other Country for the same reason But here the Dr. shifts and tells us that the Dispute about the Authority and Obligation of Humane Laws is impertinent to the purpose but gives no reason except his saying for no man deny it be a reason he says after that the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and Divine and Humane Entails are of a very different nature And it may be so or it may not be so for any thing he hath said for his comparing a Divine and Humane Entail makes no difference in that particular but this is trifling and amusing not answering The single Question is whether they are Laws or no Laws and are to be consider'd as such is a Humane Entail the Law of an Hereditary Kingdom and does it oblige as such Then if other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their Laws as the people of Judah were theirs it plainly follows that Usurpation cannot be admitted against a Legal Right in other Kingdoms any more than it could in the Kingdom of Judah But this is impertinent to the purpose i. e. to the Drs. purpose The Dr. goes on This discovers the fallacy of what he adds We do not oppose Humane 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 Well! This I said and where is the fallacy Now saith he I would ask the Author whether the Laws of England which entail the Crown are not Humane Laws To which I answer yes and moreover they bind in Conscience with respect to the Laws of God But I cannot tell what the Dr. will call them whether Providential Settlements or Providences for it seems they have no influence on the Peoples Subjection otherwise than as they are Providences and not as Laws backt with God's Authority But saith he if they be I ask whether they do not oppose these Humane Laws to the Authority of God in making Kings by his Providence I answer no for God makes Kings by his Providence according to Legal Right But it is another Question Whether an Usurper possessed of the Throne by Providence be a King of God's making or be made a King by God's Authority And the Question as the Drs. puts it is Sophistical he mixes and confounds what ought to be divided Whether Kings are made by God's Authority and whether they are made by Providence are two Questions which he makes one when Kings are made according to Legal Right they are made by God's Authority for the Laws have God's Authority But that a Providential Possession of the Throne is God's Authority or that a Person so possessed is made a King by God's Authority is that which the Dr. hath not yet and I suppose will not be able to prove The Dr. adds to avoid this he will not call them Humane Laws but Laws made by God's Authority To avoid what That Sophistical Question before I never so much as thought of it And I do not see how I should for it affects nothing that I have said And now I do know it I do not see any such strength in it as will need any Art or Pains to avoid it But to save him further trouble I will tell him all the design I had in saying the Laws were made by God's Authority was only to shew the obligation of Humane Laws that they bound in Conscience and were a Rule to us and which Providence was not and therefore all the pains the Dr. takes to prove that Humane Laws are not Divine Laws concerns not me at all nor the Question He disputes only against his own fancy and therefore I shall not trouble the Reader with that but go on to the next Well! saith he but these Laws are our Rule They are so when they are not over-ruled by a Superiour Authority P. 44. but that they may be by the Authority of God Very true But are the Acts or Permissions of Providence that Authority of God that over-rules the Laws Divine Laws are under God's Authority as well as Humane Laws and may be over-ruled by him when he please But that is no proof that Acts of Providence over-rule them And the Question is not whether God's Authority may over-rule Humane Laws but whether by meer Providence he doth over-rule them and till God doth over-rule them they are our Rule And the Providence of God is not our Rule Well this I said To this he replyes if by this he means 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 what ever the Providence of God does I grant it For the Laws of God are the Rules of Good and Evil not his Providence Very well We must not think it lawful to do whatsoever the Providence of God does but may we think it lawful to do any thing that the Providence of God does as it is meerly an Act of Providence in opposition to a plain and known Rule allow'd and authoriz'd by God himself as is the Case of Humane Laws This is the single point But let us see what a kind of Rule the Dr. makes of Providence But saith he if he means the Providence of God cannot direct our duty cannot lay some new obligations on us and discharge the old ones this is manifestly false in a thousand instances What does Providence do this as a Rule That is the Question And I doubt to make it out that we must have a new notion of a Rule as we have had of Providence and a through Settlement What if Providence direct our duty it does not make it but the duty is to be measured by the Rule and not by Providence What if Providence layes new obligations on us and discharges the old ones the obligation and the discharge too are to be taken from the Rule and not from Providence and we are not to practise by Providence but by the Rule And if Providence be contrary to the Rule it directs no duty nor lays any new obligations nor discharges the old ones Except it be quite contrary to the Drs. meaning if a man by Providence usurps another mans possession all the Duty Providence directs to and all the obligation it lays is to have justice done and the possession restor'd to the right owner So that I doubt the Drs. thousand instances will come very short and what are those Instances Every new Condition Providence puts us in every new Relation it creates it requires some duties and lays some new obligations on us And what then Is Providence the Rule of those duties or those obligations This is manifestly false or is Providence the Rule of that Condition or of that new Relation This is manifestly false also Suppose Providence puts a man into a state of sufferings or into a state of plenty or any other state the justice or injustice of these sufferings or prosperity c.
consersu These Examples says he are nothing to the purpose for these Governments were in their infancy scarcely constituted and confirmed c. And then immediately adds Governments indeed acquir'd by the Right of War by Prescription usually become lawful Imperia vero jure belli acquisita c. but in the Tribe of Judah the Kingdom by the appointment and promise of God belong'd to the male Heir of David 's line and the chief Priest Nobles and People could not transfer it and it had been impiety in them to have confirm'd Athal by consenting to her noâ— was it in their power or consent to neglect or laâ— aside the Heir of David and put these together Governments indeed acquir'd by the Right of War became lawful by Prescription but in Judah the Peoples consent signified nothing And what is this but Prescription joyn'd with the Peoples Consent nay he expresly joyns them in the Sentence immediately following Praescriptio Consensus Regni And is there a Disjunctive too The whole Sentence is Electio senatus populique vel Exercitus Praescriptio Consensus Regni P. 922. sive Reipublicae quae in aliis regnis Electivis aut nondum constitutis aut jure belli acquisitis locum habere possunt in Regnum Judae locum non habent In which short Sentence there are no less than four Disjunctives and what fair reason can be given why this only should be express'd by a Conjunctive except he had intended it should also be understood in a conjunctive sense So that if the â—octor had considered the whole of what I had cited and the place I had refer'd to he might have saved the trouble of crying out of prevaricating and corrupting But why did not I express this And what then must a man corrupt an Author because he does not cite his words tho he gives his sense But the reason was because it was not at all to the purpose for which I cited the Bishop My end was to shew against the Author of the Pamphlet that his Notion of a Thorough Settlement was inconsistent with the Sense and Doctrine of Bishop Buckeridge And therefore all the conclusion I draw from thence is this That the Author's full possession of Dignities Prerogatives c. to which our Allegiance is due is a Notion that before now never saw the light among the true sons of the Church of England Now that Author had said nothing of the Peoples Consent and I was not concern'd to obviate a Notion which the Author with whom I had to deal had not mention'd nor insisted on And that Answer was out of my hands and gone to the Press before the Doctor 's Case of Alleg. came abroad and his new business of the Peoples Consent took vent And I dare be bold to say that that Author nor any man else of the Church of England ever thought of it before except it had been with thoughts of abhorrence for 't is a Notion with a Commonwealth in the belly on 't and plainly centers in Commonwealth Principles for if the Consent of the People can make Allegiance become a duty contrary to Laws and Oaths their Dissent may make it no duty contrary to the same Laws and Oaths If their Consent can make one King or which is the same thing make their Allegiance due to him when by the Laws and their Oaths they have obligations to another they may make or unmaker Kings as often as they please for their consenting to one is the discharging another and at length all the business of Governments will be resolv'd into the Peoples Consent But to return But does not the Bishop say That Athaliah had not acquir'd a Right to the Crown neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six years Right but what follows is not so which shews what his judgment was that such an Usurper as Athaliah might acquire a Right to the Crown either by the Consent of the People or long Continuance Bellarmine indeed had objected That Athaliah's Government was approv'd by the Peoples Consent and that she had reigned quietly six years And the Bishop answers she had acquir'd a Right neither by the Consent of the People nor by Prescription But it does not follow that therefore he thought the Consent of the People in such a case as Athaliah's where the right Heir was in being and claiming would make a Right He proves indeed they did not consent because they ought not to have consented which is both against Bellarmine and against the Doctor and one of his Reasons is That Jehoiada had been a Traitor to the heir of the Crown and to the King himself And the Reason he gives of that is and let the Doctor observe it Filius enim in regnis haereditariis in â—â—so instanti articulo mortis paternae rex est ipso jure ipso facto p. 920. For in hereditary Kingdoms in the very instant and moment of his Fathers death the son is King ipso jure ipso facto He seems indeed to argue from Bellarmines Principles and sarcastically returns them upon him siccine vero is it so indeed What is the reason then that so soon as they hear of the then King Joash they so easily and so unanimously conspire against Athaliah Had they no scruple of Conscience no remorse to betray her whom by their own free Consent they had made their lawful Queen And it is demonstration that the Bishop answers upon supposition only and not upon his own Principles as if he had thought the Consent of the People in such a case would have made a lawful Prince and have convey'd a Right and Title to the Government for he expresly says in this very Case p. 922 That the Consent of the Kingdom in the Doctor 's phrase a National Consent had no place in the Kingdom of Judah and upon this occasion delivers a Doctrine in general concerning hereditary Kingdoms The Priests In vero rege haereditario declarando inaugurando potestatem habent sacerdotes Proceres populus at jus Regni confert deus natura non Respublica p. 923. Nobles and People have a power in declaring and inaugurating the true King but God and Nature confer the Right to the Government and not the Commonwealth Which is a sufficient evidence what the Bishops judgment was in this point and that his judgment was not as the Doctor says that such an Usurper as Athaliah might acquire a Right to the Government by the consent of the People But suppose it was What service would that do the Doctor the Doctor 's own iudgment is otherwise If the Bishop did think that an Usurper might acquire a Right by the consent of the People the Doctor thinks he is mistaken And how can such an instance if it were true serve his purpose But the Doctor is for drawing the conclusion without admitting the Premises nay he is for drawing the same conclusion from
thoughts Why did not be produce any one Doctrine or oâ—e Expression of mine that tended that way There is one small reason for it because he could not I have nothing to say to the ingenuity of such a practice let the Dr. satisfie himself about that as well as he can But when he is so hard put to it to discharge his account of Providence from justifying an unreasonable and impious Doctrine when he hath not answer'd any one of my Arguments nor so much as offer'd at them as we shall see presently in the very same case to â—all a recriminating and crying out of disâ—â—â—â—ving and riâ—iâ—uâ—ing Providence is a strain of Bâ—llinâ—gaâ—e Logick and nothing else but out-facing an Argument instead or answering it And this will be yet more plain when we see his Reason For says he let me ask him this God in the Kâ—â—â—s in England or not But how comes this Question to prove that 〈◊〉 or â—iâ—â—cuâ—â— Providence For it is brought â—or th t â—â—â—son if his Particle For means any thing And if the proof depends upon answering this Question the Dr. should have â—â—id a little before he had told me what some people will suspect except those people would suspect also what I would answer And then I do not know how far a previous suspition may justifie the charge of a future fact or because the Dr suspected that I would give an â—pâ—curean Ignorant or Atheistical Answer therefore to fave further trouble and to dispatch the business all at once he might charge â—â—e with not understanding or ridiculing Prov dence by way of anticipation He goes on iâ— He does God makes Kings in England 〈◊〉 which I hope our Author will grant or he renounces the Jure Divino with a witness and is that such a business Why may not a man renounce the Jure Divino as well as Legal Powers Pref. to Case of Alleg. if there be occasion is any man forbid to grow wiser and to alter his mind when he sees good reason for it Methinks be might let renouncing alone but if God does make Kings in England how does he make them he sends no Prophets among us to anoint Kings But to save him the trouble of any more Questions I answer tho God sends no Prophets he sends Laws among us to tell us whom he hath appointed to reign over us God doth not govern mankind like Beasts in a Desert where every thing is Prey and Possession but by the Rules of Society which confine and determine Property and fix the bounds of it And it would be a wise Question to ask How does God make a man a Right Possessor of an Estate in England He does it by his Providence but it is according to Laws How did God make Kings in Judah after he had entayl'd the Crown why he made them by his Providence but it was according to that entail and so in other Kingdoms God makes Kings and private Proprietors by his Providence but it is according to the standards of Right and Justice that are fix'd and setled among men and authoriz'd and confirm'd by God himself and by the express declarations of his will And whatsoever exceeds and is contrary to these is Invasion and Wrong Robbery and Rapine expresly disallow'd and forbid by God himself And to say God gives by his Providence what he forbids by his Revealed Will is an Impious Doctrine and justifies my charge against the Drs. interpretation that it makes Providence a Rule of Practice against Right and Justice And a man may as well say that God gave to Adam and Eve the forbidden fruit tho he forbid them upon pain of Death to eat of it because all Events are by Providence and they were permitted by Providence to take it And this answers what follows Suppose says he a Prince ascends the Throne by the most unjust force and ungodly arts P. 59. who places such a Prince on the Throne if God don't Our Author according to his Principles must answer that by God's permission he usurps the Throne but is no King much less a King of God's making well let him call him what he please it seems a Prince may ascend the Throne and govern a Kingdom for many years without God's Authority and then I desire to know whether God rules in such a Kingdom while an Vsurper fills the Throne I say yes God does govern by his Providence but not by communicating his Authority to the Usurper And what does the Dr. think of those times of Usurpation in this Kingdom between 48 and 60 Did God govern in the Kingdom of England all those 12 years or not And therefore what he says for indeed will any man say that God governs such a Kingdom as is not govern'd by his Authority or Minister is perfect fallacy by his own Principles for he himself says it and I ask him had the Rump or Cromwell God's Authority or not If they had then four or five Leaves of his Book and his account of their not being settled and all that he says on that Head is meer trifle and contradicts what he says here For if they had God's Authority they ought to be obey'd and no pretences of Loyalty could excuse it But if not then God may govern a Kingdom when those persons who actually govern for many years have not his Authority nor yet are his Ministers otherwise than as the Devil and wicked men are Ministers to execute the designs of his Providence but not as deriving any Authority from him or thereby claiming any Right by vertue of their Actual or Providential Government And thus his following Question is answer'd Does Providence and Government signifie only his permission that God looks on and sees men snatch at Crowns and take them and keep them and exercise an Authority which he who is universal Lord of the world never gave them Now here is a large compass and if the Drs. Argument signified any thing it would prove that all the Sinful Events that ever were or shall be in the world have God's Authority respectively annex'd to them for if it does follow that because Providence and Government do not signifie permission that because God does not meerly look on the affairs of the world therefore whatever Authorities and Powers men snatch and exercise and keep God who is the universal Lord of the World gives them Then it plainly follows that whatever Powers men have and whatever Possessions or Goods they snatch or keep tho never so unjustly they are all the Gifts of God and there is a Right and Property in them deriv'd from the Universal Lord of the World But to our Instance And then the Rump and Cromwell and the High Court of Justice exercis'd God's Authority and Charles the First was murder'd and his Son rob'd of his Crown by God's Authority For Providence and Government signified the same in those days as they do now And I wonder what the peoples consent signifies
Bedlam and Madness the Dr. means only moral madness a new sort of Madness to agree with a moral Incapacity which consists in vitious absurd and unreasonable Opinions And then I hope it may not be so utterly impossible but a wise and grave Convocation may take them into consideration I confess I then did not nor yet do think them otherwise than very foul and unreasonable Opinions but for all that I do not think but that Governments may and actually have been disturb'd by them let the Dr. wonder as much as he please For there are no Opinions so wild especially in matters of Government but what have always had too many Followers But to let that matter alone let us inquire into the Opinion whether there were not then or since such Opinions in the world that plainly centred in this That Governours were resistable because they could not derive their Government from Adam or Noah or by Gods express nomination and I shall leave it with him whether such a Notion did or can disturb any Government What does he think of the Original Power of the People and Government being nothing else but compact This is always finally resolved into this for when the Advocates of that Opinion are urg'd with the patriarchal Authority with the Authority of Noah and which was deriv'd to his Children and with Gods express nomination which they neither can nor do deny that in these cases Government did not proceed from the People The Answer always is Let them shew their descent from Noah or Gods express nomination and then they shall be allow'd to have the same Authority Their present Maj. Gov. proved to be throly setled p. 8. And there is an Author who hath published a Book since the Doctor 's Vindication and it seems design'd in defence of him who expresses it thus I suppose all Civil Governments must have their Original either from Submission or from Paternal Authority because no Prince living can make good his claim as the direct their from Noah So that Government being founded in compact is always defended by such Reasonings and is always ultimately resolv'd into it and whether that be a notion fit only for a Mad mans head I must leave to the Doctor 's own determination But to seek no farther the Dr. himself hath said enough of all Conscience in this point for to clear his own Hypothesis he tells us concerning prescription That how long soever it is Vindic. p. 7. Case of Alleg. p. 23 24. it is Usurpation still That natural Authority Paternal and Patriarchal is so sacred that no man hath Authority to give it away that if choice and consent of the People makes a Prince no man is a Subject but who consents to be so and if Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away that if Conquest gives a Right then force the most unjust force is Right that submission is only a forc'd and after consent not to make a King but to own him who hath made himself King that an hereditary Right is either Usurpation which can give no Right or a Right by Law i. e. by the consent of the People which as he says be observed before could not be done Now let us suppose there are men who maintain these Arguments and Reasonings and the Dr. knows this is no such wild supposition let us suppose likewise that they do not believe the Doctor 's Hypothesis and without any great venture a man may suppose that a thousand to one does not and it is plain that all those who use these very arguments for Resistance do not and then we are come to this very point before us for every one of these Arguments are finally resolved into this that Princes are not irresistible because they cannot derive their Governments from Noah nor pretend to God's express nomination so that the Doctor of all men hath the least reason to wonder who hath taken such mighty pains to display all the rebellious Hypotheses which stand purely upon this bottom And in truth these very Opinions and Arguments excepting our own and the age before us never swarm'd more than in the time that Convocation sat and there is abundance of this fine Doctrine in Junius Brutus in a book de jure Magistratus in subditos in Parsons on the Succession and Buchanan de jure regni and some of them are collected by Archbishop Bancroft in his dangerous positions who was the most reverend President of this Convocation And all these were published not long before they far And therefore it was no such great break as the Doctor imagines to think the Convocation had a direct respect to these rebellious Principles which at that time pester'd the world But the Doctor says whereas the difficulties occasioned by the changes and revolutions of Government especially when a rightful Prince is dispossess'd and another setled in the throne are very great and worthy of the determination of a Convocation to direct mens Consciences in such cases Well! but suppose these great and worthy businesses which the Doctor hath written two books about the Convocation thought them to be mere Bedlam Principles and which no man in his right mind would ever have disputed must they needs determine it because the Doctor thinks it worthy of them There was some reason for the other for Junius Brutus c. were rise in the world but the Doctor 's Case of Alleg. and Vindication had not then seen the light But the truth is they have determined this point sufficiently in the Case of Joash and Athaliah and in this Chapter too and the Question between us is Whether the sense that I have given or the sense which the Doctor hath given is their Determination and I am content as the Doctor says to let every one judge which is the most probable account 2. His second Reason is When the Convoc speaks of the settlement of illegal powers which began by Ambition and Rebellion it is manifestly unreasonable unless it had been express'd to expound this of a legal Settlement by acquiring a new legal Right Settlement I grant as our Author says is a Term of Law and used by Lawyers of a legal Settlement and must always in reason be understood so in Law when the contrary is not expressed but yet a firm and stable possession without Right must be confess'd to be a Settlement too tho not a rightful Settlement I suppose our Author will not deny but that the Government was setled in fact under the three Henries tho in his sense it was not a legal Settlement I answer the Dr. plainly begs the Question for saith he When the Convocation speaks of the Settlement of illegal Powers and when is that I wonder When does the Convoc speak of any such Settlement That is the main Question which the Dr. will take for granted but will not and I believe cannot prove it and yet for all that he not only builds upon it
then I doubt half the former part of his book will come to nothing for I had asserted that all the Governments the Convocation requires and justifies obedience to had acquir'd such a Right which the Dr. does not disprove but falls a distinguishing between the Laws of Nature Nations and a new Law never heard of before the Law of force which it seems does more than all other Laws for it cancels the obligation of them all And then tells me upon these terms he may agree with me Vindic. p. 16. whereas now he hath agreed the point upon my own terms and so hath confuted all that he said before for if a Legal Right to a Government by those means may be acquir'd if all the Governments the Convocation justifies obedience to had such a Right if all the Governments they justifie the resistance of had not such a Right then the distinction is between Right and no Right and then by a thorough Settlement they do mean the acquisition of a Legal Right and cannot mean usurped Powers which according to the Dr. himself have no Legal Right if men understand themselves tho perhaps they may have something or other no body knows what by the Laws of Nature Nations or Force 2. The Dr. says the Convocation does not offer to justifie the proceedings of Jehoiada and the People against Athaliah by saying that the Right Heir of the Kingdom was alive Now the Dr. tells me that because I had said this I make very bold with the Convocation and I shall leave it with the Reader who makes more bold with the Convocation I that had said they give that as a Reason to justifie the proceedings or the Dr. who says they do not In this Chapter after having recited the Usurpation of Athaliah the preservation of the Rightful Prince the Subjects owning anointing him and deposing and slaying Athaliah add in all the process of which action nothing was done either by Jehoiada the High Priest or by the Rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands And to this they add immediatly Joash their late Kings Son being then their only natural Lord and Sovereign altho Athaliah kept him for six years from the Possession of his Kingdom And if they do not give this as the reason of the whole I wish the Dr. would tell me what they give it for But says the Dr. they only prove by this that She was an Vsurper who had no Legal Right to the Throne the Right Heir being living Now it is certain that this proved her an Usurper but did not the Divine Entail prove her an Usurper also that surely is the direct proof of it and the ground and reason why the other proves it The same Law that declared the Right to be in Joash declared Athaliahs to be Usurpation And why I wonder should the Right Heirs being living any more declare that She had no Legal Right to the Throne than the Entail of the Crown did and when his being alive and being their natural Prince declared it so only by virtue of that Entail And I desire the Dr. to tell me how Joash's being alive prov'd Athaliah to be an Usurper any otherwise than that the Crown of Judah was entail'd on David's posterity But then what means this trifling nicety why truely the Dr. was afraid least his beloved Usurpation should suffer And therefore adds that he believes I will own that they are two very different Questions whether such a Prince be an Vsurper and whether he may be depos'd and murdered murdered is a very hard word and I do not care to meddle with it the Convocation calls it slaying and I think with the Drs. leave there is some difference between slaying and murdering and a little more than there is between the Right of an Heir and the Entail that makes that Right But to gratifie him I do own that whether a Prince be an Usurper and whether he may be deposed and slain are two different Questions but I say likewise that whether an Usurper may be deposed and slain when the Right Heir is living is but one Question and such a Question too as the Convocation makes no difficulty to answer nor any Auâ—hor of note that I have met with besides in any Age who as far as my reâ—ding serves Civilians Historians Divines have all unanimously asserted that an Usurper may be deposed and let any man consult Barclay Roffensis Bishop Abbot Sulitiffe Widdring ton or any other Author that answers Bellarmin with respect to this instance and he will find that â—he Reason they all give to justifie Athaliahs deposing was that She was an Usurper And here I shall renew my request to the Dr. and desire him to shew me any one approved Author of any Age that ever asserted that Tyrannus sine Titulo might not be depos'd or if he cannot do it himself that he will request that learned Pen he tells me of that is to inform me of the sense of the Primitive Christians for it is no great credit to this Doctrine that it hath had no better Patrons than Goodwin Jenkins c. and only trump'd up to serve the vilest purposes and from that time to this hath not had one single Assertor 'till it is now transmigrated to Dr. Sherlock I had further said that the Convocation thought of no such difference but that a thorough Settlement of a Government and tho attained by the same ill means was the same thing and had God's Authority in Judah as well as any other Nation as in the instances of the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans whose Government over the Jews was not attained by honester means than Athaliahs and was as much contrary to the Entail upon David's house as hers and yet they justifie and require obedience to them but justifie the slaying of her and therefore it is plain that by a thorough Settlement they do not mean a full Possession of Power for what the Dr. hath left out Athaliah had as full Possion of Power in the Kingdom of Judah as had the Babylonians Macedonians or Romans nor do they reckon God's Entail upon David's posterity any ground of difference in this matter for the Government of Judah by the Babylonians was as much contrary to that Entail as the Government of Athaliah Now saith the Dr. all this is answer'd in one word The Entail God made upon David 's posterity did always oblige the Jews when they were at their own choice and had power enough to take the King on whom God had entail'd the Crown which was evidently their case when Jehoiada anointed Joash and slew Athaliah but when they were under force as they were under the Babylonians Macedonians and Romans no Entail tho made by God himself could bind them And then I hope it will be granted that no Humane Entails can bind any People who are under force if a Divine Entail cannot do it
tho he be violently torn from his Subjects for the respect is mutual and the King hath no more Relation to the Subject then the Subject to the Prince But this same actual Administration serves many purposes In the Case of Allegiance it was a Relative a little before it was the Relation that made the Relative and now it is Fundamentum Relationis And what will it be next In the Case of Allegiance it was as certain as any proposition in Logick that Actual Administration of Government and Allegiance were Relatives and did mutuo se ponere tollere three pages before it was as certain as any proposition in Logick that they were Relations and did the same thing and now 't is as certain as any proposition in Logick that actual Administration does all the mutual business it self And it is as certain as any Proposition in Logick that when men leave the plain and beaten paths they get into a wood and know not how to get out again And now it is time to come to his Answer and when he had made us say what he pleas'd and tells us moreover we must say so one would have thought that at least he should have answered that But he will not vouchsafe any clear and plain answer to his own objection For to a Legal Right being the Fundamentum Relationis He thus answers Now to shorten this dispute P. 39. I shall only observe that a Legal Hereditary Right is not the Fundamentum Relationis And what then Legal Right may be the Foundation for all that There are different kinds of Legal Right and an Hereditary Right is one the objection is general of a Legal Right and the Answer is special of one of the Species But let us hear his reason for then there would be no Foundation for this Relation between Prince and Subjects in any but Hereditary Kingdoms and why so are there no Legal Rights to Government in any but Hereditary Kingdoms and may not an Hereditary Right in Hereditary Kingdoms be the Foundation of the Relation not as 't is Hereditary but as 't is Legal and other Legal Rights be the Foundation in other Kingdoms But saith he the same Râ—â—â—â—tion can have but one Foundation very well and then an Hereditary Right cannot be the Foundation but a Legal Right may For the Foundation may be one as 't is Legal tho divers as 't is Hereditary or Elective But saith he there are a great many ways whereby Princes are advanced to the Throne an Hereditary Right the Election of the People the nomination of God a Divine Entail and Conquest which very much differ from each other And what if they do differ in other respects They may not differ as to their being Legal for a Prince advanced to the Throne any of these ways or any other may have a Legal Possession of it And we are not now disputing when Conquest becomes a Legal Title But if all these be different foundations there must be different kinds and species of Kingship That may very well be though not because the foundations are different in this respect Different Laws and Constitutions may make different kinds of Government though all these kinds are Legal according to the differing Laws of the respective Countries And I wonder what the Doctor means when he immediatly adds whereas the Relation between King and Subject is the same in all Now he tells us that Government is the Relation of a King and Allegiance the Relation of a Subject and if the Relation be the same in all Countries then Government and Allegiance are the same in all Countries And that is that the Government and Allegiance in Poland is the same Government and Allegiance with that in England and both the same with that in Turkey and all three the same all over the World Now I always thought that the English Government and the English Allegiance were founded on the English Laws and Constitution as the Government and Allegiance in other Countries were founded on their respective Laws And then the foundation of the Relation between Prince and Subject is the respective Constitution of each Country which though they differ specifically as they are different Laws yet they agree in the general as they are Laws Now saith the Doctor we must find out such a foundation for this Relation as will serve all Sovereign Princes very well and here we have found it and that is the Laws of each Country But this will not serve the Doctor and therefore he says and that can be no other but the Authority of God by which Kings Reign and to which Subjects owe Obedience Very well and grant him that too the Question still returns Is the Authority of God the foundation of this Relation abstracted from the Laws of each Country or annexed to them if abstracted from the Laws then Government and Allegiance are the same in all Countries for where the foundation of the Relation and the Relation are the same the Government constituted upon that foundation and the duties flowing from that relation are the same likewise But if they are not the same as 't is plain they are not then whence arises the difference not from the authority of God abstracted from Laws for that is the same in all Countries but from the different Laws and then the Authority of God is the foundation of this Relation as that Authority is annexed to the respective Laws of each Country there is a plain difference in this matter all over the World and Subjects in one Country are bound in Conscience to observe Duties of Relation differing to what Subjects are bound in another and let the Doctor if he can give any other reason for it The Doctor indeed tells us that this is not always annexed to a Legal Right but is always annexed to a full and setled possession of the Throne No man can have God's Authority who has not the actual Power and Authority of Government But this is gratis dictum and if the Doctor will give me leave I should rather believe that God's Authority was with King Charles the Second in banishment than with Cromwell who was possess'd of his Throne for God's Authority is the Authority of Government it is so but it is the Authority of a Legal Government illegal Government is no more God's Authority than Injustice and Unrighteousness are God's Laws But when Princes fall from Government i. e. when they cannot actually govern so far they lose God's Authority but that does not follow for God's Authority is annex'd to the lawful Governors in and out of Possession as it was to Joash David and King Charles tho each of them was hindred from actual Administration by the respective Usurpers that possess'd their Thrones The Doctor adds I grant in all other Relations where the Relation it self does not consist in the Authority of Government nor the foundation of the Relation cease by falling from the actual Authority of Government
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 Here the Doctor tells me I mistake the 〈◊〉 of his Distinction and the substance of what he says is Which was not to prove that the Subjects mi ht not submit to any other providential Kings when there was no King by such Entail or no such King was known but it wâ—â— to shew that when God nominated a new King or discovered the right Heir the Reign of such providential Kings was at an end and the Subjects may and ought to depose or kill them that is to say they ought to be kill'd for being God's providential Kings for that is the Crime and I would fain have the Doctor tell me how Gods gift becomes a criminal and capital Offence God makes them Kings and they ought to be knocked on the head for being so for what are they to be kill'd for but their Usurpation and it is a pretty odd reason that a man ought to be put to death because God hath made him a King and given him his Authority Their knowing the right Heir makes no difference for tho that may justifie the deposing the Usurper because there is a better Right to the Crown yet what justifies the slaying him for so long as he possesses the Throne long or short as God pleases as the Doctor says Case of Alleg p. 26. yet so long as he possesseth it he has a Right from God and a providential Title But then why would not God's Right as well save his life as justifie his Government Vindic. p. 30. The Doctor says indeed that Whatever Authority Athaliah had before when Joash was anointed she sunk into the state of Subject and then to kill her was not to kill a Queen de facto but a Subject who had been an Usurper but now was a Subject again Right but was it not to kill her for having been a Queen de facto i. e. for having a Right and Authority from God to govern Judah for six years but saith the Doctor and therefore no Fidelity add Allegiance was due to her And what then May every Subject be kill'd because no Fidelity and Allegiance is due to them According to him they ow'd her Fidelity and Alleg. when she administred the Government And it is a strange Reason that they ought to kill her for that very thing for which they ow'd her Fidelity and Alleg. Will the same thing deserve Death and Alleg. too nay will it deserve Death for the same Reason for which it deserv'd Alleg. i. e. the possession of the Throne But to return The â—octor pretends to make a mighty difference as to the use of his distinction in their having no King by God's Entail or their not knowing of such a King whereas this neither concerns the Case of Joash and Athaliah Joash was their King by such Entail and the Doctor justifies the submission of Jehoiada who knew of such a King notwithstanding his Distinction and the use he would make of it Nor does it affect the Case in dispute for who doubts but Subjects may submit to the Possessor if they have no legal King or know of none but the Question is Whether they may lawfully do the same when they have a rightful King and know it and whether a humane Entail does not make a rightful King in other Kingdoms as well as a divine Entail did in the Kingdom of Judah and consequently whether Subjects in other Kingdoms can lawfully submit and own the Authority of an Usurper when the right Heir is living and known any more than they could do so in the same circumstances in the Kingdom of Judah And that they cannot I think I have sufficiently prov'd and let us see what the Doctor says to disprove it My reason was For 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 Judah were theirs All humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience and according to the Doctor 's own Principles those 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 entail'd 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 Country Thus far the Doctâ—r hath repeated but there is something else that I added which is both a proof and illustration of this matter and which iâ— seems the Doctor did not care to meddle with And it is this Postscript p. 10. King Charles the Second had as good a Right to the Crown of England as Joash had to that of Judah and Cromwell 's Usurpation was no more a bar to him nor gave him by his pâ—ssession of the Throne any more Right to our Alleg. than Athaliah 's was against Joash or than her possession gave her a Right to the Alleg. of the People of Judah This I thought was a pertinent Example to illustrate and confirm the truth of what I have said and perhaps the Doctor thought so too and therefore let it alone This to my Understanding which the Doctor is satisfied is not very good would have brought the controversie home Vindic. p. 71. and if the Doctor would have answered directly he must either have asserted that King Charles had not as good a Right to the Crown of England as Joash had to that of Judah or else he must have forsaken his Distinction and I now give him notice of it and desire him in his next to give me a plain and categorical Answer to it In the mean time let us consider what Answer he hath made to so much as he hath taken notice of but here he is at the old trade again of asking twenty Questions instead of answering one But saith he 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 Judah and did I ever deny it No Sir you did not deny it in direct terms but you have done as good as deny it for you allow he hath a legal Right still but then it seems it is such a Right as those Persons who next to himself are most concern'd in it are bound to keep him from it for what legal Right hath a King of any Kingdom but by the Laws of that Kingdom and whom do the Laws of that Kingdom respect but the People of that Kingdom and if the People who are under the immediate direction of those Laws are bound to do him no Right nay are bound
to oppose it then he can have no Right done him by vertue of the Laws that give him his Right and that I think is equivalent to no Right at all The Doctor in his Case of Alleg. gives a pleasant account of this matter P. 26. He tells us That God's Providence in setting up an Usurper does not divest the dispossessed Prince of his legal Right nor forbid him to recover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligations to the Prince in possession to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his legal Right That is to say a Foreigner who is not concern'd in the Laws of the Country may do the Prince Justice according to the tenor of these Laws when the Kingdom whose Laws they are are in Justice and Conscience bound to the contrary The Prince hath his legal Right by the Laws of the Land and the People are under the direction and obligation of the Laws of the Land And if the Laws have any effect in all reason it must be on the People whose Laws they are and it is unaccountable how a Stranger may justly give the Prince his Right according to the Laws of the Land and yet the People whose Laws they are cannot in justice do it nay are bound in conscience to hinder it as much as they are able it is as much as to say that a Judge and Jury whose proper business it is ought not to do Right to the oppressed but the Mob or any body else may justly do it I know an injur'd Prince may crave aid of a Foreigner and he may justly assist him but it is in those cases only where his Subjects are bound to do him Right but will not But I would fain know how it is righteous in a Foreigner to do Right according to the Law of the Land and yet unrighteous in the People to do it nay very righteous to oppose it But the Doctor hath given us such a Legal Right that never was heard of A Right in Fiction and in nubibus which neither hath nor can be executed by vertue of the Laws nor the Provisions it makes The Law makes a Right and every person within the compass and extent of those Laws is bound to oppose it but any body else who is out of the bounds and power of the Law may honestly effect it in short it is such a legal Right which is under the cognizance of foreign force but out of the notice power or obligation of the Laws that make it it is such a legal Right which justifies any person who is not concern'd with the Laws to establish it But those who are under the direction of the Laws by which the Right is are bound to prevent it And that is it is a legal Riddle which no body can expound The Doctor goes on with his Questions Or would he prove that the standing Laws of every Country are the Rule for Subjects in setting up Kings when it is their own Act and Choice and who denies this too Now I am not very well satisfied with the wording of this Free Act and free choice in setting up Kings is not very suitable to hereditary Kingdoms and in the same manner he expresses it a little after No man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act. But supposing he means innocently however he hath express'd it This I say if it be the Duty of Subjects and they are bound to own their legal King then how comes the contrary to be their duty and they are bound to disown and reject him Force I grant may suspend a Duty and hinder the performance but can never make it none or alter the nature of moral duties This is a pure account of a moral duty it is the Subjects duty to own the King by legal Right when they are free but when they are under force it is their duty to kill and destroy him If it be a duty when they are free how comes the contrary to be a duty when they are under force The being free and being under force makes some difference as to t e actual performance but none as to the habit and obligation while the force continues the Act is suspended but the habit remains and the obligation continues and if it be a duty when they are free 't is a duty also when they are under force And the free choice and voluntary Acts the Doctor speaks of is no d fference in the duâ—y tho it may be in the performance of it Alleg. was due to Joash and to Charles the Second all the time of their dispossession tho their Loyal Subjects who were under the force of the Respective Usurpers could not perform it The Dr. says his Hypothesis is not concern'd in this Question But I think it is and that considerably for if the Question be admitted that the Subjects are bound to own and adhere to the King by Legal Right when they are free I would fain know how they become bound to the clean contrary to disown him and reject him when under force how it is their duty in Conscience to set him up when free and their duty in Conscience also to destroy him and kill him when under force But of this before As to what the Dr. says that no man ever deny'd but that in making Kings Subjects are bound by the Laws of the Land when it is their own free and voluntary Act I shall leave him to dispute the Point with the Convention And because we are upon Questions he may answer these Two when he please 1. Whether the setting up King William and Mary were not their own free and voluntary Act And 2. Whether it were agreeable to the Laws of the Land or in the Drs. own words Whether they made the Law their Rule If he answers the First affirmatively and the Second negatively 't is plain Satyr and Invective against them and the Convention I suppose will not take it well from him as he says the complying Nobility and Gentry will not take it well from me p. 65. if he answers both affirmatively His Hypothesis of Illegal and Vsurped Powers is a meer trifle and shews only how the Dr. can dispute about nothing to the purpose The Dr. hath not done with his Questions but hath three or four more which I am not concern'd to repeat nor can I guess for what end he made so many Questions or any at all He asks indeed what I would prove and then fills a whole Page with Questions But he understands it well enough for immediately after his Questions he adds The summ of his Argument is this that a Humane Entail of the Crown made by the Laws of any Country does in all Cases and to all intents and purposes as much oblige Subjects as a Divine Entail which is only the Law of the Kingdom too for the People of other Kingdoms are
as much bound to observe their own Laws as the People of Judah were theirs Now if this be that which I would prove what need was there of so many previous Questions to entangle a plain thing and I own this is that which I would prove only I except against his all Cases and to all intents and purposes which are his words and not mine and I will no more answer for his sense than he will for mine My words are as much bound which the Dr. sums up too and adds in all Cases and to all intents c. as much oblige whereas it is enough if they oblige as much in the present Case and to the Present purpose without running any further And I do assert that Entails of the Crown made by Humane Laws do as much oblige the Subjects to own the Authority of their Rightful King by those Laws and to disown the Authority of an Usurper as the Entail of God upon the Posterity of David did oblige the Subjects of Judah to own Joash and to Depose and Slay Athaliah and let us see what the Dr hath to say to it He replys The Dispute in general about the Authority and Obligation of Humane Laws is very impertinent to this purpose for no man denyes it Very well but I doubt they must oblige as much and in such Cases only as will fit the Drs. turn But yet saith he we think Divine Political Laws much more sacred and universally obligatory than any meer Humane Laws tho made by men who have their Authority of Government and consequently of making Laws from God and I believe the Author is the first man who has equalled Humane Laws with those Laws which are immediately given by God Now I thought the Dr. had some fetch in putting in these same in all Cases and to all intents and purposes But did I ever say that meer Humane Laws were as sacred as Divine Laws but as to their obligation the Subjects in other Countrys are as much oblig'd to observe their Political Laws as the People of Judah were theirs tho the one is made by God himself and the other by his Authority And this for the Reason that I gave because all Humane Laws that are just bind in Conscience And need the Dr. be told what is the meaning of Humane Laws binding in Conscience which hath an immediate Respect to the Law of God And the formal Reason that Humane Laws oblige in Conscience is not because they are meer Humane Laws as the Dr. hath a mind to phrase it but because it is the declared Will of God they should be obey'd and the obligation in Conscience to Humane Laws is resolv'd only into the Law of God And I hope the obligation may be equal with respect to the Law of God tho the Laws themselves are not equal in all Cases and to all intents and purpose And I wonder where is the singularity of asserting this as the Dr. out of extraordinary candor hath a mind to insinuate But saith he the Dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and a Divine and Humane Entail of the Crown are of a very different nature tho they be both the Laws of the Country for which they are made i. e. tho they are both Laws and tho they both receive their binding power as they are Laws and tho the difference the Dr. contends for is that the one is a Law of God and the other is a Law of man Yet it seems the Dispute about Laws would not serve the Turn and therefore they must be considered not as Laws but as Entails tho I must confess I can see no difference in that for if they are Entails they are Laws and they are Laws as they are Entails And I do not very well see how their Consideration can be sever'd or what need there is for it But for all that P. 43. the Dr. tells us it 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 tho 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 will 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 Humane Entail is only a Providential Settlement of the Crown on such a Family and what is seâ—â—â—d only by Providence may be unâ—â—â—led by Providence again for where God makes Kings only by Providence he can unmake them by his Providence also and make new ones And what is all this to the Purpose and what signifies this tedious Relation of his Hypothesis which we must have at every turn And what is this to the difference of the dispute between Divine and Humane Laws and Divine and Humane Entails All that concerns that is that a Divine Entail is God's Providential Setling the Crown by the express Revelation of his Will i. e. it is a Divine Law And a Humane Entail is only God's Providential Settlement of the Crown on such a Family and that is he hath setled it by a Humane Law And I would fain know whether it binds as an Act of Providence or as a Law But it seems the Laws of Entail are to be submitted to not as Laws but as Providences And if we must talk in this Cant I say that a Divine Entail is God's Providential Settlement of the Crown by express Revelation that a Humane Entail is God's Providential Settlement by a Humane Law but Vsurpation is a bare Act or Permission of Providence and no Settlement of the Crown at all And why does a bare Act or Permission of Providence defeat a Providential Settlement by Humane Law any more than it does a Providential Settlement by Divine Law The Dr. says what is setled by Providence may be unsetled by Providence again Very well but then it is the same degree of Providence The Dr. says we must not expound Providence against the express revelation of God's Will And I reply we must not expound a bare Act or permission of Providence against a Providential Settlement by Law But all this while my Answer is not touch'd which is that the people of other Kingdoms are as much bound to observe their own Laws as the people of Judah were theirs God's Entail was the Political Law of that Kingdom and a Humane Entail is the Law of other Hereditary Kingdoms and the Laws of other Countrys oblige in Conscience as well as the Laws of Judah And if it was not lawful to own the Authority of an Usurper in the Kingdom of Judah because contrary to their Laws and their obligations to them neither is it so in any
a good reason why the providence of God does not take effect against Legal Rights But how will this agree with the Drs. Doctrine and Argument Does God reserve the redress of these contrary to his own Decrees and Orders Do such reservings exclude himself and his own interpositions by providence When God has done this once shall he never be at liberty to dispose it otherwise and will not the Dr. allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever reasâ—ns the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done he iâ— resâ—lv'd to abide by whatever hâ— tâ—â—â—ks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and 〈◊〉 providence that it shall not after its usual methods in the Government of the Woâ—ld which are his Arguments but the very page before and if they prove any thing at all they are equally valid against such a Reserve as against any other Legal Right and if the Dâ— will answer them fairly he will save any man the trouble of answering his Book The Dr. adds 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 determination of providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of the Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Sovereign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he please as he can best serve the wise and many times unsearchable designs of his providence by it To this I answer and because he hath the same in other places I shall do it distinctly 1. The Rights of Princes may and ought to be determined by Law as well as those of Subjects I have already instanced in the differences between the Houses of York and Lancaster where the Law hath decided the controversie and the Case hath been the same in other Kingdoms but I wonder whoever insisted on a Providential Title or thought it a sufficient competition for a Legal Tiâ—le There is never a Prince nor private Man in Christendom nor the Dr. himself that would change his Legal Title for a Providen ial one which is a preâ—ty plain Case that however some People may talk of it no body believes it But because there are no Judges and Juries appointed and the Rights of Princes are not to be tryed in Westminster Hall nor in other Courts of Judicature therefore Possession and Providence must determine it But this is manifestly false for the Law is as proper a Judge of the Rights of Princes as of any other their Persons are not under the Law but their Titles are and the Laws declare who is and who is not King as much as they do who is or who is not any inferior Proprietor And as to what the Dr. says of a Tribunal I suppose he means to inforce this upon the Subject for the matter is declared by the Law and there needs no Tribunal for that no more than there needs a visible Judge of controversies in matters of Religion 't is a duty under the direction of the Law and every Person concerned is bound to take notice of it But as for the other if the Law may take its course there are Tribunals enough But indeed when the Prince is dispossessed there is no Tribunal to force this and to punish the neglect that is there is no Power to hang a Man if he does not take notice of the Law and there is power to hang him if he does This makes some difference as to punishment but none as to duty for the obligation arises from the direction of the Law and not from the external force to compel the observance and the direction of the Law binds when there are and when there are not Courts of Judicature to put it in execution 2. There is no Tribunal for the Correction of Princes but Gods Very true And therefore they are not accountable to the People for mal-administration Their Persons are sacred their Authority irresistable and unalienable And these were the Inferences that hitherto the Men of the Church of England have drawn from this Doctrine but the Dr. hath found out a new Inference that the Subjects may resist him and shake off his Authority and kill him too if need be and all for this weighty Reason because they have put another in the possession of his Throne I know the Dr. calls it Providence but that is the English of it 3. 'T is true God hath reserved to himself the Correction of Sovereign Princes and somtimes he doth here actually correct and punish them and dispossession is sometimes design'd as a Punishment by God himself But still the Question returns is such a dispossession by providence a sufficient evidence that God hath given away the Kingdom from the dispossessed to the Possessor of the Throne and 'till that can be made out all these Arguments and Inferences signifie nothing And that is manifestly false in the Case of David he for the punishment of his sins was dispossessed by his own Son but God by that providence did not take away the Kingdom from David and give it to Absolom And God had then erected no Universal Tribunal for the decision of such Cases no more than he has now The Question therefore is not whether there are some Cases too big for a Legal Decision or Humane Courts or whether God hath reserv'd to his own judgment the correction of Princes and transferring Kingdoms But the Question is whether the Possession of the Throne by providence divests the Rightful King of the Crown and of the Allegiance of the Subjects while his Person is in being and his Legal Right remains And that the matters being reserved to God's own Tribunal does not prove the nature of the thing indeed proves that cases that cannot be redressed by publick Government are reserved to God's own judgment but their being so reserved which is the full of the Drs. Argument does not prove that therefore every Providential Possession of the Throne is God's final determination or any warrantable evidence to conclude from thence that God hath made him a King and the People his Subjects Dr. Sherlock makes another Collection from providence in this very case No Vsurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of the natural Prince such Vsurpers Case of Resist p. 132. the they have the Possession of the supreme Power yet they have no right to it and tho God for wise reasons may sometimes permit such Vsurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence he secures their Title too 4. The Dr. says that in correction of Princes
visible Settlement not a Legal one the Settlement of a private Person in an estate is a Legal Settlement and to make the Cases Parallel one must be actually setled not legally and the other must be legally setled And so a thorough Settlement in one sense is Parallel to a thorough Settlement in another sense even just as a Tryal of skill is Parallel to a Tryal at Law or the Drs. Picture is Parallel to himself But Parallel is a term in Mathematicks as Settlement is a term in Law But when they come to be apply'd to Usurpation they must change their signification and mean the clean contrary And there is all the reason in the World for if Usurper signifies a King why may not Settlement signifie Illegal Possession and Parallel signifie inequality Now 't is no marvel the Dr. tells his Answerer he expects to hear no more from him for who is able to answer such terrible arguments as these The Dr. here tells us that by his Principles Kings must be throughly setled in their Governments before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them Now I cannot tell what his Principles are but this I can tell that his Arguments prove no such thing I know indeed that to get the Convocation of his side he hath given us a new sense of a thorough Settlement and that as the chief is the Consent and submission of the States and the great Body of the Nation And when he hath done that he takes his leave on 't for his Arguments neither concern a thorough Settlement in his sense nor in the true sense For what has God's removing and setting up Kings Case of Alleg. p. 12. 14. the events of Providence being his Decree and Order That those are all rightful Kings who are placed in the Throne by God that he is our King who is setled in the Throne in the Actual Administration of Sovereign Power c. That the Scripture account means only the Powers that be i. e. those that are in the Actual Administration of Government c. p. 21. And what is all this to the Peoples consent And here I ask the Dr. this plain Question does the Peoples consent convey any thing to the Government or does it not if not how comes it necessary or how comes it to be only unlawful to dispossess Princes when they are throughly setled i. e. when the People have consented but not before But if it does convey any thing then Providence alone does not do it and then it does not follow that when a Prince is in the Possession of the Throne and in the Actual Administration of Government that he hath God's Authority for that is a strange Authority from God which the People may chuse or refuse at their pleasure But the truth is the Drs. notion of a thorough Settlement hath rooted up the very foundations of Government and plainly center in the Commonwealth Principles And that is the bottom of the business and for the proof of this I will be tryed by the Dr. himself In his Case of Allegiance disputing against a Legal Right p. 25. he thus delivers himself To say that God sets up no Prince who ascends the Throne without a humane and legal Right is to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the consent of the People for if God can't make a King without their consent declared by their Laws and if the Dr. will give me leave I say without their consent declared by themselves or the States or the great body of the Nation the Authority must be derived from the People not from God or at least if it be God's Authority yet God cannot give it himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws I add by their consent But what becomes of the Drs. thorough Settlement by the Consent of the People all this while why it may be he had forgot it But however he tells us that it is his Principle and that may be too but heretofore men used to bring Arguments to prove and not to confute their Principles The Dr. goes on 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 injury from their Fellow Subjects they must seek for redress from Publick Government That is the saying that the Land of Judah was entailed by a Divine Entail as well as the Crown is not to the present purpose tho the great stress of the Drs. Answer lies in the difference between a Divine and a Humane Entail And it is plain enough from thence that a Divine Entail made no difference as to Providence and Property between that and other Nations But his reason is that private injuries may be redressed by publick Government well and that is a reason to prove that no providential dispossession of a private man is any warrant against Law But it is no reason to prove that a providential dispossession of a Prince is such a warrant but the contrary for being above or under the Law makes no alteration in the nature of Providence and it is odd to say that Providence has power and efficacy in Cases where the Law has none but has none where it has But this hath been considered before and as to the matter of God's setling the Land of Canaan by Divine Entail The Dr. after having said that he could have told me how to have applied the Case to the purpose and methinks he that hath said so little to the purpose need not have neglected what had been to his purpose shews some difference between the Land of Canaan and other Countries But those are not at all to his purpose In Canaan saith he where God allotted every tribe and family their inheritance none could pretend to a Right to any portion of Land but what was allotted him But in other Countries which were left in Common Possession and Occupation gave a Right Very true but not when they were not left in common but property was inclosed by Laws Legal Possession then only gave a Right But saith he Thus in Judah none had an ordinary Right to the Crown but those that 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 Now if the Dr. would have made this Parallel he should have said in other Countries where Government was left in Common and then it had been true enough for no body had a better Right but it is not so where the Crown is entail'd by Laws Possession gives no more Right to the Crown than it gives to private Estates In Canaan saith he when God had setled such an inheritance in a family it could never be perpetually alienated and tho it were sold it could
believe that this is so far from lessening and reproaching their Loyalty that it is greatly for the commendation of it yes sure it is greatly for the commendation of a mans Loyalty that he loves himself and can better his condition by it This may suit well enough with some mens Loyalty but the Loyalty between 42 and 60 was quite of another make and hitherto the World hath thought that the commendation of it consisted in suffering for their Fidelity in parting with their Interests rather than their Loyalty in submitting to the hardest Circumstances rather than violating their natural and sworn Allegiance The Dr. adds now That they were not bound in conscience to submit to these Usurpers The Question is whether the Doctor 's Principles and Arguments do not equally conclude for their Submission to those Usurped Powers and this he says he â—oved because their Government was never setled i. e. according to his notion of a Settlement And that is aga n according to one branch of it a national consent in Parliament or by the Peoples Representatives And here the Dr. takes a great deal of pains to prove that the Rump and Cromwell had no such national consent Vindic. p. 40 41. and therefore their Government was not throughly setled To which I answer 1. That all the Doctor 's Arguments equally conclude for Submission to those Usurpations as to any other 2. That they might be setled according to the Doctor 's notion of a Settlement notwithstanding what he hath oppos'd to the contrary 1. That all his Arguments equally conclude for Submission to those as to any other Usurpations though they had not the formal consent of the People I shall mention two His Arguments to prove his notion of a Thorough Settlement and His Arguments to prove the necessity of submitting to Usurped Powers 1. His Argument to prove his Notion of a Settlement His Answerer had objected against it Vindic. p. 5 6. That Settlement was a term in Law and imply'd Right which he admits in â—ettlements according to Law but in Settlement of Powers against Law it must be understood of the Settlement of Possession and the obvious exposition of Settlement in such cases is a Settlement of Possession Very well This Settlement such as it is the Rumpers and Cromwell had for they were possess'd of the Government and administred the Power and made Laws and govern'd the People And we may take the Doctor 's remark along with us to confirm the point It argues great perverseness of mind to reject that sense of the Word which is proper to the Subject to which it is apply'd That is it is very perverse to say that the Settlements of Usurpation are any other than the Settlements of Possession And then I doubt it must likewise be perverse to say that the Rumpers and Cromwell were not setled Governments To the same purpose the Dr. says afterwards That all the Convocation says relates to visible and actual alterations of Government P. 7 8. Now says he this is matter of fact not of Right and therefore the settlement of such Alterations is an actual not a legal Settlement of them And actual and visible Settlement is all that is requir'd to an actual and visible translation of Kingdoms Is that all that is requir'd Then they had all that is requir'd for their Governments were as actual and visible as any other Cromwell for some years possess'd the Government and dy'd in the possession of it and left the possession to his son and therefore as far as actual and visible will go it is as good a Plea for those Usurpations as for any other This is what the Doctor offers in proof to justifie his Notion of a Settlement and which in all respects fits Cromwell just as if it had been made for him And if they are Arguments sufficient to prove a Settlement then they likewise prove that Cromwell's Government was such a Settlement 2. All the Doctor 's Arguments for Submission to Usurped Powers equally conclude for Submission whether there be such a consent of the People or no as his Doctrine and account of Providence Then God sets up Kings Case of Alleg. p. 12. 14. 36. when by his Providence he advances him to the Throne and puts sovereign Authority into his hands He is King who is setled in the Throne in the actual administration of sovereign Power That the actual administration of Authority is the only evidence we have that they have received it from God His Argument from Relatives or Relations or what he will please to call it that Government and Alleg. are such Relatives or Relations as do mutuo se ponere tollere That actual Dominion and sovereign Power is the Relation that makes a King Vindic. p. 37 38. That God invests a Prince with his Authority by placing him on the Throne p. 56. and he has the actual Authority who actually administers the Government and it is actual Authority which is Gods Authority Now all these if they have any force at all equally conclude for Submission to all Usurpers whether they have or have not the consent of the People and that makes no manner of alteration in the Argument for a providential advance to the Throne and the Possession and actual administration of Power and the evidence of it and actual Authority these are all the same whether the People consent or not And if the Rump and Cromwel had not a national consent yet they were providentially advanced to the Throne and actually administred the Government and therefore according to his Arguments they must have God's Authority and therefore ought to have been obey'd And the same is to be said of his Arguments from Scripture of Gods removing and setting up Kings which according to him means no more than removing from and putting into the actual administration of sovereign Power Vindic. p. 50. and he tells us from S. Austin that Reges are a Regendo and peremptorily asserts it is certain he who has the exercise of the Regal Power and Authority is King whether we call him so or no. Let them be call'd Rump or Protector or by any other name or names And so likewise for his Interpretation of the 13 to the Romans Vindic. p. 57. the general Expression all Powers The Scriptures giving no direction but to submit and pay all the Obedience of Subjects to the Present Powers Case of All. p. 18. and the making no distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers between Kings whom we must and Kings whom we must not obey c. Now all this reasoning extends to all Usurpers without any manner of limitation from the consent of the People for all those Usurpers the Rump and Crom. were the Present Powers and therefore according to him within the intention of that Precept whether the Nation consented or no and the Scripture hath made no distinction between Usurpers who have and Usurpers who