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
as then he had to rule with Majesty and Honour a very great Empire Answ First The Design of the Convocation here is to set forth Christ's Universal Empire over all the World and to shew that for all their Dignity and Greatness he did not leave Kings at liberty to do what they list but held himself the Helm of every Government and used their Services insuch sort as were they good or bad and their Designment holy or wicked he ever made them the Executioners of his own just Judgments will and good Pleasure according as he was minded either to bless on punish any Kingdom People or Country All which will be never the less true tho God should not dispose of Kingdoms merely by the events and Success of things without any regard had to Humane Law and Rights Secondly The Chapters here quoted by them are all concerning Nebuchadnezzar In the first Jeremiah prophesieth of his Victories over the Neighbour-Kings and commands them in Gods Name to submit to him And the two latter Chapters contain Nebuchadnezzar's Dreams and Daniel's Interpretation of them In his second Chapter Daniel tells him Thou O King art a King of Kings for the God of Heaven hath given thee a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory v. 37. and then proceds to declare that by his Dream was signified the State of the four Monarchies In the fourth Chapter of Daniel is related that Judgment which from God befel Nebuchadnezzar and his Dream whereby it was foretold to him The in ent of which was that the living might know that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of Men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of men First then as to the four Monarchies we have here no intimation that God did raise up the first Founders of them or did approve of the Settlement they made The Assyrian Monarchy the Convocation takes notice of began in Nimrod contrary to Gods express Institution he having no Authority from God as afterwards Nebuchadnezzar had to enlarge his Dominions and make War against the bordering Princes Cyrus we know indeed was Gods Anointed and was Prophesied of by name long before his Birth and alledg'd his Commission and Charge from God in the Proclamation which he put forth in the first year of his Reign 2. Chron. 36.22.23 Ezr. 1.1 2. God had declared of him I have raised him up in Righteousness and I will direct all his ways Isai 45.13 or as our Translators have noted in the Margin I will make streight all his ways and the Septuagint renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Alexander if we believe Josephus was encouraged by Revelation to undertake his Expedition But the Roman Empire had only Gods Permission as far as we know and at its rise had no further Authority than the Justice of their Arms could give them So that this Prediction is no Evidence whether the first Erection and Settlement of these Monarchies were approved of by God or not if they were erected by his Command and Appointment or by a just Title they were approved of by him if by Injustice and Violence they were only made use of by him as all other Wickedness is to bring about by an over-ruling Providence his own just and righteous Decrees Secondly as to what concerns Nebuchadnezzar himself First all those Expressions have an immediate relation to an extraordinary Case wherein God had revealed his positive Will commanding the several Kings mentioned by the Prophet Jeremiah to serve Nebuchadnezzar and to put their Necks under his Yoak and threatning them with the severest Punishments If they would not do it with the Sword and with the Pestilence and with the Famine untill he had consumed them by Nebuchadnezzar 's Hand Jer. 27 v. 8. and afterwards in the Book of Daniel God takes away all his Power and Greatness to bring him to a sense of his perpetual dependence upon God and to an awe and reverence of the Divine Majesty Secondly God had declared by his Prophet that he had given all the Neighbouring Kingdoms into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon his servant and his Commands were in a publick and solemn manner given out and sent to all the Kings round about to charge 'em that they should without any Resistance or Opposition resign up themselves and their Kingdoms in subjection to him And this being some years before hand with such Zeal and Earnestness publickly and solemnly declared by Jeremiah and so notoriously known in all the adjacent Countries Nebuchadnezzar himself could not be ignorant of it for which reason he gave such strict Charge concerning Jeremiah that he should be used with all manner of kindness and respect Jer. 39.11 Afterwards Daniel in expounding his first Dream had plainly told him that the God of Heaven had made him a King of Kings and had given him a Kingdom Power and Strength and Glory Yet Nebuchadnezzar ascribes all to himself and therefore this Judgment was inflicted on him to make him sensible that all his boasted Greatness was owing to God alone who has absolute Authority over the greatest of Kings and can advance to the height of Empire the basest of Men and those that walk in Pride he is able to abase Besides what relates personally to Nebuchadnezzar there is a further intention in the words which respects all Princes in all Ages of the World For Nebuchadnezzar is set as an Example of Gods Almighty Power and of the frailty of all Human Greatness to let the mighty Potentates of the Earth know that all their Power is from God and that he can deprive them of it whenever he pleases But Thirdly This does not prove that God will give or take away the Power of other Princes in the same extraordinary manner that he both raised and debased Nebuchadnezzar For as in ancient times there were-Prophets and Workers of Miracles so these Prophets were sometimes sent by God himself to declare in his name that he had bestowed Kingdoms or Empires upon certain persons as upon Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus c. And then these were no Usurpers because they acted by Gods Appointment and had a right precedent to any Conquest or Thorough Settlement But there wrre in all Ages many Usurpers too and they had no Authority from God nor were the People obliged to obey them having no Command from him to do it And as an Usurper can have no Authority for his Usurpations for if he had they would be no Usurpations nor he an Usurper so the continuance of his Usurpations cannot make him theless an Usurper but the greater and the more injurious Usurper Nebuchadnezzar was no Usurper from the beginning because he acted by Authority from God and if concerning any Prince can be shewn such a Commission now he is not an Usurper but a Rightful King and we must forthwith acknowledge his Authority without staying for a thorough setlement but if he be at first an Usurper he must
For tho they were at first introduced by very wicked Practices yet God having vouchsafed to establish them and to invest them with his own Authority they must be obeyed as his Ordinance These things thus stated and cleared the Convocation proceeds to the remaining course of the Jewish History Ch. 29. Can. 29. and shews that the Jews owed Allegiance to the Kings of Persia after their return from Babylon who still continued by God's Appointment a supreme Authority over them And accordingly Jaddus the High Priest when Alexander required him to assist him in his Wars and become Tributary to him returned this Answer Ch. 30. Can. 30. that he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius liv'd But when Alexander 's Authority was setled amongst them the Case was altered Ch. 31. Can. 31. and they then owed him the same Subjection that before they had owed Darius After Alexander's Death the Jews became again a free People he leaving behind him no Successor Ch. 31. but they were miserably oppressed by the bordering Kings of Egypt and Syria especially by Antiochus Epiphanes whose Invasion and Government was most unjust and Tyrannical until Mattathias moved with the monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of the said Antiochus made open Resistance the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance The great disorders amongst the Priests brought many and grievous Afflictions upon the Jews both under the Government of the Grecians and of the Maccabees till at last Pompty took Jerusalem by the Assistance of Hircanus who had been displaced from the High Priesthood Ch. 32 33 34. Can. 32 33 34. his younger Brother Aristobulus getting into his room And tho Hircanus did very wickedly in taking this occasion to revenge himself of his Brother by enslaving his Country yet when the Jews had submitted to the Romans and had yielded themselves up to their Government they were utterly inexcusable in those Rebellions which they afterwards raised and which ended in their own Destruction Having thus far spoken of that mild and moderate Form of Civil Government which God at first establisht throughout the World Ch. 35. Can. 35. and afterwards preserved in some measure amongst the Jews till they by their perverseness and Rebellions brought utter ruin upon themselves they say lastly that Christ is the universal Lord and Governor of the whole Earth and the orders of the several particular Kingdoms and Governments of it as it may best conduce to the designs of his Wisdom and Goodness in the Government of the whole World which is but one universal Kingdom under him The Substance then of what the Convocation says is this First Christ as Creator and Governor of the World established a mild and temperate and fatherly Government which was to continue throughout all Ages in all Parts of the World but the Wickedness of men soon introduced other degenerate Forms either Tyrannical or Popular and these of several Sorts and Denominations Democratical Aristocratical c. 2. God calling Abraham out of Chaldea into Canaan and choosing his Posterity for his peculiar People continued this mild and Paternal Government amongst them and upon all Occasions did himself appoint their chief Governors till at last he ordained that the Government should be Hereditary and entailed it upon David's Posterity so that the Jews were governed all along after that original Form of Paternal Government which God instituted at the first Creation of Mankind and then again confirm'd after the Flood though this Form of Government was much defaced and diminished among the Jews in succeeding times by the great Abuses that crept in among them And in this Government First the Power was solely from God not depending upon the consent either of the Priests or People nor deriving any Authority from any Act of theirs Secondly their Kings had supreme Authority over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Thirdly their Power was irresistable and they were accountable to God only for it But against this several things might be objected from Examples among the Jews which they answer by shewing that in those instances God's particular Warrant and Commission had been revealed as in the Case of Ahud and Jehu or that his Will and Command was fulfilled in their maintaining that Hereditary Succession which he had appointed by deposing an Usurper and setting up the Rightful Heir and this was what Jehoiada did 3. As for other degenerate sorts of Government though they ought not to have been introduced yet when by never so sinful Arts and Practices by Usurpations from abroad or by Factions and Rebellions at home they had any where been throughly setled as the Governments of Babylon and Egypt and Rome were they must be submitted to because where the Original Paternal Government was extinct the Authority thereby devolved upon the Possessors of the supreme Power in these degenerate Forms whether they were Tyrannical or Republican because the supreme Governour of the World would not suffer so great a Part of Mankind to be without any rightful Government for so long a time and yet so they must be unless he either authorize these degenerate Forms upon the Extinction of the Paternal Original Government or restore it by an over-ruling Providence 4. When the Jews themselves were by God's Judgment upon them for their Sins placed under such degenerate kinds of Government they were to pay the same Submission to those Governors that they did to their own Kings they might not depart out of Egypt without Pharaoh's leave first obtained unless God would have warranted them to do it by his express Direction and Command they must not submit to Alexander whilst Darius lived and no Oppression of the Romans was a sufficient excuse for their rebelling against them This being the Sense of the Convocation it will not be difficult to understand what they mean by a thorough Settlement Their Words are these And when Ch. 28. having attained their ungodly Desires whether ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection or disloyal Subjects by their Rebellious rising against their natural Sovereigns they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their People the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by Force from the True and Lawful Possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such Alterations are throughly setled to be reverenced and obeyed c. These Words being an inference from the Particulars before related in this Chapter we must judg of them from the occasion and design of the whole Chapter and from the particular instances alledged in it First the design of the Chapter is to shew what Obedience is due to Kings or other supreme Magistrates where that mild and temperate Government which had been the Subject of
was fully possessed of his Kingdom for above seven years together And there never was any dispossest Prince but he endeavoured to regain his Throne if he could and never any Prince was blamed for it IV. This Argument would hold as well in private as in publick Affairs since both are alike in God's disposal and it would be as unjust for a man injuriously dispossest of his Estate to endeavour the recovery of it by due course of Law as it would be for a King by waging War to endeavour the Recovery of his Kingdoms For in both Cases it may with equal Reason be said that the Title is lost and the Right transferred by God himself And the Example of God's commanding the Children of Israel to spoil the Aegyptians may seem as well to justifie the one Case as his bestowing Kingdoms in the Old Testament to justifie the other If it be said that there is a more peculiar and extraordinary Providence which rules and disposes of Publick States and Kingdoms First if by a peculiar and extraordinary Providence be meant that God is wont more immediately so to interpose as to change the ordinary course of Justice and to transfer Rights and displace and dispossess Rightful Kings more than he does Rightful Owners of private Estates this seems to be groundless and disagreeable to the Methods of his Justice and to those Rules which the Scripture prescribes to us which are the same in our Duties towards Kings as in those towards other men and it besides lays upon us greater Obligations to observe them We must render to all their Dues and particularly Tribute to whom Tribute is due c. Rom. 11.7 But we have no where the least intimation that the Rights of Kings cease any other way than other Mens do viz. by Death Resignation c. not by a foreign Invasion or the Rebellion of Subjects or by the interposition of Providence in a concurrence of unfortunate Accidents And those Texts which seem most to favour this supposition have been already considered and if they prove any thing to this purpose they must conclude as well concerning the Properties of Subjects as concerning the Prerogatives of Princes for it is as easie a thing with the Lord to make a poor man rich as it can be to set up over Kingdoms the basest of Men. and the Providence of God is alike concerned in both Cases for as he leadeth Princes away spoiled and overthroweth the mighty so the Tabernacles of Robbers prosper and they that provoke God are secure into whose hand God bringeth abundantly Job 12.6.19 And thus we find Job ascribes all his Losses and Calamities to Gods afflicting hand upon him for God having all things in his Power and at his Command is often said to do what he does not hinder Secondly If by a peculiar and extraordinary Providence be meant such a Care as is answerable to the great Importance of Publick Affairs and the Government of Kingdoms this will imply no more than that Gods Care is more concerned and more imployed about things of greater importance than in things of less moment that is it manifests itself in a greater number and variety of Exigencies and is applyed to more Circumstances of Affairs Yet his Providence extends itself to the Hairs of our Heads and to the falling of a Sparrow to the Ground and is as watchful over the most inconsiderable and minute things in proportion to their Nature as over the greatest matters His Providence his Justice and Goodness is over all his Works and he may as well be supposed to convey Private Estates to the unjust Possessors of them as to dispose of Kingdoms to Usurpers his Providence which permits both gives one no better Title than the other Kings 't is true receive their Power from God and are his Vicegerents and therefore are accountable to none but him and can be deposed by none else but God invests them with his Authority by the intervention of subordinate means and by the Observation of the same Laws of Justice which ought to be observed in the Rights and Possessions of Subjects Thus in the Elective Monarchies there is the same Justice to be observed in the Election of the King that there is to be observed in the Election of inferiour Magistrates tho after Election the King is accountable to none but God and the inferiour Magistrates are accountable to the King And in an Hereditary Kingdom there is the same Right of Inheritance in respect of the Nature of Right or Justice that there is in Private Estates tho the Inheritance of Kingdoms be forfeitable to God only For as God now makes no Kings by his express Command and immediate Designation but according to the Methods of Law and Right amongst men so he deposes and devests them of their Power in such a manner as does not interfere with the ordinary course of justice The Lord shall smite them or their day shall come to die or they shall descend into Battel and perish 1. Sam. 26.10 V. Tho by the Law of Nations Foreign Princes may transact with any Conquerour as Rightful King Yet by the Law of Nature Conquest can give no just Title unless the Claim before Conquest were just that is indeed it gives no Title at all but only recovers what before there was a just Title to For even a just cause of War will not justifie a Conquest unless there be a precedent Right to the Dominions of the conquered Prince as a Debt of 5 l. tho it will justifie a Suit at Law yet gives no Title to a mans whole Estate And if a Thorough Settlement can give the Conquerour any Right which he had not at first it can be no less than such a Settlement as the Laws and Customs of Nations allow which is an undisturbed and uncontested Possession for a term of years exceeding the Memory of man Jeptha alledged against the King of the Ammonites the Prescription of 300 years Judg. 11.26 and the time for Prescription to Kingdoms is generally set at 100 years Duck de Usu Authorit Jur. Civil l. 1. c. 1. S. 19. and yet the Civilians genetally maintain that the longest Precription can give a right to none but to those who are Possessores bonae fidei not to those who came in by Fraud or Violence but who thought they had a just Title or knew of no better Claim And if it should be granted necessary for the Peace of the World that some certain time be fixt when after a quiet and unmolested Possession all Pretensions should expire Yet men must not be allowed to judg every thing setled that is uppermost or that can brave it for a while for this would in reality let nothing be setled but would open a Gap to perpetual Disturbances and Confusions For every thing that can be called a Government is setled or may appear to be so to Private Men till it is overpowered Thus David fled from Jerusalem and went
whither he might uncertain whither to go and almost despairing of his Return Absalom possessed himself of the City and David was so forlorn and despicable that Shimei cursed him to his face and threw stones at him and told him withal that Gods just Judgment was faln upon him in revenge of the Blood which he had shed of the House of Saul and that the Lord had delivered the Kingdom into the hand of Absalom his Son 2. Sam. 16.8 And this seems to have been the general Opinion of all that followed Absalom in his Rebellion and therefore Hushai chose it as the fairest Pretence to recommend himself to him and make him believe that he was firm to his Interest nay but whom the Lord and this People and all the men of Israel chuse his will I be and to him will I belong v. 28. So that the Man after Gods own heart and of his own designation to the Kingdom could not be secure against this Principle and it can hardly prove of better consequence to other Kings if they must be looked upon as abandoned and dethroned by God himself whenever they are forced to withdraw and by a strong hand are kept out of their Dominions And it ought to be considered how King Charles II. could retain any Right to his Kingdoms upon this supposition and yet he had an indisputable Right during his long Absence in the Judgment not only of all the Loyal Nobility and Clergy and Gentry of that time but of our Parliaments and of the whole Nation ever since his Return VI We find in Scripture that when God himself does dispossess Kings of their Kingdoms Dan. 4.26.2 Chron. 33.13 he doth not always devest them of their Right but reserves it for them and restores them to the Possession of it again upon their Repentance Thus it was in the Case of Nebuchadnezzar and Manasses and it is very reasonable to believe that God doth often punish Kings and Subjects too by successful Rebellions and by Usurpations upon the Regal Rights and Prerogatives without any intention to release them from the mutual Obligations of their respective Duties to one another And if this has been the Case as the Scripture informs us it has if Reason tells us that such Cases may be again since they are very agreeable to Gods Justice and Wisdom and Goodness in governing the World then all that the Dr. hath said for transferring the Allegiance of Subjects from the dispossessed King by Law to the Possessor of his Throne by Providence falls to the ground And yet we ought to be very sure before we venture to act upon such a Principle For it would be a mighty Temptation and Encouragement to ambitious men to be always making dangerous Attempts upon the Rights ' and Dominions of Princes if they could be assured that if once their Usurpation proved so prosperous as to put them into a full Possession they should then be secured in it by a Divine Right and would be so far from any Obligations to make Resticution that they would be bound to stand by it and all the Subjects would be obliged to maintain and defend them with their Lives and Fortunes against the dispossessed Prince It is not to be imagined what confusion it would breed in the World if no restitution were to be made of what is gotten by Fraud and Rapine out of Private Estates but all were a Man 's own that he could but get and keep Men would easily flatter themselves that they might sin first and then repent at their leisure if this mortifying part of Repentance were but remitted but when they must restore all again or be damned they may perhaps think fit to sit down contented at first And this Doctrine would be so much the more dangerous to Kingdoms as they are greater Baits and the Injustice is greater and the Mischiefs more grievous But it may be said that tho this Argument from success and a Thorough Settlement should not hold good in all Cases yet such peculiar Circumstances may sometimes fall out as plainly shew it to be God's doing and command our Submission and Obedience Suppose a Prince by a Series of fatal Miscarriages and by a strong infatuation as it were from God upon all his Counsels undermines his own Throne and in a short Reign loses the Hearts of a Nation at first wholly devoted to his service suppose he alienates the affections of his greatest Dependents and Favorites and that the Body of his People revolt from him and that all Orders and Degrees of men conspire to renounce him and without War or Bloodshed set up another in his room in whom all their remaining hopes are placed and whose Arms are attended by a favourable and wonderful Providence suppose that there is no Human Prospect of the former King's return at all and that if he do return it must be to the ruin of the Kingdom and the overthrow of the true Religion is not this a Settlement so throughly established that we must needs be obliged to stand up in defence of it and have we not in this case all the Assurance that can possibly be without an express Revelation that our Allegiance is transferred This I think is the highest that the Case can be put In answer to which First It must be granted that all this cannot prove more effectually that our Allegiance is transferred now it is brought about by his Providence than if it had come to pass by an express Revelation or than if God had denounced this as a Judgment upon the Prince whom it is supposed to have befallen For the utmost that can be supposed is that Gods Providence is now the same Evidence of his Pleasure to us that his Revelation was to those of former Ages and therefore if when God had declared that he did send such Calamities as Judgments upon a Prince this was no Argument to the People that they were released from their Duty of Allegiance it can be no Argument to us now tho the Providence be never so signal and extraordinary Secondly We see in the Examples before-mentioned that what befel those Princes was from God and that he had dispossessed them of their Kingdoms and yet their Right still remained King David was forced to fly in great hast from his own Palace he left his Capital City and the Ark of God itself in the Enemies Power and when Shimei cursed him he made this Reflection upon it that God had bid him to do it and to make the Judgment still more signal Absalom went in unto his Fathers Concubines in the sight of all Israel which was directly the fulfilling of that Judgment which Nathan had pophesied should come upon him yet his Subjects all the while could be excused from no Duty of Allegiance to him but were as much obliged to all instances of it as if he had been still at Jerusalem and upon the Throne tho Absalom's Followers interpreted it otherwise as
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
approve of every Event so as to command us to acquiess in it any more than of every Means but he approves or disallows of them as they are either just or unjust good or evil and because the last Events of things will be perfectly good therefore they are approved of by him and in the mean time he orders and disposes all lesser and precedent Events whether they be good or evil to the attainment of these The evil Events God neither approves in themselves nor gives any Right or Authority to the Persons whom he suffers to bring them about but whilst the Authors of them are disliked and disowned by him he permits the Events for the sake of that good which he has decreed to produce out of them and for that relation and subserviency which they have to the last Events of things which he has determined and ordained from Eternity 4. If there be no difference between what God permits and what he does as to the Events of things this will justifie all Events whatsoever as being of God's doing and therefore Robberies and all the Wickedness in the World besides that is successful and ends in the desired issue must be ascribed to him for these are as properly Events as any besides can be and the success of things respect not their Nature but their End and Actions attain their End not as they are of less or greater moment of publick or private Concernment but because they answer the Designs of the men that perform them And this will make it impossible as the Doctor says expresly That there should be any King who is not Rightful with respect to God which overthrows the Distinction he makes between the Kingdom of Judah and other Kingdoms For Athaliah must have been as Rightful Queen as Joash was Rightful King and both must have had God's Authority alike and so the Subjects must have been obliged to Contradictions that is to assist Athaliah against Joash and Joash against Athaliah at the same time because she had God's Authority by Providence and he by Promise and therefore both must have been obeyed and yet both resisted and the Subjects must have owed Allegiance to both and yet they must have owed Allegiance to neither of them Thus it would have been likewise in the Case of David himself to whom God first assigned the Kingdom of Judah and Ishbosheth who was possest of the greatest part of it for Two Years For either Ishbosheth and Athaliah had God's Authority or they had not if they had not then it is possible there may be a King who has not God's Authority and that there may be some Events which are only by his permission If they had then God must bestow Two Opposite Sovereign Authorities and Rights at once to Two several Princes over the same People and to the same Kingdom and both must be equally valid and obligatory upon the Subjects Consciences For by what way soever God conveys the Authority it is his Authority and God's Authority is always the same to whomsoever and in what manner soever it be conveyed 5. Since therefore God concurs with the Thoughts and Actions of Men in the Means and Causes as well as in the Ends and Events of Things and disposes all alike it follows that he can be no more the Author of Evil Events than of Evil Means or Actions or Thoughts But God may be said to do all that is done in the world because nothing can be done without him for his Providence concurs with Men in the performance of the worst Actions though not in the Wickedness of them Men contrive and practice Evil and God concurs with them in their Actions but only permits the Evil of them for every Action being a positive thing necessarily requires God's Concurrence and could not be done without it and every Action as such is Good But Evil is an Accident it is a Defect or a privation of Good and therefore this proceeds from the Imperfection and Wickedness of Man only and needs no Cause to produce it since it has no other Being but the want of Rectitude and Goodness in the depraved minds of men Thus to think is always the same Action of the mind whatever it be that we think about And Evil Thoughts differ from Good ones not in the Nature of the Act but only in the Object which employs the Thoughts and therefore though God never suggests Evil Thoughts yet he leaves the Will free to determine it self in the choice of the Evil Object and sustains the Mind in the Exercise of its Faculty of Thinking whatever the Object be about which it is conversant And so in all other Actions of the Body or Mind God concurs to the Action not as it has such or such an Object but as it is produced by its proper Faculty that is he concurs to it as it is a Natural not as it is a Moral Action 6. As God permits Wickedness to come to pass so he orders it for the Good or Evil that is for the Beward or Punishment of private Men or publick Societies yet still he does not approve of the Event but of the Consequences and Effects which his Infinite Wisdom and Power produces out of it And the Event gives no Right to the Persons who are permitted to bring it about For then a Thief would have a Right to stol'n Goods because it may be a just Punishment from God upon the Person from whom they are stol'n to suster him to have the possession of them I shall not venture to say That though God permits Wickedness in the Counsels or Designs of Men yet when it comes to Action he either disappoints what they intended or gives Success to them when he can serve the Ends of his Providence by their Wickedness For I believe there is no wickedness either in Thought or Action but God's Infinite Power and Wisdom can over-rule it to accomplish his own Counsels and Decrees And the difference between Evil in the Action and in the Design seems to be this That whilst it is designed and contrived in the minds of Men it can have no such Influence towards the Production of that Good which God causes to proceed from Evil as it certainly shall have one way or other when it is reduced to practice For though Evil Thoughts are over-ruled by God as well as Evil Actions and either suffered to proceed to Action or hindred and if suffered then upon this or that Occasion at this or that Time with respect to certain Persons and Accidents yet Thoughts as such have no Effect but upon the Mind it self whereas Actions have a further Effect upon divers Objects for the tryal of Good Men for their Admonition or Amendment or for the prevention of that Sin which they would otherwise run into or else perhaps for the Punishment and Correction of wicked men And therefore there can be no Evil in a City and the Lord hath not done it He concurs
with wicked men by his Providence but concurs with them as if they were Natural not as they are Moral Agents by sustaining and enabling their Natural Faculties to produce their Effects he never inclines their Minds nor influences their Wills to Evil but oftentimes over-rules their first Intentions and diverts their Will already determined and resolved upon Mischiefs to certain Objects that the Evil may most tend to his Glory and the good of Mankind in the Punishment of Sinners or in the Exercise of the Patience and other Vertues of Good Men. As to the distinction of Events P. 12. That some God only permits and some he orders and appoints it is grounded upon this That he orders and appoints all that are good and just and permits the contrary But then this appointment is known to us not by God's Providence but by his Law For Providence appoints us to do nothing but only concurs with Men and assists them in the performance of what God's Laws appoint or command The most that can be said is That Providence may sometimes be an Indication to us of God's Will and Command but that can be only in Events that are miraculous and supernatural when there is nothing repugnant in them to his Will already known and declared For even Miracles wrought to carry on wicked Designs are to be looked upon as false and the Impostures and Delusions only of the Devil 2. Of that particular Providence which watches over Kingdoms and orders the Government of them and the difference of it from that Providence which guides and influences private Affairs I have said enough already and have shewn That God with his own Hand immediately directs the Motions of the great Wheels of Providence but permits none to move as they please themselves For I take it to be a very wrong Notion of the Permission of God's Providence that he leaves things to move as they please themselves No he rules and restrains and limits what he only permits and puts a check and stop to it when he pleases And by God's more immediate direction I understand not that God ever acts at a distance or leaves any thing in the world to it self but that he sometimes acts in a way to us more visible and remarkable though the steddy and unobserved Influence of Providence has as much of God's immediate Prefence in it as have the most extraordinary and miraculous Events The other Propositions are but Consequences of these Three and therefore need not to be particularly examined and if these Three only were but well proved and not laid down as if they were so very plain to his purpose as to carry their own Evidence with them P. 16. I should readily agree to all the rest and indeed to the whole Book as far as it concerns this matter except some few Particulars less material to the merits of the Cause But I despair of seeing these Propositions so effectually proved as to induce me to think that by what way soever that can be thought of P. 13. a Prince is advanced to the Throne he is as truly placed in it by God as if he had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were Or that it is impossible there should be a wrong King P. 14. unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. I believe the Self-Evidence of these Propositions can work in few men so much assurance as this amounts to The Fundamental Mistake is That the Doctor confounds the Exercise of Power or Authority with the Right of it and supposes that every one who has the Administration of Power has a Right to the Administration of it which are plainly Two very different things For the Administration or Exercise of Power is a Natural Act and may be without that Moral Qualification which is implied in the Right of Power or Authority Thus in his first Proposition That all Civil Power and Authority is from God If he mean the Exercise of all Civil Power I deny it because it may be exercised by him who ought not to exercise it If he mean the Right to exercise Civil Power and Authority the Proposition is true but nothing to the purpose So that either his Proposition supposes the thing in Dispute and is false or if it be true it is to no purpose And the same Mistake runs through the rest of these Propositions For if by Civil Power and Authority he understand only the Exercise and Administration of it he supposes that which ought to be proved if he understand the Right it self though these Propositions were true yet still they would prove nothing But the Doctor makes an Objection to himself P. 15. which has great weight in it If this be so that no Obedience is due to the Rightful King when another is settled in the Throne what does a Legal Right signifie if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects He answers It bars all other Humane Claims No other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right and Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince as far as they can That is against all Mankind but not against God's disposal of Crowns and therefore when God transfers the Kingdom he transfers our Allegiance which is due and annexed to his Authority whether this Authority be conveyed by a Legal Succession or by any other means But notwithstanding all this the Legal Right can signifie nothing unless it be in that Interval of Time between the Dispossession of one Prince and the Settlement of another For if the Legal Possessor be in the Throne his Legal Title can be of no advantage to him because his Divine Authority would secure him while he is in Possession as well without it and when an Usurper is once settled it can then no longer be of any account to him for though it be good against all Mankind yet not against God in his disposal of Crowns but when God has given away his Kingdom to another the Rightful King must submit unless he may plead his Humane Claim against God's Donation Before a Settlement indeed he that has the Legal Right has the Odds on his side But Men are so partial in their Judgments in all things wherein their own Interest is so nearly concerned that every one who were exposed to any great Danger from the Usurper would easily perswade himself that he might become his Subject and that the Legal King had no longer any Right to his Allegiance the Usurper being in his Opinion settled enough to become invested with God's Authority So that a Legal Title would upon these Grounds be little more than an empty Word or Notion and would either be of no use at all or of little benefit when there should be most need of it I shall not much trouble my self about the several Degrees of Settlement P. 17. and of the Proportionable Submission which they
require it of them or to warrant them in so doing I shall not repeat what has been already said in Answer to this but shall consider here only what he further urges viz. That this Prophecy was P. 22. at the beginning of the four Monarchies and that the Prophecy of the four Monarchies is not yet at an end for under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Christ was to be set up and Antichrist was to appear and the encrease and destruction of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in humane Governments and when God has declared that he will change Times and Scasons remove Kings and set up Kings to accomplish his own wise Counsels it justifies our necessary and therefore innocent compliances with such Revolutions as much as if we were expresly commanded to do so as the Jews were by the Prophet Jeremiah To say that the Prophecy of Jeremiah was at the beginning of the four Monarchies is a thing I confess that I can reconcile to no account of Chronology it had been a much less mistake to have said that it was at the end of the first Monarchy or at the beginning of the second for there were but two Kings that succeeded Nebuchadnezzar in the Assyrian Monarchy as God had declared by the same Prophet that all Nations should serve him and his Son and his Son's Son until the very time of his land came and then many Nations should serve themselves of him Jer. 27.7 And the Prophecy of Daniel is only a Prediction of what should come to pass and therefore implies no Authority from God as has been shewn before for if all Kingdoms that are foretold of in Scripture have Authority from God then the Kingdom of Antichrist himself as that signifies either Temporal or Spiritual Power must be founded by God's Authority For if either Prophecy in declaring what shall come to pass or Providence in ordering and appointing all Events as the Doctor argues or only in permitting those that are Evil as the general Opinion is does imply That all things prophesied of and accomplished accordingly are of God the Kingdom of Antichrist must be of God's Erection as much as any other Kingdom whatsoever For Antichrist is in Scripture stiled King P. 14. and he could not make himself King whether God will or no and therefore he must be constituted King by God himself because all Events are in his hands and the distinction between what God permits and what he does P. 12. does not relate to the Events of things So that the Power of Antichrist must be the Ordinance of God if the Four Monarchies were so meerly for this Reason because they were prophesied of in Scripture and set up by God's Providence in the World especially since it is said That Power was given unto the Beast to continue Forty and Two Months Rev. 13.5 and that Power was given him over all Kindreds and Tongues and Nations v. 7. which is as much as is said of the Four Monarchies and yet it was the Dragon that gave him his Power and his Seat and great Authority v. 2 In short if a Prediction in Scripture and Providence in the disposal of the event necessarily implies that God authorises and approves of the thing foretold and brought to pass then every thing that is prophesied of and comes to pass must be approved of by God or which is at least the same thing it must be authorised by him for whatever God gives Authority to so far he certainly approves of it But as God foresees all things so the most wicked Actions that have been in the World have been foretold by him and therefore his Prediction of Events can no more imply his Authority or Approbation than his Fore knowledge does and by consequence the Four Monarchies could derive no Authority from the Prophecies of Daniel and could be no further authorised by God than they were just and were erected upon the same Foundations of Righteousness that other lawful Governments are setled upon The Doctor says P. 20. That the Four Monarchies were all as manifest Vsurpations as ever were in the World From whence I perceive that he is not of the Opinion of some Learned Men who think that Cyrus the Founder of the Second Monarchy was well acquainted with the Prophecy of Isaiah Chron. Carion in which he is expresly named and that Daniel had explained it to him However I do not see how consistent this is with the Account which as has been observed the Scripture gives of him But the Doctor seems to have particular Exceptions against the Roman Empire for he says That if we must obey such Powers as the Roman Power was P. 21. he knows very few Powers that we may not obey for whatever Legal Right the Roman Emperors had who by Fear or Flattery or other Arts extorted some kind of Consent from the Senate it is plain the Romans themselves were great usurpers and had no other Right to the greatest part of their Empire but Conquest and Vsurpation This is soon said and it does not concern the matter in hand in the least to justifie the Romans in their Wars though very great things have been said by some Authors in their Fraise upon that Account But whatever their Conquests or their Vsurpations were their Usurpations could give them no Right but were only an accidental means whereby after the Submission or Decease of those in whom the Right was they became invested with it And if this be not enough to give a Legal Right and Claim there can be no such thing now in the world which takes away the Subject of the Question and when we are enquiring whether the Legal Right and the Divine may be in different Persons the Doctor must deny that there is any such thing as a Legal Right For if there be any such thing let any Man shew that the Romans had not such a Right and to what Provinces they had no Legal Title or that they had none to any Province at all What Power the Roman Emperors had and how it was conveyed to them appears from the Lex Regia Sed quod Principiplacuit Legis habet vigorem quum Lege Regiâ quae de ejus imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne imperium suum potestatem concedat Justin Insiit lib 1. Tit. 2. Jani Gruteri Inscript Antiq. p. 242. and from an Inscription in Gruter where we find the Power describ'd that was renewed to Vespasian and had belonged to the Emperors his Predecessors And by the way we may observe that Judea was more immediately under the Emperors themselves For when the Romans had given up the Sovereign Power to Augustus he made a Division of the whole Empire reserving one part of it to himself to be governed by Deputies sent by him and giving the other to the People who sent either Praetors or Consuls into
themselves in behalf of the Rightful King when he is out of the Throne To which it may be replyed That there are perhaps no Principles so ill but they may at some Times and upon some Occasions give some Accidental Advantage and Security for a while nor any so good as to afford a perfect and absolute Security against all Events But those are the best and truest which give the most constant and lasting Security Now the Doctor 's Principles seem to be fitted only for Revolutions and then they teach men to submit to the uppermost Party as having God's Authority but there are many Inconveniences arising from them which more than over-ballance this Advantage For they encourage Attempts upon the Crowns of Princes and expose Subjects to all the Miseries which usually follow from such Attempts before a thorough Settlement which commonly is a long Time And after such a Settlement they set up a Divine Authority against a Legal Right to encounter and fight each other and engage a Nation in a War perhaps for many Ages for the Rightful King may wage War for the Recovery of his Legal Right and the Usurper in Defence of his Possessory Right which he holds in Donation from God and both may do this with a good Conscience and the War must be just on both sides so that nothing of Law or Equity but the Sword only can decide it And because all that abide in their own Country must joyn and assist the Usurper against their Lawful King he is put upon a Necessity of relying wholly upon Foreign Forces and upon some few Subjects perhaps p. 29. That are out of their Wits and will follow him into Banishment or venture being hanged at Home and upon these Terms if ever the Lawful King return it must be by conquering his own Kingdom for he can have no assistance from his Subjects who must all withstand and oppose him to the utmost till he is again setled in his Government which cannot be but by Conquest or Miracle Now these Inconveniences are too great to be incurred for the sake of that little Ease and Quiet which may happen from these Principles just upon the Settlement of an Usurper before the Rightful King can recruit his Forces and make a vigorous Attempt to recover his Throne for 't is only during that Interval between the lawful King's Defeat and his Reinforcement that these Principles can be of any use to the Subjects afterwards they expose them to all the Dangers and Miseries of a long War of frequent Invasions and of a foreign Conquest and it must be remembred that these Principles give no security to any Princes but Usurpers for lawful Kings when they are in their Thrones are as safe without them and when they are dispossessed they are not much beholding to such Principles as will never suffer them to regain it but upon the most unequal and most improbable Terms in the World Whereas though that immoveable and unalterable Allegiance due only to a Legal Right and Title may expose Men to Hardships and cost some Lives in Times of Rebellion and Revolutions yet this is abundantly recompensed in that it is a constant Security at all other Times and will as much as it is possible prevent Revolutions and Rebellions and will make them less hurtful and mischievous when they do happen It is not pretended that this Doctrin can give a full and infallible Security against all accidental Calamities but it gives all the Security that the State of this World is capable of and all the Security we can have besides that of God's Providence to relv on And we have no Reason to think that God by his Providence transfers the Allegiance of Subjects but that he will protect them in the performance of it It is objected 1. p. 44. That if this Principle of adhering to Legal Right would prevent all Revolutions of Government it is a Demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle because it is against God's Prerogative of removing Kings and setting up Kings 2. It is evident that this Principle was either unknown to the World before or else that it cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government 3. Since then such Revolutions will happen such Principles as must dissolve human Societies when such Revolutions happen or expose the most innocent and conscientions Men to the greatest Sufferings without serving any good End cannot be true 1. I answer Though it be God's Prerogative to set up and to remove kings yet we can at no time know without a Revelation that it is his Pleasure to do it as to this or that King in particular And therefore while the Legal Right remains we may not conclude that he has transferred our Allegiance And those who are of Opinion that God is now pleased to depose and set up Kings in such a manner only as is consistent with human Right and Justice derogate no more from God's Sovereign Prerogative than those who believe that he has no respect to human Laws in the disposal of Kingdoms For the difference between them is not concerning God's Power which both equally acknowledge but concerning his Will only whether he is now pleased to act according to the Absoluteness of his Power and not rather with regard to the Laws of Men since we have no way to know when he has transferred any Kingdom but by the Constitution of it or by Revelation 2. That this Principle was and is still known to the World is evident else why should the Doctor say That his Scheme of Government may startle some Men at first p. 3. before they have well considered it His Notion could startle no Body if the contrary to it were unknown it is indeed so well known that the Doctor 's Principle is new to himself and he informs us that he could not have got over the Difficulties Pref. that lie against it if the Convocation had not freed him from his Prejudices and given him a Liberty of thinking But it does not follow that every Duty which is known is practised Nor is it pretended That this Principle will prevent all Revolutions it is sufficient that it will prevent them as far as it is possible for them to be prevented And this Dilemma will do as good Execution against any other Opinion that can be named as against this for all pretend that their own Notions are the best Security against the Mischiefs which they charge upon others and therefore all may argue in the same manner against any Opinion whatsoever that is contrary to their own This Principle was unknown to the World before or else this Principle cannot prevent Rebellion it was unknown or it cannot prevent Heresies or Schisms c. And the Consequence of this is That either this way of arguing is to no purpose because it will serve all Causes alike tho they be Contradictions to each other or that there is no true Principle in the World But
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