first Case tho the Subject is taken Captive yet the foundation of the Relation is not destroyed for his Prince is on his Throne still in the actual administration of the Government tho he be violently torn from him so that this Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related but when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the foundation of the Relation is at present destroyed the Kingdom is translated to another Prince and the Subjects and their Allegiance translated with it Our Author proceeds to argue from the Case of Ioash The Doctor 's distinction that is about a Divine Entail is against him 'T is true God did entail the Kingdom of Judah on the Family of David and for that reason they ought not to submit to an Vsurper But this is so far from being a reason why they may submit to one in other Kingdoms where Entails are made by Laws that it is a reason and a very good one why they ought not But before we hear his Reason I must observe that he mistakes the use of my Distinction which was not to prove That because God had entailed the Kingdom of Iudah on the Posterity of David and had reserved to himself a right in the Kingdom of Israel to nominate their King and entail the Crown when he pleased that therefore the Subjects of those Kingdoms might not submit to any other Kings whom the Providence of God placed in the Throne without such a Divine Nomination and Entail for it appears from what I have already discoursed that they both actually did and lawfully might submit to such providential Kings when either there was no King by God's Nomination or Entail or no such King was known but the use of the Distinction was to shew that in such Theocratical Kingdoms where God challenged a peculiar right to make Kings by his express Nomination or Entail though God may see fit sometimes to set a providential King upon the Throne yet whenever he nominates a new King or discovers the right Heir to whom the Crown belongs by a Divine Entail the Reign of such Providential Kings is at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them and own the King of God's nomination so that if he will prove any thing from my Distinction with reference to other entailed Kingdoms he must shew that my Distinction proves that in such Kingdoms where God makes Kings only by his Providence a Humane Entail of the Crown will justifie Subjects in deposing and murthering a new King who is placed and setled in the Throne by Providence while the Legal King or Legal Heir is Living as much as God's express Nomination or Entail would justifie the deposing a Providential King in the Kingdoms of Iudah and Israel And now let us hear his Reason For says he God's entailing the Crown of Judah was the Law of that Kingdom in that respect and the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Iudah were theirs All Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles these Laws were made by God's Authority So that the Doctor mistakes the Question we do not oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws which are made by God's Authority and which are Rules to us to Providence which is no Rule When God entailed the Crown upon David's Posterity they had then a Legal Right to it and so hath every Family in other Kingdoms upon which an Entail is made by the respective Laws of the Countrey But what would our Author prove from this That in every Hereditary Kingdom the Legal Heir has a Legal right to the Crown as well as in Iudah and did I ever deny it or that the standing Laws of every Countrey are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own free Act and Choice and who denies this too There is a Dispute indeed whether the Laws of England do oblige Subjects in all cases to make the next Lineal Heir to the Crown their King but no man ever denied but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. I am sure my Hypothesis is not concerned in this Question and therefore be it how it will it can prove nothing against me Or would he prove that when an Entail is setled either by Divine or Humane Laws God never interposes by his Providence to set up a King who has not this Entailed Legal Right This was manifestly false both in the Kingdom of Iudah and Israel which God had reserved for his own Nomination or Entail and yet He set up several providential Kings Athaliah in Iudah and Baasha and Omri and Ahab and Ioram and others in Israel and in all other Kingdoms at one time or other Or would he prove that when God by his Providence has setled a Prince in the Throne without a Legal Right Subjects ought not to obey him and submit to him as their King This is confuted by the Examples of Iudah and Israel who submitted to Athaliah and their providential Kings who had no Legal Right by a Divine Nomination or Entail and are yet never blamed for it Or would he prove that a Human Entail of the Crown does as much oblige Subjects in Conscience to pull down a King who is setled in his Throne by God's Providence with a National Consent and Submission but without a Legal Right to set the Legal Heir on his Throne again as Iehoiada was by virtue of the Divine Entail to anoint Ioash and slay Athaliah This is the single Point he ought to prove but I do not see that he offers any thing like a proof of it The sum of his Argument is this That a Human Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Countrey does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too For the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs The Dispute in general about the Authority and obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denies it But yet we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Human Laws tho they are made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe our Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God But the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature though they be both the Laws of the Countrey for which they are made as will easily appear if we compare God's making Kings by a providential settlement of them
in the Throne with a Divine and with a Humane Entail A Divine Entail is God's setling the Crown on such a Family by the express Revelation of his Will and though God should after this settle a Prince in the Throne by his Providence to whom the Crown did not belong by this Entail such a Providence would not justifie Subjects in submitting to such a providential King when it is in their power to set the right Heir upon the Throne for this would be to expound Providence against the express Revelation of God's Will But a Human Entail is only a providential settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is setled only by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by his Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Human Laws to God's Authority but we oppose Laws that are made by God's Authority and which are a Rule to us to Providence which is no Rule Now I would ask our Author Whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws If they be I ask Whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence for do they not refuse to obey a King whom the providence of God has placed and setled in the Throne upon a pretence that he is not King by Law And then I think they give greater Authority to the Laws of the Land than to God in making Kings which is to oppose Humane Laws to God's Authority To avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by Gods Authority but the Question is Whether they are Humane or Divine Laws It is a childish piece of Sophistry and argues a great contempt of his Readers to call Humane Laws Laws made by God's Authority because Sovereign Power which makes these Laws is God's Authority as if there were no difference between Humane and Divine Laws because they are both made by God's Authority though the one are made by the immediate Authority of God the other are made by men who receive their Authority from God whereas in the first Case the Authority of God gives an immediate Divine Authority to the Laws made by God which therefore are said to be made by God's Authority in the other case the Authority of God terminates on the Person and does not immediately affect his Laws Sovereign Princes have their Authority from God but their Laws are the Laws of Men and the difference between them is this that Divine Laws which are made by God himself have a Superior Authority to Men and to all Humane Laws though made by a delegated Authority from God for God grants Authority to Men only in subordination to himself and the Authority of his own Laws He might as well have said That all the by-By-laws of a Corporation are the King's Laws because made by his Authority granted to them by Charter and therefore there is no difference between the private Laws of the City and the Laws of the Kingdom as being both made by the Authority of the King This may satisfy our Author That though Humane Laws in some sense may be said to be made by God's Authority yet when men oppose a legal Entail of the Crown to the Authority of God in making Kings they oppose Humane Laws to the Authority of God Well! but these Law are our Rule they are are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superior Authority but that they may be by the Authority of God And the Providence of God is no Rule to us If by this he means that we must not make Providence the Rule of Good and Evil to us i. e. that we must not think it lawful for us to do whatever the Providence of God does I grant it for the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence but if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our Duty cannot lay some new Obligations on us and discharge our old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand Instances every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some new Duties and lays some new Obligations on us I shall instance only in the Case before us If the Providence of God can remove one King and set up another tho this does not alter the Duty of Subjects to their Prince yet it changes the Object of their Allegiance as it changes their Prince the Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Subjects to their Prince but the Providence of God makes him And now let us consider the opposition he makes between Humane Laws of Entail and Providence for he confesses they do oppose Laws made by the Divine Authority that is the Laws of the Land which entail the Crown to Providence or to the Providence of God in making Kings that is they think themselves bound in Conscience to adhere to that King tho out of possession who by the Laws of the Land has a legal Right to the Crown against that King who is actually setled in the Throne by the Providence of God Now if we will consider the sense of things and not the words this is no more than to say that they oppose the Providence of God against Providence his former Providence against his later Providence that is they will not allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever Reasons the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done that they are resolved to abide by whatever he thinks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and confine Providence that it shall not alter its usual methods in the Government of the World or when it has disposed of the Crown once shall never be at liberty while that Family lasts to dispose of it again to any other For what are these Laws which he says are made by the Divine Authority and are our Rule They are the Laws of Succession which entail the Crown And how does God settle the Crown on any Family by such Laws No otherwise but by his Providence so over-ruling the hearts and counsels of Men as to consent to such an Entail which gives a humane Right to the Crown and bars all other humane Claim So that an Hereditary King by a humane entail of the Crown with respect to God is only a Providential King as much a Providential King as the first of the Family was who obtain'd it by Election or Conquest or worse Arts not by God's express nomination of the Person So that to opppose the Laws of Entail made not by God's immediate Authority as they were in the Kingdom of Iudah but by the over-ruling influence of Providence against God's setting up a new King on the Throne by other Acts of his Providence is to oppose Providence against Providence God's Providenee in
setling the Crown in such a Family by a legal Entail against his Providence in setling a new King upon the Throne It is all but Providence still and I desire to know why the Providence of an Entail is more Sacred and Obligatory than any other Act of Providence which gives a Setled possession of the Throne What follows is pretty and nothing more The Land of Canaan was divided among the Twelve Tribes by God's express Command and this answers to God's Entail of the Crown on David ' s Family the possession in all other Countries is only by Providence and this answers to a humane Right and Title to the Crown Well! there is something of likeness between them and what then And therefore according to the Doctor 's way of reasoning every Man who wrongfully possessed himself of another Man's Estate in that Land Canaan must be made to restore it for God had expresly given it to the other and to his Family But in all other Countries if a Man by Providence get his Neighbour's Estate he must have it for the event is God's Act and it is his evident Decree and Counsel that he should have it Now the fundamental mistake which runs through all these kind of Arguments is this That they make the events of Providence in private injuries Thefts Robberies Encroachments of one Subject on another Subject's Rights to be the very same with God's disposal of Kingdoms and to have the same effects whereas all private injuries are reserved by God himself to the correction and redress of Publick Government and Humane Courts of Justice and therefore his Providence has no effect at 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 humane Courts for the decision of which 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 and here the final determinations of Providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Soveraign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases as he can best serve the Wise and many times the unsearchable designs of his Providence by it which shows how much our Author is out in applying what I said of God's making Kings to God's disposal of private Estates It is to say that God as well as Men is confined to humane Laws In making Kings I said In disposing of Estates saith our Author as if disposing of Estates and making Kings were the very same thing whereas God has erected humane Judicatures to Judge of the first but has reserved the second to his own judgment and when God himself judges he judges with Authority with Wisdom with Justice superior to all humane Laws Our Author might as well have said That we must not resist private Men or Inferior Officers when they are injurious because we must not resist a Sovereign Prince when he illegally oppresses us as that we must not dispossess a private Subject who has injuriously possessed himself of our Estates because Subjects must not pull down a Prince who is setled in the Throne without a legal Right The Poet would have taught him the difference between these two Cases Regum timendorum in proprios Greges Reges in ipsos Imperium est Iovis Subjects are under the Government and Correction of Princes Princes under the Government of God And besides this according to my Principles Kings must be thoroughly setled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them and then if he will make the Cases parallel He who unjustly seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly setled in it before it becomes unlawful to dispossess him but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the possession of his Estate given him by Law and when he has whether right or wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again but in Causes superior to Laws as the revolutions of Government and the translations of Kingdoms are there may be a thorow settlement by a setled possession without Law and must be so where Laws cannot determine the controversy that is where there is no superior Tribunal to take cognizance of it So that as our Author has stated the Case it signifies nothing to the present purpose for whether private Mens Estates be setled by a Divine or Humane Entail it is the same case if they suffer any Injury from their Fellow-Subjects they must seek for Redress from publick Government but I could have told him a way how to have applied this case to the purpose but then it would not have been to his purpose but to mine In Canaan where God allotted every Tribe and Family their Inheritance none could pretend a Right to any Portion of Land but what was allotted them but in other Countries which were left in common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Thus in Iudah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those who were nominated by God or had the Crown descended on them by a Divine Entail but in other Countries Possession and Occupation gave a Right to the Allegiance of Subjects In Canaan when God had setled such an Inheritance in a Family it could never be perpetually alienated but tho it were sold it could be sold for no longer time than till the year of Iubilee when all Estates were to return to their old Proprietors again but in other Countries Men may part with their Estates for ever Thus in the Kingdom of Iudah tho God by his Sovereign Authority might set up a Providential King yet this did not cut off the Entail but when ever the true Heir appeared Subjects if they were at liberty were bound to make him King and dispossess the Usurper but in other Kingdoms a Kingdom may be lost as well as an Inheritance sold for ever In Answer to that Objection That the Laws of the Land in such Cases as these are the measure of our Duty and the Rule of Conscience and therefore we must own no King but whom the Laws of the Land own to be King that is in an Hâ—reditary Monarchy the right Heir I granted That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God but when they do they are no Rule to us but their Obligation must give place to a Divine Authority Suppose then there were an express Law that the Subjects of England should own no King but the Right Heir and notwithstanding this Law as it will sometimes happen and has often happened in England a Prince who is not the right Heir should get into the Throne and settle himself there if the Divine Law
Jezebel p. 46. And the Lord both may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countreys Kingdoms or Empires These Passages our Author has thought fit to take no notice of for if they do not prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no right and place them in the Thrones of those who have the right there is no sense to be made of them Our Author's hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it for if no Prince can have God's Authority nor must be obeyed unless he have a legal Right either an old Hereditary Right or a new Acquired Right by the death or cession of the Royal Family or by a long prescription then God is bound to those Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribes to others that is to adhere to Humane Rights then God may not overthrow any Kings or Emperors who challenge their Countries Kingdoms or Empires by any just Claim Right Title or Interest Then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just right and claim For he cannot unmake a rightful King if he cannot absolve Subjects from their Allegiance nor make a King without a legal Right if he cannot give him his Authority and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects to him God can remove the Man by death but cannot unmake the King unless he unmake himselfe by resigning his Crown He can set a Man upon the Throne but cannot make a King of him without the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription Whereever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure this Convocation never taught it him To confirm this I observed that the Convocation teaches that Obedience was due to such Kings as never could have any legal Right to the Government of Israel as the Kings of the Moabites and Aramites of Aegypt and Babylon and yet says that the Israelites knew that it was not lawful for them of themselves and by their own Authority to take Arms against the Kings whose Subjects they were though indeed they were Tyrants And that it had not been lawful for Ahud to have killed King Eglon had he not first been made by God the Iudge Prince and Ruler of the People On the other hand our Author affirms that all these Kings had a legal Right and were legal Powers and that it appears in all and every one of the Instances the Convocation gives of Government to which they say obedience is due that these Governments had such a Right This is a bold Undertaker unless he only play with equivocal words and that I believe is the truth of the matter for such legal Rights as he has found for these Princes will quickly transubstantiate all usurped Powers into legal Governments But our first Inquiry is What the Convocation thought of these Kings as for instance the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites who ruled over and oppressed Israel whether they thought them the legal and rightful Kings of Israel they call indeed the Israelites their Subjects as our Author observes and from thence proves that these Kings had a legal power over Israel but the mischief is that the Convocation in express words owns them to be only Kings de facto to whom they were in subjection and teaches that if any man shall affirm that any person born a Subject and affirming by all the Arguments which Wit or Learning could devise that God had called him to murther the King de facto under whom he lived yea though he should first have procured himself to be proclaimed and anointed King as Adonijah did and should afterwards have laid violent hands upon his Master ought therefore to be believed of any that feared God he doth greatly err Which is spoke with reference to Ahud's killing King Eglon who it seems was but a King de Facto in the judgment of the Convocation and I suppose our Author knows what a King de Facto signifies in opposition to a King de Iure one who is King without a legal Right and yet the Convocation asserts that such Kings de Facto must not be murdered by their Subjects which is an express Determination against our Author Let us now see what legal Right and Title our Author has found for the Kings of the Aramites and Moabites and Babylonians over Israel and for all the four Monarchies which were successively Erected with the most manifest Violence and Usurpation And that is the Submission both of Prince and People which he says I grant gives a legal Right whereas I only said That the Submission of the Prince might be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right which I think differs a little from granting it does so The truth is our Author is here blunder'd for want of clear and distinct Notions of what he writes and imposes upon himself and others with ambiguous Terms which if they were truly stated would clear all these Difficulties Legal Powers signifie such Powers as are according to Law but then there are different kinds of Laws and when we speak of legal Powers unless we agree by what Law we call them Legal we shall never understand one another Now we may understand Legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Laws of Nations or the Laws and Constitutions of a particular Nation or Kingdom and in this last sence Legal is understood by all Men who understand themselves in this Controversie of legal Powers that those only are legal Powers who have the rightful Authority of Government according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom which they govern This is the reason of the Distinction between a King de Iure and de Facto which relates to the particular Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom a King de Iure is a rightful King by the Laws of the Land a King de Facto whatever other Right he may have is not rightfully and lawfully possessed of the Crown by the Laws of Succession proper to that Kingdom And if our Author will take the Controversie off of this Bottom and dispute only about legal Powers in general we will then admit his Plea of Submission and joyn issue with him upon that Point And this is all the Mystery I intended when I affirmed that the Moabites and Aramites Aegyptians and Babylonians could not have a legal and natural Right to Govern Israel that is that by the Constitutions of the Iewish Commonwealth they could not give the Power of the Government to a Stranger nor set up a Prince over them who was not of their Brethren and therefore no Strangers neither Aramites nor Moabites could be their legal Kings As for their Submission when under Force it shall be considered presently This made me smile to see how he was concerned to ward off a Blow which was
gives it Do we use to say a Man may give his Estate to whom he will when his Estate is entailed and he cannot alienate it from the Right Heir We should think this a very absurd way of speaking among Men and yet thus our Author must expound God's giving a Kingdom to whomsoever he will to signify his giving the Kingdom to the Right Heir He may if he please call this Expounding Scripture but I doubt every body else will give it some other name and I hope he himself upon second thoughts will be ashamed of it But it is more absurd still if we apply it to the occasion viz. those great Revolutions and Changes of Empires which the Prophet foretold and which he attributes to God and when Kingdoms and Empires are overturned by violence it is nonsence to talk of God's setting up only Rightful Kings not Usurpers when all those Revolutions were nothing else but force and Usurpation Men may talk of Law and Right of Succession in a setled Government but Kingdoms are not transferred nor Kings removed nor set up by Law and therefore when the Prophet tells us with respect to such violent Revolutions That God changes times and seasons that he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings an ingenious Man must be hard put to it to say This is not meant of Usurpers but of Rightful and Legal Kings whereas if but one of these must be meant we must expound it of such Kings who ascend the Throne by Force and Usurpation and if when God is said to remove Kings he will allow this to be meant of Rightful Kings who were legally possessed I wonder how he should fancy that those Kings who dispossess the rightful Kings and place themselves in their Thrones should in his sense be legal and rightful Kings too My Testimony from the New-Testament is Rom. 13. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers for all power is of God Now by Powers our Author says I understand Vsurped as well as Lawful Powers I do so by Powers I understand the Powers in a setled Government whatever their Claim and Title be He says this is contrary to the current of all good Interpreters That I deny I have shewn him already that I have Mr. Calvin and Grotius on my side and the Convocation and if that will not satisfy him it is no hard matter to produce more My Reason he says is Because the Scripture makes no distinction between Kings and Vsurpers One of my Reasons is That the Scripture has given us no directions in this case but to submit and pay all the obedience of Subjects to the Present Powers It makes no distinction that ever I could find between rightful Kings and Vsurpers between Kings whom we must and whom we must not obey These last words he conceals because they Spoil all his Argument For he adds I thought the Case of Athaliah had been a distinction and had this precept been given in those days I wonder whether any body would have doubted of whom it ought to be understood of Athaliah or Joash But the Answer is plain There was a distinction between Athaliah and Ioash That She was an Usurper and He the Rightful King and I hope our Author had not that mean opinion of me to think that I made no distinction between an Usurper and a Rightful King with respect to their Usurpation and their Right but I say the Scripture makes no distinction between a Rightful King and an Usurper with respect to the Obedience of Subjects while they are setled in the Throne the Scripture does not tell us that there are some Kings whom we must obey and other Kings viz. Kings by Usurpation whom we must not obey And with reference to this the Case of Athaliah is no example of such a Distinction for the Iews were not forbid either by the standing Law of the Kingdom or by Iehoiada to submit to Athaliah while she was possessed of the Throne and Ioash was concealed but they actually submitted to her and are no where blamed for it That Iehoiada afterwards anointed Ioash and slew Athaliah was owing to the Divine Entail of the Crown and was peculiar to Iudah and affects no other Providential Kings who are setled in their Thrones So that had this Law been given to the Iews at that time while Ioash was concealed it must have been expounded of Athaliah who had possession of the Throne when Ioash was known and anointed it must have been expounded of him as having a Divine Right to the Throne of Iudah He proceeds But saith the Doctor if the Apostle had intended such a distinction he ought to have said it in express words and why so I pray I gave him a reason for it which he is pleased to conceal Why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown to Scripture had there been any such Rule before given to submit to Lawful Powers but not to submit to Vsurpers there had been some pretence of understanding St. Paul's All Power of all Legal Power but there being nothing like this any where else in Scripture if he had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of subjection to the Higher Powers only of Powers that had a Legal Right This I thought a very good reason and did not expect to have been asked for more till this had been answered But says our Author does not the nature of the thing sufficiently distinguish it The nature of the thing distinguishes between a Legal King and a Usurper but the nature of the thing does not prove that Usurped Powers are not the Higher Powers and ought not to be obeyed but I think proves the quite contrary But are there not several Rules about Right and Wrong which extend to all Persons and Cases Yes there are such is the Apostle's Rule in this Chapter to give to every one their due but then the Question returns What is their due Whether Obedience and Subjection be not due to the Prince who governs not to the Prince who does not and cannot govern whatever his Legal Right to the Government be But because this Argument of Right and our obligations to do right to every man especially to Princes is that whereon this Controversie turns I shall particularly but briefly consider it The Argument is this He who by the Laws of the Land has a right to the Crown has a right to our Allegiance and whether he be in or out of possession to own any other King to submit and pay Allegiance to any other though actually possessed of and setled in the Throne is great injustice to our natural Prince and a violation of that precept To give to every one their due And whatever force and necessity we are under we must not do so wicked and unjust a thing to preserve our selves nay to preserve the Nation
Laws of the Land whenever he will command things against Law and has power to crush us if we will not obey I will readily grant and so must he that it is our duty to do it but till he prove this he must not take it for granted there is such a Law and then we need dispute this matter no further at present But what he means by this Argument I cannot tell if he does think there is such a Law of God I suppose he intended in good earnest to prove that we must submit to the Arbitrary Will of our Prince against Law and to condemn the opposition that was made in the late Reign to such Arbitrary Proceedings if he did not believe there was any such Law of God how ridiculous was it to pretend that we must submit to Arbitrary Will and Power against Law because when the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God they are no Rule to us I shall only observe farther that our Authour charges me with saying in the Case of Resistance that this may easily be that a Prince in a limited Monarchy should resolve to be arbitrary when he has all the Power of the Kingdom in his hands and must not be resisted Whereas I bring this in by way of objection against Non-Resistance and only say it is possible but shew by several Arguments how difficult it is and that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance does not destroy the distinction between a limited and absolute Monarchy But at this rate he uses to cite Authours that unwary Readers will easily be imposed on if they give too much credit to him Thus I have particularly answered all the little appearances of Reason and Argument in the Postscript and made it appear that according to the Sense of the Convocation those Princes who have no legal Right may yet have God's Authority and have so when their Government is thoroughly setled And now had been the proper time to enquire what the Convocation meant by a thorough Settlement but he did not like this order and therefore chose to begin with the Notion of thorough Settlement for when once it had appeared that the Convocation spoke of the settlement of illegal Powers he must have been ashamed to have pretended that they meant a legal Settlement by acquiring a new legal Title either by the death or cession of the right Heirs or by a long Prescription I shall only add that when the Convocation speaks of a Settlement they mean the Settlement of the Government within it self not with respect to foreign Force and Power for so they express it when they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government amongst their own People and then the Government may be throughly setled within it self before it have a peaceable Possession and Settlement so Alexander's Authority was setled at Ierusalem before Darius was finally conquered and so are K. William and Q. Mary setled on the Throne notwithstanding all the expectations some have of a French Invasion and Conquest And since our Authour insists so much upon a legal Settlement Possession of the Throne with the Consent and Submission of the Estates of the Realm gives a legal Settlement in England if we will believe our best Iudges and Lawyers as I shall be inclined to do till I see a fair Answer to what I have said in this Cause in the Case of Allelegiance and then we have the opinion of our Lawyers for a Settlement and of the Convocation for Obedience to a setled Government For the Conclusion of his Answer he alledges the Authority of Bishop Andrews and Bishop Buckeridge two Members of this Convocation and of Dr. Iackson a very learned Divine against that sense we give of the Convocation The thing then he is to prove from these reverend and learned Men against our sense of the Convocation is this that those who ascend the Throne by Usurpation without a legal Right have not God's Authority and must not be obeyed and that such Princes can never in the sense of the Convocation be setled in their Thrones or have God's Authority till they gain some new legal Right by the Death or Cession of the rightful Prince or by a long Prescription Let us see then how he proves this to be the judgment of these Learned Men. Now what he quotes from B. Andrews has not one word of this matter The whole of it is no more but this that the Bishop will not allow the Name of King to any but Kings of lawful and true descent they are Kings the they reign not as Ioash was others are no Kings but Usurpers tho they reign as Athaliah did and what is this to the purpose Does not the Convocation allow Ioash to be the true Heir while he was kept from the Crown and Athaliah an Usurper tho she reigned Six Years Does not the Convocation call such Kings Kings de facto which is a little softer Name than Vsurper but signifies much the same thing viz. One who is possessed of the Throne without a legal Right And yet what the Convocation's Doctrin was about Obedience to such Kings I have already proved and Bishop Andrews might be of the same mind tho he would not allow them the Name of Kings But the Bishop will not allow that such Kings reigned by God Right but then he does not mean that such Kings do not exercise God's Authority but that God did not by his antecedent Will and Appointment place them on the Throne Thus S. Chrysostom on the 13. Rom. allows all Power and Authority to be of God and to be ordained by God and therefore not to be resisted whoever has it but yet will not say that all Princes who exercise this Power wickedly and tyrannically whatever their Title be are ordained of God He thought it a Reproach and Blemish to the goodness and justice of Providence to say that wicked impious tyrannical Princes were ordained by God but yet granted that the Authority they exercised was Gods and must be obeyed The Bishop and others will allow what S. Chrysostom would not That the most wicked Tyrants who have a legal Title to their Thrones are ordained by God but are afraid to own that Princes who ascend their Thrones by unjust and wicked means are set up by God but it does not hence follow that they denyed their Power and Authority to be Gods or that Subjects ought to obey it The Convocation it self affirms no more in that mighty place as our Authour calls it than that the Authority which is exercised in those Governments which begun by the Ambition of Princes or the Rebellion of Subjects is always God's Authority and therefore can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it and therefore must be obeyed So that Learned Men may differ in this Point whether illegal Usurpers are placed on the Throne by the over-ruling Counsels and Appointment of God or only by his permissive Providence
great question still remains whether Subjects may lawfully take Commissions from the dispossessed Prince to fight against the Prince who is settled in the Possession of the Throne this Dr. Iackson does not say and therefore he can do our Author no service His next citation from Dr. Iackson is the case of Jehoiada ' s Deposing of Athaliah urged by the Papists for the power of the Pope to depose Kings But this he has so shamefully mangled that a little discretion would have taught him rather to have left it out than to have betrayed so much dishonestly in his quotations I shall give the Reader the entire passage First Jehoiada in that he was High-Priest was a prime Peer in the Realm of Judah and invested with the power of Iurisdiction next in order and dignity to the Higher Power This our Author leaves out though very material because it shews by what Authority he did it as the Ordinary Supreme Magistrate in the vacancy of the Throne that is not merely in right of his Priesthood as the Papists pretended nor merely as a Subject but as being the Higher Power and Authority to whom the judgment of such matters belonged as he had observed before And this is the very account the Convocation gives of it that Iehoiada did this being the Kings Vncle and the chief Head and Prince of his Tribe that is not a private Subject but a chief Prince in the Kingdom of Iudah The Doctor proceeds Secondly The Power Royal or Supreme was by right by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God annexed unto the Infant Prince whom Jehoiada ' s Wife had saved from the Tyranny of Athaliah as being next Heir now alive unto David In the right of this Prince and for the actual annexion of the Supreme Power to his person unto whom it was de jure annexed Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy did by force and violence Depose her who had Usurpt the Royal Scepter by violence and cruel Murder of her Seed Royal. All these words in a different Character are left out by our Author and some of them very material ones especially those by the express Ordinance and positive Law of God and the next Heir now alive to David which plainly refers to the Divine entail on David's Family and distinguishes this from the case of other Usurpers which is the very account the Convocation gave of it as I shewed before and overthrows all that our Author has said about the case of Athaliah and for that reason he suppressed them as any one will easily guess Thus he leaves out Jehoiada being the chief Magistrate in the vacancy which shews this was an Act of Authority and Jurisdiction which private Subjects must not pretend to and therefore would not serve his purpose and I believe by this time he thinks he had better have let it all alone He concludes his Postscript with rage aud venom and I have no answer to that I have indeed changed my Opinion about the Authority of Usurpers who are setled in the Throne by the general consent and submission of the People and of the Estates of the Realm and I have Scripture and Reason the Authority of the Church of England and the Laws of the Land for any thing our Author has said to the contrary to justifie this change and I assure him I will change my Opinion in any thing else upon the same terms and despise his censures of my Honesty for doing so and as for Authority I never pretended to any my self and will never own any mans Authority much less my own Opinions in opposition to Scripture and Reason the Church of England and the Laws of the Land But what a charitable Opinion our Author has of the present Government and of all that comply with it we may see in the Parallel he makes between my case and that of Hazael as if swearing Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary were as great as notorious as self evident an impiety and wickedness as all the villanies which the Prophet Elisha foretold Hazael that he would be guilty of I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the Children of Israel their strong holds wilt thou set on fire and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword and wilt dash their children and rip up their women woth child But let our Author consider who are most likely to be guilty of these Villanies those who quietly submit to the Government which is now setled among us or those who are for overturning all by bringing in a French Power to devour and consume with Fire and Sword and to enslave their Native Country if this be Allegiance and Passive Obedience I am sure what our Author calls Perjury and Rebellion are the greater vertues As for his parting Request I do affirm it again That I never was factious against taking the Oaths nor made it my business to dissuade men from it when my Opinion was asked I declared my own thoughts but never sought out men to make Proselytes and in this Profession I am not afraid of his or any other mens memories so much as of their inventions for there are some great Wits among them Let them produce the man if they can whom I endeavoured to dissuade by word or writing from taking the Oaths where my Opinion was not first asked and if my Opinion had any Authority with them then our Author knows it is more than it ought to have had and that was none of my fault unless he means that my Authority was considerable against taking the Oath but none for it which is the way that all Parties and Factions judge of mens Authorities But though our Author seems very well acquainted with the thing called Faction yet he is not willing to understand the word and therefore I must tell him that when I say I was never factious against the Oath I do not mean that I was never hearty and zealous against taking the Oath for I hope there may be Zeal without Faction or that when I was pressed to discourse the matter I did not talk with as much Warmth and Concernment as other Men. But Faction is quite another thing it shews it self in Separations and Schisms in Rancour and Bitterness Envyings and Emulations in violent Oppositions to Government in changing and confining Friendships with a Party in Censures and Reproaches in stigmatizing all Persons of another Perswasion as perjur'd Knaves whereas tho there had been a material Perjury a different Opinion may excuse from formal Perjury for no Man is formally perjured who does not know it I shall not explain this by Instances for if our Author is for writing Secret Histories I am not so at present And now I am at leisure to attend his motions and to consider his threatned examination of all my arguments whenever his due time for it comes and if he will promise to examine them well before he answers I shall