take it away from them To this I answer That the whole design of the Convocation is as I have shewn to explain the Duty of Subjects by the example of God's own People and therefore if in this place they suppose something so peculiar in the Constitution of their Government that it could be no precedent to other Kingdoms this must be a manifest contradiction to their whole design They tell us that Government in its Original and by its first Institution was immediately from God and was the same throughout the World and tho it were corrupted in other Nations God preserved it amongst his own People and yet still the same Obedience was due under those alterations from the said mild and temperate Government at first instituted that was to be paid under this itself and by consequence there must be the same obligation to the Right Heir in all other Hereditary Monarchies and therefore they call Joash here the true and natural apparent Heir to the Crown and their only natural Lord and Sovereign which would be very unfit expressions if they did not think that he had an unalterable Right by the Law of Nature as well as by God's Promise In was enough indeed that Jehoiada should remind the People of God's own choice of Davids Posterity to rule over them and nothing more needed to be said by him and it was very fit that this should not be omitted by the Convocation But if this were the only Title which Joash had it would have been improper to call him a Natural Heir a Natural Lord and Sovereign and it would have overthrown all their Arguments from the Pâ—…ce of the Jews if they had said thâ—… Joash ought to be plac'd upon the Throne of his Ancestors after that six years interval only by vertue of a Divine Promise For a Divine command concerning any of their Kings or Judges for the time of their Lives is equivalent to a Divine Promise concerning David and his Posterity and so it might be said by parity of Reason that the Duty which they owed their Kings was due by vertue of a revealed command from God and could not be the same in other Nations where there is no such revealed Command Thus David would not stretch forth his Hand against Saul for this Reason because he was the Lords anointed that is he was so chosen and appointed by God himself as no King now can pretend to be And so in all other instances if we must argue from no example where Gods command or promise intervenes in vain does the Convocation explain the Duty of Subjects from the sacred History and yet we must argue from no such examples if Gods revealed will alters the case and makes it different from Cases of the same Nature which fall out in other Governments concerning which God has not revealed any thing It is true indeed when God so interposes as to invert the ordinary course of Government as in the case of Ahud and Jehu this can be no Precedent for any to imitate without the same command to authorise them that they had but then it was no more a Precedent to the Jews themselves than to any other Nation But when God only regulates the Jewish Government according to the first institution at the Creation and settles it upon the Right of Succession which is common to that with all other Hereditary Monarchies and makes choice of the Person to whom and to his Posterity he grants a Donation of the Kingdom or when he reforms abuses and puts things into their due course and order again and enjoyns nothing but what without a Divine warrant is of itself lawful to be done we may conclude that all these things are written for our instruction and must be a Rule to all other Nations in the like Cases The Convocation therefore proceeds all along upon this Principle Ch. 2.6 Can. 2.6 that from the first institution of Government there is both a Natural and a Divine Right in all Sovereigns which is Natural as it is founded on the Laws of Nature and Divine because Government is Gods Ordinance and owes its Original Form and Constitution to Gods own immediate appointment and therefore that when God by his express direction and command afterwards settled that sort of Government which he at first instituted to all the World among his own People he did not thereby make any alteration in the Duty of Subjects or Rights of Kings but did only oblige both to perform their several Duties in that way and manner which he had enjoyn'd them The Children of Israel asked a King to judg them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5.20 And God chose Saul to be their King but what ever variations there might be in some circumstantials of Government they owed just the same Duty and Subjection to him which was due to Adam and Noah c. And according to the Convocation every other Sovereign Prince has the very same Right that he had neither they in asking nor God in giving them a King made any distinction between the Authority of their King and the Kings of other Nations but the manner or Royal Power of their King is described to be just the same with that of the Kings round about them God entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David and his Seed but the Right of Succession was still the same in that which it is in all other Hereditary Kingdoms only they had a Secondary Obligation to the performance of their Duty from an immediate and positive Command whereas others are oblig'd to the same Duties but by Virtue only of the Law of Nature and of the first Institution of Government The Jews then were bound to set up Joash in that Kingdom upon two accounts that is both as he was their Natural Sovereign and as he descended from David to whom God had made a peculiar Promise and had given the Kingdom to him and to his Posterity but the first obligation had been of itself sufficient and those Kings who hold by no Divine Promise but only by Right of Inheritance have the same Right which he had who held by a Twofold Title because either of them had been alone sufficient For a single Title is enough to convey a Right and an Additional
for them of themselves to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were Ch. 27. tho indeed they were Tyrants And therefore they cryed unto the Lord for Succour Yet both these Nations could have no other Authority over them but what was obtained by Conquest and a thorough Settlement I answer first the Scripture says the Anger of the Lord was hot against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim Judg. 3.8 and v. 12. The Children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord and the Lord strengthned Eglon the King of Moab against Israel From whence it is probable that God who governed the Israelites by a more than ordinary Providence and made frequent Declarations of his Will to them especially in denouncing his Judgments before any remarkable Punishment was inflicted upon the whole Nation to give them time for Repentance did now discover to them that the Aramites and Moabites were sent by him to subdue them For the Anger of the Lord was hot against Israel and he sold them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim and he strengthened Egion the King of Moab against Israel But if this Judgment were not particularly foretold and denounced yet this they knew in general that these Nations the Lord left to prove Israel by them to know whether they would hearken to the Commandments of the Lord which he commanded their Fathers by the hand of Moses v. 1. and 4. And therefore when they were vanquished and were forced to seek their Preservation by subjecting themselves to their Enemies they well knew that they had no Power nor Authority to oppose such Kings whom God for their sins as he had before threatned had set over them but they cryed unto the Lord and he raised up a Deliverer for them Secondly the whole Nation was in subjection 18 years to the Moabites and 8 years to the Aramites and when they had once yielded themselves up and were become their Subjects no Right which any other Person had over them being prejudiced thereby they were obliged to keep their Oaths or other Engagements of Obedience to them and were bound to pay all Duties of Allegiance to these Kings after they had owned them for their Kings tho they were Tyrants that is tho they governed them in a rigorous and tyrannical manner For the consent of a Nation may be the means of conveying a Right to a Prince in such a Case where no other has any precedent Right to their Allegiance tho there be no express Warrant from God for their so doing so that there being at this time no King in Israel there was no injury done to any man if the whole Nation submitted to the Conqueror Obj. Can. 31. But the Jews generally both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Persia Tho it appears from History that Darius was alive when Jaddus made a surrender of Jerusalem to Alexander or if he had been dead yet he left Heirs behind him Answ First the Convocation observes that when Alexander sent to Jaddus to require him to submit to him and send him Assistance in his Wars Jaddus answered that he might not yield thereunto because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius Ch. 30. which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived And when Jaddus afterwards submitted to him it was by reason of a Command which he had received by Revelation from God Joseph Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. For as Josephus relates in the place referred to by the Convocation Jaddus had appointed Publick Prayers and Sacrifices upon this account and it was revealed to him in a Dream That the People in white and the Priests and Jaddus himself in their Holy Garments should go out to meet Alexander and make their Submission to him who no sooner saw Jaddus but he fell down and worshipped God whose name he saw written on his Mitre and when his Followers were all amazed at it and Parmenio asked him the Reason of that strange Action he answered that before his Expedition he saw in a Vision one attired as Jaddus was who encouraged him to undertake it and promised him success in it and that it was not the Priest but that God whom he served that he worshipped Secondly in Chap. 30. the Answer of Jaddus to Alexander that he was bound by his Oath of Allegiance to Darius during his Life is mentioned and approved of by the Convocation but neither in the following Chapter nor Canon is any mention made of Jaddus only it is said in the Canon that both Priests and People were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled among them c. Which might be true tho Jaddus had been faulty in submitting to Alexander whilst Darius was alive Thirdly Jaddus went out to meet Alexander and made his Submission to him at his first Approach to Jerusalem so that if his Example be to be followed a City ought to surrender before it be besieged or so much as a Sword be drawn against it And the first sight and appearance of an Enemy is a different thing from that Thorough Settlement which the Convocation requires whatsoever we understand by it The Convocation therefore could not propose the Example of Jaddus in all Circumstances for our imitation for either he had a Divine Warrant for what he did or according to their Principle he must be highly blameable because he did not stay till there was a Thorough Settlement nor indeed till there was any Settlement at all before he submitted to Alexander But after the Death of Darius his Authority was throughly setled for Darius just before he expired sent such a Message to him with his thanks for his great Courtesie and Civility to his Mother and to his Wife and Children as can amount to no less than a bequeathing to him his Kingdom and Alexander taking one of his Daughters in Marriage no Pretensions were made afterwards against his Right to the Kingdom of Persia Obj. But God is the universal Lord and Ruler over all the World and the whole World is his universal Kingdom in the Government whereof he ever used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates as well in other Countries as amongst his own peculiar People of Israel without any desert of them but as in his heavenly Providence he thought it most convenient I have made saith he the Earth the Man and the Beasts that are upon the Ground Jer. 27.5 and have given it to whom it pleaseth me And again the Prophet Daniel telleth us that God changeth the times and seasons Dan. 4.14.12.17.32 that he hath Power and beareth Rule over the Kingdoms of men that he taketh away Kings and setteth up Kings and that it was the God of Heaven who gave unto Nebuchadnezzar so great a Kingdom Dan. 2.37.5.8 Power Strength and Glory
gave him license and Authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and it makes a Murtherer No men can do any Wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into mens hands justifies the wickedness they commit no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin as Rebellion and the Murther of Princes We are to learn our Duty from the Law of God not from his Providence at least this must be a setled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any Action which his Law forbids There is another Objection against what the Apostle affirms p. 127. that there is no Power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God For is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Usurpers from God Did Oliver Cromwel receive his Power from God then it seems it was unlawful to resist him too or to conspire against him Then all those Loyal Subjects who refused to submit when he had got the Power in his hand were Rebels and Traitors To this I answer that the most prosperous Rebel is not the Higher Powers while our Natural Prince to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection is in being And therefore though such men may get the Power into their hands by God's Permission yet not by God's Ordinance and he who resists them does not resist the Ordinance of God but the Usurpations of men In Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same Minute that the Natural Person of one King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood and therefore he who rebelleth against the Father and murthers him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers Death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown than the Usurper for there possession of Power seems to give a right Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance for the possession of Supreme and Sovereign Power is Title enough where there is no better Title to oppose against it c. But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Judah P. 131. which God himself had intailed on David's Family as appears from the Example of Joash who was concealed by his Aunt Jehosheba and hid in the House of the Lord for six years During this time Athaliah Reigned and had the whole power of Government in her hands but yet this did not make her a Sovereign and irresistable Prince because Joash the Son of Ahaziah the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive And therefore in the Seventh Year Jehoiada the Priest set Joash upon the Throne and slew Athaliah and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so 2 Kings 11. Which shews That no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a Natural Prince Such Usurpers though they have the possession of the Supreme Power yet they have no Right to it and though God for wise Reasons may sometimes permit such Usurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision The Tree is cut down but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after that they shall know that the Heavens do rule Dan. 4.26 Hitherto I had written before Dr. Sherlock's Book was published and upon the most impartial consideration of it can now find no cause to change my Opinion but having proceeded thus far I shall as exactly as I can examine all that relates to this matter in his Book which I could not foresee and have not already given an account of His Two first Sections I cannot think my self much concerned about having already given both the full State of the Case and the plain meaning of the Convocation One thing indeed I omitted which he remarks in the Second Section He observes That whereas in the 30th Chapter it is said P. 8. That Jaddus returned Answer to Alexander That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived the Convocation in the Canon following it takes no notice that he owed Allegiance to Darius during the Life of that King And it is plain says he that Jaddus himself could mean no more by it than that he could not make a voluntary Dedition to Alexander not that he never could submit to him till Darius was dead for when he was in Alexander 's power he made no scruple to submit to him But I think it is not much material whether they mention this in the Canon or no since they set it down in the foregoing Chapter and then approve of the Behaviour and Conduct of Jaddus in the Canon For if this part of Jaddus's Answer which was the most considerable thing in it had been disliked by them it must have been excepted but when they give a general Approbation of what Jaddus did and except against no Particulars they must be supposed to approve of it in all its Circumstances before set down in the Chapter at least they must approve of that which was the principal thing in Jaddus's Answer for when the thing that Alexander required of him was to bear Arms himself against Darius or to solicite others thereunto and Jaddus answered That he might not do it because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived and the Convocation in their Canon determine That if any man affirm that having so sworn he might have done it he doth greatly err they can mean no less in the Canon than they expressed in the Chapter That he might not lawfully violate his Oath of true Allegiance to Darius whilst Darius lived And the Doctor doth not deny that they approved of these words in the sense in which Jaddus meant them and that Jaddus meant them in the strictest sense is evident for the words will admit of no Latitude and what Jaddus afterwards did was by an immediate Direction from Heaven and therefore it can be no Argument that Jaddus had any thoughts of submitting to Alexander whilst Darius lived when he sent that Message but on the contrary That he was resolved not to have submitted and ought not to have done it unless a Revelation had warranted him to do it and thereby absolved him from his Oath to Darius In his Third Section the Doctor lays down some Propositions upon which his whole Discourse depends and indeed to grant him these Propositions is to give up the Cause to him for they plainly imply and suppose the whole Question without any more to do His First Proposition is That all Civil Power and Authority
the Posterity of Jehu 2. For Baasha who slew Nabab was set up by God himself according as God had threatned Jeroboam by the Prophet Ahijah Moreover the Lord shall raise him up a King over Israel who shall cut off the House of Jeroboam that day 1 Kings 14.14 The Lord shall raise up to himself a King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby entitleing him in a more especial manner to his Authority and stiling him his King the King whom he would raise up to himself to vindicate his Honour and to execute his Judgments upon Jeroboam which Prophecy is expresly said to be fulfilled in Baasha when he killed Nadab and destroyed all the House of Jeroboam 1 Kings 15.29 So that though Baasha were not directly nominated yet he was immediately appointed by God himself and the beginning of his Reign in the destruction of Jeroboam's Family was exactly foretold and therefore God's exalting him out of the dust and making him Prince over his People Israel 1 Kings 16.1 cannot be understood of his Providence but of his Appointment It may be objected That God did not authorise Baasha to slay Nadab because this is alledged against him as the Cause of his own Destruction 1 Kings 16.7 And also by the hand of the Prophet Jehn the Son of Hanani came the word of the Lord against Baasha and against his house even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands in being like the house of Jeroboam and because he killed him To which I answer That by him in this Verse cannot probably be meant Nadab of whom there is no mention after the 31st Verse of the foregoing Chapter Nor can it be meant of Jeroboam who was not killed by Baasha unless Jeroboam be said to be slain by him not in his own Person but because he had destroyed all the Family of Jeroboam Which kind of Interpretation seems never to be admitted where there is no evident Necessity for it or not however when there is another more easie and natural The words then are a Repetition of what had been before related in the first and second Verses God had raised up Baasha and so blessed him that he reigned Twenty Four Years but he was guilty of great Ingratitude towards God and did that which was evil in his sight which is expressed twice before by his walking in the ways of Jeroboam 1 Kings 15.34 and 16.2 and here by his being like the house of Jeroboam for this God threatens That he will take away the Posterity of Baasha and the posterity of his house and will make his house like the house of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat ver 3. Which implies That God designed to continue Baasha and his Posterity after him in the Throne of Israel if he had not thus provoked God with his sins Bat in neither of the Two other Verses is there the least intimation that the killing of Nadab was imputed to Baasha as a sin and here after the Death of Baasha God's Message formerly sent to him by his Propher is again repeated and the mention of Jeroboam is added as it had been twice before for the further aggravation of his Guilt It is said the word of the Lord came against Baasha and against his house even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord in provoking him to an ger with the work of his hands and because he killed him or as it may be translated for which he smote him that is God smote Baasha for his sins The Prophet was sent to denounce God's Judgments against him and God at last took away his Life and his sins were the Cause of it So that the words are not to be understood with relation to Nadab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as slain by Baasha but to Bausha himself as killed by God's just Judgment upon him for his sins And with this agrees the Version of the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and concerning the smiting him And thus Malvenda says most understand this place of Baasha's being slain of God for his sins Plerique eum Bahasam propter quod percussit eum Dominus id est propter sua prava opera Malvend in loc Ob hanc causam occidit eum hoc est filium Hanani Prophetam The Vulgar Latin renders it ob hanc causam occidit eum that is God slew Baasha for the Cause abovementioned viz. for provoking God with his sins as Jeroboam had done though there is a Clause added which applies the words to the Prophet Jehu as if Baasha had killed him for delivering the Message but this is omitted in some Copies Sixt. Senens Biblioth lib. 2. in Jehu and Sixtus Senensis thinks that it was only an Annotation put by some body at first in the Margin which afterwards got into the Text. Cajetan says Ob hanc causam occidit eum Juxta Hebraeum habetur pro quo percussit eum Pronomen eum demonstrat Jeroboham cum domo ejus Narratur enim quod Jehu Propheta manifestavit Regi Bahasae pro quâ causâ percussit Deus Domum Jeroboam ut vel ab exemplo disceret recipiscere Cajet in loc the Prophet declared to Baasha the Cause for which Jeroboam's House was destroyed that Baasha might take warning by his Example and for which he smote him that is the Evil of the House of Jeroboam for which God destroyed it But if we should grant that this Verse is to be understood of Baasha's killing Nadab the meaning seems then to be not that he sinned in killing Nadab but that his having killed him proved the aggravation of all his other sins that when he had been raised up by God purposely to destroy the House of Jeroboam he should notwithstanding be guilty himself of the same sins for which it was destroyed and therefore no mention is made of Nadab but of Jeroboam the Prophet having declared That God's Auger was kindled against him because he walked in the way of Jeroboam which yet he knew to be so abominable before God that he was exalted out of the Dust and had the Kingdom given him to reduce Israel from that sin which Jeroboam had led them into and therefore this is added at last as the most aggravating Circumstance that he should follow the Wickedness of that very Man whom he had by God's appointment slain And the Word of the Lord came against him for all the Evil that he did in being like the house of Jeroboam and because he killed him that is because he was the Man who had killed him for the same sins which he now became guilty of himself But if we should further grant That Baasha was raised up by God's Permission only and that he sinned in killing Nadab yet when he had destroyed the House of Jeroboam and there was none left who had a Right to the Kingdom he then became Rightful King and
Essence of Sovereign Authority so that no Prince can be possessed of actual Power without Gods Authority and no Prince that is not actually possessed of Power can have his Authority then how came the Nature of things to be changed so in the Case of Joash and Athaliah that Joash upon his first Appearance had an immediate Right to the Allegiance of the Subjects and Athaliah even without Dispossession lost all her Authority But she was dispossessed I grant it But the Argument proceeds not upon her Dispossession but upon the first Appearance of the true Heir and supposes as the Doctor acknowledges that immediately upon his Appearance she had no more Authority or Right to their Allegiance before her Dispossession than she had after it and that she must therefore have reigned and must have been in the Actual Administration of Government without any Authority from God if she could have kept Possession never so long a time though he maintains that this Actual Administration and nothing else is required to invest any Prince with Gods Authority Suppose then that Athaliah had had a strong party that me had not been surprised as she was and suddenly taken off but that the generality of the Subjects had stood by her and had not admitted Joash to reign over them this is no impossible Supposition for the same thing happened to David himself when Ishbosheth was set up against him and therefore might have happened to any of his Line When then would the Authority have been or what would the Divine Entail have signified to Joash according to these Principles Could Joash have had God's Authority tho' he was out of Possession Then other Kings though they be dispossessed may have it too and Possession is not necessary to the being invested with God's Authority Or did God by this Entail alter the Nature of things and was Sovereignty quite another thing in the Kingdom of Judah than it is in other Kingdoms Then all the Examples the Convocation brings from that Kingdom are to no purpose We are told that if Joash did but appear or was known to be alive it was enough to put Athaliah out of all her Providential Right and therefore it could not be necessary that he should be either accepted or recognized to make the Subjects Allegiance become due to him And in other Kingdoms a thorough Settlement is necessary only for Usurpers For when there is a Right P. 28. nothing more is necessary to give Possession but that Subjects actually own and recognize that Right and accept him for their King in whom the Right is For his Right makes their Obedience a Duty when he is in Possession how weak and unsettled soever his Government is But when a Prince has no legal Right to the Crown nor consequently to the Obedience of his Subjects it is only a thorough Settlement which makes Obedience a necessary Duty But there is no ground for this Distinction because if God have disposed of a Crown all human Claims can be of no validity against his Disposal and that Prince must be an Usurper upon Gods Authority who will attempt to recover it For since both Legal Entails and thorough Settlements are Acts of Gods Providence since it is all but Providence still P. 45. as the Doctor says the latter Act of Providence must stand good against the former the effect whereof must be abolished by the latter If God first gives a Kingdom to one and afterwards takes it away to bestow it upon another certainly the last Gift must take place And therefore the Usurper is to be adhered to rather than the late Legal King unless Providence advance him to a thorough Settlement and so cancel the Usurpers Claim making the Crown over again to the Legal Possessor by a new Gift Jeroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by God's Nomination P. 34. and reigned as long as he lived but for his sins God would not entail the Kingdom on his Family At the same time that God nominated Jeroboam by his Prophet Ahijah he made a conditional Entail of the Kingdom upon his Family 1 Kings 2. but Jeroboam not performing the conditions it was of no benefit to him And it is not certain that Jeroboam was placed on the Throne of Israel by Gods Nomination For though he was at first nominated by God yet very Learned Men understand Hos 4.8 to be meant particularly of him expounding it that Jeroboam is said to reign but not by God because when God had promised to give him the Ten Tribes he did not wait Gods Time to receive the Kingdom from him but was set up by the People and strengthened himself by Idolatry and the Israelites are said to have rebelled against the House of David unto this Day that is from the beginning of Jeroboam's Reign to the time of the writing of that Book 1 Kings 12.19 As to the Arguments which prove that Fraud and Violence may give a Right to an Estate as well as Usurpation to a Crown the Doctor says P. 46. that all private Injuries are reserved by God himself to the Correction and Redress of publick Government and human Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect as all on such personal Rights but the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a legal Decision or any human Courts for the Decision whereof God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires c. But he says in his Case of Allegiance that the Scripture never speaks of Gods bare permission of any Events P. 12. but makes him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies and that all Events which are for the good or evil of private Men or publick Societies are ordered by him Here he makes God the Author of all Events alike whether they befal private Men or publick Societies and if he will now argue that God disposes of Kingdoms otherwise than of private Estates first this must be proved and if it were proved yet he must maintain the Consequence of his own Principles about Events or else renounce them For when he is charged with the Consequence of some of his Principles it is not enough to say that the same thing may be proved by another Argument though this might be sufficient for his Cause yet it would not be sufficient for his own Vindication Besides the Dispute is neither concerning unjust Possessions of Kingdoms by Usurpation nor of private Estates by Fraud or any other Injustice till both are throughly settled Suppose then that by false Witnesses or by false Deeds or Bribery or by whatever other wicked means a Man gets into quiet Possession of anothers Estate suppose the Cause has gone against the lawful Possessor in all the Courts of Judicature the Question is what Title this Man