SECT. 1. The Case plainly and briefly stated.

HEre he complains, first of the perplox­ing this Controversie by intermixing the dispute of Right with the Duty of Obe­dience; but is it not as much perplexed by Separating them? Is not this the great Controversie between us, whether Allegi­ance be due to those who have no legal Right to it? And thus the Controversie is perplexed because it is a Controversie.

Then he tells us, it seems unfit to dis­pute the Right of Princes, a thing which no Government can permit to be a Question; but it seems to me unfit that Religious Oaths should be broken, and if Allegiance be due only to those who have a Right, the dispute of Right is unavoidable; and if no Government can permit it, that is no Obligation upon me to be Perjur'd.

But such disputes will carry Men into the dark Labyrinths of Law and History; and therefore the Doctor leads them into the inextricable Labyrinths of Provi­dence. Now I think that Law and Hi­story are not such dark, unintelligible, and uncertain Riddles as he makes them; they were not designed to maze and blunder our Understandings, but to rectifie and inform us about Fact and Right. If Hi­story cannot enlighten us in Matters of Fact, then the Ages that are past are bu­ried in Darkness and Oblivion, and all History, Sacred and Profane, is no better than Romance. If Law be a clear and safe Rule of Conscience only to a very few, why is it publish'd, and enjoyn'd, and enforc'd by Penalties upon the many? It is a con­tradiction to the very nature of Law, to say it cannot be a clear and safe Rule of Obedience; and if Law and History are clear in any thing, it is very probable they are clear in things Fundamental, and in Matters of greatest Importance and most universal Concernment. I know there are great and intricate disputes about our Constitution, and so there are about the most evident conclusions of Faith, Sense, and Reason; but Doubts and Errors do not overthrow Truth and Certainty; and if some Men shut their Eyes at Noon-day, it is no good Consequence that there is no [Page 2] Sun in the Firmament, or that Light is Darkness.

He gives a summary AccountPag. 2. of the Difficulties, which they who refuse the Oaths do labour under. They think, that a rightful Prince only has a Right to our Allegiance; that though he be dispossessed of his Throne, he has Right still, and therefore our Duty is still owing to him, and to no other, and our Oaths of Allegiance to him still bind us; and that no other Prince who ascends the Throne without a legal Right, has Right to our Allegiance; and that to swear Allegiance to him while we are under Obligation of a former Oath to our rightful Prince, is Perjury. This is in­deed the Principle we proceed on, though it is not the sum of all that can be said in this Cause; our Principles, I think, may be more clearly and fully expressed, and [...] propose them thus:

We maintain that a lawful Sovereign cannot lawfully be Resisted on any pre­tence whatsoever; and therefore cannot lawfully be Deposed, nor consequently be lawfully▪ Dispossessed; that such unlawful Acts are null in themselves, and can effect nothing; that a rightful Prince does not cease to be so, because he is wrongfully Deposed, that his Right does remain after he is Deposed, unless he renounce it by Resignation, or lose it by De [...]eliction; that when this ancient Right is extinguished, the Usurper of the Throne becomes a law­ful Sovereign, and has a Right to Allegi­ance and not before; that the Disposses­sed Prince, as long as his Right to the Go­vernment continues, has a Right to Alle­giance; that Allegiance includes all those Duties, which are contained in the relation of a Subject, not only Submission and Obe­dience in things lawful, but most especi­ally actual Defence and Assistance against all his Enemies: That therefore Allegiance cannot be Sworn to an Usurper, because it is an Obligation to assist him against the true and rightful Sovereign, that such as­sistance is manifest Injustice, and in them that are bound by Oath to assist the right­ful Sovereign inexcusable Perjury: And lastly, That God's Authority is Delegated only to rightful Princes, and that Usurpers, while they continue such, have no better Title to it than even Pyrates and Robbers; and these I take to be the Principles of them who refuse the Oath.

But the Propositions which the Doctor opposes to their Principles, are fairly re­concileable with them; for▪ 1. We may acknowledge that Allegiance is due not for the sake of legal Right, but Government; and, 2. That it is due not to bare legal Right, but to the Authority of God. We may admit that Allegiance is due to God's Authority, and for the sake of Govern­ment, and yet a legal Right to Govern­ment may be still an evident Proof both of the Authority of God, and of a Right to Allegiance.

3. We may allow also, That God, when he sees fit, sets up Kings without any regard to legal Right, or humane Laws: He may do it by express Revelation, and he may do it by his Providence extinguishing the legal Right, and so making the Possessor a rightful Prince, though his Right be grounded on no humane positive Law, but upon the Law of Nature. And, 4. It may be granted that a Prince so establi­shed, Is invested with God's Authority, which must be obeyed not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake; and thus ad­mitting these Principles to be true in some Sense, it will neither follow, That our old Allegiance nor our old Oaths are at an end, nor that Allegiance is always due to the Powers in possession.

But, here in short, lies the Controversie between us, whether an Usurper who has wrongfully Dispossessed a rightful Prince, whose legal Right to the Throne does still continue in force, has nevertheless the Au­thority of God on his side, and by conse­quence a divine Right to our Allegiance. The Doctor is for the affirmative, and his Adversaries against it.

But first he endeavours to byass the Reader to his Opinion by obser­ing,Pag. 3. How much it makes for the ease and safety of Subjects in all Revolu­tions; and therefore, they have reason, he says, to wish it to be true, and to be glad to [Page 3] see it well proved. Whether this Principle be in reality for the ease and safety of Subjects may be debated hereafter; suf­fice it here to observe, That ease and safety are usually strong Arguments, but only to Flesh and Blood; Trouble and Danger do generally pursue Truth and Virtue; and if Principles may be pre­judged by this Criterion, the Epicurean and the Atheist have much the better on't, and are wiser, in their Generation at least, than the Religionary and the▪ Chri­stian. Salus Populi has been ever the Argu­ment for Rebellion and Regicide; we know it is Milton's Fundamental Principle; and in all Revolutions, it is as much for the ease and safety of Subjects certainly to execute the Deposed Prince, as it is to abjure him. The same renowned Author wrote a Book for the Lawfulness of Divor­ces, in the case of a troublesome and un­sociable Marriage; and the great Reason that runs through his Book, is this, be­cause the Remedy of Divorce is much for the ease and happiness of Mankind, and the making the Bond indissoluble is, says he, the Changing the Blessing of Matrimony into a familiar and coinhabiting Mischief, at least into a drooping and disconsolate Houshold-captivity, without Refuge or Re­demption.

Mr. Hobbs hath taught his Followers, that Subjects when commanded by their Sovereign to deny Christ, may lawfully obey him; they have the Licence, says he, that Naaman had, and need not put them­selves into danger for it: A Principle much, no doubt, for our Worldly ease and safety; and upon the same account he advanced another Principle, the same, for ought that I can see, which is main­tained by the Doctor, That the Obligation of the Subject to the Lev. pag. 124. Sovereign does last no longer than the Power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them. In short, the Temp­tation (for it is nothing else) with which the Doctor would corrupt his Reader, may equally serve as a persuasive to the denial of Christ, the Existence of Spirits, Hell Torments, and to divers other Ar­ticles of the Hobbian [...]elief; and to a Discourse concerning them, no fitter In­troduction could be devised than this, That those Principles are so much for the [...]ase and safety of Mankind, that they have reason to wish them to be true, and to be glad to see them well proved. But I think it a much fairer way of procedure which the Cas [...]st [...] have hitherto prescribed: First to consider Lawfulness, and then Expedi­ency, to examine what is just and righ­teous, before we enquire what is safe and easie; and if a byass must needs be clapt upon our Reason before we enter into Argument, I am sure it is much safer for a Christian to incline the Balance on the other side, and to suffer Ease and Safety to weigh against Duty and Conscience.

And now we come to Argument, and the Doctor undertakes to prove his Opi­nion from Scripture and Reason, and from the Principles of the Church of England: He begins with the last, but that comes not within the compass of my underta­king, and therefore I proceed to consider

SECT. 3. The Testimony of Sripture and Reason in this Matter.

HEre the Doctor does premise,Case of Alleg. p. 10. That the Proofs from Scrip­ture and Reason, must necessarily be intermixed and interwoven with each other. But why was this necessary? Was it impossible for the Doctor to separate his own Reasons from God's Revelations? Are not Arguments from Scripture and Reason easily distinguished? And to what purpose is this Confusion of Discourse, but to blun­der and confound the Reader's Understand­ing; nevertheless he pretends to set th [...] matter in a clear Light, and first he pre­sents us with some plain Propositions, as he calls them.

The 1. and 2. Propositions, (That Civil Power and Authority is from God, and that he gives this Power and Authority to so [...] ▪ [Page 4] particular Persons,) are beyond all Contro­versie with the Refusers of the Oath, and for this very Reason they refuse them, because they are sure the Dispossessed Prince had Authority from God to govern them, and they cannot be sure that God hath depriv'd him of it.

But the 3d. Proposition is that on which the whole Controversie turns, and the sum of it is this, That every one who is in Possession of Sovereign Power, has the Authority of God. If this can be prov'd, the dispute is at an end, and so it is like­wise, if it cannot be prov'd. It will be evident▪ to any one that throughly consi­ders the Doctor's Book, and all the Rea­sons and Arguments in it, that most of them must stand and fall together with this Proposition. The Doctor has not only asserted it, but has endeavoured also to establish and deduce it by a train of Consequences; here he has laid the Foun­dation of his Discourse, and therefore no doubt it has all the Strength, and Stabi­lity that so wise a Builder could give it: This is his Fundamental Proposition, and let us impartially examine the Deduction he has made to prove it.

There are but Three ways, saysPag. 11. he, whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any Persons, either▪ by Nature, or express Nomination, or by the Disposals of Providence. Now these Three ways are really no more than One, for the ways of Nature and express Nomination are only some of those various ways, whereby the Providence of God has disposed of Autho­rity, and they are not therefore contra­distinct to Providence, but comprehended [...]n it; the World has been ever governed by Providence, and therefore there never▪ was, no [...] can be, any Power or Authority, which was not derived from it. But the various Methods by which Providence has conveyed Authority, may indeed be re­duced to some general Heads, and then, according to the Doctor's Scheme of Prin­ciples, there will be Three ways of con­veying Authority, by Nature, by Nomina­tion, and by giving Power and Possession; but we think that a legal Right is one of the ways of Providence also; we are sure that whosoever has it, it is a Gift of Pro­vidence; and since a Right to a Sovereign Power implies a Right to the Possession of it, we cannot possibly conceive how one Prince can have a legal Right to Possession by virtue of God's Donation, and another, at the same time, have a di­vine Right to be the Possessor by God's Donation also. But let us follow the Doctor through his own ways of Providence.

1. By Nature; Parents, saysIbid. he, have a Natural Superiority over their Children, and are their Lords and Governours too; this was the first Go­vernment in the World, and is the only Natural Authority; for in Propriety of speaking there is no Natural Prince but a Father. Thus he plainly acknowledges that a Parent is a Natural Prince, and that in the beginning of the World the Fathers of Families had Civil Power and Authority over their Children. And now for Argu­ment sake, let us revive the Patriarchal Government, and suppose a Paternal Prince, as Noah for instance, invested with Civil Authority over his Children; suppose again, that one of his Natural Sons, let it be Cham for example, does by force de­pose Noah, and usurp his Power, and ac­quire plenary Possession of it; and suppose once more, that the Unnatural Ʋsurper requires an Oath of Sem and Japh [...]t, and all the rest of the Family, wherein they must Swear, That they will live in Obedi­ence to Cham, and support his usurped Power, and contribute their Prayers, Purses, and Arms, to oppose their Father Noah, and to kill him if he endeavours to reco­ver his Paternal Power; what should Sem and Japh [...]t do in this Case? Do, says the Doctor, they must Swear, and Pray, and Fight for the Usurper, against their Na­tural Father, for though Noah has a natu­ral Right, Cham has a divine Right, he Reigns by God's Authority, and that may certainly be defended against all Persons whatsoever. Thus this Principle in its Consequences, is much worse than the Corban, for it teaches Children not only to deny Maintenance, but actually to mur­ther [Page 5] their natural King and Father, and it glosses away the Precept of Honouring Parents into a License to destroy them; but, I think, that God did never authorize either Parricide or Usurpation.

On the contrary, If in the Case suppo­sed it can never be lawful for Children to forswear, oppose, and to destroy their Parents, when they seek only to recover their Rights of which they are wrongfully Dispossessed; if natural Fathers can never cease to be such, and their Authority is Inalienable without their own Consent, and if the mere Possession of it by an Usurper does not entitle him to the full Allegiance of the Children; what reason can then be given why Civil Authority in a legal Father, which is the same with that of a Natural, should not be equally Per­petual and Inalienable also? Why should Dispossession extinguish this Authority in one Father, when it does not in the other? If Providence does superinduce a divine Right over a legal Right, upon the same Grounds it will destroy a natural Right, and if it be lawful for Subjects to bind themselves by Oath to act for an Usurper against their political Father, than may Children in the same Case oppose their natural Father in the Prosecution of his natural Rights: But I appeal to the Sense and Reason of Mankind, whether such an opposition would not be highly Wicked and Unreasonable, and yet the Doctor's Principle will serve to justifie it.

2. His next way is, By particular No­mination, and thus God made Kings in Jewry. But this nominated King I leave in better Hands, with all the Arguments and Evasions that belong to him.

3. He proceeds to tell us, That Ibid. God ruled in all the other Kingdoms of the World as well as in Jewry, and all other Kings ruled by God's Authority, as well as the Kings of Judah and Israel, who were advanced by his Command; and if any one doubts this, it is evident out of Daniel, That the most High ruleth in the Kingdoms of Men, that he removeth Kings and setteth up Kings, and that he gav [...] to Nebuchad­nezzar a Kingdom, Power and Strength, and Glory, (yet he afterwards owns that Nebuchadnezzar was made King over the Jews by God's express Command) and if all this be not evidence enough, The Pro­phecy of the Four Monarchies is a Demon­stration of it. I have consider'd this Pro­phecy as it is Recorded in Daniel, and any one else, that considers it, will find that it contains only a Prediction of great Re­volutions in the Governments of the World; but, I hope, the bare Prediction is no Demonstration, That the Accom­plishers of it had the Authority of God to legitimate the unjust Invasion and Posses­sion of the Rights of others. There are great Writers who affirm the Kingdom of Antichrist is foretold in that Prophecy, and it is undeniably foretold (if the great Beast be Antichrist) in the Revelations; Is Antichrist therefore to reign by the Au­thority of God? Indeed the Doctor's Arguments do prove it, but that is a plain Demonstration that they are Falla­cious. Was the Cruci [...]ixion of our Saviour by God's Authority? And yet that was Prophesied also▪ May not Usurpation against God's Authority be as well Fore­told, as the Delegation of it? If the In­troducers of the Four Monarchies were Usurpers, the Prediction of them is no Proof of a divine Commission, and if the Doctor can demonstrate such a Commis­sion out of Daniel's Vision, I will under­take to demonstrate it in the behalf of Antichrist also. In the mean time, we deny not that God governs in all the King­doms of the World, and that he removeth and setteth up Kings as he pleaseth; we maintain that all rightful Kings do rule by God's Authority, as much as if they were expresly Nominated, and we believe farther, that God cannot be the Author of Wickedness, and that he gives not his Authority to Usurpation and Injustice.

But now, saith the Doctor,Pag. 12. God governs the rest of the World, removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings▪ only by his Providence. This Proposition he explains thus; Then God sets up a King, when by his Providence he advances him to the Throne, and puts the Sovereign Authority [Page 6] [...]ito his Hands; then he removes a King, when by his Providence he thrusts him from the Throne, and takes the Government out of his Hands. The Proposition then, ac­cording to the Author's Sense, is to be understood in its utmost latitude, That whosoever is by Providence advanced to the Possession of Sovereign Power, is made a King by God, and whosoever is deprived of it by Providence, is deposed by God. But this is ambiguously proposed, and is true in one Sense, false in another; and this ambiguity will be evidently exposed by this parallel Proposition; That God does then give a Man an Estate, when his Providence puts him in Possession of it, and he deprives a Man of an Estate, when by Providence he is Dispossessed of it: It is certain that God governs every thing in the World, as well as Kingdoms by his Providence, and if all Events, then cer­tainly the Dispossession and Possession of an Estate must be ascribed to it. And therefore the Proposition is true in this sense, that as far as God's Providence is concerned in the disposal of an Estate, he may be said to take away or give it. But it is manifestly false in this sense; that whosoever has by Providence the Posses­sion of an Estate, has a divine Right to it by God's Donation. A Thief has by God's Providence Possession of honest Mens Properties, and in some sense it is God that gives it him, but it was never yet thought that he had a jus Divinum to them. The Sabaeans drove away Job's Oxen, and yet he acknowledged that the Lord had taken them away; but it would be a strange Commentary upon the Passage to say, That the Sabaeans had God's Au­thority to keep them.

And by Analogy to this parallel Case, the ambiguity of the former Proposition may be easily unfolded. It is true that God removes and sets up Kings in the same sense as his Providence does advance or dethrone them; but it is false, that whosoever is in any sense advanced to a Throne by Providence, is set up by God, so as that he has God's Authority to keep it: For it is undeniably evident that Pro­vidential Possession is no Argument of divine Authority; and therefore though it be granted, That God now governs the World, and setteth up Kings only by his Providence; yet it will by no means fol­low, that every one who is set up in any sense by Providence, has Authority from God; for then it would follow, that Py­rates and Robbers have his Authority also.

But here the Doctor leads me into a Digression about Providence, and because the whole Controversie depends upon the right understanding of God's Providential Concurrence in all Events and Actions; it is necessary to attend him through it.

Providence he defines to be, God's Government of the World Case of Alleg. p. 12. by an invisible Power, whereby he directs, determines, over-rules all Events to the accomplishment of his own Will and Counsels; and to avoid Cavil we admit the Definition. There is a known Distinction between the permissive and the effective ordering and authorizing Providence of God, and there is evident Reason and Necessity for it; for other­wise we must foolishly charge God with being the efficient Cause and positive Au­thor of all the Wickedness in the World. But the Doctor will not allow the Distin­ction in the Case before us, and his Reason is, Because it does not relate to Ibid. the Events of Things, but to the wickedness of Men, and though God cannot be the Author of any Wickedness, yet he is the Author of all Events which happen to private Persons or Societies; and the Con­sequence which he draws from this Do­ctrine is, That the Usurpations of Govern­ment are not only permitted, but are effected and authorized by it. To lay open the falshood of this Doctrine, it is necessary to observe how the divine Pro­vidence is conversant about Wickedness.

Before it is accomplished, Providence is concerned only in prohibiting and hin­dring the Commission of it; this is to be understood only of moral Impediments, such as are consistent with our natural Liberty, and are not irresistible. And here [Page 7] a Distinction is made between the internal and external acts of Sin, between an act of Wickedness as it lies in the Mind, and the outward Execution of it; the former is never hindred by irresistible Power, for that would destroy the very nature of the Will; but Providence does often lay such effectual Restraints upon the execution of Sin, that it is impossible to effect it, and when God does not by the interposition of his Power hinder a wicked event, or the external act of Wickedness, than his Providence does give it a negative Per­mission, because it does not positively prevent it.

The acts of Providence which are con­versant about Sin, in the very act of Com­mission, are the conservation of our Being and Powers, whereby we are capable of committing it; The direction and over­ruling of it to the accomplishment of his own Will and Counsel; and the determining or restraining of it within certain bounds and limits; and lastly, after the Wicked­ness is committed, the acts of Providence about it are the Punishment or Forgive­ness of it. These are the acts of the di­vine Providence in relation to Sin, and from this account it is manifest, that the Providence of God which prohibits, hin­ders, over-rules, restrains and punishes Sin, does neither effect nor authorize it.

But though God be not the Author of Sin, yet the Doctor asserts him to be the Author of all Events; then say I, it una­voidably follows, that he is the Author of all the Wickedness that ever was, or can be committed in the World; for it is evident that all wicked Actions, when accomplished, are Events; and if God be the positive doer of all Events, he is in­fallibly the doer of all wicked Actions. Was not Absalom's Incest an Event, as well as his Usurpation? Was not Cromwell's Murther of King Charles an Event, as well as the Possession of his Power? Are not all Murthers, Incests, Robberies, and all other Villanies that have been ever acted under the Sun Events? And that we may be convinced of the lawfulness of Swear­ing, must we now blasphemously conclude, that God is the Author of them? Two Evasions may be made use of to elude this Consequence.

1. The old Distinction between an Acti­on in it self, and the Obliquity and Vitiosity of it. But it is evident that in these acti­ons, which are evil in themselves, as Blasphemy, Adultery, Oppression, and Usurpation, the act and the obliquity, though they may be considered separately, are yet really, and in the nature of the thing inseparable; (for who can commit Adultery, and be free from all Wickedness in it;) and therefore seeing they are inse­parably united, he who causes the act is the cause of the obliquity, as he that kindles a fire is the cause of burning.

2. It may be replied, That by Events the Doctor understands the direction, or the success of Designs and Actions, as it makes for the good or evil or private Men, or publick Societies. He acknow­ledges, That God cannot be the Ibid. Author of any Wickedness, and therefore we say he only permits it; but then when it comes to action he over-rules it, and he either disappoints Mens wicked Designs, or gives success to them, when he can serve the Ends of his Providence. But still the same Consequence will return upon him; for if God does not only permit, (for a Permissive giving of Success will here sig­nifie nothing,) but does positively give Success to Wickedness, then he is unavoi­dably the Author of the wicked Event, or Action; for the success of a wicked Design, is nothing else but the actual accomplish­ment of it, and if God be the positive accomplisher of all Wickedness that is actually committed, he is evidently the po­sitive Author of the actual Commission of it: As for instance, whoever accomplishes, or gives success to a Plot of Murther or Adultery, is undeniably guilty of the actual Commission of them. It is true, that God's Providence over-rules all the Designs and Successes of wicked Men to good ends and purposes, to the good and evil of private Persons and Societies; Pu­nishments and Blessings do proceed from his Will, and there cannot be an Evil in the [Page 8] City, and the Lord hath not done it; he hath done it, by not hindering wicked Men from accomplishing their Designs, and he hath done it, by directing their Wickedness to the punishment of the wicked.

But if this be all the Doctor's Meaning, that Providence does onely direct the wick­edness of some Men to the good or evil of others, then it will follow, 1. That this cannot be sufficient to make God the Au­thour of all Events, and consequently that can be no Argument to authorize an Usur­pation: And, 2. It is evident that the providential Direction of any wicked Event to the good or evil of Mankind, can be no proof of the conveyance of God's Autho­rity. The using of an evil Instrument to a good End, and a divine Commission, are things easily distinguished, and it is easie to shew the inconclusiveness of this arguing by many Instances. God makes use of Persecutors to chastize his People, Have they therefore God's Commission to doe the Work of the Devil? Even the De­vil is his Instrument to good Ends and Purposes, and God orders and over-rules his Wickedness to accomplish them, Has he therefore God's Authority to govern us, and when God gives him Power, are we bound to pay Obedience? The Doctor argues, That all Events are ordered by God to the good or evil of private Persons, as well as Societies. Thus the Events of Robbery and Murther are often directed by Provi­dence to the good and evil of private Men, and sometimes of Societies, but is this a Proof that Murtherers and Robbers have God's Authority? The Incest and Usur­pation of Absalom were equally from God's permissive Providence, and were alike or­dered by God as a punishment to David, had he therefore a divine Commission to lie with his Father's Wives, and to usurp his Throne? For the one undoubtedly as much as the other, and much the same as have all other rebellious Sons and unnatural Usurpers. The summ is this; if God be the Authour of all Events, then he is the Authour of all wicked Actions; and if he is not, the over-ruling them to good Ends is no Commission of Government; and therefore the Doctor's Argument thus far does either border upon Blasphemy, or is nothing to the purpose.

However the Doctor thus pursties it, If there were any such distinction as this, that some Events God only Ibid. permits, and some he orders and appoints, we ought in reason to asscribe the Advancement of Kings to God's Decree and Counsel, because it is the principal Act of Pro­vidence which has so great an Influence upon the Government of the World; and if he de­cree and order any Events, certainly he pecu­liarly orders such Events as will doe most good, or most hurt to the World; he must with his own hand immediately direct the Motions of the great Wheels of Providence, and not per­mit them to move as they please themselves. The Doctrine here delivered is this: That all great Events, such as have an Influence upon the Government of the World, are God's Order and Appointment, his Decree, his Counsel, and his Positive Doing. Strange and prodigious Doctrine from a Divine of the Church of England! for are not all the great Villanies of the World great Events? Are not all Insurrections and Rebellions, the Murthering of Kings, the Desolation of Kingdoms, the Destruction of Millions of innocent Persons, and the infinite Barbari­ties that are committed in unjust and impi­ous Wars, are not all these Events, and such Events as doe most hurt to the World, and have a great Influence upon the Govern­ment of it? And must it not then be said, that lesser Wickednesses are fit to be acted by miserable Men, but the great and fla­grant Villanies are the peculiar Works of the Almighty. How the Hand of God does direct the great Wheels of Providence, is to us incomprehensible, but this we can easi­ly comprehend, that God is no more the Authour of greater than of lesser Villanies; he did not move Absalom to usurp upon David, nor Athaliah upon Joash, he direc­ted neither the Hearts nor Hands of Jacques Clemens and Ravillia [...] to assassinate the two Henries, nor did he order and appoint our English Regicides to execute the Royal Martyr upon a Scaffold.

[Page 9]It is a false Notion of Providence to think it is more concerned about greater than about lesser Affairs: Providence has as much to doe with Beggars as with Prin­ces, with Families as with Kingdoms; and it numbers up all the Hairs of our Head, as well as the Destiny of Empires. All Nati­ons are before God as the small Dust of the Balance, and are counted less than nothing; neither is there any difference of great and little, as to Omnipotency and Immensity. Events therefore are not peculiarly to be asscribed to God, because they appear great to us; and the Reason why some Events are said to be permitted, and others to be caused by God, is not because they are great or little, but because they are mo­rally good or evil. If Usurpation of ano­ther's Right be a thing evil in itself, God must be equally discharged from being the Authour of it, in the case of a Cottage and a Kindgom, God may permit, and may decree the Deposition of a King, as a just Punishment from him, who is righteous in all his Judgments, and he knows how to ef­fect it without wicked Instruments but if he makes use of such Instruments for the execution of his Judgments, if he punisheth a lawfull King by the Rebellion of his Sub­jects, or the Usurpation of his Throne, Have the wicked Instruments therefore the Decree and Appointment of God to autho­rize them? Or, is the Usurpation any more from God than the Rebellion?

Nay farther, he may decree to advance a private Person to the Throne, as he de­creed to advance David and Jeroboam, and God can certainly effect such a Decree by lawfull ways, as by the Extinction of all former Titles; but if the Person whose Advancement is decreed expects not till Providence opens a lawfull way to the As­cension of the Throne, but ascends it him­self by the way of Usurpation, can the se­cret Decree of God either justifie his Usur­pation, or give him Authority to continue it? Shall we say that God mov'd him to this Wickedness? or not rather, that his Wickedness and his Advancement are only from himself? God decreed to make Da­vid King, yet after the Decree was revea­led to him, he accounted Saul as God's King, and he patiently waited till God made him a lawfull Sovereign, by the Ex­tinction of the former Title. But Jerobo­am anticipated God's Covenant, and advan­ced himself to the Throne by Rebellion and Usurpation; and therefore he is generally branded as an Usurper, and of him among others, it is thought that God himself hath said by the Prophet, They have set up Kings, but not by me. GodHos. 8. 4. decreed to raise Joseph to great Dignity in Egypt; but if Joseph had wick­edly usurped that Power or Wealth which was the Right of another, Could it then be said, that God's Decree did give him Authority to keep it, any more than it did to his Brethren to sell him to the Midi [...] ­nites? Thus would it be, if the Decrees of God were made known to Men; and much more is it so, when his Decrees are secret and unsearchable, and cannot possibly be known before they are accomplished. A Distinction there must be, between God's decreeing the Possession of a Throne to a Person, and giving him Authority to pos­sess it while it is the Right of another; for otherwise the Decree of God must give Au­thority to Injustice. However nothing is effected by the Providence of God, but as it was decreed by him; and therefore when any wicked Event does happen, since it happens onely by the permissive Providence of God, the antecedent Decree about it must be permissive also. We can never know whether God's Decrees be permis­sive or authoritative, but from the nature of the Events decreed; we are certain he onely permits Wickedness, and he decrees onely to permit it; and therefore if the Possession of a Power which is the Right of another be Wickedness, we are sure that God's Decree and Providence about it are merely permissive, and are consequently far from being Arguments of Divine Autho­rity. But to return to the Doctor:

He endeavours to support his Argument by Providence, by re­membring,pag. 13. That Kings are God's Ministers and Lieutenants, and are invested with his Authority; now to give Authority to [Page 10] any Person, does not signifie to permit him to take it, and we cannot but think that God will exercise a particular Providence in appointing his great Ministers. Under the word Kings he comprehends Ʋsurpers; and here the Doctor would conjure us into a Circle. He undertook to prove that all Usurpers do rule by God's Authority, because they are advanced by his Provi­dence, and now he remembers that they are invested with his Authority, and from thence he argues that they are advanced by his Providence. But the Doctor re­members what he has not proved, that all Kings (comprehending Usurpers) are invested with God's Authority. This we positively deny, as being here precariously asserted, and therefore the Assumptions and Inferences that follow ought to pass for nothing. But behold hisIbid. Subtilty! No Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it is given; and if the advancement to a Throne invests a Prince with God's Authority, then God gives him the Throne, and does not merely permit him to take it. If the Supposition were well proved, the Consequence would be never doubted; but the Reason on which he grounds it, is either not true, or not pertinent, For no Man can take God's Autho­rity, but it must be given by him. The gift of God does generally imply a con­veyance of Right by divine Donation, and in this sense his Assertion is manifestly false; for all Authority is God's, and whenever Men do assume Power and Authority, which they have no Right to exercise, (as for in­stance all Usurpers, Rebels, Pyrates, Rob­bers, and Schismatical Preachers,) it is evident they usurp that Power and Autho­rity which God never gave them. But sometimes God is said to give a thing, when Providence so orders it, that Men have Power to take it. Thus [...]d God give David's Wives to Absalom, as the Prophet had denounced; but this Permissive gift did by no means authorize and legitimate his Inoest with them; and in this sense it is true, That no Man can take God's Autho­rity, but it must be given; that is, no Man can usurp it without God's Permission. But in this sense his Proposition here is insignifi­cant; for a Permissive gift is as good a Charter for Thieves and Cut-throats, as it is for Tyrants and Usurpers.

Nay, says the Doctor, Since Ibid. God makes Kings now▪ not by an express Nomination, but only by the Events of Providence, we must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings, whom he does not make Kings; for then we can never distinguish between Kings by the Permission, and by the Appointment of God, between God's Kings and Kings of their own making. Then in other words he repeats the same Assertion, and con­cludes, That there is no direction how to distinguish them, and the Events of Provi­dence in placing them in the Throne, are the same in both. Here the Doctor will not distinguish against his own Hypothesis; but why may not the Permission and Ap­pointment of God be as easily distinguished in the advancement of Kings, as in the success of Pyrates and Robbers, or in any other Event whatever? Since the only way whereby God does now give Riches and Estates, is the disposal of Providence, can we therefore never distinguish between the Possessing them by the Permission and by the Appointment of God? Does the forge [...] of a Will hold his Estate by divine Ap­pointment, or the Thief the purchase of Robbery? If we cannot distinguish in such Cases between God's Permission and Appointment, Justice must leave the Earth again, and a divine Right may be pleaded for all the Injustice in the World. But if that distinction be allowed in private Property, why should it not be admitted in the right of Sovereignty also; the Reason is the same in both, for God can never be the Author of any Wickedness, and as long as the Possession of any thing is unjust or wicked, we may be sure that Providence only permits it.

But, saith the Doctor, There is no direction how to distinguish between Kings by Permission and by divine Appointment, and the Events of Providence are the same in both. If he means direction in Scripture, he knows we are directed there to render [Page 11] every Man his due; and not only Scripture, but the Laws of Nature and Nations do direct it also. But though Scripture is no Code of Political Laws and Rights, yet we want not sufficient direction to deter­mine us in paying every one his due. Political Laws and Constitutions are the Rule of Civil Rights, and they direct us how to distinguish between unjust and just Possessors, and the light of Reason and Scripture does assure us, That an unjust Possession is only permitted by God, and not appointed and authorized by him. We have as plain a direction how to di­stinguish about the Possession of Sove­reignty as of private Property, or as we have to distinguish between the Usurpers of God's vindictive Justice, [...]nd the lawful Administrators of it. Vengeance is God's, and his Vicegerents, but it is often usurp'd by Murtherers and Rebels, they invade it by God's Permission only; but the Laws of Nations teach us how to distinguish them from God's Vicegerents; and if we have directions to distinguish when one branch of Sovereignty is permitted to be Invaded, when the whole is Invaded will not the same directions serve? Or is it easie to distinguish in lesser Usurpations, impossible in greater.

But when a legal Prince and an Usurper are advanced to a Throne, The Event is the same in both. The Events considered, as Natural actions, may be the same, but as Moral, they may be as easily distinguish'd as any Moral good and evil. Adultery and Conjugal Copulation, just and unjust Possessions, the executions of Magistrates and Cut-throats, the Beheading of Charles the First, and the Beheading of Monmouth, in all these actions the Event, considered Physically, is the same; but, I hope, it is easie to distinguish in these Cases between Lawful and Unlawful, Permission and Appointment. So it is in the advancement to Sovereignty, when King Charles and Cromwell were advanced, the Event, to wit, the Possession of the Sovereignty was the same; but every Church of England Man, in those Days, could easily distinguish between God's Sovereign and the Devil's. In short, we can never distinguish Permission and Appointment by bare Events, but only by the moral Circumstances which denominate them good or evil.

Consequently since Providence it self must be distinguished by the rules of good and evil, it necessarily follows that Providence of it self can never be a rule to us. The only rule of our Actions is Law, either Positive, Divine, Natural, or Hu­mane; but it is impossible that Provi­dence, abstracted from the Consideration of the moral Nature of Events, should be a Law to us, because it declares not the preceptive Will, or that Will of God which must be a rule to our Actions: Whatever Providence works, or is the Will of his good Pleasure, we must follow that Will which God has signified to us, either in written or unwritten Laws. God has never prescribed the Dispensations of Providence as a rule to us; they are often Unsearchable and above our Comprehension, but in no Case can we understand what God permits, and what he effects and authorizeth, but by the Moral nature of Events. Providence it self must be measured by the rules of good and evil, and therefore those must be the ultimate rules of our Practice. To conclude, Though Success (which is but another word for providential Events) be a good Argument of God's Approbation and Authority among the Disciples of the Alcoran, I think, it can be none among the Disciples of Christ; I am sure it cannot be found in the Volumes of his Religion.

Thus I have considered what the Doc­tor has advanced about Providence; now, says he, The necessary Consequence is this; that by what means soever any Prince as­c [...]nds the Throne, he is placed there by God, and receives Authority from him. And let the Reader judge, whether the Premises to this Consequence be sufficiently proved or confuted. The summ of his Proof is this, That God now governs the World only by his Providence, (which is false if it ex­clude his Government by Laws, and how­ever is no Proof that every Usurper does Reign by God's Authority,) that all Events are from God, and especially great Events, [Page 12] (which is to charge God with all the Wickedness in the World,) that no one can usurp God's Authority, unless God does give it him, (which is confuted by all Mur­thers and Rebellions;) and, lastly, that we cannot distinguish between Kings by Permission and Appointment, unless all Pos­sessours of Sovereignty have God's Autho­rity, (which may as well be said of all o­ther Possessours; and contains no difficul­ty at all, it being as easie to distinguish Permission and Appointment, as lawfull Princes and unlawfull.) This is the summ of his Discourse upon the third Propositi­on, and let the Reader judge how well he has demonstrated it. I need not here re­flect on his several ways of conveying God's Authority to Princes, Election, Succession, and Conquest or Usurpation. These will be considered hereafter; suffice it here to observe that there are in general but two ways whereby Princes are advanced by God, Permission and Appointment, this the way of Rightfull Princes, and that of Usurpers.

We are come now to his 4th Proposition, viz. That all Kings pag. 14. are equally rightfull, with respect to God; which is just as true as this Propo­sition, That all Men are equally righteous with respect to God, or that with God there is no difference between good and evil; or, that with respect to God, the Thief and the lawfull Proprietor are equal­ly rightfull Possessors. But let us consider how he proves it: It is impossible there should be a wrong King, unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no. The same Assertion with that which is con­futed allready, That no one can take God's Authority, but it must be given him: And may it not be said with equal Reason, that all Men must be made wicked by God, un­less Men can make themselves wicked whe­ther God will or no? Or is it impossible there should be a wrong Possessou [...] of any thing, unless a Man could make himself a Possessour whether God will or no. He proceeds thus, The whole Authority of Go­vernment is Gods, and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull King, for he has the true and rightfull Authority of a King. But is not every Branch of Sovereign Authority God's, if the whole Authority of Government is his? Does not every Murtherer usurp the Power of the Sword, the principal Branch of that Authority? And is the Exercise of that Power right­full with respect to God, or is the Murther committed by God's Authority? Having God's Authority is an equivocal Expression; it may be had by Commission, as rightfull Princes have it, and it may be had by Per­mission, as Assassines, Rebels, and Usurpers have it; and such a manner of having will never make the Possession rightfull, either before God or Men. To speak properly, the Usurper has not God's Authority, he has Power or Force, and so has the Mur­therer, but that is not Authority; and yet because they exercise a Power which it is not lawfull to exercise without God's Com­mission, abusively and improperly they may be said to have his Authority.

Prop. 5. The Distinction then Ibid. between a King de Jure, and a King de Facto relates onely to humane Laws which bind Subjects, but are not the necessary Rules and Measures of the Divine Providence. This Distinction relates to humane Laws, just as does the Distinction in all other Cases between Right and Wrong. Humane Laws do declare and determine what is right, and the Law of God does establish and confirm the Law of man about it. Thus he who has a Right to an Estate by the Law of the Land, has a Right to it by the Law of God, and is the rightfull Proprietor, with respect both to God and Man. If it were not so, the Invasion of another's Property could be no Sin; it could not make a man guilty before God, nor obnoxious to his Vengeance, if it were no Transgression of his Laws. In private Dominion therefore the Distinction of a Possessour de Jure and de Facto, relates to divine as well as humane Law; and why should it not then in the ease of politick Dominion and the Possessours of Sovereign­ty? Shall private Injury be a Breach of Divine and Humane Laws, and an Injury to God's Vicegerents be an Offence only a­gainst the Laws of Men? Does not the [Page 13] Sanction of God establish the Rights of So­vereigns? Or does his Law take care of Oxen, and not of Men, of private Men, and not of Princes? What can be the Reason of this Prerogative of private Rights above the Rights of Princes? Is it because Humane Laws are not the necess [...]y Rules and Measures of Providence? Does not Provi­dence dispose of them? And is it bound to humane Laws in respect to Property, and free in respect to Sovereignty? Hu­mane Laws are not the adequate Rule of Providence, for many things come to pass in God's Government of the World, which cannot be regulated by them; and yet God's Providence does govern political So­cieties by political Laws, sometimes it makes a Law void by extinguishing the matter of it, but it never directly abrogates it; for as long as humane Laws are Laws, they do continue to bind Subjects, they are the necessary Rules and Measures of their Actions, and have the Sanction of divine Authority to enforce them.

Let us consider how the Doctour illus­trates and confirms his Proposition: In hereditary Kingdoms, says he, a Ibid. rightfull King is he who has by Suc­cession a legal Right to the Crown, and he who has Possession of it without a legal right, is a King de Facto, a King, but not by Law: That is, he is an unlawfull King, or an U­surper. Now if this Law which creates a Right to the Crown be truly and properly a Law, then it is certain the Authority of God confirms it; and consequently the King de Jure, having his Right established by the Law of God, the Usurper cannot claim by virtue of it; if the legal and di­vine Right be in another, it is manifest he has neither, and must be a wrongfull Pos­sessour with respect to God and Man; but if the Law of Succession be no Law, the talk of a King de Jure is Banter, and there is no such thing as Right or Law in the World.

The Dr. acknowledges, thatIbid. Subjects are so tied up by the Con­stitutions of the Kingdom, that they must not pull down or set up Kings contrary to the Laws of the Land; but (he adds) God is not bound by humane Laws, but can make whom he pleases King, without Regard to legal Rights. This is liable to many Reflec­tions.

1. He grants that Subjects must not see up illegal Kings, therefore they must not set them up, by giving their Consent to the Advancement of them; and yet he affirms afterwards, that Kings de Facto are not set up by God till they are settled, and that they are not settled till they have the Con­sent of the Subjects. Thus the Result is, That God can never set up Kings against Law, for Subjects must not set them up by their Consent, and there is no other way to doe it.

2. If Subjects must not, is it lawfull for others to advance them? May Foreigners lawfully set up Kings over others? Who made them Judges or King-makers in other Kingdoms? Or how can they prove any Commission from God to doe it? Thus it can be lawfull for no sort of Men to be Instruments in setting up illegal Kings, and therefore they must be set up by God's Per­mission onely; for when wicked Actions are done by wicked Instruments, it is cer­tain he onely permits them.

3. If neither Subjects nor Foreigners can lawfully set up Kings against Law, how shall Providence doe it? God must ei­ther set them up without Instruments, which he never did nor will doe, or he must allways set them up by wicked In­struments, and then it must be said, that God can lawfully set up Kings, but never by lawfull means; and whether this be not derogatory to the Goodness and Justice of his Government, let every one consider.

4. Whereas he affirms, that God can make Kings without regard to legal Rights, why may it not be as well said, that he can make Marriages, or legitimate Bastards, or create Judges, Constables, and Freeholders against Law? No doubt he can doe all this by an express Revelation of his Will, and so he can make Kings against Law, by express Nomination. But providential E­vents are by no means equivalent to it; the unjust Possessor of another's Freehold, is in some sense a Freeholder by Providence; [Page 14] but that can be no barr to an Ejectment by Law; and so it is in the unlawful Pos­session of Sovereignty; God's Providence does not Abrogate the legal Right, nor make an Ejectment unlawful. As I said before, the Matter of humane Laws is often Substracted by Providence, and so is the Matter of divine and natural Laws; but Providence does no more act against those than these. The bond of Law is the Authority of God, and God is the Author of Political Society, and the esta­blisher of Law, which is the Soul and Cement of it; and therefore to say he destroys it by his Providence, is to repre­sent his Providence as Subverting his Au­thority, and to make him not the God of Order, but the God of Confusion.

Prop. 6. The summ of it isIbid. this, We can have but one King at a time, and therefore our Allegiance can be due only to one King. By King he means the Possessor of the Throne; so that this Proposition is a very wonderful Discovery, that two opposite Kings cannot at the same time possess the same Throne, which is as clear as that they can't be in the same place together, or that two M [...] cannot be one Man; this the little Writers can easily comprehend; and if it were as clear that Allegiance is always due to the Possessor, the Controversie would be at an end be­tween us.

Prop. 7. He is our King who is Ibid. setled in the actual Administrati­on of Sovereign Power; this we deny to be true, in our sense of King, and his sense of Settlement. But King, he says, is the Name of Power and Authority not of mere Right. Then the sense of the Pro­position is this, He has Power and Autho­rity over us, who has the Administration of Power and Authority over us; but if the Doctor will assume an Authority over Words, it is not for me to contradict it. We know the World did generally give the name of King to Charles I. and II. when they had only a legal Right to the Crown, but did not Possess it, and so they do to such a Prince, who ought by the Laws of the Land to be King, but is not, as the Doctor understands the name of King. But since he is resolved that King shall signifie Possession of Power only, let him have his Humour, but let him draw no Arguments from his Arbitrary interpre­tation of Names. His King can have no Title to God's Authority against legal Right, which always carries God's Authority with it.

Here the Doctor proposes an Objection, That it is Hobbisin that Dominion is natu­rally annexed to Power; and in Answer to it, he makes shew of a distinction between Hobbs's Opinion and his own. Hobbs makes Power and nothing else to give Right to Do­minion, and asserts that God himself is the natural Governour of the World, not because he made it, but because he is Omnipotent: But I say that Government is founded in Right, and that God is the natural Lord of the World, because he made it, and that no Creature has any Right to govern, but as he receives Authority from God. He might as well have Answered, That Hobbs makes Civil Laws the Rules of good and evil, and denies the existence of Spirits; but I do not. Is there any dispute here about the Grounds of God's Dominion? Is it not wholly about humane Government? And was Hobbism ever laid to his charge, for asserting that God's Dominion is founded only in his Omnipotency? The Question is whether Mr. Hobbs, and the Doctor teach not the same Doctrine about the legal Right and Possession of Sovereignty, and the transferring of Allegiance to Usur­pers? And whether he can clear himself from Hobbism in the Points we are now debating? And this charge is so evident, that he had no other way but to decline it, by answering what was never obje­cted.

Does not the Doctor teach, that our Al­legiance is extinguished when the King has not the Administration of Government in his Hands, and that Allegiance and ac­tual Government are essential Relatives. Mr. Hobbs had taught the same before him, That the Obligation of Subjects to Lev. p. 114. their Sovereign, is understood to last no longer, than the Power lasts to pro­tect [Page 15] them. The Doctor maintains, That when a lawful King is wrongfully deposed, he has still a legal Right to the Crown, but the Subjects are absolved from their Allegiance to him; the Doctrine of the Leviathan is just the same, The Ibid. p. 174. Right of the Sovereign is not ex­tinguished, yet the Obligation of the Members is. The Doctor binds the Subjects to an actual assistance and defence of the Usurper; so doe [...] Ibid. Mr. Hobbs, The Subject is ob­liged (so strictly obliged, that no pretence of having submitted himself out of fear can absolve him) to protect and assist the Ʋsurper as long as he is able. Thus it appears that they are Fratres Fraterrimi, and it is not within the Power of Metaphysicks to di­stinguish them. But what saith the Doc­tor, That Power does not give Right and Authority to govern; but is a certain sign to us, that where God hath placed the Power, he has given the Authority. And is not this a manifest Confession of Hobbism, That Dominion is naturally annexed to Power? Mr. Hobbs does often call his Sovereign God's Lieutenant, and his Vicegerent, and Sovereign under God; he affirms that he governs in God's stead, and that from him, and under him he hath Authority to go­vern. He agrees with the Doctor then, that the Right of Government does flow from God's Authority; so that still it seems impossible to distinguish their Opi­nions.

Prop. 8. Is this: Allegiance Case of Alleg. p. 15. is due only to the King, and the Reason this, For Allegiance signifie [...] all that Duty which Sub­jects owe to their King, and there­fore can be due to none but the King. He had told us before, That by King he un­derstands the actual Possessor, and there­fore it is his sense of the Proposition, that Allegiance is due only to the Possessor, a precarious Assertion repeated often and never proved. But here he pretends to give a very plain Reason for it, the suram of it is this, That Allegiance is Ibid. due only to God's Authority, and no one has it but the actual King. And if this be not a very plain Reason, let every one be judge, that can distinguish Rea­soning from Affirming. But Proposition­making was by this time grown cumber­some to the Doctor; he was forced to make up a round number by Tautologies and Repetitions, and now having exhaust­ed his stock of Postulates, he endeavours next to fortifie them against two Objec­tions, which he imagined might be raised against them.

Obj. But if this [...]e so, What Ibid. does a legal Right signifie, if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects? Why according to the Doctor, certainly it signifies nothing; for the legal Right of the Dispossessed Prince can give him no Right to the Crown, against the Right of divine Authority; the divine Right to all intents and purposes must null the legal; therefore if this continue still to be a Right, it is a Right to nothing. But a great Writer is worth nothing, that cannot defend Absurdities and Contra­dictions, and thus the Doctor endea­vours it.

1. He answers, that ele legal Right bari all other humane Claims, no other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right. The plain meaning of this is, That if the legal Right can be in one Prince, it is not in another; which [...] an admirable Proof, that the legal Right does signifie some­thing. When Oliver usurped, Charles II. had a legal Right to the Throne, but no Allegiance was due to his bare legal Title without God's Authority, and yet this legal Right did signifie something; for if Charles had a legal Right to the Throne, than neither the French King, nor the Grand Signior, nor the Great Mogull, could have a legal Title to it; and though Oliver be­ing setled in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power had a divine Right, yet the legal Right did signifie something to King Charles, though it was null'd by the Divine; and though it made him not a King, (for that is the name of Power,) and left him no Subjects, (because no Allegi­ance was due to him.) Thus the legal Right of a Dispossessed Prince is only a [Page 16] Feather in his Cap, it constitutes him only an Ʋtopian King, yet without so much as imaginary Subjects. But he tells us.

2. That Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince, as far as they can, that is, against all Mankind, but not against God's disposal of Crowns. But who is this such a Prince? Is he a Prince de­throned and dispossessed of his legal Right? Of such a Prince the Doctor is Discoursing, and if such a one he means, How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right as far as they can, when they are bound as far as they are able to oppose it; their whole Allegiance being due to the Possessor? And thus the Obligation to maintain the dispossessed Prince must be expounded as a Duty to destroy him. But if his legal Prince be such an one as is not dispossessed, but has either a Right to the Throne upon the Demise of the Predeces­sor, or is actually in Possession; then I say he speaks not to the Objection; for the Objection relates to the Case of a le­gal Prince, excluded from his Right, by the Intrusion of another, the Case which he proposes in the preceding Paragraph, When he who has the legal Right is not our King. (i. e. has not Possession,) and he who has not i [...]. And he asserts upon it, That all our Allegiance is due to him who is our King, and not to him who is not, though it be his Right to be so; and upon this Case does the Objection proceed, If this be so, What does the legal Right signifie? So that if here he speaks of a Prince Possessing the Throne, or Claming it when it was Vacant, Amphoram instituit, urceu [...] exit; he puts one Prince in the Objection, and another in the Solution, and in short he does not Answer, but Evade and Prevari­cate.

Well! but suppose a Prince with a legal Title to a vacant Throne, How can the Subjects he bound to maintain his Right, since they are not his Subjects, and owe him no Allegiance? For, according to the Doctor, Subjection and Allegiance are due only to Possessors, and not to a bare legal Title without it. Maintenance therefore. In such a Case, can be only a Debt of Ju­stice, because it is due by Law and Equi­ty, and the same Debt will continue, when the rightful Prince is wrongfully Dispos­sessed; for the legal Right is the same, and the same Law and Equity for resto­ring a due, as giving it at first. But far­ther, suppose that he means a rightful Prince in actual Possession; such a one hath both legal Right and God's Autho­rity; and, yet the Doctor denies after­wards, that Subjects in some Cases are bound to maintain them; and thus as a legal Right does signifie nothing with him here, so neither does God's Autho­rity hereafter. He eludes and trims, and distinguishes them away as often as he has occasion; he grants Allegiance to Power without Right, and denies it to lawful Right and God's Authority together.

The other Objection he pro­pounds is this, If we have Sworn Ib. p. 16. Allegiance to a lawful Prince, and his Heirs and lawful Successors, How can we pay Allegiance to any Prince, while He, or any of his Heirs and legal Successors are living, and claim our Allegiance, with­out violating our Oaths? And the summ of his Answer is, That an Oath of Allegi­ance made to any King, can oblige no longer than he continues to be King, (i. e. in Pos­session;) for if it did, it would oblige us a­gainst our Duty, and so become a [...] unlawful Oath. I acknowledge this Answer would be good, if he had sufficiently proved, that Allegiance is always, and only due to the Possessor; and whether that be done, let every one judge as he sees Rea­son. Were it here pertinent, it would be easie to prove, That our Oaths were in­tended to bind us to the lawful King and his Heirs, even in the Case of Disposses­sion; so all honest Men did understand them in the Age of Usurpations, and till of late they were never otherwise Inter­preted, but by a few wretched Slaves of the Usurpers. All the faithful Members of the Church of England thought them Ob­ligatory, when their Princes were Dispos­sessed; they thought it no breach of Duty to stick so a righteous Cause, when it proved Improsperous; and as long as the [Page 17] Man was in bring, they never looked upon the King as gone. The truth is, they were not wise in their Generation, and they understood not that Jesuiti­calLessius de Jure & Justi­tia. p. 79. Evasion, which would have been worth more than the whole World unto them, That when the King is deposed, tum definit esse Princeps; which, if it be true Doctrine, the Consequence of Lessius the Jesuite is un­avoidable, quod quidquam licet in eum at­tentare, he becomes a private Person, and may be lawfully murthered.

In the next Paragraph he observes, that we do not swear to keep the King and his Heirs in the Throne, which may be impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion. And who was ever so senseless as to ima­gine that we swore to keep them in the Throne, when 'tis impossible to keep them; but I presume we swore, that in case our King should be thrown out by a prosperous Rebellion, we would not bind our selves to oppose his Restitution, by transferring our Allegiance to his Rebel; yet he argues that we did not, because such an Oath would be unlawfull, as contrary to that Duty we owe so the divine Providence, which conveys God's Authority to the Usurper. Thus the same precarious Assertions are everlastingly in­culcated, but a Million of Repetitions will never amount to one Argument for them. And now having routed the Objections, he concludes thus:

These seem to be very plain Propositions, and to carry their own Evidence with them. Very plain and self-evident Propositions! And why then could not the Doctor dis­cover them before the publishing of Bishop Overall, and the Battel on the Boyne? Is it possible so great, so quick-sighted a Wri­ter could be above a year in finding out self-evident Propositions? Alas! poor, miserable Swearers and Non-swearers, that cannot see that which is as clear as the Noonday, and carries its own Evidence with it? How unhappy are they that have not the Doctor's Spectacles, by which he is able to see clearly through Mountains, and to discern things dark and invisible to others! But after all, 'tis well these bright Propositions do carry their own Evidence and are known by Intuition; for it seems to me that the Doctor hath given them no additional Lustre, he has hitherto pro­posed them without Proof, and if they are not innate Ideas, they seem to be altogether as indemonstrable.

But if these Propositions are true, they are a very plain Direction to Sub­jects, Ibid. in all Revolutions of Govern­ment. And the Direction in short is this: They must have no hand in the Revolution, and oppose it as far as they can, and not be hasly in complying; but when such a Revolu­tion is made, they must pay Allegiance to the new Prince, as invested with God's Authori­ty. Now his Direction is every whit as plain as his Propositions; in the days of the Unlawfulness of Resistence the contrary Direction was then very plain and evident with him, but it is the singular Prerogative of great Writers to alter the nature of Things with the Alteration of their Judg­ments, and in all their Changes to carry Evidence, Perspicuity, and Demonstration with them. But yet the Direction is not so very plain neither; for even the Doctor himself was sensible there remained still a very considerable Difficulty, which he la­bours next to remove, and to give us more plain Directions about it.

The Difficulty is to know when a Revo­lution is so perfectly completed, or when a new Prince is so fully invested with God's Authority, as to have a Right to our Alle­giance; but the Doctor, according to his way, does very easily resolve it: Obedi­ence is due to God's Authority, and when we can reasonably conclude, that God's Providence has settled the new King in the Throne, we must pay our Obedience to him. But how comes Settlement here to be the onely In­dication of God's Conveyance of Authori­ty? Does not all his Reasoning conclude as strongly for all Possession of Sovereign Power, without respect to Establishment? God removeth and setteth up Kings onely by his Providence, and he sets up a King when by his Providence be puts Sovereign Authority in his hands; every advancement to a Throne, whether setled or unsetled, is an Event, and [Page 18] therefore ordered by God's Will and Appoint­ment, and peculiarly ordered by him, at ha­ving so great an Influence upon the Govern­ment of the World; and this will be farther confirmed, when we remember that Kings are God's Ministers, and are invested with his Authority; all Authority is God's, and no Man can have God's Authority, but he to whom it is given; and yet 'tis very plain, that Princes that are not fully settled, are in Authority. We must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings, whom he does not make Kings; for then we can never distinguish between God's Kings, and Kings of their own making; and it is impossible there should be a wrong King, unless a Man could make himself King whe­ther God will or no: And therefore a King whose Possession is not firmly established, can­not be a wrong King, because he is a King of God's making; he has the Authority of Go­vernment in his hands, and whoever has God's Authority is a true and rightfull King, and therefore our onely King; for we cannot have two opposite Kings at once, and consequently our Allegiance is due onely to him.

In short, there is not an Argument in his Book which is not equally applicable to all Possession whatsoever; either they prove Allegiance to all Possessors, or to none at all; but if they infer Absurdities, rejected even by the Doctor, they must needs be false and fallacious; and if we cannot reasonable con­clude when a Prince has the Administration of Sovereign Power, that God ha [...] made him King, unless he be throughly settled, we cannot possible conclude from any of the Doctor's Arguments, that a settled Usurper is made a King by God. Let him shew the difference, if he can, let him demonstrate to us the Reason, why a Prince when he is first advanced has no Right to Allegiance, and has when he is settled, though the same Providence does advance and settle him; why the same actual Administration of Go­vernment is a Sign of God's Authority when it is secure, and none when it is in danger; and let him resolve us whether an unsettled Possessour be not a Power in being, and advanced by God, and there­fore invested with his Authority; whether God's Advancement and Authority do ar­gue a Right to Allegiance; and whether the publick Good, the Preservation of our selves, and of political Society, are but frivoldu [...] Arguments when an Usurpation is doubtfull, and demonstrative when esta­blished. If he can unriddle these Myste­ries, and shew all his Arguments to be con­clusive for a settled, and not for an unset­tled Possessour, I will acknowledge him then to be the greatest Writer under Hea­ven: But it is too much for any one to write precarious Propositions, and apply them by arbitrary Distinctions, and to ar­gue as if all Mankind were Idiots, and as if there were no Logick nor Reason in the World.

But as the Doctor distinguishes between settled and unsettled, so also between Set­tlement and Settlement. In new Governments, he says, there must Pag. 17. necessarily be different degrees of Settlement, which seem to require, or at least to justifie different degrees of Submis­sion, till it increases to such [...]full, and ple­nary, and settled Possession, as requires our Allegiance. Thus our Submission is ever to keep pace with Settlement, and to bear a due proportion to it. Now Settlement consists not in a Mathematical Point, he acknowledges there are various degrees of it; and I say they are indefinite and innu­merable, for in the Acquisition of new So­vereignty, Power and Stability do increase like Time and Bodies, by innumerable steps and progressions; and as the degrees of Settlement [...]re innumerable, so must the degrees of Submission, which is commen­surate to it. But the [...] this is not a very plain Direction for Revolutions, that our Submission must grow in proportion to the Settlement; for it will be impossible to find out degrees of Submission answerable to degrees of Settlement. For instance, King Steven, Henry IV. and VI. Edward IV. Richard III. Henry VII. and Cade and Ket, the Rump and Oliver, and his Son Richard, had not two of them the same degrees of Power and Stability; and is the Doctor able to find out so many several degrees of Submission for them? Though neither [Page 19] Mathematical proportion nor Mathema­tical certainty is here expected from him, yet he should have directed us in the gra­dual increase of Submission by some rules and distinctions, and have shewed us in gross, at least, what Submission is due to an upstart Power that is like to be of short continuance, what to a Power of weak or doubtful Establishment, what to a Power supported only by force, or by the consent of a great Party, as well as what is due to a Power that is throughly s [...]tled by the full consent of the People.

But the Doctor speaks only to two degrees of Setlement; the FirstIbid. is, When the generality of a Na­tion submit to a Prince, and place him in the Throne, and put the whole Power of the Kingdom into his Hands, and yet the dispos­sessed Prince has such a formidable Power as makes the Event very doubtful. This we may call a doubtful Setlement; but p. 9. where the Doctor is discoursing on the Convocation Book, he affirms that this is a through Setlement; the general Submis­sion of People, the Possession of the whole Power of the Nation, and the whole Ad­ministration of Government, are the Notes and Characteristicks of it; but here they are owned to be insufficient to prove i [...] through Setlement, and notwithstand­ing a general Submission, and a Possession of the whole Power of the Kingdom, It [...]ay be thought that God's Providence has not [...] the Usurper, and that Allegiance [...]s not due to him; and yet again in his Vindication, p. 37. by Setlement he un­derstands the Setlement of a Government within it self, and there he thinks it may be throughly setled before it has a peaceable [...]ossession and Settlement. Thus the Doc­tor makes as much, or as little go to a through [...]et [...]ment as he pleases; and when he pre­tends that the thing is notoriously evident and sensible, he writes ambiguously, in­ [...]oherently and contradictorily about it.

Now let us consider his Directions about Submission to a Government doubtfully [...]tled.

1. They who live under such a Ibid. Government are bound (he says) to live quietly and peaceably, and to promise or swear, or give any other security to do so, if it be demanded. But neither is this a very plain Direction, For to live quietly and peaceably is a very doubtful Expression; and if he intends by it an Obligation never to contribute our Assistance to restore the rightful Sovereign, than it is a promising or swearing away our Allegiance; and I would fain know what Obligation there can be to renounce our Allegiance, for a Government that has no Title to it. But if he means the not attempting any thing against this Government while we are un­der its Power, and are certain to be crush'd in the attempt, and the exerting our Al­legiance cannot be effectually serviceable to restore our Sovereign; a Subject indeed may lawfully promise thus to live peace­ably, and he might lawfully swear it, but that it seems to be taking God's Name in vain; for it would be a vain and trifling Oath, such as would give no Security to the Imposers, and should be impos'd upon none but Mad-men.

He add [...], It is reasonable we Ibid. should live peaceably, if we think it reasonable to live under the protection of the Government. But there is no more reason that we should renounce our Allegi­ance for the Protection of Usurpers, than that we should renounce Political Society for the Protection of Banditi; it is rea­sonable to live where we have right to live, and if unreasonable Men will not permit us to enjoy our Right, without a sinful Com­pliance, we must live where God's Provi­dence shall dispose us, and if we cannot live Innocently, it is reasonable to dye so. But this all Men do, saith the Doctor, in an Enemies Quarters, and no Man blames them for it. No Man blames them for living peaceably, when to live otherwise would be unserviceable to the Prince, and to them inevitable Destruction. No doubt they may do so, as long as they are in the Enemies Power, but as soon as that Power or Force is removed, and the Subjects are in a capacity of exerting their Allegiance, then the reason of living peaceably ceases, and the paying actual Allegiance to their [Page 20] lawful Sovereign is an indispensible Duty; and I believe no one ever denied, that it was lawful thus to live peaceably under all Usurpers.

2. We must pay Taxes to them; Ibid. for these are due to the Admini­stration of Government, as St. Paul ob­serves; for this Cause pay ye Tribute also, for they are the Ministers of God attending con­tinually on this very thing. The Powers to whom Tribute is to be paid, are there ex­presly said to be the Ministers of God, and to be ordained by him; they are therefore such Powers as have a right to Allegiance, and the Doctor in the next Section does argue upon that supposition. And yet here he argues from this Text, That Tri­bute is due to such Powers as have no right to Allegiance, and therefore are not God's Ministers, nor Ordained by him. If Alle­giance be always, and only due to God's Authority, (as he affirms in his self evi­evident Propositions,) and if they who have not God's Authority are not his Mini­sters, nor his Ordinance, and Tribute is due only to God's Ministers, because it is enjoyned to be paid for that Reason only, than the Consequence is, That such Pow­ers as are not throughly Setled have no right to Tribute, because they have no right to Allegiance. The Apostle requires Taxes to be paid to God's Ministers; and if they who administer the Government are not God's Ministers, they cannot claim them from the Apostle. Taxes are due to the Ministers of God, as attending conti­nually on the Administration of Govern­ment; but if they are hindred from at­tending it, by the Rebellion or Revolt of their Subjects, Are the Subjects then dis­charged from paying them, because they have wickedly Rebelled or Revolted from him? In a time of Rebellion, Is nothing due to the Sovereign, because he can't ad­minister the Government? And if a Sove­reign forfeits all his Rights, when it is im­possible for him to administer it, May it not equally be argued from the Apostle, that he forfeits his Crown, if he is not a t [...]or to evil Works, but to the good? But if the Doctor still thinks that to be an unreasonable Inference, he must allow the other to be unreasonable also.

To the Text of the Apostle he adds this Reason, If we owe the secure Ibid. Possession of our Estates to the Protection of the Government, let the Go­vernment be what it will, we ought to pay for it. No doubt we may pay Taxes to an Usurper, as we may deliver our Pur­ses to a Robber; in both Cases it is lawful to give that which we cannot keep: But to pay Taxes voluntarily when we can avoid it, is no more our Duty than to pre­sent a Robber with our Purses, when we can easily save them. If it is our Duty, it must be either on the score of Gratitude or Justice; but since the payment of Taxes must necessarily strengthen the Usurper, and enable him to resist and to destroy the rightful Sovereign, it must necessarily be Injustice to pay them, be­cause it is unjust to support Injustice, and to contribute voluntarily to the overthrow of a just and righteous Cause. And if the Contribution be unjust, it cannot be a Debt of Gratitude, for that does never oblige us to Injustice; and consequently though the Usurpers Protection be a Be­nefit, (as receiving Quarter from the Ban­diti is a Benefit,) yet this cannot oblige me to support him in his Usurpations, nor pay such Taxes as are raised to establish the unjust Power, and resist the Rightful: I ought not to receive his Protection on that condition, nor purchase a Benefit to my self by Perjury and Injustice. If it be a Duty to pay Taxes to support an Usurper that is not throughly settled, Why should it not be a Duty to pay Allegiance to him? If we asist him with Money, we may as­sist him with Counsel, Prayers, and Arms; we may fight for him with our Persons as well as with our Purses; and if we do all this, we pay him plenary Allegiance. But since the Doctor does not require Alle­giance to an Usurper doubtfully settled, the Subjects cannot be obliged to contri­bute their Assistance to support him; for that is the principal Duty of Allegiance, nor consequently to pay him Taxes for [Page 21] that purpose, for that is the principal and most powerful Assistance.

3. We must give the Title of King Ibid. to such a Prince, and this he requires for two Reasons; 1. Because it is a piece of good Manners. 2. Because he is indeed King while he administers the Regal Power, tho we may not think him so well setled, as to all Intents and Purposes to own him for our King. What Title we are obliged to give him in good Manners. I leave to the Hera [...]lds and the Master of the Ceremonies to deter­mine; but till I am better inform'd, if the Title does not belong to him, I cannot think it good Manners to call him that which he is not. But if he be King in­deed, then a very little Sense, without Skill in Heraldry, or Casuistical Divinity, will serve to inform us that we must give him the Title of King; and this is one of the plainest Directions in his Book, that if he be King indeed, he has a Right to be called so. But he is indeed King while he admini­sters the Regal Power; and this is evident from what he affirms in Prop. 7. That King is the Name of Power: But Prop. 8. This King is one to whom Allegiance is due, and yet here he is indeed King to whom Allegiance is not due, as being not well setled in his Government, and who is not to all Intents and Purposes to be owned for our King. Thus we must give him the Title of King, because he is a King, or at least half a King, and yet in reality no King, because he has no Right to Allegiance. But the Doctor may trifle and shuffle with Names as he pleases, he may give the Title of King, if he will, to every Rebel and U­surper, to Oliver and Richard and Massa­niello, for they administred the Regal Power for a time: But I hope he will not be offended if others follow not his Hu­mour, if they call a Spade a Spade, and say that he has no Right to the Title of King, who has no Right to the Office, and no Right to Allegiance.

4. We must pray for him under Ibid. the Title and Name of King; for we are bound to pray for all who are in Authori­ty; and that a Prince is, who has the whole Government in his hands, and has power to doe a great deal of hurt, or a great deal of good. All this was true of Oliver, he was visibly in Authority, had the whole Govern­ment in his hands, and had power to doe a great deal of Hurt or Good, were the Clergy therefore bound to pray for their Sovereign Lord King Oliver? In those days the Sons of the Church were of another Mind, they esteemed it infamous and wic­ked to thrust their lawfull Sovereign out of their Prayers, to make room for the Usurper; and to stile him their Sovereign Lord, their King, or their Protector; and yet pray for all in Authority was then a Text in the Bible. What does the Apo­stle mean by all in Authority? Not cer­tainly all that have the Administration of it, for then Pyrates, Robbers and Rebels will be comprehended in that Expression: But the Motive or Reason annexed is a clear Limitation of it, we must pray for them, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life; which shews we must here understand such Authority as is for the Quiet and Peace of of Society, and such are all lawfull Powers, even the most Tyrannical; but such are not the Usurpers of that Authority that belongs to others, whether Rebels, Rob­bers, or titular Tyrants; for these are the great Enemies of Society, their Usurpation of their Authority tends to its Subversion, and considering its natural and ordinary Effects, it can never be expected that a quiet and peaceable Life should be attained under them. But the Doctor understands by the Expression, such as have the whole Government in their Hands, though they are not perfectly settled. And whose Authority have they? Certainly God's Authority, for according to him, the whole Authority of Government is God's; but if they have God's Authority, his Propositions give them a Right to Allegiance; and to what purpose then is his Distinction of a through Settle­ment? And if they have not his Authority, how impertinent is the alleadging that Text for a Right to our Prayers? We are bound to pray for all Men, for private and publick Enemies, for Thieves and Mur­therers, and Usurpers; but we are princi­pally obliged to this out of Charity to their [Page 22] Souls, and therefore we must pray chiefly for their Repentance and Conversion, and to pray thus for Usurpers, (that God would bless them thus with the chiefest of his Blessings,) is (as says the Doctor) so far from being a Fault, that it is a Duty, while we do it in such terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed. But if in the late Usurpa­tions a Doctor had ejected Charles, and inserted Cromwell, and had prayed in these Terms, Bless we beseech thee our Sovereign Lord King Oliver, I presume, the Master of the Temple would have been as forward as any Man to charge Hypocrisie, base Com­pliance, and breach of Allegiance upon him. And Reason would have made good the Charge; for to pray for Oliver, as our Sovereign Lord, is to acknowledge before God and Man that he is so; and to teach the People to acknowledge him, and to pay him that Subjection and Allegiance that is due to a Sovereign. Is not Prayer for a King one of the principal Expressions of Allegiance? And when we pray for the Usurper in the room of the lawful So­vereign, does not the very nature of the thing require this Interpretation, that we do not own him for our King, whom we thrust out of our Prayers, and that we have transferred our Allegiance, where we pay the most benefical Expression of it? this is the general Sense of the People con­cerning it, and he that can satisfie his Con­science to own an Usurper for his King and Sovereign Lord in the most Solemn Manner that can be, tho he owns no Allegiance to be due to him, when the Reason for which he does it, the Nature of the Thing, and the Construction of the People do imply an acknowledgment of Allegiance, may I think be satisfied in any thing, and need not scruple any Compliance whatsoever.

Thus far the Directions about Submis­sion to a Government not throughly settled, to which Allegiance is not required; but tho he requires it not here, in the Sequel of his Discourse he infers it as a necessary and indispensible Duty: for when heCase of Alleg. p 38. comes to confute Bp. Sanderson's measures of Submission, his Rea­sons there do prove (if they prove any thing) that Allegiance is due to such a Government. The Doctor here di­rects us to pay some lower degrees of Sub­mission, but not Allegiance to his unsetled Usurper; and so does Bp. Sanderson, but his Arguments against the Bishop's do equally conclude against his own Directi­ons; and thus I argue after him.Pag. 39. If under an Ʋsurper unsetled, the Safety and Tranquillity of Human Societies, requires any thing of us, it requires and justi­fies a great deal more; for, 1. As he states the matter, this destroys Civil Government, and a governed Society; for seeing Allegi­ance is not due to such a Prince, it follows he has not God's Authority, so that to speak properly, here is neither King nor Sub­ject, and I suppose no Man that considers it well, will ca [...] this a Civil Government, to which God's Authority and Allegiance is es­sential. 2. I would ask whether Self-Preservation, publick Good, and Gratitude for Protection do oblige me to obey and submit to the Prince who governs, and to wish and pray for, and do my utmost to endeavour his Prosperity? if it does I see no difference be­tween this and Allegiance; if it does not, then I am at liberty to disturb the Govern­ment, nay am under an Obligation by my former Allegiance to do it, when I can; and how does this contribute to the Safety of Soci­eties? 3. Suppose such a Prince should re­quire an Oath of Allegiance, and the Subjects according to their Duty should refuse it, and the Prince had Power to compel them, what must be the effect of this, but the utter Destru­ction of the Nation? But there is no need of transcribing the rest of his Discourse, it will be obvious to every one that considers it, that it is applicable throughout to his own Directions for Submission without Al­legiance. Thus the Doctor does engage the Doctor, his Arguments do overthrow his Directions, or his Directions his Argu­ments. His Propositions prove that Alle­giance is due to every Usurper, his Directi­ons deny it, and his Arguments against the Bishop do again infer it; let him choose the one or the other, either Allegiance is due to all Usurpers, and then he loses Bp. Overal's Convocation-Book, several [Page 23] Pages of his own Book, and innumerable passages about a through Settlement: Or it is due only to Usurpers that are settled, and then his Propositions and all his Ar­guments from Scripture, and almost all from Reason are irrecoverably gone. The World knows he can prove which he pleases, but I think he is not so great a Writer, as to be able to prove Contradic­tions.

We come next to this summary account of a Government throughly settled, and these are his Notes and Characters of it. When besides the Possession of the Pag. 18. Throne, the Power of the dispos­sessed Prince is broken, and no visible pros­pect of recovering his Throne again; nay, if it be visible that he can never recover his Throne again, but by making a new Conquest if the Nation by Foreigners, who will be our Masters if they conquer, and no very gentle ones, we may then (he concludes) look upon the new Prince as settled by God in his Throne, and therefore such a King as we [...]e entire Allegiance to. Here then his Characters of a through Settlement ac­quired to Possession are these two; abso­lute Conquest over the dispossessed Prince, so that he has no visible prospect of recover­ing his Throne; and no prespect of reco­vering it, but by Conquest of the Nation by Foreigners who will be no gentle Masters. How is it possible to hang these Characters together? P. 9. he makes plenary Poses­sion and Submission to be the only Test of a through Settlement; butPag. 17. upon second thought, he owns that to be insufficient; and here again he sets it first upon the dispossessed Prince having no visible prospect of a Restora­tion; then one would conclude that if there is such a prospect, then there is no Settlement: Not so neither; for though there be a prospect of recovering one way, there is nevertheless a Settlement, and we must conclude that God has settled the Usurper, because there is but one way open to a Restoration: This is just as reasona­ble as if it should be affirmed, That a Man who is subject only to Convulsions is well settled in his Health; that an in­closure is well fenced when there is but one gap; that a Fort is perfectly secure when there is but one breach for the Enemy to enter at; or that the wrongful Possessor of an Estate has got a good Settlement, because there is but one way to eject him. If a little Writer had made such a Settle­ment, How unmercifully would the great Judges have treated him, he had certainly lost all his Credit in conveyancing for ever; and doubtless nothing can be more absurd, than to pretend that a Deed of Conveyance is a good Settlement, when there is one way to defeat it; or that a Government is through­ly settled, when there is visibly one way to over-throw it. Why should not a visi­ble prospect of Restoration by Foreigners spoil a Settlement, as well as a prospect of effecting it by Subjects; is it because Fo­reigners will be no gentle Masters? We re­member well when the Government of rebellious Subjects was the most cruel Tyranny that ever the Nation felt. But be they hard or gentle Masters, what is that to a Settlement? The point is not whe­ther the Government of the restored Prince will be gentle, but whether there be a prospect of Restoring him, for if there is, it is a plain Demonstration that there is no through Settlement. This re­flexion then upon Foreigners, was in the bottom only an Amusement; it was in­tended for nothing but to throw Dust in our Eyes, and to create a weak Prejudice, to supply the want of Argument.

We return then to that which is the only colourable Proof of a through Set­tlement; When the Power of the dispossessed Prince is broken, and there is no visible pros­pect of a Restoration. Nothing is more arbitrary and various, than the prospect which Men have of future Revolutions; almost every Man has a peculiar Prospec­tive through which he looks, and every one looks through his own Organs and his own Prejudices. Men of Sanguine Complexion, whose Spirits are brisk and volatile, as they happen to be prepossessed, will judge a Prince's Condition to be hope­ful, or desperate upon every little turn of Providence; the Melancholick and Time­rous, [Page 24] on both sides, will be always anxi­ous and aboding the worst, either despair of a Restitution or eternally fear it, and never think the new Government to be settled enough: Even Men of a well ballanc'd Tem­per, of sedate and prudent Judgment, will yet have a different prospect of Things; some will think a Prince irrecoverably lost, and others who have as a good foresight, will think his recovery probale. Not the di­versity only of Temper and Judgment, but also the intricacy and obscurity of the Matter and Object, and the constant vicissi­tude of humane Affairs, must necessarily occasion difference of Opinions; even the most able and skilful Politicians are often deceived in ballancing of Governments, and passing judgment on their Strength and Stability; and if hereunto we add, that the Decrees of God, who governs Governments, are unsearchable; that his Providence is an unfathomable Abyss; that he often lifteth up the Poor out of the Dust, and levels proud Usurpers with it; that in History there are innumerable Ex­amples of Princes and Governments Re­established and Exalted from the very bottom of Despair; and in fine, that we are assured by Experience, that the most improbable and unexpected Events do happen almost as often as those that are most probable and most certainly expect­ed. When all this, and much more is considered as it ought, it must needs be acknowledged, That the Judgments con­cerning the final Depression of a dispossessed Prince, and the secure Establishment of an Usurper, must be exceeding difficult, va­rious and uncertain; and then the result is, that seeing it is hardly possible to be assured of a through Settlement, as the Doctor understands it, and seeing Men of the best Judgments are often mistaken, and are never unanimous about it, and a very small part of Mankind can be thought capable of judging it, the Consequence is, that a through Settlement is no sufficient direction for Allegiance.

The Doctor gives this description of a through Settlement, to determine the present Controversie about Allegiance; but whether the dispossessed Prince is so broken, that there is no visible prospect of his Restoration, we may be determined by the visible Hopes and Fears of the op­posite Parties. 'Tis plain his Power is not totally broken, and 'tis a palpable absur­dity to say that a Prince, who is still car­rying on a War, is absolutely Conquered. Let not him that girdeth on his Armour boast himself, as he that putteth it off; the Event of War is always doubtful, and when the War is finished, it will be time enough to triumph, and to talk of a through Settle­ment. If the Doctor thinks it may com­mence sooner, his Opinion is contradicted by Experience and common Sense, for no Man that has any Title to it, will believe that the purchase of War is secure before the War is over; or that an Usurper is throughly settled in his Throne, when the deposed Prince is pursuing his Right to it by War: That Restoration for which we have an annual Thanskgiving, was once esteemed morally impossible without a Conquest by Foreigners, and the Destruc­tion of the Nation, but with God it was not impossible, and that which has been may be. The Doctor has formerly told the World, That though Case of Resist. p. 132. God for wise Reasons may some­times permit such Ʋsurpations, yet while his Providence scoures the Persons of the deposed and banished Princes from Violence, he secures their Title too; as it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision, the Tree is cut down, but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth. The Kingdom shall be sure to them after they shall know that the heavens do rule, Dan. 4. 26.

In those times the Right and Title of the natural Prince were of such impor­tance, that there could be no Settlement of the Usurper, as long as a stump of the Tree remained; but Times and Principles are altered, and now says the Doctor, We must not take the Case of Alleg. p. 18. consideration of Right into the Settlement of Government; for a Prince may be settled without legal Right, and when he is so, God has made him our King, and requires our Obedience. [Page 25] The Doctor, no doubt, may consider Settlement without Right, and then de­clare that a Prince may be settled without it: But any one else may consider it with relation to Right if he pleases; for a legal Settlement is, I hope, a Settlement; and 'tis as certain that the extinction of all legal Claims and Competitors, will contribute much to a through Settlement.

We may consider Settlement in a natu­ral, and in a legal, or moral Sense, in re­lation to Possession, and in relation to Right. He that dwells in a House, and keeps out the right Owner may be said to be settled in it, because he keeps Possession, but enquire in Westminister-hall whether this be good Settlement, and the query will be easily resolved. Oliver was settled in some sense at White-hall, so he was in the Government; but that Settlement was thought to be of no validity in Law and Conscience, nor did it give him a divine Right to the Palace and the Throne. Settlement is a Word of manifold and ambiguous Meaning, and must be always interpreted according to the nature of the Matter to which it is applied; when civil Property is the subject Matter, the very nature of the Thing requires it to be un­derstood in the civil or legal Signification of it, and then (as it has been well ob­served) it denotes two Things, peaceable Possession and legal Right. This is unde­niable in relation to private Rights, And why does it not require that Interpretation in respect to politick Dominion? Is that the sense of all Lawyers when they speak of private Estates? And is there any Lawyer that ever applied that Term to a Government usurp'd and possess'd without Right? Is there any other good Author that called such a Possession a through Settle­ment? The Lawyers have always con­sidered Right as necessary to the firm Establishment of any Possession, and it would be a contradiction to their Profes­sion to consider otherwise; for if Right be not requisite to the Settlement of Pos­sessions, there is an end of all Law, and there is no need nor use of it in the World.

When a Man is Possessor malae fidei (and such are all Usurpers) the Lawyers do not account him to be throughly settled in his Possession; for as he is bound in Con­science to Restitution, so he may be ejected by Law; and they never look upon him as settled till he becomes a lawful Possessor and has acquired a legal Right by Prescription of a 100 Years, or time im­memorial, in which they presume a Dere­liction of the true Proprietor. Their Doctrine is the same concerning the Pos­session of the Rights of Sovereignty; they never supposed it to be established without Right; they affirm the Usurper (as long as he is such) is bound to Navarre. 26. Tom. 3. p. 228. Arnisaeus de Rep. l. 2. c. 3. s. 27. Restitution; that the rightful Prince may law­fully eject him by Grot. de ju. belli. l. 2. c. 1. War; that the presumption of Law is always for the law­ful Prince; that the Usur­per cannot prescribe a Right, Covar. pars. 2. Rel. c. Possess. Malaef. dereg. s. 2. n. 13. p. 449. (nisi accesserit praescriptioni scientia pa­tientiaque ipsius Principis,) without the knowledge and permission of the Prince, and lastly, that these are never to be presumed, but in case of perpetual and undisturbed Possession Ibid. p. 451. for a 100 Years, or a time exceeding the memory of Man. Tyrants (says De Rep. l. 26. o. 7. Petrus Gregorius) after they have Dethroned th [...] true and rightful Princes, are yet desirous of their Titles, and they make use of Parlia­ments or Assemblies of the People to acquire them; yet they are Tyrants still, and are comprehended in the Laws that relate to Tyrants, unless (as some think) they abdicate their Power, and submit to their Judgment who can confer lawful Sovereignty upon them; or unless after their Ʋsurpation, they with their Posterity, prescribe a Right to the Sovereignty by the Possession of a 100 Years or more. Thus the Civil Lawyers: And, if we may believe Grotius, their Doctrine is confirmed by the Law of Nations:

[Page 26]He says De ju. belli, l. 2. c. 4. s. 9. it is probable that this Law was introdu­ced by the consent of Na­tions, that immemorial Possession peaceably enjoy'd without Interruption, Omnino dominium transferret, should to all intents transfer Dominion; he shews by many instances that this was often pleaded by Nations; those out of Iso­crates Ibid. s. 2. are apposite to our Purpose; in his Archidamus, he argues the Right of the Lacedemonians to Messana, from their Possession of it for some hun­dreds of Years, and he lays down this Rule as most certain and confessed by all; That Possessions, both private and publick, become proper and patrimonial, if they have been held for a long time; and in his Oration to Philip, [...]; When length of time had made the Possession firm and settled. These and other Instances that might be produced, do shew it has been the Sense of Mankind, that Prescription is requisite to establish Possessions without an original Right, and that there could be no Settle­ment till a new Right were introduced; for if Dominion might have been transfered without Right, the introduction of the Right of Prescription, by the Law of Na­tions, would have been superstuous.

But the Law of England is yet more rigid in requiring legal Right, it differs from the Civil Law in Mat­ter of Prescription; (Finch's Disc. of Law, p. 132. for by the Common Law Pre­scription maketh no Right in Land,) but the difference is in favour of Right against Possession, which cannot in any tract of time advance to a legal Settlement, when an antecedent legal Right can be made out against it. And can we think that the Law is more careful of private Property than of Sovereignty, of Lands and Tenements than of the Royal Crown and Dignity? That it has provided that the Rights of the Subjects be Sacred, Inviolable, and Eternal, and hath left the Crown to every one that can catch it, though all the Estates in the Realm are held in Fee of the Crown, and are deriv'd Originally from it? On the contrary, the Favour and Presumption of the Law is always for the King; no time is allowed to prescribe against his Rights; it is the first Case of the Postnati, p. 36. Prin­ciple of the Law that his Crown is Hereditary, it is entailed on his Posterity for ever. Ibid. 68. Descent is de­clared to be a Title strong­er than all others, it being an undoubted Title made by Law, it cannot be defea­ted by any other Title. Cook in Cal­vin's Case. Allegiance is not due to the Crown, but to the na­tural Person of the King, which is ever accompany'd with the Politick Capaci­ty; Judge Jen­kin's Works, p. 22. it is due to the na­tural Body by Nature, God's Law and Man's Law, cannot be forfeited nor renounced by any Means, it is inseparable from the Person; and it has been said to be due to him, Postnati, 104. even when he is driven out of his King­dom. And lastly, we have the Resolution of all the Lord's and Com­mons in the Case of the Claim of the Duke of York against Henry the Sixth, that an illegal Settlement of the Crown by Acts of Parliament, and the Settlement of 60 Years Possession without interruption, were not sufficient to defeat the legal Title, nor to settle the Usurper's against it.

Further it appears from the whole S [...]ies of our History, from the constant practice of Usurpers, and from the Acts and Recog­nitions of their Parliaments, that no Pos­session whatsoever without a legal Right was ever esteemed a through Settle­ment by the Parliaments, the People, or by the Usurpers themselves; they have always pretended to a Legal Right, and got themselves to be declared Kings dejure, by their Parliaments, for the satisfaction of the People: to what purpose, but that they knew it was the surest Foundation of their Power, that the People could never be brought to a plenary Submission, nor their [Page 27] Government be throughly setled without a general Persuasion of it. These Recogni­tions of Parliaments were as illegal as the Usurpations, they could not alter the nature of things, lawful Parliaments did always declare them to be invalid and null, the whole Body of the Nation have rejected and made no account of them, and they never yet were effectual to establish Usur­pation: But they who had no Right thought the Pretente and Opinion of it necessary to a Settlement, they knew that Parliaments were the best Instruments to delude the People, and therefore they made them to recognize Force and Usurpation to be Right and Inheritance; and this con­stant practice of Usurpers is an evident Proof that it has been the Universal Sense o [...] the Nation, that without a Legal Right there could be no hopes of Settle­ment.

Lastly, I appeal to the Sense and Reason of Mankind, whether according to the natural course of things there can be a through Settlement of an Usurped Power, while the rightful Prince is actually pro­secuting his Right. Mankind are not so degenerate nor so much in love with Oppression and Injustice as to have no re­gard to Right, nothing is more natural than to commiserate and assist the Oppres­sed, and that may well be expected in the case of a Rightful Sovereign, to whom the Subjects have sworn Assistance, and whom they know to be wrongfully deposed. The generality of Men will never so far shake off the bands of Reason and Equity, as to think they are loos'd from the Obligations of rendring every Man his due, and doing as we would be done by. Brave and Gene­rous Spirits will never be wanting, who will dare even to dye for a Righteous Cause, and will scorn to abandon a Prince because he is unfortunate. Men may be c [...]eated and deluded for a while with the plausible Pretences of Religion and [...] Publick Safety, but time does always dis­cover the Imposture, and when once the Fig-Leaves are remov'd, the Usurpation and Injustice will be expos'd naked to their view, and their Abhorrence will be height­ned by the Briars and Thorns, the Sweat and Labour and Misery they have produc'd▪ and then they will strive who shall be the first in bringing back their King, all this is natu­ral to imagine, what has often happened, and what may be reasonably expected. Usurpers are always in the state of Robbers, they may be well arm'd and strongly forti­sied, but they can never be secure, Usurpa­tion will never want Enemies, not Right its Friends and Defenders. Nature and Reli­gion and the Common Interest of Mankind do conspire for Right and Justice, against Injury and Oppression; and 'tis not likely they should be establish'd in spite of so powerful a Combination. Lastly, it was never yet known in this Nation, that a Legal Right to the Crown, when prosecuted, was totally deserted, or a through Settlement acquir'd without it, and therefore I conclude that Reason and Experience do assure us, that Right is necessary to a through Settle­ment.

The Result is this, that seeing the Civil Law, the Law of Nations, the Law of Eng­land, the Practice of Usurpers, the constant Sense of the People, and even Reason it self do unanimously agree in proving the neces­sity of Right to Settlement; it is very unreasonable to consider Settlement with­out it, or when we meet with it in any Author, to give it such an Interpretation as is warranted by no good Writer, and is contradictory to Law and Practice, Rea­son and Experience; and when on the con­trary it may fairly be interpreted in a sense agreeable to them.

The Doctor concludes this Section with repeating his former Prejudice, and insinu­ating a new one, That his Prin­ciples Pag. 18. are so very useful in all Re­volutions, that Subjects have reason to wish them true, and to examine over again those strict Principles of Loyalty, which if pursued to their just consequences, must unavoidably in some junctures sacrifice whole Kingdoms, at least all Subjects who pretend to this degree of Loyalty and Conscience to the ill Fortune of their Princes. Now this is nothing but Wheedling and Prevaricating; if his Prin­ciples be false, it is certain they are not use­ful [Page 28] to the Good of Mankind, and 'tis as impious to wish them true, as to wish that Vice were Virtue, as absurd as to wish that an Ox were an Elephant. His Princi­ples are useful enough to them who think sleeping in a whole Skin should be pre­ferred to all Obligations; and such is that Principle which was once vouched by the Devil, Skin for Skin, and all that a Man hath, &c. But the strict Principles of Loy­alty are such as may sacrifice Kingdoms to the ill Fortune of a Prince; so may the Principle of Passive Obedience to the Cru­elty of a Prince; so may the Doctrine of the Cross to the Fury of a persecuting Prince; so it is possible that Obedience to any Law of God o [...] Nature may in some junctures be the destruction of a Kingdom; must the Laws of God and Nature be therefore cancelled? Must the Doctrine of the Cross and of Non-resistence be there­fore rejected, as destructive to Society? Must the Principles of Honour, Loyalty, and Fidelity, be sacrificed to ill Fortune? Is our Allegiance due to Fortune? And if a righteous Cause be unsuccessful, is it our Duty to abandon, and bind our selves by Oaths to oppose it? We may thus brief­ly answer his Objection: We will dis­charge our Duty, and leave the Event to God.

But as for the Doctor's Principles, they are exactly the same with Mr. Ascham's, and because he professes greatly to reverence the profund Judgment of Bishop Sanderson, I will conclude this Section with his Reprinted in the 2d Pt. of the Hist. of Passive Obedience. Censure of them in these words, That they evidently [...]nd, 1. To the taking away of all Christi­an Fortitude and Suffering in a righteous Cause: 2. To the encouraging of daring and ambitious Spi­rits to attempt continual Innovations▪ with this Confidence, that if they can possess themselves of the supreme Power, they ought to be submitted to. 3. To the obstructing un­to the oppressed Party all possible means with­out a Miracle of recovering his just Right▪ of which he shall have been unjustly disposses­sed. And, 4. To the bringing in of Atheism, with the Contempt of God and all Religion, whilst every man by making his own Persua­sion the measure of all his Duties and Acti­ons, maketh himself thereby his own Idol.

Examination of SECT. 4.

IN the former Section the Doctor has laid down Propositions which he asserts to be plam, and to carry their own Evidence with them; but if that be true, the rest of his Pamphlet is Supererogation: for what need of lighting Candles to the Sun, of ad­ding more Evidence to the greatest Evi­dence that can be, and of confirming self­evident Truths by such Mediums as are not self-evident. Indeed the Doctor was conscious that they were not evident, but that there was need of urging more Argu­ments to confirm them, and of answering material Objections against them. He be­gins first with Arguments from Scripture; and here

He observes, That the▪ Scripture has gi­ven us no directions in this Case, but to pay all Obedience to the present Powers, and that it makes no distinction between rightful Kings and Ʋsurpers; but the general Rule is, Let every Soul be Subject to the higher Powers, for all Power is of God, the Powers that be are ordained of God; whosoever therefore re­sisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation, Rom. 13. 1, 2. To say that the Apostle here speaks of lawful Pow­ers is gratis dictum, for there is no Evidence of it. Thus ou [...] Authour.

This Passage of the Apostle has ever since the days of Cromwel been made use of by all the Advocates of Usurpers, it is the [...]cipal Fort and Bulwark of their Cause, and if we can wrest it from them, they have no Shelter nor Defence for their Opi­nion in Scripture. Before the late Revolu­tion there is not one Writer of the Church [Page 29] of England, that expounds this passage as requiring Allegiance to Usurpers; the whole Church in the late age of Usurpations, thought the higher Powers in the Apostle to be the rightful Powers, who were then dispossessed, and they acted accordingly in defiance of Consiscations, Prisons, and Gib­b [...]t [...]. But the Revolution has turn'd Mens Heads round, and together with new Lords and Laws, we have new Reasons and new Resolutions of Cases, and to support a new Government, new Interpretations of Scrip­ture. The Doctor himself has expounded otherwise in his Case of Resistance, and in those Days his Exposition was authen­tick, and the current Doctrine of the Church. But now Cases are changed, The Case of Allegiance confounds the Case of Resistance, and Usurpers whom he once excluded out of the Text, do in their turn exclude the rightful Powers, and which is more, that which was then thought mani­festly false, is taken now for little less than Demonstration. We will try however to rescue this Text to the rightful Powers attain, and it will be the more easie to do if, because we may have the Doctor's Assistance.

It is observed before, that the Doctor's new Exposition does take in all Powers whatsoever, as well settled as throughly settled; and his Reasons are applicable to both alike. The Scripture has made no distinction between settled and unsettled Powers, but the general Rule is, that all Power is the Ordinance of God, unsettled Powers are certainly Powers in being, and to say the Apostle here speaks of settled Powers [...]s gratis dictum, for there is no evidence of i [...]: There may be Kings and Rulers who ex­ercise suprime Authority without through Settlement, yet St. Paul has made no excep­tions against them, and the distinction being unknown in Scripture; if he had intended i [...] he ought to have said it in express Words, or else no body could have understood him only of Powers that are throughly settled: For then in order to the fulfilling of this precept, it would be necessary for Subjects to be well [...]lled in Politicks, and to know exactly how much goes to a through Settlement, that they may know to whom they ought to pay Allegiance; And let any Man judge in what Perplexities this would involve the Consci­ences of Men? Besides this, the reason the Apostle gives for Submission to higher Powers, is not a through Settlement, but the Autho­rity of God; and to this I add that this di­stinction, that only settled Powers are of God, had made the Apostle's direction signifie no­thing, for the great Question would still have been undetermined, what Powers are of God, and what Powers they must obey, if some Powers are of God, and some not. Thus the Doctor's Arguing does hold for all Usurpers, or for none; but if notwith­standing all these Reasons, the Rule must be restrained to Powers throughly settled, then it is certain those Reasons are Falla­cious, for they equally conclude against all Restrictions, and a Reason that proves too much, does prove nothing at all.

But it is absolutely necessary that the Rule be understood with some Restriction. These Propositions, There is no Power but of God, and the Powers that be are ordain'd of God, if they be understood as simply universal, will comprehend the Power of Robbers, Pyrates and Rebels, the Papal Power, the Power of Anti-christ, and the Power of the Devil. It is universally true, that there is no Power but it is of God, and St. Austin, nay theAugust. in Ps. 32. Conc. 2. Scripture it self, declares it to be true even of the Power of the Devil; And is this a good Reason for being subject to the Devil? Does it bind us to be subject to the Pope, or Anti-christ? Or does it en­force Subjection unto Thieves and Rebels? The whole scope of the Apostle, the man­ner of his Expression, and right Reason, do require that these Powers be excepted out of the Rule; and let us see now whether there be not▪ the same necessity for excepting of other Usurpers.

1. The design of the Apostle, and his manner of Expression do require it. His design was to enforce Submission as due to the Roman Emperor, the Power then in being over the Romans: Thus the Doc­tor [Page 30] himself in his Case of Re­sistance,P. 107. At the time of writing this Epistle the supreme Power was in the Roman Emperors, and therefore when St. Paul commands the Roman Christians to be subject to the higher Powers, the plain meaning is that they should be subject to the Roman Emperor: And again,P. 121. According to the Apostle's Doc­trine those Princes who where then in being, that is, the Roman Emperors, were advanced by God; the Powers that be, i. e. the Prin­ces and Emperors who now govern the World are now ordained and appointed by God. Now if the Roman Emperors were lawful Powers, it is plain the Apostle required Subjection unto lawful Powers, and not unto Usurpers; and the former general Proposition, There is no Power but of God, must be restrained by the later, The Powers that be are ordained of God. The later Proposition shews what Power he speaks of in the former, and restrains it to this Sense, There is no lawful Power but of God: This Interpretation is natural and agreeable to the common Rules of Inter­preting, and to the common Sense and Reason of Manking; if the Apostle had liv'd in the Reign of Charles I. and requi­red the English Christians to be subject to the King then in being as ordained by God, Would this have been a good Argument for Subjection to the Rump and Cromwell as the Ordinance of God? Could the pre­cept which required Allegiance to a lawful King be of any advantage to an Usurper? And would not such an Interpretation have appeared unreasonable and unnatural? The Doctor excepts unsettled Powers out of the Rule, but he can give no other Reason for it, but that the Powers then in being were throughly settled; he must allow then that the same Reason will hold good for the exception of Usurpers, if the same Powers were lawful.

He saw himself that this Consequence was unavoidable, and therefore to prevent the Force of it, he denies the Roman Case of Alleg. P. 20. Emperors to have been lawful Powers; affirms that for many Ages together the Titles of the Ro­man Emperors were all of them either stark nought, or the very best of them very doubtful, and I believe he is the first that ever affirmed it. What, were their Ti­tles nought, and were they all Usurpers for many Ages together? What Histo­rian, Lawyer, or good Author, what De­monstration or even probable Argument can be produce for so incredible an Asserti­on? But what have we to do here with the Emperors of many Ages? he knows that either Claudius or Nero were the high­er Powers to whom Subjection is requir'd by the Apostle, and it was plainly his busi­ness to speak to their Titles, if he intended to speak to the purpose; but he declines this, (for it was impossible to prove them Usurpers;) he says only in general, (and without proof he says it,) that the Empe­rors Titles were either stark nought or very doubtful. And is there no difference be­tween no Title and a doubtful Title? the Laws of Nature and Nations, and I believe the Municipal Laws of all Societies do al­low Possession to be a good and lawful Right where the Title is doubtful, and the antecedent Right cannot be sufficiently proved; if the Titles therefore of the Em­perors were doubtful they were lawful Emperours, and if Allegiance be due to such, it is no good Consequence that Alle­giance is due to Usurpers.

He should have prov'd that the Empe­rors were manifest Usurpers of that Sove­reignty which was the Right of others, and he should have prov'd this particularly of Claudius and Nero: But the Title of these Emperors was unquestionable; for, 1. They had no Competitors who claim'd a Right to the Empire, and therefore either there was no better Right, or it was extinguish'd by Dereliction. 2. Neither the Senate nor the Roman People had a good Right against them, for they had not that which they had parted with; that Right which they had, by their own Acts and Deeds they convey'd upon the Emperors. The Lex Regia which is mention'd in Dion Cassius and Justinian's Code, and some Remains whereof are publish'd in Gruter's Inscripti­ons, is an authentick evidence of this Tran­slation [Page 31] of their Right. It is very probable that this Law was renew'd at the advance­ment of every Emperor, and it appears plainly from the Remains of it, that Augustius, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Vespasian, had the Imperial Power conferred on them by a written Law, and therefore they were lawful Emperors. It is certain they had all of them the concurrent agree­ment of the Roman Senate and People; Claudius was first set up by the Soldiers, but the Senate soon consented to his Ad­vancement, and swore Fidelity to him, and the Roman People, and all the Provinces received him as their Emperour; and the same universal concurrence there was to the Advancement of Nero, without any Oppo­sition. Thus the Senate and People by express Law, or by their Submission and Oaths of Fidelity (which were as evident Declarations of their Will, as any Law could be) had transferred their Right upon the Emperors, and therefore had not that which they transferred, and there is no pretence of Right for any others; and then it is evident those Emperors were Rightful Princes, because they had a Lawful Right, and because no other Right could be made good against them.

The Doctor insinuates this Prejudice against their Right, that the con­sent Pag. 23. of the Senate was extorted by [...]ear, or Flattery, or other Acts. But their Consent however was voluntary and there­fore valid against themselves: Consent ex­torted by Fear or Flattery is as obligatory a [...] that which proceeds from Love, or [...]varice, or Ambition, or any other violent Passion; and if all Contracts in which Fear or other Passions have a share are [...]ill, there is an end of all Justice and Faith among Manking. But the Consent of the Senate and the People of Rome to the ad­vancement of the Emperors, may be justi­fied by Reason, and Necessity, and the pub­lick Good; there was no other way to pre­vent Civil War and the Dissolution of the Empire. We find in History that this Rea­son prevail'd upon the wisest of the Romans; and since there are rational Grounds for their Consent, why should it be ascrib'd to Fear and Folly, rather than to Reason or Wisdom. In the consent of a Multitude there may be as many Reasons as Men; and therefore we must have regard only to their Act of consenting, and not to their Reasons; otherwise no consent of a Multi­tude will be valid, for the Reasons of many of them will be always invalid, and such as may be resolv'd into some Passion or other. The Doctor adds, that it is plain Ibid. the Romans themselves were great Ʋsurpers, and had no other Right to the great­est part of their Empire, but Conquest and Ʋsurpation. The Romans always pretend­ed Justice in their Wars, and if their pretence was true, and the Right of Conquest in a just War be a good one, they had a just Right to their Acquisitions; they obtain'd a just Right to many of their Provinces by the dedition of the former Sovereigns and by express Compacts with them, and by the extinction of all Competitors. But in short, it may suffice to answer, that when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans, they had a Right to their Provinces by Pre­scription, and the Law of Nations declares that to be a good one.

This is all that the Doctor hath objected to the Title of the Roman Emperors, and for any thing he hath objected, their Title was just and lawful. He says, if we Ibid. must obey such Powers as the Roman Power was, I know very few Powers that we may not obey; and he had said it to some purpose, if he had prov'd that Power to be Usurpation. But I know no Powers that are more lawful, and if we are requir'd to obey such Powers only, we are under no Obligation to be the Subjects of Usurpers; if the Powers intended by the Apostle were lawful, then he requir'd Subjection only to lawful Powers, and to say that he speaks of such Powers is not gratis dictum. for there is evidence of it; if I were the Doctor, I should say there is little less than Demon­stration for it.

2. That the Rule of the Apostle must be restrain'd to lawful Powers does seem evident, as from the Powers then in being, so also from the Nature of the Duty, and the Apostle's manner of expressing it. [Page 32] Subjection or Non-Resistance is the Duty requir'd; but Scripture it self and the Law of Nations do allow Resistance of Usurpers; and therefore this Rule of Scripture ought not so to be interpreted as to prohibit that which is allow'd by Scripture and by the Consent of Nations, especially when it may be interpreted in a Sense agreeable to them: Who can doubt but that the Recuperative Wars of the Israelites against the Nations that usurp'd upon them, recorded in the Book of Judges, that the Resistance of Absalom by Joab, and other Loyal Subjects, and the Deposition of Athaliah after a Settlement of six Years Possession, are approv'd in Scripture? Does Christi­anity any where forbid such Recuperative Wars? Have not all Nations ever allow'd and practis'd them? And are not they allow'd by all Divines and Christians, ex­cepting Quakers, Anabaptists and Socinians? But if such Wars for the recovery of usur­ped Dominion are lawful; it evidently fol­lows, that Usurpers may be lawfully re­sisted, and therefore they are not such Powers as are declar'd by the Apostle to be God's Ordinance, and unresistible. Nothing can be objected to this Argument, but that a Recuperative War may be lawful to the dispossessed Sovereign, and yet unlawful to the Subjects; and this indeed isCase of Alleg. P. 26. asserted by the Doctor. But here it shall suffice to reply in short, that if an Usurper be God's Or­dinance and Minister, he has a Divine Right to the Throne, and therefore a Recuperative War against him is a War against God; it cannot be lawful to dispossess any one of a Power for which he has God's Authority, no Truth and Principle can be more evident than this, and so the Result must be, either that the Usurper is not God's Ordinance, or that a War to dispossess him is absolutely unlawful; if the Doctor choose the former, he overthrows his Book, if he choose the latter, he contradicts Scripture, the Law, and Practice of all Nations, the Judgment of all Lawyers, and almost all Divines, and asserts a Propositi­on of which the L. Considera­tions touch­ing a War with Spain Bacon hath said, That no Man is so poor of Judgment as to affirm it.

3. It should be considered that an Usur­per is [...], one that resists, opposes, and fights against Autho­rity; he is so, much more than a Rebel; for his Opposition is greater, and his Usur­pation is onely prosperous Resistance; all the Iniquity of Resistence does lie in the Usurpation of that Power which by divine Ordinance is invested in another; for when Resisters have a lawfull Right to the Power of the Sword, there is no Iniquity in their Resistence, and they are not within the Apo­stles Prohibition; that which makes them liable to Damnation is the usurping the Po­wer of the Sword, and using it against those who have a divine Commission for the Ex­ercise of it: There can be no Resistence without Usurpation, and therefore Usur­pers must be condemned by the Apostle as well as the Resisters, and if the Resister in the Apostle does comprehend the Usurper, it is impossible he should be God's Ordi­nance, and have a Right to Subjection by virtue of his Authority.

To this it will be objected, that the [...] is he who resisteth a Sovereign in Possession, that such a Resister usurps the Power of the Sword, and is liable to Damnation; but if by a prosperous Resi­stence he gets Possession of Sovereign Power, he ceaseth to be an Usurper, and has God's Authority; and the former Power is no longer the Ordinance of God, but is deposed by him. The force of this Objection consists in these two Propositi­ons: 1. That Subjection is due to all Pos­sessours of Sovereignty. 2. That a lawful Sovereign ceases to be God's Ordinance, when he is dispossessed. But neither of these Propositions are affirmed by the Apo­stle; he says not that every Sovereign in Possession is God's Ordinance, but [...], there is now no Power over us, but of God, and [...], the Powers now in being are ordained of God. It is very obvious that these Propositions are li­mited to the Powers then in being, and the former Propositions included in the Objec­tion are universal, and every one that has but natural Logick, does know that Uni­versals are not comprehended in particu­lars. [Page 33] As to the 2d Preposition, the Apo­sile has given us no intimation how a Sove­reign that is God's Ordinance can cease to b [...] so, [...]or has he taught us, that when he is wickedly depos'd by damn'd Resisters, he is depos'd by God's Authority also. This Doctrine is neither taught by the Apostle, nor by any of the inspir'd Writers. The whole Scripture is a perfect Stranger to these two Propositions, and the great Wri­ters for Usurpation cannot produce any Text of Scripture, which contains them either expresly, or virtually. To except the Usurpers of Sovereignty out of the number of Resisters, is therefore a precarious Ex­ception, that has no Foundation in the 13th of the Romans, nor in any Chapter of the Bible.

4. Let us then suppose that Reason is the sole Judg of this Controversie, Whether a Sovereign dispossessed is no longer God's Ordinance? And whether a prosperous Resister, who has usurped the Sovereignty, is ordained by God, and has his Authority to govern? These are not Propositions that carry their own Evidence, and from what Topicks shall we deduce them? From the politick Good and the Preserva­tion of humane Society? But this Proof will be as doubtfull at least as the Proposi­tions to be prov'd; not only because it is a great Question, whether the publick Good can set up Kings and depose them; but also because it will seem evident to ma­ny, that the Encouragement of Resistence and Usurpation by conveying divine Au­thority upon every prosperous Resister, and the unavoidable consequence of fre­quent Wars, the greatest Evil to Society, which will often end in Anarchy, and the Dissolution of Society, are the things which are most destructive to the publick Good, and the Preservation of Society.

Are those Propositions then to be dedu­ced from the Topick of Providence? We all acknowledge that the World is gover­ned by Providence; but this can be no Proof, that whoever gains any thing by any concurrence of Providence has God's Authority to keep it: If it were, these two Consequences would be inevitable, 1. That God does authorize all the Inju­stice, and all the Wickedness in the World, for no Man can commit Wickedness with­out some concurrence of God's Providence, and if that be a proof of his Authority, then it necessarily follows, that God does authorize it. 2. That there is no such thing as the Obligation of Justice; for i [...] there be, no doubt it binds us to render to every Man his due; but if it is impossible to get the Possession of any thing without God's Providence, and that is always a Conveyance of his Authority; then he who has the Possession of another's Property, has acquired a Divine Right to it, and there can be no Obligation upon him to restore it. And in short, nothing can be due to a Man, which he has not in his Possession; and therefore since suum ouiqu [...] cribuere is the onely Office of Justice, and that Office is impracticable, it follows, that Justice is only an empty Word, that has no significancy in it. These are the de­sperate consequences of that Doctrine which overturn at once the very Foundations of all Religion, civil Society, and Morality; and therefore we are as sure that it is false, as that God is holy, that Justice is a Duty, or that Wrong is not Right, nor Vice Ver­tue.

Providential concurrence thereof to the gaining of any Possession, is in its self no Proof of the conveyance of divine Authority, it neither deprives the former Possessor of his Right, nor transfers it to the new one; this is undeniable in the Case of private Property, and there is equal Reason to allow it in the Case of Sove­reignty. Private Property and Sovereignty are different Things indeed, but the no­tion of Right apply'd to both is the same, and the concurrence of Providence to the acquiring of both the same; and therefore if Providence extinguishes not the Right to one, neither does it so to the other; if it gives not a divine Right to Robbers, nei­ther does it to Usurpers: Since the influ­ence and co-operation of Providence is the same in bringing any one to the unjust Possession of a Purse, a House, a City, and a Kingdom; and it is impossible for Rea­son [Page 34] to observe any difference as to the conveyance of Power, (though there be a difference in the extension of Power pro­portionably to the Usurpation,) it necessa­rily follows, that from the precise Consi­deration of Providence, Reason cannot possibly distinguish between God's Ordi­nance and Permission, his conveying Au­thority upon an Usurper and not upon a Robber, his establishing the Possession of a Throne by divine Donation, when he gives no Establishment to the Possession of a Robber.

But on the contrary, Reason seems to assure us, That God's Providence does ne­ver give Authority to Injustice; that Rob­bery is not God's Ordinance; that great Robbers are no more authorized by him than little Robbers; that as Stealing of it self introduces no Right, so neither does Rebelling no [...] Usurping; that Prosperity in Wickedness is no Proof of a divine Com­mission; lastly, that if resisting God's Ordinance be unlawful, it is unlawful to carry on and continue that Resistance, it is unlawful to resist a King so far as to de­pose him, and to usurp his Throne; and if it be unlawful to resist and to usurp, it is unlawful to continue the Usurpation by keeping Possession against the rightful So­vereign; for that is only a continuation of his Injustices which increases his Crime; and if it be unlawful to resist a lawful Prince, to depose him, to usurp his Throne, and to continue the Usurpation; it seems evident beyond all Contradiction, that an Usurper while he is such, is never estab­lished by God's Authority; for that is never granted to unlawful Acts or Possessions. In short, If it be unjust to usurp, the Usur­per is bound to Repentance and Restitu­tion; he who has unjustly invaded another's Right, is bound in Justice to restore it: And if the Usurper is bound to restore the Power he has usurped, he cannot have a divine Right to that which he is bound to restore to another, and consequently can­not have the Establishment of divine Au­thority. This to me is the voice of Rea­son; and if Reason is so far from proving that an Usurper is God's Ordinance, that it proves the contrary; if that Proposition is not to be found in the 13th of the Rom. nor in any part of the Bible; if an Usur­per be properly a Resister of God's Ordi­nance; if the Examples in Scripture, and the Law of Nations do prove it lawful to resist him; and finally, if the Powers to whom the Apostle requires Subjection were lawful Powers, than it is evident that the Rule of the Apostle must be understood of lawful Powers, and that there is as much evidence for excepting of Usurpers, as there is for excepting Thieves or Rebels. Thus there is Reason to except Usurpers out of the Rule; and this will appear more rea­sonable when we have examined the Doc­tor's Arguments against it.

1. He objects that the Criticism Pag. 19. between [...] and [...] will not do, because they signifie the same thing in scripture either Force and Powers or Au­thority. But he has produc'd no Instance to shew that [...] when it denotes Civil Authority, does signify Possession of Power without Right; he knows the Word is de­rived from [...], licet, and therefore properly it must signifie only Phavorinus thus explains the Word, [...]. It is a Legal Com­mission, a Power invested with Authority by a grant from God. Lawful Power: [...] is far from being spoken concerning Civil Authority, and when the same Apostle declares that our Saviour was exal­ted [...], not only in this World, but also in that which is to come; I hope he spake not of Usurped Powers, unless there are such also among the An­gels in Heaven. Every one knows that Force and Authority are two different things; and if [...] be applied to signi­fie Force, and [...] Authority, the Pro­priety of the Words will bear it▪ but we depend not upon that Distinction to ex­clude Usurpers; though it is manifest that [...] in Scripture must be sometimes necessarily understood to signifie only Law­ful Power, as Matth. 21. 23. and I have [Page 35] shewn there is a necessity of understanding it to in the 13th of the Romans.

2. But the Doctor observes, that [...], those who exercise Authority, and the [...], the Rulers, ve [...]. 3 [...] the Ministers of God which bear the Su [...]rd, ver. 4. in St. Peter, the [...] and [...], the King and Governours; and thence he infers that [...] does evidently relate to the exercise of Civil Authority, not to a legal Right. I think it relates to the rightful exercise of Authority; God gives Authority and Power that it may be ex­ercised, but if wicked Men obstruct the exercise of it, the Gift is not forfeited, though the End is accidentally defeated. In a Rebellion, which is the Parent of A­narchy, the Sovereign cannot exercise his Authority; But does he then cease to be th [...] [...] which is God's Ordinance? Or ar [...] the Rebels then Licensed to resist him? The same is the case of Usurpation; the Usurper obstructs the exercise of God's Authority, and his own Wickedness can give him no Right to continue it. The exercise of God's Authority is often hin­dred by the Wickedness of Men; as for instance, his Authority in a Father when his Children are Rebellious, in a Husband when his Wife, in a Master when his Ser­vants are Disobedient, and in a Bishop, or Pastor, in the Cases of Schism, Usurpation, and Persecution; and yet still the one re­main [...] a Father, the other a Husband, the other a Master, and the other a Bishop, though those are names which relate to the exercise of Authority, as well as Rulers, Kings, and Governours.

3. He insists much upon theIbid. silence of Scripture, as to the distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers; he affirms there is no such di­stinction to be found any where in Scrip­ture, and thence he argues, That if St. Paul had intended any such distinction, he ought to have said it in express Words, or else no body could have reasonably understood him to intend this precept of Subjection only to legal Powers. To this Objection the Doctor himself hath given a sufficient Answer. What he has observed of our Savlour in his Case of Resistance, is as true of his Apostle; We have no Case of Resist. p. 43, 44. Reason to suspect that Christ would alter the Rights of Sovereignty—This was no part of his Commission to change the external Forms and Polities of Civil Governments.—He who would not undertake to divide an Inheritance be­tween two contending Brethren; Luke 12. 13, 14. Can we think he would attempt any thing of that vast Consequence, as the alte­rations of Civil Power, which would have unsettled the Foundamental Constitutions of all the Governments of the World? Again, What Rights Ibid. p. 55, 56. he found Sovereign Princes pos­sessed of, he leaves them in the quiet Possession of; for had he intended to make any change in this Matter, he would not have given such a general Rule, to render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar's, without specifying what those Things are. And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesar's Right; whatever is essential to the notion of Sovereign Power, whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar's Right, that they must render to him, for he would make no alteration in this Matter. Now, say I, if our Saviour, or his Apostles, had enjoyn'd Subjects to ad­here to Usurpers against their legal Sove­reigns, They had altered the Rights of Sove­verignty, and unsettled the Fundamental Constitutions of all Governments: But on the contrary, they leave all Princes in the Possession of their Rights, they have given [...] this general Rule, that we should render them their dues; and what those are, they have left to the Laws of Nations to deter­mine, and whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be a Prince's Right, that the Subjects must render to him, for the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter. And if this be good Reasoning, then the point is, whether Allegiance were due to Usurpers before the Gospel, for if it were not, the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter; nor made that to be a due, which before was none: But the Examples of Scripture, the Law and Consent of [Page 36] Nations, which have always allowed the Resistence of Usurpers, do put that out of Question; and therefore supposing the Gospel has given us no distinction between rightful Princes and Usurpers, that silence can be no Argument against it; for the Gospel has left the Rights of Princes as it found them, it requires Subjects to render them those Rights, and if by the Laws of Nations Allegiance is the right of lawful Princes, it is their Right also by the Gospel.

Where may we find in Scripture any Di­stinction between a true and a false Father, a lawfull Husband or Master, and such as usurp those Characters? Yet Subjection is required to Fathers, Husbands, and Ma­sters, as well as to Sovereign Princes: but there was no need that the Scriptures should declare, that it was due only to real Fathers, and to lawful Husbands and Ma­sters; or that it should give Rules to di­stinguish them from the Usurpers of those Authorities; common sense is sufficient to inform us, that such a Distinction is neces­sary to be made, and in ordinary cases it is easie to distinguish them. The Scripture requires Obedience to Parents, but tells us not who they are, nor distinguishes real Parents from pretended, and yet no one thinks that final Obedience is due to the Usurpers of that Authority. Suppose it to be in the Case of Subjection to Civil Powers, the Scripture requires it, but distinguishes not between lawfull Powers and Usur­pers, Must we therefore conclude, that it requires Subjection to Usurpers? And why may we not conclude alike for the Usurpers of paternal Authority? Is it because Sense and Reason do agree that Usurpers must be distinguished in the one Case, but not in the other? But Reason tells me plainly, that Obedience is not due to the Usurpers of Civil Power; for he who has no Right to Power, has no Right to Obedience. The Foundations of Pater­nal and Civil Authority may be different, but in both the Duty of Obedience must be founded on a Right to Obedience: nothing can be due to him who has no Right; as an Usurper of paternal Power has no Right, so neither has the Usur­per of Civil Power; he has neither a legal nor natural Right; and as for the Right of Providence, both the Usurpers may lay an equal Claim to it, for they are both advanced by the same way of Providence. There is no more Reason therefore to pay Obedience to a Civil Usur­per, than to the Usurpers of the Power of Fathers, Husbands, or Masters, and where there is a plain necessity of making a distinction, the silence of Scripture is no Argument against it.

There is no express Distinction in Scrip­ture between the legal and illegal Possessor of an Estate, there are onely general pro­hibitions of Injury and Injustice, and gene­ral Precepts of rendring every Man his Due, but what Estates or Properties are due to every Man, is left to the Civil Laws of Nations to determine; and yet the Si­lence of Scripture in these points, is no Ar­gument against the Distinction of Right in private Possessions, and how can it hold good against the same Distinction in respect of Sovereignty? There is the like Reason and Necessity for admitting it in the one case, as there is in the other; if there be any difference, it is on the side of Sove­reignty, which is the preserver of private Property, and of much greater Impor­tance; and therefore in reason ought to be better secured, and the right to it be more inviolable; however if there be no distinc­tion in Scripture about the Rights of So­vereignty, so neither about the Rights of Property; and therefore the Silence of Scripture is of itself no Argument against it.

Let us suppose the Throne to be vacant, and two Competitours claiming it, and claiming a Right to our Allegiance, how shall the Conscience of the Subject be di­rected in this Dispute? Here the Scrip­ture is perfectly silent, and gives him no particular Directions; but the Laws of the Land, and the Oath of Allegiance will direct him to pay his Allegiance to the true and lawfull Heir, if he knows him; and the Doctour acknowledges,Case of Al­leg. p. 52. that the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience, when they do not contradict the Laws of God. And [Page 37] he acknowledges also, that in such a Case we are bound to oppose the illegal, and to assist the lawful Title; thus far the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience, though the Scripture makes no distincti­on between a lawful and unlawful Heir. But suppose farther, that the false preten­der does actually usurp the Throne, and the lawful Heir does still demand our Allegi­ance: Here again we suppose the Scrip­ture to be silent, and that there is no di­stinction in it between rightful Princes and Usurpers, and then it is evident, we can have no other direction but the Law of the Land, and if the Law determines our Allegiance to the rightful Heir, we are cer­tainly bound to obey the Law, because it contradicts not the Laws of God.

But the Doctour will not allow, that the Scripture is perfectly silent in this mat­ther; for he objects, That the Apostle generally affirms, that all Vindicat. p. 57. Power is of God; and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it, he should have limited it to le­gal and rightfull Powers. This I have an­swered already; there is no necessity of understanding the Apostle's words univer­sally, of all the Powers that ever were, are, or shall be in the World; it is very proba­ble he spake onely of the Powers then in being, viz. the Roman Emperours; the Words will fairly allow that Construction, and it is impossible to confute it: And therefore since there is no necessity of un­derstanding the words so universally, as to take in all Usurpers, it is evident, That Text is no sufficient Rule to direct us in that Difficulty; and if there is no plainer Direction in the Bible, we are left only to politick Laws; and if these direct us to pay Allegiance to the lawful Prince, they are a Rule to us, and we must regulate our Actions by them.

In short, the Scripture directs us to ren­der to Sovereign Powers their due, and not to resist them, as it directs us to pay Obe­dience to Parents, Masters, and all that have Authority over us: But which are the higher Powers, and who are our Pa­rents or Masters, or are invested with any Authority over us, the Scripture does not determine; but when there i [...] any Com­petition, we are left to Moral Evidence, to Political Laws, and to the Laws of Na­ture and Nations to direct us; and it is no imperfection in Scripture, if it does not determine such Controversies, if it suppo­ses us rational Creatures, and embodied in Civil Societies, and under the Direction of Laws sufficient to determine them.

4. The Doctor urges, That if the Apostle had intended Case of Al­leg. p. 19. such a Distinction between rightfull Princes and Ʋsupers, to the fulfilling of his Precept, it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes, and to that end to be well skilled in the History and Laws of Nations, and to be able to judge between a pretended and real Right, and to know exactly what gives a real Right: But th [...]se are great Disputes among learned Men, and how should unlearned Men understand them? And I cannot think that the Resolutions of Conscience in such Matters at all Mankind are concerned in, should de­pend on such Niceties as learned Men cannot agree in.

The Force of this Objection, as far as I can apprehend it, is this: That learned Men who are skilled in Law and History do often differ in their Opinions of a legal Right, and it cannot then be supposed that unlear­ned Men, who are the greatest part of Man­kind, should be able to judge of it; and therefore it cannot be a Rule to them. But is not this Objection as strong against the Law of God, as against the Laws of Na­tions? If nothing can be a sufficient Rule to the unlearned, which the unlearned can­not agree in, Does it not plainly follow, that the Scripture cannot be a Rule of Faith to the unlearned, (who are the grea­test part of Mankind,) because the most learned do differ in interpreting it? Is not this to say, (they are his own words,) that nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Vindicat. p. 48. Controversie, and thus we m [...]st be either Scepticks in Religion, or seek an insallible Interpreter? Thus Here­ticks [Page 38] oppose the Ar [...]es of Faith; thus Pa­pists Dispute against the Scripture's being the Rule of Faith▪ and yet I think it would be unjust and uncharitable to insinuate, (as he does against his Adversary,) that the Doctour has an Inclination to Rome, because his Argument looks kindly to­wards it.

But the Doctor easily eludes this Conse­quence, I grant indeed that the Re­solution Ibid. 49. of Conscience ought not to depend on such Niceties of Law and History as learned Men cannot agree about, and that is a Reason why legal Rights should not be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes; but is this a Reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too, because some Men will dispute the plain­est Texts? Well, but are not Law and Hi­story in many things as plain as the plainest Texts in Scripture? And if those can be no Rule of Conscience because learned men do raise Disputes about them, does it not follow, that the plainest Texts of Scri­pture can be no Rule of Faith, if the learned raise a Controversie about them; if nothing can be a sufficient Rule which has been dis­puted by the learned, neither Law, nor Hi­story, nor Scripture, nor even Sense or Rea­son are sufficient Rules: for inextricable Difficulties have been raised about them by perverse Disputers. He will say, that le­gal Right depends on the Niceties of Law and History, but Articles of Faith upon plain and evident Texts of Scripture; and yet even those evident Texts are many of them perplex'd by the Niceties of Criticism, and the subtile Interpretations of Here­ticks. The Scripture evidently teaches the Divinity of Christ; but the Doctor knows, (and no Man better) that the Socinians who deny it, do elude the plainest Texts, and by their Skill in Criticism do wrangle them into Niceties. A Rule then may be plain and sufficient, though learned men do pre­tend it is difficult and obscure, and say it depends on Niceties, and the Question then is, Whether humane Laws may be a plain Rule to determine the Rights and Titles of Princes; for it is certain the Rule may be plain in its self, though learned Men may make a Nicety of it.

But nothing can be a more palpable Ab­surdity, than to say that Law cannot be a plain Rule of Right, for that is to say, that the Law giver cannot plainly declare his Will, and that no Controversie about Right can be determin'd by Laws; and if the Law may be a plain Rule to determine the Rights of Subjects, may it not be a [...] plain about the Rights of Princes? Have not our Laws plainly declar'd the King to be irresistible? Do they not plainly in­vest him with the whole Power of the Militia? I know that learned Men do not agree in these Points, but I think the Doc­tor will grant that the Law is clear about them. And in the nature of the Thing there is no Reason, but it may be as clear about the Right and Title to the Crown; for may it not be plainly declar'd by Law, that the Crown shall descend by Hereditary Succession, and that he who invades the Crown without this Right is an Usurper, and has no Legal Right to Allegiance? this we believe to be our Law, and we believe it to be a plain and sufficient Rule to the Subjects: But when we say that the Law is plain, we do not deny but learned Men may have another Opinion of it, we intend that the Law is plain in it self, and may be made plain to Men of common Understanding, who will take the pains to inform their Judgment, and judge without Byas [...] and Interest. The very design of Law is, that it should be a plain Rule of Right and Pra­ctice, and it is a Rule to the common Peo­ple as well as to the Lawyers; it is presum'd they may understand it, if they will, and the ignorance of Law is always presum'd to be affected, and to be culpable as well as the Transgression of it. To say there­fore, that the Law cannot be a plain Rule to the unlearned who are bound to obey it, is a plain Contradiction to the very nature and end of the Law, and is to charge it downright with Folly and Barbarity.

There are many Difficulties in Law, as there are in Religion, and in both the un­learned must consult the learned, the Lawyers and Divines; but they must judge also for themselves, and judge rightly at their peril; if a Lawyer, or a Judge, ad­vise [Page 39] a Man to commit Treason, and tell him it is lawful, the Law will nevertheless con­d [...]mn him as a Traitor. The Law no doubt requires our Allegiance to the legal King; but he who should pay his Allegiance to another King, though he should think him to be the legal King, his Mistake would be no good Plea in Law against an Indictment for Treason; the reason is, because the Law is suppos'd to be sufficiently promulg'd to all, and therefore the ignorance of it is inexcusable. In short I demand, was not the Law of the Land sufficient to inform all Men, that K. James the First had a legal Right to the Crown, and that Charles the First and the Second, had it successively after him; was there any honest under­standing Man in England who ever doubted of their Right, and that when the two last were actually excluded from the Possession of it? Nay, was the Right of K. James the Second, either unknown, or uncertain to any of that Character? I think the Doctor will confess that the legal Right of these Princes was among all honest Men certain and unquestionable; and thence it evident­ly follows, that the Law of the Land may be a clear Rule of the Prince's Right and the Subjects Obedience, and if the Law may sufficiently direct us how to distinguish between Rightful Princes and Usurpers, there is no need of any other Direction.

But though the Law be in it self a suffi­cient Rule as far as the intention of it reaches, yet Controversies may also arise, a [...] in other things, so in the Right to the Crown, of which there could be no fore­sight, and therefore no Provision about them; and further, it sometimes happens, that when the Law is clear, the due appli­cation of it is doubtful and difficult, the matter of Fact being disputed, when the Rule of Right is uncontested. Thus in those Kingdoms where there is a known and un­controverted Rule of Succession, yet there are sometimes Controversies about the mat­ters of Fact which are necessary to the ap­plication of it; as for instance in Hereditary Kingdoms, who is the right Heir; in Ele­ctive, who is duly elected. When such [...]ases happen as are beyond the Provision of Law, and for which there could b [...]o Pro­vision, as in the Disputes of Fact, if there be no Legislative Authority to determine them, (Puffendorf de Ju. Nat. & Gen. lib. 7. c. 7. s. 15. as it is thought there can be none in the Disputes about the right to Succession,) there is no other way but for every Man to judge for him­self, to examine the Competitors Evidence for their Claim and Title, to judge impar­tially, and to act accordingly. But it fol­lows not hence, that Law is an insufficient Rule, because it prevents not, or decides not all Controversies about Right; for neither can Scripture, which we acknow­ledge to be a sufficient Rule in Religion, decide all Controversies that relate unto it; for instance, it requires Christians to obey them that have the Rule over them, not every one surely that intrudes himself into the Office of a Ruler, but only those that are lawfully called to it; but who those are the Scripture does not determine, that is a dis­pute concerning matter of Fact, and must be decided by such Evidence as can be had concerning it.

But when the matter of Right and mat­ter of Fact is clear, (as ordinarily they are in the Rights of Sovereigns to their Crowns) then there is a plain Direction for the Al­legiance of Subjects: But in cases extraor­dinary, when Right and Fact are doubtful, and there is no such Evidence concerning them as may direct honest and understand­ing Men to the right Object of their Alle­giance, in such Cases it is agreed, That if either of the Competitors be in Possession, the Subjects must pay their Allegiance to the Possessor, for the Laws of Nature and Nations, declare Possession to be a just Right when there is not a better, and Allegiance certainly is due where there is a just and lawful Right to it. And thus the unavoidable Defects of Political Con­stitutions are supplied by such Rules, as are founded on the Law of Nature and the Consent of Nations; and therefore if the Scripture has only required Obedience to the higher Powers in general, and has left us to the direction of other Laws, to de­termine which those Powers are to whom [Page 40] our Obedience is due; we are not left to Niceties and Uncertainties, but have as clear and plain direction as the nature of the Thing will admit, and reasonable Men will expect no more.

5. Farther it is objected, ThatCase of Alleg. p. 20. the Reason the Apostle gives for Submission to the higher Powers is not a legal Right, but the Autho­rity of God; that all Power (or every one who exercises the supreme Power) is of God, and the Ordinance of God, which seems plainly intended to wave the Dispute about the legality of the Powers. But, 1. This Objection does conclude as strongly a­gainst his own Principle as against his Adversaries; he requires Allegience not to every one who exercises the supreme Power, so did Oliver; but to a Possessor through­ly settled by the general Consent of the People: But the Reason the Apostle gives for Subjection to the higher Powers, is not a through Settlement or the Consent of the People, but the Authority of God; that every one who exercises supreme Power is the Ordi­nance of God, which seems plainly to wave all Disputes about Settlement and Consent. He can make no reply which will not serve his Adversaries; if he says that Settlement and Consent are not the formal Reason of Al­legiance, but only the Signs of God's Autho­rity to which it is immediately due; we say the same for our Principle; we confess that the Duty of Allegiance must be ulti­mately resolved into God's Authority; we only affirm that a lawful Right is a Sign of that Authority; we maintain that Al­legiance is due to God's Authority, and thus far we are agreed; But how shall we know when a Prince is invested with this Authority? When he is settled, saith the Doctor; when he has a lawful Right, say others; and here lies the difference be­tween us: If the Apostle had required Subjection to all Possessors for the sake of Possession, there could have been no Dis­pute about the legality of Powers; but since the Apostle's Reason of Subjection is not Possession, but the Ordinance of God, and he does not say that every one who is in Possession is ordained by God, (for every one who exercises the supreme Power is the Doctor's saying, and not the Apo­stle's,) it remains a Question what Powers in the meaning of the Apostle are ordain'd by God, whether lawful only, or also un­lawful Powers; and if he means lawful only, the Dispute about Legality is una­voidable.

The Doctor in the Vindica­tionVind. p. 56. of his Arguments from Rom. 13. demands, How God does invest any Prince with his Authority, whom he does not immediately nominate? To this he Answers himself, and confutes himself, but my Answer is, That God annexes his Authority to those Princes who have a lawful Right to govern, or to execute the Regal Office. And what says the Doctor? If God's Authority be annexed to the Regal Office, a Prince must be in the actual Ad­ministration of the Regal Office, before he can have God's Authority; as a Man must be actually Married before he can have the Au­thority which the Divine Laws give to a Husband. By Regal Office either he means the Duty in the Abstract, and whoever said that God's Authority was annexed to the Duty; or he must mean a Right to exe­cute it, or the actual Execution of it; if he means the former, he asserts a ma­nifest Absurdity, That he who has a Right to an Office must be in the actual Admini­stration of it; if the later, he only asserts. That a Prince who actually administers the Regal Power must be in the actual Admi­nistration of it; and thus this shew of Argument is nothing but an Amusement, and so is the similitude of an Husband; for the Relation of a Husband is subsequent to Marriage, and no Man can have the Au­thority of a Husband before he is a Hus­band: But the Relation of a King is not founded upon Possession, but upon a Right to govern, which implies a Right to Obe­dience, and we acknowledge that a King must actually have that Right, before he can have God's Authority; but this very instance of a Husband is a convincing Proof, that God's Authority may be given to those that cannot exercise it, for that is the condition of many Husbands.

[Page 41]He urges farther, That to call Ibid. a Right to the Crown the Authority of Government, is contrary to the Sense of Mankind, when they speak of Sovereign Prin­ces: For he has actual Authority, who actually administers the Government, and it is ac­tual Authority which is God's Authority, not Authority in Fancy and Idea, for God does not give Authority to govern without the Power of Government, which is a very fruit­less and insignificant Authority. The Reply is very obvious; a Right to the Crown is a Right to govern, and that implies Autho­rity to govern; and a Prince may have actually this Authority, and yet not ac­tually administer it: And this is so far from being contrary to the Sense of Man­kind, that nothing is more consonant to it; for all Men know that there may be Power without Authority, and Authority without Power, and there is no Man in his Wits but can easily distinguish them; and this is not an Authority which subsists only in Fancy, for it has a moral Efficacy and obliges to Obedience, and it might as well be said that all Duty, Law and Right, are nothing but Fancy and Idea; but to say that God never gives Authority to govern without the Power of Government, is an Assertion manifestly false; Have not Parents, Masters, and Husbands, Authority from God to govern, when they cannot govern those that are ungovernable? Had not David God's Authority to govern when Absalom forc'd him to be Abdicated? Had not Charles I. Authority to govern the Parliament, and the Regicides? And have not all Princes the same Authority over their Rebellious Subjects? But God's Au­thority without Power is fruitless and in­significant; that, I think, is no fault of God, or his Authority; the Grace of God is fruitless, much more than his Authority, and his Authority in Parents, Husbands, and Church Governours, is too often as insignificant as his Authority in Princes; but woe to them who render God's Au­thority insignificant, For their Damnation slumbereth not. And this may suffice to his Objection about God's Authority. But he endeavours farther to support it by observing,

6. That the Pharisees made this Objection against Submission Case of Al. p. 20. to the Roman Powers, that they were bound by the Law of God not to submit to them, as being unjust Ʋsur­pations upon the Priviledges and Liberties of God's People; and therefore the Apostle tells them, that all Powers are of God, and the Powers that be are ordained of God. Let it be granted now that some such Objection was made by the Pharisees; How does it appear that the Apostle intended to oppose or answer it? Was that Opinion main­tained by any of that Sect after they were converted to Christianity, or by any of the Roman Converts, or by any of the Christi­ans at all? That the Doctor will not af­firm, and if he does it, it is impossible to prove it. And why should we then ima­gine that the Apostle designed to confute an Error, which appears not to have been maintained by any that he wrote to, which he never mentions in his Writings, and of which he has not given any intimation.

However the Doctor doubts not but St. Paul knew that the Vind. p. 57. Pharisees made this Objection, and for that very Reason he affirms that all Power is of God, and that they must be subject to the higher Powers without any di­stinction; which he would not have done, if any distinction ought to have been made, when he knew the Dispute was about the Romans, whom they looked upon as Ʋsurpers over them. Well, but if St. Paul had that Objection in his view, Can we imagine he would not have expressed it, nor have gi­ven the least hint of it? If that was the Reason, for which he affirmed that there is no Power but of God, one would wonder why he should not express it, and why he did not directly determine that Contro­versie, by condemning the Distinction. And besides his Words can never be prov'd to affirm any more, than that the [...], the Powers at that time in being, were ordained by God, and this was suf­ficient to confute those Pharisees who taught the contrary; and therefore allow­ing [Page 42] that the Apostle intended to confute them, there is no reason to extend his Words beyond their scope and intention, which we suppose was to condemn the Pha­risies, who pretended the Roman Powers were Usurpers, and in opposition to them it was enough to affirm that they were God's Ordinance, and therefore Subjection was due to them.

But after all, This Reasoning from the Apostle's design to condemn the Pha­risees hath no certainty in it. That the Apostle had that Aim is affirmed by no an­cient Writer or Expositor. St. Chrysostome affirms that the Apostle's Design was not to shew that Christianity did not tend to overthrow civil Polity, but rather to esta­blish it better; Theophylact, that the Gos­pel did not teach Men Disobedience and Rebellion, but Quietness and Obedience; and this is the common Sense of modern Expositors, that the Apostle here intended to vindicate Christianity from the Imputa­tion of Disloyalty and Rebellion with which it was reproach'd by the Jews and Gentiles. Calvin observes, that there are always tu­multuous Spirits in the Church, who think the Kingdom of Christ cannot be advanc'd, unless all earthly Powers be abolished; but the Jews above all others thought it an In­dignity that the Seed of Abraham, who were a flourishing Kingdom before the co­ming of their Redeemer, should after his Manifestation continue still in Servitude: And not the Jews onely, but also the Gen­tiles thought it absurd to ackgowledge those for their lawful Governours who did cruelly persecute them, and endeavour to destroy the Kingdom of Christ: This last Objection is mentioned by Origen as aim'd at by the Apostle; and for these Causes, says Calvin, it is probable he was induc'd to give so strict a Charge of Subjection to Governours. Thus it appears that Expo­sitors have Foundations, Designs, and Oc­casions for this Precept of Subjection: But as for the pretended Objection of the Pha­risees, it is at best but guessing, and no Argument can be deduced from it.

7. Farther he urges, thatCas [...] of A [...]. p. 20 There is no Reason to confine the Words of the Apostle unto legal Powers, unless it were evidently the Doctrine of Scrip­ture, that usurp'd Powers are not of God, which is so far from being true, that the con­trary is evident, that the most High ruleth in the Kingdom of Men, and giveth it to whom­soever he will, Dan. 4. 17. He ci [...]es also to this Purpose Dan. 2. 21, 37. It is he that changeth Times, that removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings; therefore all usurped Powers are of God, that is the conclusion; and in some sense I grant it to be true, and to be rightly inferr'd from those Testimo­nies of Scripture. We acknowledge that God sets up Usurpers, and gives them a Kingdom, Power, and Strength, and Glory; but he gives and sets them up as he sets up Robbers, Murtherers, and Rebels, by gran­ting them Power and Strength, and per­mitting, or not hindring them from the Abuse or wicked Exercise of it. In short, when Providence sets up Usurpers, it is not by the conveyance of Authority, but onely by giving them power and liberty to abuse it; the Power whereby they are enabled to subdue their Opposers is from God, but the Abuse of it, to remove a rightfull Prince, and to usurp his Throne, is mere­ly from themselves, and is no otherwise from God than are all other Acts of Usur­pation and Injustice. There are two ways then whereby God removes and sets up Kings, and gives the Kingdom of Men to whomsoever he pleases; by the Permission of Power, and the Conveyance of Authori­ty; he permits a Prince the Possession of a Throne, when it is unjust and unlawfull for him to possess and keep it, and he con­veys Authority when his Providence opens a way to the lawfull Possession of it; and if the Passages insisted on may be under­stood in this sense, they are far enough from proving that Usurpers have God's Authority.

And that it is reasonable to understand them in this sense, will appear by compa­ring, them with other Passages of Scripture which assert the divine Providence in the Government of the World: The Lord ma­keth rich, he bringeth low and lifteth up; he raiseth the poor out of the Dust, and lifteth [Page 43] up the Beggar from the Dung-hill, to see them among Princes, and to make them in­herit a Crown of Glory, 1 Sam. 2. 7, 8. Thine is the Kingdom, O Lord, both Riches and Honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all, and in thine Hand it is to make Great, and to give Strength unto all, 1 Chr. 29. 4, 12. The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away, Job 1. 21. and Ps. 75. 6, 7. Promotion cometh neither from the East, nor from the West, nor from the South, but God is the Judge; he putteth down one and setteth up another. It would be endless to produce all those passages, which af­firm that Riches and Possessions, Honour and Promotion, do proceed from God; but these may may suffice, for they unde­niably evince, that the Wealth and Ad­vancement of private Persons is as much directed by Providence, as the Advance­ment of the greatest Monarchs; that God giveth Riches as well as Kingdoms to whom­soever he will; and that when private Per­sons are Enriched and Promoted by the Ruine of others, it is God that putteth down one and setteth up another. But now it follows not hence, that every one who is in the Possession of Riches and Prefer­ments, does enjoy them by such a Gift of God, as conveys Right and Authority to possess them; for then there could be no unjust Possession of any Thing, seeing every Man would have a divine Right to what he actually Possesses; and therefore there is a necessity of Expounding those Passages so, as to discharge God from be­ing the Author of Injustice, to reconcile his Providence with the Rules of Right and Wrong, and to distinguish it accord­ing to the moral Nature of the Possession to which it concurrs. When Riches are taken away from the rightful Owner, we may say as Job did, that the Lord hath taken them away, and that he hath given them to the wrongful Possessor; but this must be interpreted only of his permissive Providence, unless we will say that all Rob­bers have God's Authority and Commis­sion. But when God's Providence, toge­ther with the Possession of Riches, conveys a Right to possess them, we are sure this Providence is more than Permissive, and that Riches so acquired are properly, and strictly the Gift of God. Undoubtedly it may be said of Riches, that God giveth them to whomsoever he will; but it would be plainly inconsequent to conclude from such Expressions, that every one who pos­sesses Riches does hold them by a Divine Right, and by God's Authority.

And this is a manifest Proof, that when God is said to give Kingdoms, to remove Kings and set up Kings, it does not neces­sarily follow from those Expressions, that all Possessors of Kingdoms have God's Au­thority to keep them; for if the mere force of the Words could advance it, since the very same may be apply'd to Riches, and the same thing is actually affirmed concerning them, in Words equally express and forcible; it would follow that all who have Riches, have a divine Right to them; but this Proposition is inconsequent from those Words, and therefore so is the other, that all Usurpers have a divine Right to their Kingdoms.

There is no material difference in the Expression; there may be difference in the subject Matter, or nature of the Things, to which it is apply'd, and the same Ex­pression may require different Interpreta­tions according to the diversity of the Matter. Thus it may be objected, that when God is said to give Riches, and to give Kingdoms, the nature of the thing does require, that when Riches are given without a lawful Right to them, we should look upon it only as a permissive Gift; but when God gives Kingdoms, it is reasonable to understand, that he confers a Right to possess, and Authority to govern them. Now if the necessity of this Inter­pretation could be demonstrated from Reason and the Nature of the Thing, I acknowledge we should be bound to em­brace it as the genuine Sense of Scripture: But I have shewn that it is impossible to prove that Doctrine from Reason, and to find any difference in the nature of the Thing, between the Concurrence of God's Providence to the unjust Possession of Ri­ches, and to the Usurpation of a Kingdom.

[Page 44]But since the Expression of God's giving a Thing, does not always imply a convey­ance of Right and Authority to possess it, and in the Case of a Kingdom, there is no way to prove that it does but by an ap­peal to Reason; it is plain that the Ob­jection from those passages of the Prophet, which pretends to be drawn from Scrip­ture Testimony, must at last be resolved into Reason: It is no where declared in Scripture, that God's giving of Kingdoms is to be understood otherwise than his giving of Riches; and if nothing but Rea­son can shew, that giving of Kingdoms must always signifie a conveyance of Au­thority, then it is Reason (and not those Prophetick passages) which proves, that all Usurpers have God's Authority; and therefore those passages ought not to be urged as Proofs from Scripture, nor be brought to prove that it is the Doctrine of Scripture that God does give Autho­rity to Usurpers; for the result of that Proof must at least be this, that Scripture teaches it, because Reason teaches it.

Those passages do assert no more, than that God's Providence does rule the World, and particularly Kingdoms, and that they are not governed either by Fate or For­tune, or merely by the Conduct, Power, and Policy of Princes. Nebuchadnezzar ascribed his Greatness to himself, as the building of Great Babylon, so his Empire and his Kingdom to the Might of his Power, to his own Strength and Policy; he gave not Glory to God, nor had any regard to his Providence and Dominion; and there­fore God admonishes him by Dreams and Visions, sends a Prophet to convert him, and when he still persisted in his Atheism, he punishes him with the loss of his Rea­son and his Kingdom; and the end of all this Discipline, was to convince him, that the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will: Of which Words the best Explication is, that which Nebuchadnezzar himself did make after his Conviction; that God's Do­minion is an everlasting Dominion, and that he doth according to his Will in the Army of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, Dan. 4. 34, 35. Now what can be inferred from these passages, but only that God governs the World, and that his Government, or his Will is irresistible? But are we therefore forbidden to distinguish between his positive and permissive Will? Far be it from us to deny God's Sovereign Dominion, let him be Anathema that does it; we maintain only that God is not the Author of Wickedness, that his Provi­dence is unsearchable to us, and that Law is the only Rule of our Actions.

But let us consider what the Doctor of­fers in the Vindication of these passages. To what he urges concerningVind. p. 50, 51. God's removing and setting up Kings; I reply, that those gene­ral Expressions do prove only that God's Providence is always concerned in the Ad­vancement and Depression of Kings; but sometimes his Providence is only permis­sive, and that extinguishes no Right, nor conveys any Authority: He should there­fore have proved, that God does always remove and set up Kings by his positive and authoritative Will, and that the Text does say so; for if the Text does neither say it expresly, nor virtually, it is imperti­nent to produce it.

But this is evidently the Pro­phet's Ibid. p. 51. meaning to attribute all the Changes and Revolutions of Go­vernment to the divine Providence. I grant it, for it is certain no King can be removed or set up whether God will or no: But when God is said to give Kingdoms to whomso­ever he will, Does whomsoever Ibid. signifie those only who have a legal Right? Does giving suppose an antecedent Right in him to whom it is given? Does giving to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law 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 he insi­nuates 'tis absurd, To expound God's giving a Kingdom to whomsoever he will, to signi­fie his giving the Kingdom to the right Heir. It may suffice to answer, That a legal Right [Page 45] to a Kingdom is a Gift of Providence, and God invests it in whomsoever he will; what is it which brings any particular Person to legal Right, but Providence? God that conferr'd it upon Charles the First, might have given it to Cromwell, or to any other Man in the World; and therefore when it is asserted that God never gives a Kingdom without a lawful Right to it, this is very well consistent with that Assertion of the Prophet, though it be understood of God's Authoritative Gift, and in the utmost com­prehension of the Words; for though God's Authority be annexed to Right, yet he gives that Right to whomsoever he will.

But farther, he instances in the giving of an Estate, and that instance will lead us to a Resolution of his Questions. God giv­eth Estates to whomsoever he will; this Proposition is contain'd in Scripture, and is undeniably true: it is nevertheless certain that no one can have a Divine Right to an Estate, when the legal Right is another's; and then though God's Providence gives Possession of an Estate, that Gift is no con­veyance of Right or Authority to keep it. But then the Doctor bri [...]kly demands, does whomsoever signifie those only who have a legal Right to an Estate? does giving it suppose an antecedent Right? does giving an Estate to whomsoever be will, signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it. The Answer is obvious, God gives Estates by his permissive, and by his positive Will; by the latter to those only who have a legal Right, by the former to every one that gets Posses­sion; in respect to this Gift whomsoever may be taken universally, but must be limited to a lawful Right in respect to the other.

Thus in the disposal of Kingdoms, every one who has Possession, has a permissive Gift, but not a positive or authoritative Gift, which always attends upon Right; in relation to the former, God does give Kingdoms absolutely to whomsoever he will, without regard to Right; in relation to the latter, God does give Kingdoms to whom­soever he gives Right to possess them. In short, he gives them to whomsoever he will, but God's Will is either positive or permis­sive; and it is impossible to distinguish by which of them he gives any Possession, but by considering the Right to possess them. When an Estate is entail'd, the Possessor cannot give it to whomsoever he will, for he has no Right to alienate it from the Heir, neither does Providence properly give it to those who have no Right to it: But never­theless God can give Estates to whomsoever he will, by permitting Power, or conveying a legal Right to possess it: God can do both, when it is not in the Power of a Man to do either; and therefore there is a great Disparity in this Case, between God's giving and Man's giving.

And now what Absurdity is there in saying that God giveth a Kingdom to whom­soever he will permit the Possession of it, and conveys his Authority on whomsoever he will confer a Right to possess it? does the Absurdity lie in distinguishing between his permissive and authoritative Will? that is a Distinction generally receiv'd, and hi­therto I see no Reason why it is not appli­cable to the disposal of Kingdoms. Is it absurd to say that God gives a thing when he only suffers the taking it? that is the Language of Scripture, thus saith God himself unto David, I will give thy Wives unto thy Neighbour, and he shall lie with them; I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the Sun. But surely no Right was hereby given unto Absalem to his Fa­ther's Wives. The Actions of seducing, deceiving, and moving unto Wickedness, of blinding and hardening Men in it, are ex­presly attributed to God in Scripture, and if such Expressions may be reasonably ex­pounded only of God's Permission, or his being the accidental cause of such Effects; there can be certainly no Absurdity in ex­pounding God's giving a Kingdom without Right, by granting Power to Usurpers, and permitting them to abuse it. Lastly, Does the Absurdity lie in restraining whom­soever he will unto rightful Princes, when we speak of God's giving Authority? But if God gives a legal Right to whomsoever he will, then there is no Restriction, because none are excepted. God gives Riches to whomsoever he will, but he always gives a legal Right when he gives Authority to [Page 46] keep them; and in fine, it is no Absurdity to restrain the general Expressions of Scripture when the matter does require it. Thou hast wrought all our Works in us, saith the Prophet; if we understand this of God's positive Operations, wicked Works must be excepted: He hardneth whom (or whom­soever) he will, saith the Apostle; and I think the Doctor will not think it absurd to restrain the Words, to those who make themselves obnoxious to the Divine Ven­geance, by their obstinate Incredulity: and if this Expression may be restrain'd in one place, so it may in another, if there be equal Reason for it. In short, it is no Ab­surdity to restrain such general Words, when it is absurd to understand them with­out Restriction.

But the Doctor argues, thatCase of Alleg. p. 20. these Passages relate to the Four Monarchies, which were all as manifest Ʋsurpations a [...] ever were in the World, and yet set up by the Decree and Counsel of God, and foretold by a Pro­phetick Spirit. Here he affirms that the most manifest Usurpers that ever were in the World, were set up by God; conse­qently they had God's Authority to govern, and therefore a Right to Allegiance; other­wise Usurpers are never the better for being set up by God, and those Passages are pro­duc'd superfluously to prove it. But if the most manifest Usurpers in the World are God's Ordinance, what shall become of his distinction between Usurpers setled and unsetled, such as Cromwel was, and such as those that are enthron'd by a full Con­vention, such as have and such as have not the consent of the People: If all Usurpers have God's Authority, these distinctions are perfect Banter; but if all have it not, certainly the most manifest Usurpers that ever were in the World were without it: But let this pass for an Hyperbole. I answer,

1. It appears not, that those Monarchies were Usurpations: I grant they were such in sieri, those, I mean, who set them up, were Usurpers in doing it, and for some time, it may be, after their Advancement: but they soon became rightful Sovereigns, by the extinction of the former Right; and if at first they were Usurpers, and af­terwards rightful Sovereigns, How knows the Doctor that those Passages in the Pro­phet, relate to the four Monarchies, as Usurpations, and not as rightful Govern­ments? He affirms, that the Vind. p. 51. Prophet tells us with respect to the very Revolutions, which were no­thing else but Force and Ʋsurpation, that God changeth Times, and removeth and set­teth up Kings. Then it follows, that even the unjust and violent Changes of Govern­ments are acted and authoriz'd by God; for if in respect to them it is said, that God changeth Times and sets up Kings, and setting up is the act of God, and convey­ance of Authority, then it is certain that God does act and authorize Changes; then those very Usurpers, whose Government is founded only upon Force, without the con­sent of the People, have God's Authority; and then rebellious Subjects, and ambitious Princes, who overturn a lawful Government by Force, have God's Authority for it; for in respect to that Force and Violence he affirms, that Governments are destroy'd and set up by God. Thus in the transport of his Anger, the Doctor forgets his own Principles, and the Convocation's.

2. Suppose those Passages do relate to Usurpers, and to the very Force and Vio­lence by which Empires are overturn'd; How does it appear that God's setting up Kings, and giving of Kingdoms must be expounded of God's positive, and not of his permissive Will, of his giving of Authority, and not of his concession of Power, where­by Rebels and Usurping Princes are enabled to accomplish their wicked Enterprizes: If those Passages relate to the very Revolu­tions of Governments, and the wicked Force and Violence by which Usurpers are advanc'd, then certainly they must be understood of God's permissive Providence, unless we will make God the Author and Abettor of the highest Wickedness and In­justice. The Doctor will not affirm that those Passages do prove that Usurpers are set up by God, when they are making their way to the Throne, nor when they actu­ally place themselves in it; for till they [Page 47] are settled in it by consent, he himself does allow that they have not God's Authority; and yet they will prove this, if they prove any thing for Usurpers; for they limit not God's setting up, to Consent and Settle­ment, they make no difference between Kings in sieri, and in facto esse, between their ascending to the Throne, their fit­ting and their settlement in it; they inti­mate that all the Gradations and Steps of such Revolutions are alike from God, that he bringeth about the whole Change, and that the Invasions and Rebellions by which Kings are removed, are as much from him as the Advancement of a new King to the Throne, and his Establishment in it: And therefore if they prove that Usurpers have God's Authority, they prove it for Rebels and Invaders also.

But perhaps the four Monarchies which we supose to be Usurpations were set up by God's Authority, because they were set up by the Decree and Counsel of God, and foretold by a prophetick Spirit. I have observ'd be­fore, that some of God's Decrees are per­missive, and such are his Decrees about wicked Events, among which I reckon un­just Violence and Usurpations: But they were foretold by a prophetick Spirit; And what then? Have Usurpers therefore God's Authority, because God, who is omnisci­ent, and sees future things as present, does behold them committing Wickedness, and foretels it by a Prophet; or is God's Presci­ence a Conveyance of his Authority?

Among other Changes and Revolutions foretold by Daniel, in the Judgment of ve­ry learned Men, the setting up of Anti­christ is predicted, and that under the name of a King, Dan. 11. 36, 37, 38, 39. and I see no Reason why the setting up of this King may not as well be asscribed to God's Decree and Counsel, as any other King in Daniel. However it is said expresly of the Beast in the 13th of Revelations, which is supposed to be the Antichrist, that Power was given him over all Kindreds, Tongues, and Nations: Here we have his Commissi­on for an universal Empire. And Power was given him to continue forty two Months: Here is a Settlement for a long Tract of Time. And all that dwell upon the Earth shall worship him: Here is the Consent and Submission of the People to establish him; and if this King has not God's Authority upon the Doctour's Principles, and by vir­tue of as express words of Scripture, as any he produces for Usurpers, I wonder who can have it? Let us know whether this Power of Antichrist was not given him of God, and whether he could have it without his Will and Appointment? A Power over all Nations must certainly be given him by God; and yet I think this giving of Power is no Conveyance of Authority up­on this Usurper, nor does it inferr any Ob­ligation to Obedience: and this Instance overthrows all his Arguments from God's giving Power and Kingdoms, for here is a Power and Kingdom which is given by God, to which we cannot be Subjects with­out Apostacy from him.

The Doctor observes, That under the fourth Monarchy the Case of Al. p. 22. Kingdom of Christ was to be set up, and Antichrist was to appear, and the Increase and Destruction of the King­dom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in humane Governments. Hence he infers, That since God has declared, that he will change Times and Seasons, remove Kings, and set up Kings, to accomplish his own wise Counsels, it justifies our Compliances with such Revolutions; he shou'd have added, for otherwise Antichrist could neither be advanced nor destroyed. Thus it was once argued for Resi­stence, That God's hiding J. Goodwin in his Anticava­lierism. the lawfulness of it from the primitive Christians was ne­cessary to help Antichrist to his Throne: and now Compliance with Usurpers is urged to be lawfull, as neces­sary to set up and pull down Antichrist, that so God's Counsels may be accomplish­ed; and may it not as reasonably be infer­red, that since God has declared he will make Revolutions, remove and set up Kings, that therefore Rebellions and unjust Invasi­ons are lawfull, because they are the ordi­nary ways of effecting Revolutions? No, says he, we must not, contrary to our Duty [Page 48] promote such Revolutions upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophecies, but when they are made and settled, we ought to submit to them: What! Can it be contrary to our Duty to promote Revolutions which God decrees, promotes, and effects? Is it lawfull for no one to promote them? And how then shall they be accomplished? But why is it lawful to submit to them when they are made and settled? Why, because God has decreed them, that must be a Reason for it, or his Decrees and Counsels are here imper­tinently urged. But we are sure that God has decreed the Kingdom of Antichrist, and when his Kingdom is settled, must all Kindreds, Tongues, and Nations, pay Sub­jection to him? If God's Decree be a a Reason for Submission, we have no more to doe, but to fall down and worship, when we see his Decree accomplished in the Advancement of Antichrist. And if this be not Enthusiasm, there is no such thing in the World.

How vain is it to distinguish between promoting and submitting in respect to the fulfilling of Decrees and Prophecies? Does not he that submits promote? And what Ground is there for that Distinction in Scripture? It was God's Decree that Cromwell should have the Administration of Sovereign Power, and he might have foretold it by Prophecy; but it was im­possible it should have been accomplished without a general Submission: Was that therefore a general Duty, and was the Na­tion bound to it, to fulfill Decrees and Councils? What have we to do with God's unsearchable Decrees? Our Rule is Law, the Laws of God and Nature for religious and moral Actions, the Laws of Kingdoms and Commonweals for those that relate to Civil Society. As for God's Decrees, they are unknown to us, till they are fulfilled, and when they are, we can never know whether they are positive or permissive, whether they require our Submission or Resistence, but by the nature of the Events. Usurpations are decreed by God, and so are Robberies, so is Antichrist; and if there be no difference between these Decrees, as there may be none, and there can be none gathered out of Daniel, or out of any o­ther part of Scripture, it follows necessa­rily, that God's Decreeing of Usurpers in­fers not any Obligation of Subjection to them. Thus I have done with his Argu­ment from Dreams, Decrees, and Prophe­cies; and I hope it appears, that the Doc­tour's Commentary upon Daniel does by no means make good his Commentary up­on the Apostle.

8. He argues farther, That this Distinction, that only legal Case of Al. p 21. not usurped Powers are of God, had made the Apostle's Direction signifie nothing; for the great Question had still been undetermined, what Powers are of God, and what they must obey, if some Pow­ers be of God, and some not. The Apostle directed the Roman Christians to be sub­ject to the Roman Powers then in being; and if there was any Dispute whether they were lawfull Powers or Usurpers, he plain­ly determines it, by declaring they were God's Ordinance, and that Subjection was therefore due to them; he tells them the Powers then in being were ordained by God, and that was enough to silence all Disputes about them. The Doctour con­fesses, That had the Apostle confin'd himself to the then present Powers, it would have directed them at that time; but, says he, it would have been no general Direction to Christians in other Ages to obey the present Powers; it would have been very conveni­ent for some Men, if the Apostle had gi­ven such a Direction; but what if he hath not? Why, then we have no Direction in Scripture, what to do in such disputed Cases unless by a Parity of Reason. Well, suppose that we have not; the Direction is suffi­cient, if we will be content with what may be reasonably expected: St. Paul re­quired the Christians to pay Subjection to the Roman Emperours who were lawfull Powers; and the Reason upon which he enjoins it, extends the Obligation to Sub­jects in all Ages and Nations who are un­der the government of such lawful Powers. But the Apostle has not directed us to distinguish what Powers are lawful; nei­ther have we any Directions to find out [Page 49] true Parents, lawful Husbands, Masters, and Pastors; and yet, I think, the Scrip­ture is not to be charged with Imperfec­tion: The Scripture prescribes the Duties of these several Relations, but gives no Rules to distinguish the Relatives, the True and Lawful from the False and Coun­terfeit, that depends upon the infinite va­riety of Fact, of Customs, and of Laws, and therefore cannot be comprehended in general Rules; so does the Distinction be­tween lawful Powers and unlawful, it de­pends upon the various Constitutions of Civil Politics, and often upon Matters of Fact; and therefore that Distinction could not be bounded and defined within Rules, nor consequently be determined in Scrip­ture. In short, it may be inferred, by parity of Reason from the Apostle, that the supreme Powers in every civil Govern­ment are God's Ordinance and irresillible; But which are the supreme Powers he hath left to be determined by the Laws of every Government? The Doctor himself hath told the World, That whatever Case of Resist. p. 111. Power in any Nation, according to the Fundamental Laws of its Government, cannot and ought not to be resisted; that is, the supreme Power of that Nation, the higher Powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject; And is there any Nation in the World, which hath made an Usurper irresistible by a Funda­mental Law? The Doctor may recant this, but he will pardon me if I am still of his Opinion.

But the Doctor is sure the only Case of Al. p. 21. Direction in Scripture, is to sub­mit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government. And I am sure there is no such Direction there; and which is more, the Doctor himself is sure of it, for he is sure that Usurpers who have the actual Administration of Govern­ment, without the consent of the People, have no Title to Subjection. He seems to lay stress upon those Words of the Apostle, At God's Ministers attending continually upon this very Thing; the Emperors were then actually Administring the Government, and that was their Business, as God's Ministers: But does the Apostle say, that Sovereign Powers are not God's Ministers, when they are hindred from their Business, though they are still attending upon it, and en­deavour to remove the Impediment? Do they cease to be God's Ministers, because their Subjects are Rebels? Obedience is required to Spiritual Rulers, because they watch over Souls, Heb. 13. 11. Are the People then discharged from their Duty, if they will not suffer their Pastors to watch over them, but separate from them? And are the Pastors no longer God's Ministers, because they can't exercise their Function?

But there is not the least notice Ibid. given us of any kind of Duty, to a Prince removed from the Administration of Government, whatever his Right may be. Nei­ther, say I, is there any the least notice of pay­ing any Duty to Usurpers; no more is there of paying Obedience to a Father, or a Ma­ster, remov'd from the Government of their Families, or to a Bishop removed from his Church by Persecution; there is no more than this, that the Scripture requires Obedi­ence to them, and neither Scripture nor Rea­son does teach us that when they are violent­ly removed from the actual Administration of their respective Governments, the Re­lation ceases and the Duty with it. And thus much may be said for Sovereign Princes; Subjection is required to them, but neither Scripture nor Reason do in­form us, that the Relation is extinguished when they are violently deposed: On the contrary, we are expresly required to give Princes their dues, and what those are we must learn from the Laws of Nature and Nations, for the Scripture has not taught us.

But we have no Example in Ibid. Scripture, that any People were ever blamed for submitting to Ʋsurpers. In the 2d. of Samuel we have the People of the Jews submitting to Absalom; in the 13th. of Revel. the People of all Nations to Anti-christ, but in neither do we find that they are blamed for it. But I wonder when he was heaping up these negative Ar­guments, that he did not remember, that if they are good for any thing, they overthrow his own Hypothesis; he maintains that [Page 50] Allegiance is not due to all Usurpers (though all his Arguments from Providence and Scripture do prove it) but only to those that are setled by a general consent; and yet there is no Rule, no Example, not an Iota for this Distinction in Scripture. But this was not convenient to be remember'd, for then he had lost these pretty Arguments. But in Scripture we have Exam­plesIbid. of Subjects being condemn'd for refusing to submit to Ʋsurpers. This indeed is to the purpose: But where are these Examples to be found? in the Prophecies of Jeremiah, and the Discourses of our Savi­our with the Scribes and Pharisees, about paying Tribute to Caesar. Let us now exa­mine these Examples.

Our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the Possession of Power, whose Image and Superscription hath it? and if this be a good Reason, it is good in all other Cases, that we must submit to all Princes who are possess'd of Sovereign Power. I refer the Reader to our Saviour's Discourse, and let him satisfie himself, whether this Proposition is in it, That Allegiance is due to all Princes in Pos­session of Sovereignty, or this other, which is contradictory it to, That it is due only to these Possessors that are setled by the consent of the People; that I think cannot he in­fer'd from the Image and Superscription, for Usurpers may coin Money before they are setled; neither is it any Proof that a Prince is in Possession, because his Coin is current; if it is, Allegiance is due to King JAMES, or at least all the Money that has his Image and Superinscription. Is the Doctor sure that the Coin presented to our Saviour had the Image of Tiberius? Others say it had the Image of Augustus, and then our Savi­our's Argument could not relye upon Pos­session, for the Coin of a Prince deceas'd could suggest no Argument that Allegi­ance was due to the Possessor.

Dr. Hammond I take to be the better Expositor; thus he upon those Words: Whose is this Image and Superscription? The Inscription on the Coin is Caesar Agustus, such a Year after the taking of Judaea; this being a Record of the Conquest of the Romans [...]ver this Nation, and the Right by them ac­quir'd, by the dedition of Hyrcanus, and an expression of the Years since that taking, about 90 Years, (for so long ago did Pompey sub­due and take Jerusalem,) shew that now it is unlawful to seek change, after so long continuance of that Power, so fairly and le­gally setled. So the excellent Dr. Hammond; and in his Annotations he evinces histori­cally, the Legality of the Roman Govern­ment over Judaea. Dr. Sherlock on the contrary, supposes that Caesar was an U­surper, and that our Saviour reprov'd the Pharisees for not submitting to an Usurper; but he was pleas'd only to suppose it; and I presume to affirm, that it is impossible to prove it: For an Usurper must have some Competitor who claims a right to the Sovereignty, and let him name us that Person, if he can, that was Caesar's Com­petitor; if he cannot, he may suppose, but he can never prove him an Usurper.

His other Instance is out of the Prophet Jeremiah; and here he acknowledges that his Argument for Submission is Prophecy, or an express Command from God to submit to the King of Babylon: And was Nebuchad­nezzar then an Usurper, if Allegiance was requir'd to him by God's reveal'd Will? Was he not King over the Jews by particu­lar Nomination? Did not the Sin of the Jews consist in their Disobedience to God's express Command? And how can he prove that the Prophet would have condemn'd them, if they had refused to submit without express Revelation, or that he himself would have advised them to submit with­out it.

Before the first Conquest of Judaea under Jehoiakim, the Jews could be under no Obligation to submit to Nebuchadnezzar; but when their Kings had made a volun­tary dedition to him, and confirm'd it by an Oath, then their Obedience was due to him as their lawful Sovereign: Their Re­volt is afterwards stiled Rebellion, and the Violation of that Oath was punished with final Captivity and Destruction, Ezek. 17. The Doctor pretends there was a necessity of an express Command to submit, because they could not without it subject them­selves to any other Prince, while any of [Page 51] David's Family were living, because God himself had entail'd the Kingdom upon his Posterity. But this is a groundless Fancy, and contradicted by himself; for in his Vin­dication he maintains, That whether there be a Divine Entail or no, it is always lawful to submit to Force, and then sure there was no need of a Revelation. But where is that Reason to be found in Scripture? Does the Prophet Jeremy mention it? Had the Jews any Scruple then about a Divine Entail? The Prophet declares from God, that if Zedekiah would submit to the King of Ba­bylon, he should live in Safety, chap. 38. and after his Captivity, and the Destruction of Jerusalem, he assures the remaining Jews, that if they would still abide in the Land, God would deliver them from the King of Babylon, chap. 42. The only Motive which he urges to the King and People is an assu­rance of Safety by Submission: But it ap­pears from the Prophet Ezekiel, that they were bound to it by Oath and Covenant, and they are therefore branded by both the Prophets with Rebellion, because they revolted from their lawful Sove­reign.

But the Doctor argues hence, That where the Entail of the Ib. p. 22. Crown is only by Humane Laws, there is no need of Prophecy to direct the People to submit to any new Prince whom God sets over them. Well, suppose there was need of Prophecy in case of a Divine Entail; how does it follow there is no need of Prophecy when an Entail is by Hu­man Laws; perhaps it may follow from something else, but I am not subtile enough to discern how it follows from his Premises: It will follow as well, that because a King by a Divine Entail cannot be depos'd with­out Prophecy, there is no need of Prophecy to depose a King of Human Entail; or be­cause Abraham could not lawfully Sacrifice his Son without an express Command, therefore▪ other Parents may murther a Son without it. When God sets up a Prince by his positive Will, there is no need of a Pro­phet to prescribe Submission, but there is need of a new Revelation to inform us, when it is his Will to convey Authority to an Usurper, for the Event▪ is no Indication of it.

But since the Prophet's Motive for Sub­mission to the Jews was Safety, may we not for the same Reason submit to any King in Possession? I answer the Case may be dif­ferent; for, 1. The Jews were bound to submit to the King of Babylon; for they were his rightful Subjects by Dedition, and by God's express Appointment; and though Safety is a good Argument to enforce Du­ty, it is none against it. 2. The case of absolute Conquest, when the Lawful Prince is a Captive, the Government dissolv'd, and no possibility of restoring it, is manifestly different from the case of a People deposing their lawful Prince, advancing an Usurper, supporting him by their Power, opposing their Rightful Sovereign, and still in a ca­pacity of restoring him; their Safety in this case is no Argument for persisting in Re­bellion; and if they are under any Neces­sity, it is of their own making and conti­nuing. 3. Submission is not Allegiance, and though the former is lawful, when it is to no purpose to resist, yet it is no more law­ful to assist an Usurper to the destruction of a Rightful Prince, meerly for my own Safety, than it is to assist a High-way-Man to save my own Purse, or to compound for my own Life, by assisting an Assassine to de­stroy my Neighbour's,

Thus I have consider'd all the Doctor's Arguments from Scripture, but there is one Text more to be consider'd, which the Doctor propounds as an Objection against his Principle; the place is Hosea 8. 4. where God himself does thus complain of the Israelites, They have set up Kings but not by me, they have made Princes and I knew it not. Here we are assur'd, that all Kings have not been set up by God, and this is as plainly and expresly declar'd as Words can do it, and how then is this reconcile­able with the Apostle's universal Proposi­tion, there is no Power but of God? I have intimated that this Proposition is restrained by the following Words unto the Powers then in being, which were lawful Powers: And thus the Texts are easily reconcil'd, and there is no Contradiction between [Page 52] them, if we understand the latter of law­ful Powers, the former of Usurpers; or if we distinguish between Kings set up by God's Ordinance and Authority, and Kings set up by his Permission, and the general Concourse of his Providence. But what saith the Doctour?

1. Those Words in Hosea Case of Al­leg. p. 35. are not true of all the Kings of Israel, after their Separation from the Tribe of Judah; for Jeroboam and Jehu were set up by God's own Appointment. This is contrary to the ge­neral-Sense of Expositors,Calvin, Rivet. Mercer. Pisca­tor. Tarnovius, cited by Dr. Pocock: To which add Zanchius, Ju­nius, Pareus, Diodate, Ge­neva Interpr. Annotations of Divines. who apply this Speech to to Jeroboam especially: But did not God declare by the Prophet Abiah, that he would give him the King­dom over Israel? It is an­swered, though Jeroboam had a Prediction of his Ad­vancement, yet he did not tarry for God's farther di­rection about it, as David did; he possessed himself of the Kingdom, not by God's Appoint­ment▪ but by the Gift of the People, who had no Command nor Direction from God to depose Rehoboam; and whereas another Prophet declared, that the Thing was from God, this may denote, that God permit­ted and ordered the Rebellion and Usurpa­tion for the punishment of Solomon and his Son, and such a permitting and over-ruling Providence could be no Conveyance of Au­thority, for thus the Cursing of Shimei, and the Usurpation of Absalom, were also from God.

2. One of these Kings was Baasha, who made himself King without God's express No­mination; and ye [...] God tells him, I exalted thee out of the Dust, and made thee Prince over my People Israel. This might have been said of Cromwell, who yet had no Title to God's Authority; and it may be under­stood of the general Concurrence of God's Providence, and the concession of Power to usurp the Throne. But as for these Kings, if God did actually deprive the Family of David of their Right to the Kingdom of Is­rael, then they were lawfull Kings, because Possession was a Right when there was no other; if he did not, (which seems very doubtful,) they were certainly Usurpers up­on a Divine Right; and therefore though they were exalted by God's Providence, yet they could not be invested with his Authority.

3. The true Answer is this: Israel was a Theocracy, and therefore they ought to have received their Kings from God's Nomina­tion; but instead of that, they submitted to any who could set up themselves over them; and this, he says, was a great Crime, it be­ing in effect a renouncing their Prerogative of having Kings set up by God's Nomination, and putting themselves into the common con­dition of the World, where Kings are set up onely by his Providence. This contains the force of his Answer, and at most 'tis only conjecture, and such as has little shew of Probability. No doubt it was a Crime not to consult God, when they might have consulted him; but upon the Doctour's Principle it could be no fault to submit to any who could set themselves over them; for he says himself concerning those Princes, that they were set up by God, and surely it could be no fault to submit to his Ordi­dinance. He affirms expresly, That in Judah and Israel God did sometimes set up Kings onely by his Providence, and these providential Kings had all the Rights of other Sovereign Princes of Judah or Is­rael; consequently they had a Right to Submission, and therefore it was no fault to pay it; and if it was a fault to submit to those Kings of Providence, then certain­ly they were not invested with God's Au­thority; and then the meaning of the Words in debate is this; they have set up Kings by the Concurrence of my Provi­dence, but not by me, but without the con­veyance of my Authority. As for the Pre­rogative of receiving Kings by express No­mination, I understand not upon the Doc­tor's Principles, how that could be any Prerogative; I am sure it could be no ad­vantage; for if Kings of Providence have divine Authority as much as Kings by No­mination, where is the difference? Can­not [Page 53] good Kings be made by Providence, as well as by a Prophet? Is not the one God's Act and will as much as the other? There can be no Priviledge or Advantage in a singular way of making Kings, if all are made by God and enjoy his Authority: and therefore in the nature of the thing it self, it could be no Crime to forego it. I hope it appears now, that his Scripture-Proofs are as ill grounded as his Proposi­tions; I might well spare the Labour of ex­amining his other Reasons, but if they be not answered, they may be thought unan­swerable, and therefore I will briefly con­sider them.

2. The Doctor observes, That his Hypothesis gives the Oase of Al. p. 23. easiest and intelligible Ac­count of the Original of hu­mane Government; that all Power is from God, who is the Sovereign Lord of the World. Having observed this, he recites the various Opinions about the Origine of Monarchy, and confutes them severally, and concludes at last, That he cannot see where to fix the Foundation of Page 24. Government, but in the Pro­vidence of God, who by the choice of the major or stronger part of the People, or by Conquest, or Submission, or the long succes­sive Continuance of Power, or by humane Laws, gives a Prince and his Family Posses­sion of the Throne, which is a good Title against all humane Claims, and requires the Obedience of Subjects, as long as God is pleased to continue Him and his Family in the Throne; but it is no Title against God, if he please to advance another Prince. To set this Matter in a clear Light, I observe,

1. That our Dispute with the Doctor is not about the Origine, or first Beginning of Government, whether it began in Pa­ternal Authority, or by Original Con­tracts; but about the Resolution of Go­vernment and Obedience, whether they must be resolved into Right or Posses­sion.

2. The Dispute is not whether the Power of Government is derived from God, or whether it is founded upon this Providence. We acknowledge that the Authority of Government is derived only from God, and from him no otherwise but by a Providential Conveyance of his Autho­rity upon particular Persons; and thus far we are agreed: But then the Question is, Whether God's Providence does invest a Prince with his Authority by the convey­ance of Right, or by the conveyance of Possession without it? In short, whether every Prince in Possession is invested with God's Authority: We affirm that Govern­ment is founded in God's Authority, but we deny that God conveys it upon every Prince in Possession.

3. When we say God's Authority is an­nexed to Right, we do not confine this to a Right by political Laws of particular Governments; the adaequate Rule of Right is Law, and whatsoever is Law may create a Right, and consequently Right may re­sult not only from political Laws of this or that Government, but also from the Laws of God, of Nature, and Nations; the Will of God revealed is a Law to us, and therefore when God nominates a King by express Revelation, he has a Right to the Possession of Sovereignty and the Obe­dience of Subjects: In a state [...]f Nature, as they call it, wherein Men are under no Government nor Obligation of Subjection, they may choose a Sovereign, and when they have chosen him, he has a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature: By the Law of Nations it is generally said, how truly I dispute not, that Conquest in a just War does create a lawful Right. And lastly, when political Societies are Consti­tuted, and a Rule of Succession Establi­shed, either at the first, by an Original Agreement, or afterwards by Prescription or positive Laws; that Law of Succession does create a Right to the Sovereignty, which is confirmed by the Laws of God, and Nature, and Nations; but if this Law be violated, and an Usurpation is made against it, the Usurpers may acquire a Right by Prescription, which implies an undisturbed Possession, and a Dereliction of the former Right; and this new Right (which commences from the extinction [Page 54] of the former) is such by the Law of Nature, which is Equity, and of Nations, which is the Consent of civilized Socie­ties.

Lastly, Where there is no Rule of Suc­cession, or no Right in any Person to the Sovereignty, as when a Roy­al Family is extinguished, inDr. Sherlock's Case of Res. p. 129. such Cases The Possession of Sovereign Power is Title e­nough, when there is no better Title to oppose it; for then we may presume that God gives him the irresistible Authority of a King, to whom he gives an irresistible Power. When there is no other Right, Possession is a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations; but Possession of another's Right has been always pronounced invalid, by the voice of Equity and the suffrage of all Nations. These Two last Rights may perhaps be reduced to the Second, the Consent of a free People; for they suppose them to be discharged from all former Obligations; and Possession of Sovereignty supposes Submission of the People, and that is nothing else but a Consent to be governed, which in a free People, I have observed, does create a Right to Sove­reignty by the Law of Nature. And now let us consider what the Doctor does object against these Titles to Sovereignty.

Against the Choice and Consent of the People he objects, That then no Man is a Subject, but he who Consents to be so, for the major Vote, says he, cannot include my Consent unless I please; that is, the effect of Law and Compact, or Force, not of Nature. I answer, when a free People choose a So­vereign, if they consent to choose, it is presum'd (unless it be otherwise provi­ded) that they consent the major Vote shall determine the Choice; this presump­tion is grounded upon manifest Equity: But if any one refuses to be determin'd by a Majority, he refuses to enter into the Society, and may remove out of it; but if he will live within the Government of the new Sovereign, he accepts him for his Sovereign, and is bound to Obedience. He urges farther, That if Subjects give their Prince Authority, they may take it away again if they please. Bp. San­derson propounds this verySand. de Ob­lig. Conse. Prael. 7. sect. 21. Inference, and his Answer is this, Contra stat ratio, & omnia jura, omnia for a recla­mant, scilicet legitima pacta non esse rescindenda. It is the Voice of Reason and of all Laws, and of all places of Commerce, that lawful Compacts are not to be res [...]inded at pleasure. But another Answer is alsoIbid. sect. 20. given. The Subjects are only instrumental Agents, God is the principal Agent in the making of a King, the People design the Person, and God conveys the Authority. It is God that makes Kings, the People are his Instruments, but he has given them no Power to de­pose them. The Doctor him­selfVind. p. 16. affirms, That the Consent of the People are the means by which Princes gain a Right to their Thrones; and I af­firm no more; the People may be a means of conveying Right, though it be God alone that confers the Authority, and if God alone does▪ make Kings, he alone can depose them. But farther, Ʋpon this Prin­ciple there can be no Hereditary Monarchy, one Generation can choose only for themselves, their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had. True; if there could be no Right to Sovereignty without the constant Election of the Subjects; but that is no Principle of mine, and I am not bound to answer for it; but this I will answer for, that a Law made a Thousand Years ago may be Obligatory now, and that it may create a Right to a Person now living, and that it may be a Sin to deprive him of it, tho' it be done by the help of Providence.

His Objection against the Right of Con­quest, supposes it to be effected by unjust and violent Force, and I easily acknowledge that unjust Conquest gives no Right.

Submission, he says, is only a forced and after Consent not to make a King, but to own him who has made himself King; and what Right can that give more than Force? He shall Answer this himself, The Consent and Submission of Ibid. the People turn that, which [Page 55] was Originally no more but Force into a civil and legal Authority, by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince; by this means Princes gain a Right to those Thrones, to which they had no antecedont Right; this is certainly true where the People are un­der no antecedent Obligation.

The continuance of an Ʋsurpation can never give a Right, unless that which is Wrong grow Right by Continuance: That Maxim of the Law, to which he refers, has this Exception, Ʋnless a new Cause intervene, which of Gr. de Ju. bel. l. 2. c. 4. s. 11. it self can create a Right. Now that which makes way for a new Right, is the Extinction of the former Right: The continuance of an Usurpation of it self may never give a Right, but if the Usurpers enjoy quiet Possession of aIbid. s. 6, 7. 100 Years together, it is a presumption in Law and Equity, that the former Right is relinquished. But it is also affirmed by Lawyers, That quiet and immemorial Ibid. s. 9. Possession is a Right by the po­sitive Law of Nations; and if that be true, then a wrongful Possession may become rightful by Continuance. But though the former Right be extinguished, Though no body else has any Right to the▪ Crown, How does this make him a rightful King who has no Right? I answer in his own Words, Possession is Title e­nough, Case of Res. p. 129. when there is no better Title to oppose it; it is a Right by the Law of Nations, and it may be founded also on the Consent of the People, for they are free to Consent, when the former Right is relinquished, and they actually consent by submitting to his Go­vernment.

This Right of Prescription the Doctor will not understand: He de­mands,Vind. p. 7. will an uninterrupted Possession of an hundred Years make the Ʋsurper a Rightful King, without the Death or Cession of the whole Royal Fa­mily? I answer a Cession is presum'd by the Consent of Nations, and by Equity it self; because it is reasonable to believe that he has relinquish'd his Right, who suffers ano­ther to enjoy it without in­terruption; and because it is Grot. ibid. sect. 8. the Interest of Societies, that the Controversies about Dominion should at length be ended. How then, says the Doctor, does the Royal Family come to lose their Right by an usurp'd Possession? And if an Ʋsurpation will destroy their Right, why not a short one as well as a long one? Their Right is lost by Cession, not by Usurpation; and the Cession is not presum'd by the Law of Nations when the Usurpation is of short continuance; short possession of an Estate is no right in any civiliz'd Society, but a long Possession is a right almost all the World over: So it is in Kingdoms; and this consent of Nations will justify this Distinction, though the Doctor will not understand it. He demands farther, How the People shall be justified in consenting that the Ʋsurper should reign while their rightful King is living? If they cannot hinder him from reigning, they need not justifying; if they can and will not, and therefore can­not be justified, who can help it? And what is that to the matter of Prescription? But how long must the Ʋsurper reign before the People consent to it? Till they can rea­sonably be persuaded that the former Right is extinguish'd. Lastly, he asks again, Whether an hundered Years Possession be a good right against a better claim, or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred Years Ʋsurpation? And I answer again, that Prescription supposes the former Right to be extinguish'd, which is so far from being a better, that it ceases to be any Right; the extinction of it may be grounded upon Equity, or the positive Law of Nations; as to the time of its expiring, an hundred Years is not always necessary; if the Ces­sion can be prov'd, that will suffice without respect to time, but without other Proof, by the consent of Nations, undisturb'd Pos­session for a hundred Years does entinguish the former Title.

We come next to Hereditary Right, and thus he argues against it, it Case of A [...] pag. 24. is either a continued Ʋsurpa­tion which can give no Right, [Page 56] or a Right by Law. How Usurpation may produce a Right is consider'd already, and what says he against a Right by Law? why, that is by the consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family, which (he has observ'd before) cannot be done; for what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years agoe to choose a King for me? Here a Question is made, whether an Act or Law made by our Ancestors may oblige their Posterity? He gives no Reasons to prove the Negative, but supposes it Self-evident. But the Reason and Practice of Mankind suppose the quite contrary; if Children cannot be bound by the Acts of their Pa­rents, the Authority of Parents does signifie nothing; but we need not this Authority to enforce the Obligation of Laws: every Human Law does oblige the whole Commu­nity, or Political Society, to which it is a Law, and therefore the Society being still the same it was four hundred Years agoe, the Obligation reaches to every Member of it. Thus Mr. Hooker, to be commanded we do consent, Eccles. Pol. 1st Book, p. 88. when that Society, whereof we are a part, hath at any time be­fore consented, without revoking the same after by the like universal Agree­ment: Wherefore as any Man's Deed past is good as long as he himself continueth; so the Act of a publick Society done five hundred Years sithence, standeth as theirs who present­ly are of the same Societies, because Corpora­tions are immortal: We were then alive in our Predecessors, and they in their Successors do live still. Even the publick Good and Interest of Societies is a sufficient Founda­tion for the extending the Obligation of Laws to Posterity. If the Acts of Prede­cessors cannot bind their Successors, stand­ing Leagues between Nations are impracti­cable, a King in being cannot be oblig'd by the Acts and Grants of former Kings, the publick Faith of a Society is a publick Cheat, for the Society can never be bound by it for a▪ Week together; and lastly, where the explicite Consent of the People is requir'd to a Law, it is plain that all Laws must expire as soon as born; for the People are in a continual Flux, and they are not the same to Day as Yesterday; so that ab­solute Necessity seems to have introduc'd an universal Agreement in all Societies [...] that the Obligation of Laws should be extended to Posterity. This is the undeniable pra­ctice of all Nations; every Act of Parlia­ment is intended to oblige the future as well as present Generation, till it is repeal'd. In the Recognition of James the First, the Lords and Commons do submit and oblige themselves, their Heirs and Posterity for ever, until the last drop of their B [...]oods be spent, to his Majesty King James, and his Royal Progeny, and Posterity for ever.

Here it is plain, this Parliament thought they had a right to make Acts and Vows for their Posterity; and we have not a Par­liament only, but also the Reason and Pra­ctice of all Nations against a single Doctor; and I think he is the first Doctor that ever undertook to prove that Hereditary Right is no Right, and that there is no Right to Sovereignty but Possession. But I think also that the Doctor does contradict the Doctor, for he allows that in an Hereditary Kingdom the lawful Heir has a legal Right to the Crown before he is in Possession, and even after he is dispossess'd, and when the Crown is vacant he acknowledges the Sub­jects are bound to maintain the Succession, and to set up the lawful Heir: And if this be true, then it is evident, that an Heredi­tary Right without Possession may lay an Obligation upon the People, and consequent­ly the People may be oblig'd by this Right, though they did not personally consent to it.

He urges farther, that this Hereditary Right must be ul­timately Case of Al. p. 25. resolved into the Au­thority of the People to make Kings, which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter, for a legal Entail is no­thing more than the Authority of the People, and if the People have Authority to make Kings, they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them. A Legal Entail may be founded on the express consent of the People, or upon Bp. Bram­hall's Works, p. 527. a long con­tinued Prescription, which [Page 57] implies a full Consent, and derives a good Title of Inheritance both before God and Man; but though the Right be founded on Con­sent, yet the Authority of Government is only from God. The People have Power to consent, and when they have consented, Reason and Equity do dictate that they are bound to observe their own Pacts and Co­venants. But to speak pro­perly, this Obligation doesVide Seld. de Jur. Gen. l. 1. c. 7, 8. p. 93, 105. not arise from Consent and Reason, but from the Autho­rity of God; for Obligation is the effect of Law, and no­thing can be Law without the Sanction of superior Authority, which in the Laws of Nature (such as that is, which requires that the People stand to their Pacts, and to those Forms of Government which they have entred into) can be God alone. And thus as the Authority of Government pro­ceeds from God; so the Obligation of the People, to adhere to that Entail which their Consent has made, does proceed on­ly from God's Sanction of that natural Law, which makes their Consent irrevoca­ble; and for that Reason though they have some Power in making Kings, they have none to unmake them.

But then if Consent be necessary to Right, and God's Authority is not convey'd without Right, Is not this to Case of Al­leg. p. 25. say, that the Right of Govern­ment is not derived from God without the Consent of the People? For if God cannot make a King without the People, or against their Consent declared by their Laws, 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. And this, says the Doctor, is very absurd, and what those Persons abhor the Thoughts of, who insist so much upon a legal Right. But where is this horrible Absurdity? Is it that God cannot make a King without the People? That indeed is an Absurdity, but asserted by no one; the Question is what God wills or does, and not what he can doe. He can make a King out of Stones, he can make him without the Peo­ple, without any Instruments, and with­out any antecedent Right; but this he ne­ver does, and what he can do is nothing to the purpose. But does it not then fol­low, that the Authority must be derived from the People, not from God; derived from the People onely as Instruments; but then God cannot give it himself without the Peo­ple, which indeed is a self-evident Conse­quence; for if God cannot make a King without the People, it follows plainly, that God cannot give Authority without the Peo­ple: He adds, nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws. He should have said, as God himself has directed, for the Direction or Obligation of Laws pro­ceeds from God alone. But where are we? Is it not his own Doctrine, that God does never make Kings without the Consent of the People? No matter whether this Con­sent be Law or no, it obliges the People, and Providence never sets up a King with­out it; and how then can he acquit himself of these imaginary Absurdities? If he says the Consent of the People is the effect of God's Choice, is his Instrument, or the Sign of his Conveyance of Authority, the same say I for a legal Entail, and his own Distinctions will answer his own Argu­ments.

3. To justifie the Doctrine of Allegiance to Usurpers, he urges this Ar­gument, That it is founded Case of Al­leg. p. 36. on the same Principle as the Doctrine of Nonresistence, and therefore both must be true and false; for it is founded on this Principle, that God makes Kings, and invests them with his Au­thority; which equally proves, That all Kings who have received a Sovereign Authority from God, and are actually in the Admini­stration of it, (which is the only Evidence we have that they have received it from God,) must not be resisted. This Reason depends upon his former Proofs, and falls together with them▪ it is finally resolved into this Assertion, that they who are in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power have re­ceived Authority from God: An Assertion which makes all Usurpers the Ordinance of [Page 58] God; which divests Charles I. and II. of God's Authority, and assigns it to the Rump and Cromwell; which gives the Sanction of divine Right to the greatest Wickedness and Injustice, which is contradicted by almost all Divines and Lawyers, by the Voice of Nations, and by the Doctour him­self; for he acknowledges that God's Au­thority is not always annexed to the actual Administration of Sovereign Power: Here he asserts, that it is the only Evidence we have of the receiving Authority from God; yet when he comes to account for Crom­well, he confesses it is no Evidence, and makes the Consent of the People to be the onely evidence of it. We grant that Non­resistence is founded on God's Authority communicated to Sovereigns; but we say, that it is always communicated with Right, that all just Rights are established by God's Authority, that actual Administration is onely matter of Fact, which is diffe­rent from Right, and that Usurpers may have it by God's permissive Will, which is no Conveyance of Authority. But Non­resistence it seems is Nonsense, unless it be founded on this new Principle; if it must be so, who can help it? We must acknow­ledge, that Dudley Diggs's, Dr. Fern's, Dr. Hammond's, Bishop Sanderson's Archbishop Bramhall's Defences of Non-resistence, are Nonsense, for they defend it upon ano­ther Principle; which is more, that all the Church of England Writers, for at least [...]0 years together, even Bishop Stil­lingfleet, Doctor Sherlock, and the other Worthies of the Age, have erred in the Foundation of Non-resistance, and have preached nonsensically, and writ nonsen­sically for it; and which is more yet, that no one Writer of the Church of En­gland, before the late Revolution, has de­fended the Doctrine of the Church upon that Principle, which by a new Light is dis­covered to be the true Foundation of it; I cannot believe this without Demonstration; but for that I am sent to the Clouds, and to the unsearchable Abyss of Providence.

What the Doctour urges a­bout receiving Authority fromIbid. p. 37. the People, is answered alrea­dy; the 13th of the Roman [...] is also consi­dered, and Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book is fully vindicated from his Glosses, and I am not now at Leisure for Repe­tition.

4. To say that when the Divine Pro­vidence has removed one King, and Ibid. set up another, we must not pay the Duty of Subjects to him, if he have no legal Right, is to deny God's Authority to remove Kings, or set up Kings against humane Laws. This he propounds as a 4th Reason, but 'tis onely a repeating of what he had said in his 5th Proposition, and there it is answe­red. Here it will suffice to answer that removing and setting up Kings are equivo­cal Expressions, which signifie either God's suffering or doing, his Permission of Power, or his Conveyance of Authority: An Usur­per is set up by permissive Providence, and to deny him Allegiance is no Opposition to God's Authority. But God cannot make a King, if he cannot oblige us to obey him; nor remove a King, if he cannot discharge us from our Allegiance to him. He can make and remove Kings by his permissive Will, without transferring our Allegiance; if the Doctour can prove that he makes Usurpers otherwise, we are ready to shift sides with Providence. But those are bold Men, who will venture to say in plain contradiction to holy Scripture, that God cannot remove or set up Kings. As for me, I am none of those bold Bayards; I believe that God governs the World, and that he removes and sets up Kings; he removes Kings out of the World, and out of their Thrones, he sets up lawfull Kings, and he sets up Usurpers. Henry the Great he removed by Ravilliack, and Charles I. by a High Court of Justice; he set up Charles H. and King James, and he set up Cromwell and Massianello: All this is true; but it follows not hence, that he does all this by his positive Will and Con­veyance of Authority.

Our Church has taught us otherwise in the Office for King Charles's Martyrdom, his Death is there always asscribed to God's permissive Will. Albeit thou didst suffer them to proceed to such a height of Violence, as to kill him, and to take possession of his [Page 59] Throne, yet didst thou in great Mercy preserve his Son, whose Right it was, and at length by a wonderfull Providence bring him back, and set him thereon. The Removal of King Charles, and the setting up the Ʋsurpers, are both attributed to God's permissive Providence; but the setting up of him, whose Right it was, to his positive and ac­tive Will: He suffered the Usurpers to take Possession of the Throne, but he set the rightful Heir thereon.

But here again the Question is not, what God can doe, but what he does; he can give a Man's House, and his Wife, his Ox and his Ass, and any thing that is his, to another who has no Right to them, and so he can give his Crown and Kingdom: But the Question is whether God does give them by the bare Events of Providence? Whether he who has Possession of ano­ther's House, or Wife, or Kingdom, has a divine Right to them? I will be bold [...]o say that he has not; and yet I pretend not to confine God's Providence, he go­verns the World as he pleases, but he ob­liges us to be governed by Laws; he can transfer any Man's House, or Wife, or Kingdom to another, by his permissive Will, as when they are usurped; by his positive, when he conveys a Title to them. The Doctour affirms, that God never sets up Kings without the Consent of the Peo­ple; others add, without their lawfull Consent, or against a lawful Right; if Con­sent be no Confinement of Providence, neither is Right and lawfull Consent; and if this Opinion be a contradiction to the Scripture, so is the former. But,

5. This limits the Providence of God in governing Kings, and pro­tecting Ibid. injured Subjects: We say the punishment of Sovereign Princes is pe­culiar to God, and that if they abuse their Power, God will punish them for it; but it seems God has no way to doe this, but to take them out of the World, for he cannot remove them from the Throne. The Doctour is very carefull that bad Princes may be pu­nished, and their Punishment in another World does not satisfie him: He pretends to make them accountable to God onely, but that is a Complement; he elsewhere makes them accountable to their Subjects; for if Princes govern not according to their liking, they may withdraw their sworn Al­legiance from them, suffer them to be de­posed, and then abjure them. But has not God ways enough to punish Princes with­out licensing their Subjects to abjure them? Cannot he punish them as he did David, by raising Evil against them out of their own House and Bowels; as he did Jeroboam with the loss of his Son, Ʋzziah with Le­pro [...]ie, Nebuchadnezzar with Phrensie, and Herod with a most loathsome and tormen­ting Disease? Is not God's Power of pu­nishing confined by not resisting as well as not abjuring? Or is it any Argument a­gainst Non-resistence, that then God can­not license Subjects to rebell against their Sovereign? Is it a Confinement of God's Power to punish leud Husbands, because it is not lawful for their Wives to commit Adultery; or prodigal and tyrannical Pa­rents, because their Children cannot hang them, or in respect of both, because Obe­dience is due to Husbands and Parents as long as they are living? In all the Succes­sion of the Roman Emperours, which were as wicked and tyrannical as any Succession in the World, not one of them was punish­ed by the Translation of the Empire, while they were living, and against their own Consents, and yet God's Judgments were never more remarkable upon any Succession of Monarchs. God has ways enough to pu­nish Princes without taking his Measures from the Doctour, he [...]an punish them without the Wickedness of Men, and he can punish them by it: though he never makes it lawful for Subjects to rebell and depose their Princes; yet he can punish them by Rebellion and Deposition, by withdrawing his Protection, and giving Success to Rebels and Usurpers; he can punish them likewise by hardening them in their Wickedness, by suffering Subjects to abjure the King they have deposed, to raise Taxes and Armies to oppose, and even at length to murther him▪ and can any Man wish for more ways of Punish­ments? Are not these enough for God [Page 60] to execute his Vengeance? Or is his Pro­vidence cramped or limited, because it is not lawfull for men to do evil?

But if Subjects can't translate their Alle­giance, when an evil Prince is removed from the Throne, then his re­moval is no deliverance toIbid. p. 38. them, They are never the better for it, for they must not own another Prince, though he would be never so kind to them. Well, and what if they are never the better for the deposing of their Prince? This is often the course of God's Provi­dence to give and to take away a King in his Wrath. When the Romans thought to make themselves happy by deposing Ty­rants, they were usually plagued with greater; Saevior & intestabilior semper est exortus. When God deposes a rightful Prince, and leaves him a right to the Throne, he has a right to Allegiance; and therefore his Subjects cannot transfer it to another Prince, though he be the sweetest, kindest Prince under Heaven, for kindness and good Nature are no Right to Allegiance.

Yet this seems very hard, that when God has actually Ibid. delivered us, we must refuse our Deliverance, that we will not allow God to deliver us, unless he do it by Law. This is pretty and passionate, but, to use his own Eloquence, is a very nothing. It is often a Duty to refuse Deliverance when God does deliver us; we are sometimes bound to suffer Martyrdom not accepting Deliverance. A Master of a Family does cruelly treat his Wife, his Children, and Servants; God delivers them, by suffering a Robber to drive him out of his Posses­sions, he offers to govern them gently, if they will swear to resist the former Pos­sessor, and accept of him as a Husband, Father, and Master. A Prince oppresses his Subjects, many of them rebel and bring Deliverance to the rest with this Condi­tion, that they will swear to joyn in the Rebellion; In these Cases is it lawful for the oppressed to accept Deliverance? When a Deliverance is offered, which can­not be enjoyed without Sin, it is God's Providence that offers it, not for our Complyance but our Tryal; and to accept of such a Deliverance will make us liable to his Vengeance. The Question then is, whether it be a Sin to abjure our lawful Sovereign, and to assist an Usurper against him, we believe that it is a Sin against hu­mane Laws, and against the Laws of God and Nature, and if it be a Sin, then inte­rests of Flesh and Blood cannot make it lawful; and therefore to talk of God's Deliverance, when the only Question is about the lawfulness of abjuring a lawful Sovereign, is in plain English only Cant and Banter.

His 6th Argument, wherein he under­takes to confute Bishop Sanderson, has fallen into better Hands, and there I shall leave it; the summ of it is this, That we must renounce our Allegiance to the dispossessed Prince, for the sake of the publick Good, the Necessity and Ends of Government; and I shall only observe that here he Argues upon the Fundamental Principle of the Jesuites, Republicans, and Fanati [...]ks, who have written for Resistance, and if the Doctor expects it, I will make good this Charge against him.

His 7th Argument is this, These Principles answer all the Ibid. p. 43. Ends of Government, both for the security of the Prince and Subjects, and that is a good Argument to believe them true. These Principles, What are they? Non­resistance, Non-assistance, and Allegiance to Usurpers: A Prince who is in Possession, is secured in Possession by them (as far as any Principles can secure him) against all attempts of his Subjects, who must submit to him without Resistance, though they are ill used. On the contrary, here is no Secu­rity for even the best of Princes; his Subjects are indeed forbidden to resist him, but if any attempt be made against him by Subjects or Foreigners, he may be left to duel them all, and to sight his Battles by himself against all his Enemies. He will say that a good Prince must be defen­ded by his Subjects, and so say the Repub­licans that he must never be resisted and deposed: But it is the unavoidable Mischief [Page 61] of their Principle, that the Subjects are made the Judges of their Sovereign, and they will often judge the best of Kings to be Tyrants. And is not the Doctor's Prin­ciple liable to the same Mis­chief? If Subjects have a Page 27. very bad King who notoriously violates their Rights, they are not bound to defend him; and are they not plainly then the Judges of his Crown? They may judg the best of Kings to be a very bad one, and then David look to thy self, for Absa­lom, or Sheba, any Rebellious Son or Sub­ject may destroy thee at their Pleasure; there is but little difference between Resi­stance and Non-Assistance, as to the Secu­rity of Kings, the one exposes them defence­less to be murthered by the other, this brings them to the Scaffold, and that chops off their Heads; and 'tis the same thing to Princes whether they are betrayed or re­sisted, abandoned or deposed, assaulted by Assassins, or exposed naked to them. But,

The Doctor's Principles will not serve the Revolutions of Go­vernment, Pag. 43. to remove one King and set up another, and why so? the Revoluti­ons of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative; that is, God may make Revolutions, but the Subjects must not promote them, and if God can change Governments without the Subjects Assi­stance, why may he not do it without their Complyance; But yet Subjects must com­ply and transfer their Allegiance, and then the new King is secure, till he disobliges his Subjects, for then they who have Power from God, will think they have a Call to execute his Prerogative, and the rest will say in their Hearts, let him go if he cannot defend himself; and ifPag 27. sighting by himself he chances to [...]e beaten, then God removes him, we must [...]dore the rising Sun, and Allegiance must [...]e always a Lacquey to Success. These [...]re Principles sure that Princes have reason [...]o be jealous of, for whatever Service they may do them at one time, they may do them as great disservice at another; they advance Usurpers to the Throne, and then tumble them headlong from it.

But when any Prince is setled in the Throne, these Principles put Pag. 43. an end to all Disputes of Right and Title, and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience. I may answer in his own way, it is evident that these Prin­ciples were either unknown to the Pag. 44. World, (and that is an Argument against them) or else, that they cannot put an end to Disputes of Right and Title; for there have been such Disputes in all Ages, and I believe will be to the end of the World: If this be trifling; let the Doctor answer for it. But admit his Principles were gene­rally receiv'd, it is evident they can never put an end to Disputes of Right, nor bind the Subjects by Duty and Conscience to an Usurper; for he expresly ac­knowledges, that the Providence Pag. 26. of God removes and sets up Kings▪ but alters no legal Rights, nor forbids those who are dispossessed to recover their Rights. The dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right and Claim, which he may lawfully prosecute by War; And is not here an admirable end the Controversy about Right? Oh! but this Controversy is between the Princes only, upon these Principles it can be none among the Subjects, for they are bound by Duty and Conscience to the Prince in Possession. And what are they bound to? Non-Resistance and Submission? Is that any Security to the Sovereign when he is invaded by the lawful▪ Prince? Are they bound to Allegiance, or to an actual defence of the Usurper against him? That they cannot be, for it would be a bond of Ini­quity; if the dispossessed Prince has a just cause of War, and this is evident to the Subjects, Is it lawful for them to support an unjust Cause against a just Cause? It is generally agreed, that a War cannot be just on both sides; Grotius gives this Reason, because in the nature Lib. 2. c▪ 23. sect. 13. of the thing there cannot be a mo­ral Faculty unto contrary Actions, a right in one side to invade, in the other to defend; and Vasquez Tom. 1. Dis. 6 [...]. c. 3. this, because that a War be just on one side, it is requisite there be injustice on the other, for herein [Page 62] consists the reason of War, that he who de­serves it should be punished by vindictive Justice: If the War of the legal Prince be therefore just, and the War of the Usurper unjust, these Consequences must inevitably follow. 1. That the Usurper is bound to restore the Crown he has usurp'd, for if it be unjust to defend it, it must be unjust to keep it. 2. If he is bound to restore it, he has no right to it by God's Donation. 3. He is responsible for all the Blood that is shed in an unjust War, his Soul must an­swer for all the Persons that are kill'd, as for so many Murthers. And, 4. The Sub­jects cannot lawfully assist him in murther­ing Innocent Persons, and much less in ex­ecuting a Sentence of Death, (for such in effect is War) upon their innocent Sove­reign to whom they had sworn Allegiance, and who seeks for nothing, but what is justly his own.

And now upon the whole, is not this Scheme of Principles an incomparable Se­curity for Princes? Subjects must not de­pose their Princes, but they may stand by and see them deposed and murthered; if the best of Princes be unfortunate, they may lawfully abjure them, and swear Alle­giance to the Usurper, and then contribute their Purses, Prayers, and Arms to destroy their lawful Sovereign. But let the Usur­per be sure to be fortunate still, and not to invade our Properties and Religion, let him look to it, or most Men will say, let him go if he cannot defend him­self; that he is placed in the Pag. 26. Throne at present, does not prove that it is God's will it should always be so. The dispossessed Prince has a lawful War against him, and if he gets a Battel, he is God's Ordinance again, and our Allegiance is due to his Victory.

On the contrary, if Principles are to be judg'd by their being for the Security of the Prince and Subject, an immovable Allegi­ance to our lawful Prince, will appear to be the truest, for it is the best Principle to prevent all Revolutions of Government; and all the Mischiefs of Civil War and Anarchy which usually attend them, and therefore is most for the Peace and Security of Human Societies. But to this the Doctor has seve­ral Objections.

1. If this Principle would pre­vent all Revolutions, it is a demon­stration Pag. 44. against it, that it is a bad Principle, because it is contrary to God's Pre­rogative of reproving and setting up Kings. This Objection concludes as strongly a­gainst Justice and Christianity it self; for it is certain, that if the Principles of Justice and of Christian Religion were universally preach'd, there would be no Usurpations nor Revolutions; and that is a Demon­stration with the Doctor, that they are bad Principles, meer Human Inventions, which cannot come from God.

2. It is evident, that this Prin­ciple was either unknown to the Ibid. World, or that it cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government. But still it may be the best Principle to prevent them, and no Man ever affirm'd that it would al­ways actually prevent them. Mankind are not generally govern'd by Principles, but by Lusts and Passions: Christianity is the best Religion to prevent Revolutions, and to preserve the Peace of Societies, but we see, de facto, it fails of preventing them no less than our Principle of Allegiance.

3. Such Principles as must dis­solve Human Societies when such Ibid. Revolutions happen, and expose the most conscientious Men to the greatest Suffer­ings, without serving any good end by them, cannot be true. I answer, there is no Prin­ciple of Morality and Religion but may occasion the dissolution of Human Societies, but then the wickedness of Men is the pro­per Cause of it, and not the Principle. The Doctor has answer'd this Obje­ction himself, the Divine Provi­dence Pag. 34. takes care of all such extra­ordinary cases, and there we must leave them. And even his own Principle is liable to the same Objection; for till the new Prince is setled, no Allegiance is due to him, and therefore in that Interval which may last for an Age or more, since no Allegiance is due there can be no Sovereign, nor Sub­ject, and consequently no Society. As for the Sufferings of conscientious Men, that is [Page 63] their Portion here, but great is their Reward in Heaven; and whereas he says those Suf­ferings can serve to no good end; the keep­ing of their Consceinces void of Offence, is one good end, and the promoting the pub­lick good of Human Society in general, is another. But does not this Principle tend to dissolve Societies? No otherwise than as Christianity tends to set Men at variance in the same Houshold, not naturally, but con­tingently, not in its own Nature, but in the Event of Things, and by the Wicked­ness of Men.

4. Is the Right of any Prince so sacred, as to stand in compe­tition pag. 45. with the very Being of Humane Societies? I answer, That the So­vereign is comprehended in the Society, and ought not to be opposed to it; that we must not do Evil that Good may come of it; and that Perjury and Injustice, Re­volutions, Civil Wars and Anarchy, are against the Interests of Society. Must we defend the Prince's Right with the destruction of the Nation, and the Ruine of his Subjects? This perhaps may be a Case in the New At­lantis or Ʋtopia: But I ask another Que­stion, may we abjure and sacrifice a lawful Prince for the safety of his Rebels and Ene­mies? Which is most necessary, that the Nation should be governed, or that such a Prince should govern it? And if he be driven out of his Kingdom and cannot govern, must we th [...]n have no Government? Or how shall the Nation be governed, if the Subjects are bound to pay Allegiance to no other Prince? Let us remember the Rump and Cromwell, and all these Questions are answered. The Loyal Members of the Church of England in those days thought it necessary that the Nation should be governed by the lawfull Prince, they reserved their Allegiance for him when he was driven out of his King­dom, and could not govern, and they re­fused to pay Allegiance to Usurpers. In short, it is better to be without Govern­ment, than to do Evil for the sake of those who will not be governed by their lawfull Governours. But this is to make all Mankind the Slaves and Properties of Princes; as if all Men were made for Princes, not Princes for the Government of Men. To this I op­pose some other Sayings of the former Dr. Sherlock, in his Case of Resistance: If the King be God's Minister; he is upon that Account as much greater than all as God is. pag. 104. The whole Nation is as much Sub­ject to the higher Powers a [...] any single Man. pag. 107. Sovereign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Sovereign Prince. p. 200. We must not deny Duty to be Duty, because we may suffer by it. p. 215. And we must patiently submit to a Prince, though he per­secute and oppress us. p. 220. The Doctour may reproach us if he will, for preaching the Doctrine of the Bowstring, and ma­king all Mankind the Slaves and Property of Princes: But then he should renounce his Nonresistence and his King together; for that Doctrine is equally loaded with those Reproaches, and our Principle will be as easily discharged from them.

I have now done with the Doctor's Ar­guments; there are some others which are scattered in his Book, but they are reducible to these I have examined. I have answered them fairly, and to my own Rea­son satisfactorily, and all ingenuous Men I hope will be satisfied, that if I am in an Errour, I have some shew of Reason for it, though I pretend not to Demonstrations, and self-evident Propositions.

But I must not give it over thus; for the Doctour has endeavoured to vindicate his Arguments: the greater part of his Vin­dication relates to Bishop Overall's Convo­cation-Book, the Case of Athaliah, and the Case of Obedience to the late Usurpers; and these Disputes will be managed better by others: It is my business to answer his Arguments from Scripture and Reason; what he offers in his Vindication from Scri­pture is considered before, and now we must examine what he offers farther from Reason. Our Dispute, as far as Reason is concerned, depends upon this single Que­stion, Whether it can be proved by any Ar­guments drawn from Principles of Reason, that every Usurper who is settled, is inve­sted with God's Authority? But the Doc­tour pretends not in his Vindication to pro­duce new Reasons for the Affirmative, he [Page 64] only repeats his former Arguments, and fortifies them with new Evasions.

His fundamental Argument from Reason is contained in his 3d Proposition, and the summ of it is this, That God governs the World, and sets up Kings, when by his Providence he advances them to the Throne, that he never does this by his permissive Will, because all Events, and especially such as will do most good or hurt to the World, must be asscribed to his positive Will, his Order, and Appointment; and hence he concludes, that all Ʋsurpers being advanced by God's Provi­dence, are invested with his Authority. I have endeavoured to confute this Argu­ment, and in his Vindication I meet with a long DiscourseVind. p. 58. to 62. about Providence where he endeavoured to defend it.

He demands, How God does Pag. 58. make Kings in England? he sends no Prophets to annoint them; therefore he makes them no other way but by the Events of Providence, and how does God make Kings by his Providence? Truly this can be done no other way but by placing them in the Throne, and settling them there with the general con­sent of the People. And hence he infers, that when God makes a King by this Pro­vidential Settlement, he invests him with his Authority, and makes it the Duty of Subjects to obey him. I reply to all this, that God makes Kings in England onely by his Providence, is true; but there are two ways of making Kings by Providence, by Permission and Appointment; by the conveyance of Right and Authority, or of bare Power and Possession: an Usurper is made the wrong Way by God's Concession of Power, and Permission of his Wicked­ness. But thus the Doctour argues against the Advancement of Usurpers by God's per­missive Providence, A Prince, says he, may ascend the Throne, pag. 59. and govern a Kingdom for many Years, (it may be 100 Years) without God's Authority, and then it should seem that God does not rule in these Kingdoms, which he does not dispose of by his own Will and Counsel, but suffers Ʋsurpers to take the Go­vernment of them. Now if this be an absurd or impious Consequence, the Doctour him­self is bound to answer for it: he maintains that a Prince dispossessed is divested of Gods Authority, and an Usurper is not invested with it, till he is throughly settled; but this Interregnum may continue 100 years, or more; he acknowledges himself, that in England there was no Settlement for near 20 years together, in the times of the late successive Usurpations; and it should seem then that God did Ibid. not rule in this Kingdom, when he onely suffered Ʋsurpers to take the Govern­ment of it, and that God did not govern it, when it was not governed by his Authority or Minister. How the Doctour will answer this I know not; but this I know, that God's Providence does govern in times of Usurpation, of Civil War, of Anarchy, and in those Countries where there is no Civil Government at all; and one may safely af­firm, that God governed this Kingdom in the time of Cromwell, when yet it was not governed by God's Minister, or by his Au­thority. But does Providence and Government signifie onely his Per­mission? Ibid. No man says it; does God look on, and see Men snatch at Crowns, and take them, and keep them, and exercise an Authority which he never gave them? And does God then inspire and authorize usur­ping Princes to snatch at Crowns, and pos­sess them? Does he onely look on and see infinite Villanies and Impieties every day committed? Does he suffer Schismaticks, Rebels, Pirates, and Murtherers, to exercise an Usurped Authority which he never gave them? But to resolve Providence into a bare Permission, especially Ibid. in matters of such vast consequence is to deny God's Government of the World. But we resolve not Providence into a bare Permission; 'tis our Faith, and our excee­ding Comfort, that Providence over-rules Men's Wickedness, and brings Good out of Evil; but we believe also that God is not the Authour of Sin, be i [...] great or little, and that all wicked Actions, though of never so vast a consequence, are onely per­mitted by him for wi [...]e Ends and Purposes: in short, we maintain God's Government [Page 65] of the World, but not in Derogation to his Justice and Holiness.

But the Doctor endeavours to answer this Objection against his Prin­ciple, That to say that prosperous Ibid. Ʋsurpers, when they are settled in the Throne, are placed there by God and have his Authority, is to make God a party to their Wickedness. The force of the Ob­jection consists in this; that since accord­ing to the Doctor's Scheme of Principles, it is Wickedness in an Usurper to ascend the Throne, and it must be Wickedness also to keep it, because the legal Right of the former Prince remains, which to de­tain from him is Injustice; hence it follows evidently, That if God authorizes the Usurper to possess and keep the Throne, he gives him Authority to commit a Sin, which he will punish with Damnation, and is therefore the principal Author of the Wickedness.

And how is this Objection Answered? First we are told, It is an Argu­ment against God's Government of Ibid. the World, and this is the Rea­son, for if God cannot direct and over-rule the Wickedness of Men to accomplish his own Counsels, without being the Author of those Sins, whereby such Events are brought to pass, there is an end of God's Providence and Holiness; for the most glorious Designs of Providence have been accomplished by very wicked Means, even the Crucifixion of our Saviour himself. Now this is a great Truth, but nothing to the purpose; God can cer­tainly over-rule Wickedness without being the Author of it; But what then? Does God's over-ruling Providence convey Au­thority to persist in Wickedness? Or does it alter the nature of Good and Evil, and make the unjust Detention of another's Right to be no Injustice? We have no dis­pute about God's bringing Good out of Evil; We maintain that it is unlawful to detain another's Right, and that God can­not give Authority to do that which is unlawful, because it is contrary to his Goodness and Holiness: And to say that God authorizes no Man to be wicked, I am sure, is no denial of his Providence, nor any Argument against it.

But the Doctor speaks particularly to the Case of transferring King­doms; he supposes, No Man will Pag. 60. deny, but that God as the supreme Lord of the World may give the Kingdoms of the World to whom he pleases, without doing Injustice to any Prince, who can have no Right, but by his Gift. This I grant is his unquestionable Prerogative. Then, says he, the only dispute can be, about God's bringing such Events to pass by the wicked­ness of Men. I Answer, we have no dispute about it; no doubt it is God's Perogative to give Kingdoms and Riches to whomso­ever he pleases; but the Question is, whe­ther God does properly give them when they are unjustly Possessed, and when it is a Sin to keep them; if he does, we think the Consequence is, that he authorizes Wickedness, and to this the Doctor An­swers nothing; but he laboriously proves what is nothing to the purpose, that it is Just for God to bring Good out of Evil. God permits Robberies for good Ends, but this proves not that Robbers have a divine Right to their Booty, it is a Sin to keep it, and as long as it is so, we are sure they have not God's Authority for it.

He supposes farther, that God may per­mit ambitious Princes to depopulate Coun­tries, to depose Princes, and subdue their Kingdoms; and then he asks, Which most becomes the divine Pag. 61. Wisdom to suffer such Men, when they please, to overturn Kingdoms only to gratifie their own Lusts; or to give prospe­rous Success to them when he sees fit to new model the World, to pull down such a Prince or to chastise such a Nation? And thus he Answers his own Question, I am sure this much more becomes the divine Wisdom, than a bare Permission of such Violence with­out any further Design, which does not be­come it. Thus he still disputes against his own Imaginations; for no one else does imagine, that God permits the deposition of Princes without any other Design, than to gratifie the Lusts of Usurpers; there are many good Ends for which he may [Page 66] permit it, the Chastisement or the Punish­ment of the Princes themselves, and of their Subjects, the Disciplining of them by Afflictions, the Tryal of their Faith and Patience, the Illustration of his own Glory, and many other Ends that are worthy of the divine Providence. When Charles I. was deposed and murdered, that execrable Violence was permitted for wise Ends; but this was no Proof that God had authori­tatively transferred his Kingdoms to his Deposers and Murderers: And this is a plain Demonstration, that it may become the divine Wisdom to suffer Princes to be deposed, and Kingdoms to be subdued, without any Design of transferring them to Usurpers.

But why may not God give them those Kingdoms which he has overturned by them? Undoubtedly he may; he may give them by the Conveyance of a lawful Right, or by express Revelation; but the dispute is not, what God may do, but what he does, and whether he does properly give King­doms to Usurpers. But the Doctor sup­poses again, That it is as agree­able to the Sovereignty, Wisdom, Ibid. and Justice of God, to give a Kingdom to an Ʋsurper, as to suffer a wicked Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a legal Title. This he supposes but with­out Proof, and against Reason; God by Virtue of his absolute Sovereignty may give a Kingdom to any one, as he can give any Man's Estate, or Wife, to any Man by the same Sovereign Dominion: But First, The Possession of an Estate, Wise, or Kingdom, is no Evidence of God's Donation: And Secondly, When God does really give a Kingdom, all former Rights are extin­guished by a divine Right, and it is no Injustice in him to whom it is given to possess and keep it. But according to the Doctor's Principle, the Right of the for­mer Prince is still valid, and he may pro­secute it by a lawful War, and therefore it must be unjust in the new Prince to de­tain it from him; and this does make a great difference between the Doctor's Usurper, and a Tyrannical Prince with a legal Title; the later has lawful Authori­rity from God which he can keep and ex­ercise without Sin, the Tyrannical abuse of it is yet wholly from himself, and is only permitted by God for Ends agreeable to his Wisdom and Justice. But the Doc­tors Usurper has Authority given him by God, and yet the Possession and Defence of it against the lawful Prince is unjust and unlawful; now this is a plain contradic­tion in the nature of the Thing, and to God's Wisdom and Justice also, for hereby God is made to authorize that which is formally unjust, which is contradictory to his Justice; and to give a Prince a King­dom, and yet oblige him to restore it, which is disagreeable to his Wisdom. But in short, let the Doctor prove if he can, that it is no Sin in an Usurper to possess himself of the Throne, and that he is not bound to restore it, and there shall be an end of this Controversie; I will acknow­ledge that he has God's Authority, and that his Principle does not charge God as being the Author of Wickedness; but if that be impossible to be proved, he may wash and varnish, and lay on Colours till he is weary, the Aethiopian will still re­tain his Skin, and the Leopard his spots.

The next Objection he labours to re­move is this, That his Principle justifies an unreasonable and wicked Ibid. Doctrine, by making the Acts or Permissions of Providence a Rule for prac­tice against Right and Justice. The summ of his Answer is this; He acknowledges that it is impious to justifie Actions from Success▪ or to conclude that is God's Cause, which Provi­dence prospers, because it confounds the dif­ference of Good and Evil, and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice: But yet it is a necessary Duty to discharge those Duties which the Providence of God lays upon us according to the Nature and In­tention of the Providence; and thus God's Providence may in some Sense be a Rule of Practice, and may make or extinguish a Duty by changing our relations or condition of Life; as in the present Case he must transfer my Allegiance when he changes my King. In another place he states itVin. p. 44. thus, The Laws of God are the [Page 67] Rules of Good and Evil to us, not his Providence; but Providence lays new Ob­ligations upon us by creating new Relations: The Laws of God prescribe the Duty of Sub­jects to their Prince, but the Providence of God makes him. I Answer,

1. That impious Doctrine which teaches, that the Cause, which Providence prospers, is God's, does seem the unavoidable Conse­quence of the Doctor's Principle; for he teaches that all Events are God's doing, and that he positively decrees, appoints, accomplishes all Usurpations: But if all Events are God's doing, he is certainly the Author of that which he does; and in such Events which are necessarily and in­separably accompanied with Iniquity, he must be the Author of the Iniquity too: And as to the Event of Usurpation, if he decrees, assists, and accomplishes it, if he does all this for Usurpers, we must needs conclude, that their Cause is Gods', for it is impossible for God to do more than this for any Cause whatsoever.

2. If the Laws of God, and not his Pro­vidence, are the Rules of Good and Evil to us, then it follows undeniably, that Pro­vidence of it self can never direct us how to distinguish between Good and Evil; and therefore when the Question is, whether an Action be lawful or not, we must have recourse to Laws, and not to Providence, to determine it: Thus when we dispute about Allegiance to Usurpers, the Question must be, whether there be any Law that requires it; and if there be no such Law, it is certain there is no such Duty. It is true that the divine Providence does change our Condition and Relations, and by in­troducing new Relations, does oblige us to new Duties: But it is also certain that all Changes which befall, our Selves, or the Persons to whom we are related, do not extinguish our Relations and Obliga­tions to them, and therefore we must have some other Rule besides Providence to in­struct us when they are extinguished. When I am in Prison, or my Father i [...] in Prison, here is a providential Change, but no Cessation of Relation or Duty. When the Course of civil Government is in­terrupted by Rebellion, and the Prince cannot actually administer; here is a pro­vidential Change which affects my Sove­reign, but is no discharge of my Alle­giance.

And how then shall I know when the Events of Providence do extinguish my Duty? My Duty does not cease upon every Change in the condition of my Sovereign that is made by Providence, and it is im­possible that the Events of Providence should direct me, when it is extinguished by any Event of Providence: And there­fore I must be directed by some other Rule, which may inform me, when any Duty is extinguished by a Change of Pro­vidence, and that Rule can be nothing else but Law, either divine or humane Law. Thus it appears that though a Change is made sometimes in our Duties, by the Events of Providence, yet our only Direc­tion is Law, and thither we must appeal at last in all our Controversies about the Change of Duty; and the result is, that if there be no Law that requires Allegi­ance to Usurpers, the Events of Providence cannot make it to be a Duty. Providence, 'tis true, does make Kings, and God trans­ferrs my Allegiance when he changes my King: But the Question is, whether Pro­vidence does not make Kings by Permis­sion, and whether when my lawful Prince is dispossessed, my Relation to him is ex­tinguished; and the only way to determine those Doubts, is by appealing not to Pro­vidence, but to Law and Reason.

The Doctor tells us, That we must con­form our selves in the discharge of those Duties that Providence lays upon us, ac­cording to the nature and intention of the Providence. But how shall I know that it is the intention of Providence, when an Usurper is advanced, that I should pay Allegiance to him? I know that God disapproves Usurpations and strictly for­bids them, and declares that he will pu­nish them; and I know also, if Usurpa­tion be so great a Wickedness, that God's Providence does not assist or authorize it, though he does not interpose his irre­sistible Power to hinder it, this I am [Page 68] taught by natural and reveal'd Religion, and I find no Precept in either to assist any Man in his Wickedness; in the whole Pro­gress of the Usurpation I find nothing but Injustice, in the Rebellion or Invasion, in setting the Usurper on the Throne, and in supporting him on it; and therefore I have reason to conclude, that since my Assistance is unlawful, neither the Nature nor the In­tention of the Providence does require it.

There remain some other Objections and Evasions in the Vindication which relate to Providence, and I will consider them as they occur.

He objects against our Principle, that it opposes Providence to Providence; the force of the Objection is this; God does settle the Crown on any Vind. p. 43, 45. Family no otherwise but by his Providence, and when an Ʋsurper is setled in the Throne, he is advanc'd by Providence too; and therefore to oppose an Hereditary Right which is made by the over­ruling Influence of Providence, against God's setting up an Ʋsurper by other Acts of his Providence, is to oppose Providence against Providence, his former Providence against his later Providence. Now there is no ab­surdity at all in opposing Providence to Providence: A Divine Entail is nothing but an Act of Providence, and yet the Doctor thinks that the Providential Ad­vancement of an Usurper is of no validity against it, and thus himself does oppose Providence to Providence. God's Provi­dence may make Kings by Nomination, by the conveyance of a legal Right, and by granting Possession without Settlement, and Possession with it: And if it be no Absur­dity to oppose and prefer the first to all the others, and the fourth to the third, why is it absurd to prefer the second to the third and fourth: It would be absurd indeed if the latter Providence were as clear a De­claration of God's positive Will as the for­mer, but that is the great Controversy be­tween us: All Men are agreed, that when a lawful King is on the Throne he has God's Authority; but not that an Usurper setled or unsetled is invested with it. I am sure there is a Providence that is only permissive, which conveys no Authority, which we cannot possibly distinguish, but by the moral nature of Events; and I think it is no absurdity to distinguish Providence, nor to oppose Wrong to Right, a permissive Providence to a legal Right, which is esta­blish'd by God's Authoritative Providence. And this single Observation, that▪ for all that yet appears, an Usurper is advanc'd only by permissive Providence, is a sufficient Answer to all the Reflections which he makes upon our opposing Providence to Providence.

He observes, that this is to shackle and confine Providence, Pag. 45. and that we will not allow God's Providence to change and alter. We only maintain that God's permissive Providence is no discharge of our Allegiance, and that we may not abjure and resist our lawful Sovereign, because God has suffer'd others to rebel, or to depose him: We confine not God's Providence, but we confine our selves to that which is just and lawful, and we hope it is no shackling of God, to say he is not the Author of Iniquity.

He observes that when lawful Kings and Usurpers are advanc'd,Ibid. it is all but Providence still; and he desires 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? And is not an unsetled Possession an effect of Provi­dence too? Is a Divine Entail any thing more than an Act of Providence? It is all but Providence still. But the Answer is obvi­ous; it is God's Authority, and not Pro­vidence, which is Obligatory; we are sure that Lawful Kings have his Authority, but not that Usurpers have it, they are advan­ced by God, but by his permissive Provi­dence only.

Lastly, He raises a great Dust about opposing HumanePag. 43. Rights and Laws to God's Authority. I will not dispute with him about the Obligation of Humane Laws; it is enough to answer, that he supposes what he has not proved, that Usurpers have God's Authority, because they are ad­vanc'd by his Providence; and if this is not [Page 69] true, all his Harangues about Humane Laws and Providence do signify nothing. I have often urged the Case of Robbery, and the unjust possession of private Estates and Properties, to shew the unconclusiveness of all his Arguments from Providence, and to prove that Possession by Providence is no Evidence of Divine Right or Authority. But the Doctor has found out Distinctions and Evasions to take off the Force of these Instances, and now I am at leisure to con­sider them.

The Substance of his First Answer is, That the Dispute is Case of Al. p. 34. not about legal Right but about Authority; no Man pretends that Thieves and Pirates have God's Authority; they have Force and Violence which every Man may submit to when he cannot help it: but Sovereign Power is God's Authority, though Princes may be advanc'd to it by no honester means than Theft or Burglary. I answer, 1. That no difference is here assign'd be­tween the Usurpations of Sovereignty and private Property, but only this, that Sove­reign power is God's Authority: I have an­swer'd all his Arguments whereby he would make good his Proposition, and if this Pro­position be unprov'd, the Evasion that is founded on it must needs be insufficient.

2. This Evasion is at last a begging of the Question; the Fundamental Dispute is, Whether God's Authority is always annex'd unto Sovereign Power? His Fundamental Argument from Reason, is that all Provi­dential Events are God's Appointment; it is objected that Piracy and Robbery are Providential Events, as well as Usurpation; and the summ of his Answer is this, That So­vereign Power is God's Authority, which is nothing but arguing in a Circle, and is plainly petitio principii.

3. Thieves and Pirates have often Sove­reign Power; they exercise the Power of the Sword, they make Laws, decide Con­troversies, and assume all the Properties and Badges of Sovereign Authority; and to make them absolutely God's Ordinance according to the Doctor's Principle, the Sovereign Thieves and Pyrates are setled in their Administration by the voluntary Con­sent and Submission of their Subjects; such there have been in the World, and such there may be, and whenever they shall be, they will have as good a Title to God's Authority as any Usurper, for Sovereign Power is God's Authority, and when once the Subject Thieyes have consented to their Sovereignty, upon pain of Damnation they must pay▪ Allegiance to them.

4. It has been answer'd, that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Providence as well as Usurpers, though they have not God's Anthority. A Thief cannot take a Purse whether God will or no, and he must have the Concurrence of God's Providence to take it, and if these are Arguments of God's Will and Appointment▪ if Providence give a Divine Right, it is certain that the Thief has it, as well as the Usurper, for they have both the same evidence for it.

To this the Doctor replies, That there is a great difference Vind. pag. 54, 55. between these Cases, which is this, that to the settlement of an E­state, nothing more is requir'd but a meer legal Humane Right, and though the Provi­dence of God allots Men's private Fortunes, yet he gives no Man a Right to an Estate which he has got by Fraud, Injustice, and Violence; but leaves all such legal Rights to the care of publick Government. But on the contrary, it is God's Authority which makes a King, and not a meer Humane Right, and God's Authority is not inseparably annexed to Humane Entails, for he can make a King without a Humane Right; if meer Law made a King, as it makes an Heir to an E­state, it were very unjust to own any but a le­gal King; but if God can remove a legal King and set up an Ʋsurper, then it is no Injustice when God does so, to transfer our Allegiance. This contains the force of his Reply, and in Answer to it I observe,

1. That this is no Reply to the Objecti­on, which is only levell'd against his Argu­ments from Providence, the summ of it is this; that the Usurpation of a Crown and an Estate are effected alike by Providence, and that 'tis impossible to find any diffe­rence in the Concurrence of it, and there­fore if Providence proves a Right, the [Page 70] Usurper of an Estate has a divine Right to it. The Doctour replies, that a legal Right is sufficient for an Estate, but to make a King he must have God's Autho­rity. Admit this to be true, what does it signifie to the Dispute about Providence? How does it shew that there is not the same concurrence of Providence to the Usurping of an Estate and the Usurping of a Kingdom? As God can give Kingdoms, so he can give Estates to whomsoever he will, and if the meer providential Advance­ment to a Kingdom, is a proof that it is God's Will to give it, why is not the same providential Advancement to an Estate, a proof of the divine Donation also? If God may give the Possession of an Estate without a Right to keep it, so he may give Kingdoms; and if God's Providence does not over-rule and cancel the Obliga­tion of Laws in the one Case, how shall it appear that it cancels them in the other? he acknowledges that Providence gives no Right to the unjust Possession of an Estate, and yet the unjust Possession is certainly an Event; and therefore he must quit his fundamental Argument, which is drawn from the Events of Providence; for he must either confess that all Events are not God's Doing, or that his Doing, his Giving Possession of any thing is no Evidence of any Right or Authority to possess it. In short, his Reply is a Confession that his general Arguments from Providence are unconclusive. God's Providence is nothing when it conveys the unjust Possession of an Estate; but when it conveys a Crown to an unjust Usurper, it is an uncontrol­lable Evidence of his positive Will and Au­thority; this Distinction cannot be deduc'd from Providence itself, for in both Cases the Concurrence is the same, he must go to something else to prove it, either Rea­son or Scripture, and all his Arguments from both I have examined already.

2. The same difference that is assigned in the Reply between a Crown and an E­state, may be applied to other Cases; I will instance in a Bishop's Right to his Tem­poralty, and to spiritual Jurisdiction; to the former nothing is required besides a mere humane Right, but to enjoy the la­ter, he must have God's Authority; suppose now that both are usurped by an illegal and schismatical Intruder, who is certainly in some sense Episcopus divina Providentia: The Dr. will confess, that Providence has given him no Right to the Temporalties; the Question then is, whether [...] has a Right to the Spiritual Jurisdiction, which is God's Authority? It may be urged, that there is indeed an ordinary lawful way, whereby Bishops are invested with that Au­thority; but God's Authority is not inse­parably annexed to that ordinary Vocation, he can make a Bishop without it, and when he does so, a mere lawfull Vocation is not a sufficient Reason to adhere to a Bishop deposed by God, nor can the want of it [...]ustisie the disowning of a Bishop whom God has advanced. The plain Resolution of such a Case is this: God can make a Bishop without an ordinary Vocation, but this he never does, and he that pretends to an extraordinary Call, is bound to prove it by indubitable Evidence; if he cannot, we must reject the extraordinary, and ad­here to the ordinary Bishop, and they that do otherwise are schismatical Dividers of Catholick Communion. And thus it is in the Case of Kingdoms; God can depose a lawful King, and set up an Usurper with­out antecedent Right; but before we can transfer our Allegiance, we must be sure that God has done this: The pretender to an extraordinary Commission must pro­duce extraordinary Evidence, but the or­dinary Events of Providence are not suffici­ent to prove it; for the Thief and the schis­matical Bishop are in Possession by Provi­dence, as well as the Usurper; and many things do happen under the Direction of Providence, which God himself does con­demn and punish, which Men are bound by God to resist to the utmost of their Power.

3. There is no such great Disparity, as is pretended, between Right to a Crown and Right to an Estate. Right in general is a moral Quality, whereby we may pos­sess or doe any thing justly, it extends to Government of Persons, as well as possessi­on [Page 71] of Things, and when it is applied to the former it is called Authority: the Rule and measure of Right is Law, and the Obliga­tion of all Law does proceed onely from the Authority of God. A Right to an E­state is a moral Power of possessing and en­joying it justly; a Right to the Govern­ment of a Family or Kingdom, is a moral Power to command those Societies; and where there is no Right to command, there can be no Obligation to obey; these Rights may be acquired by the positive Laws of God, the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of Civil Societies, which are onely so many several ways of God's revealing his Will to Mankind; and therefore all Right either to Government or Estates, must be ultimate­ly resolved into the Authority of God, the only Lawgiver; concerning the Right to govern there is no Question; and as to Estates and other private Possessions, it seems evident, that no humane Law, con­sidered as merely humane, can create a­ny Right to any thing: for humane Law is nothing but the Will of Men, and the Act of one Man conveying a Possession to another, cannot oblige a third Person to abstain from it, and therefore cannot ap­propriate it as the Right of the other; the Obligation must proceed from some Autho­rity superiour to both, which does bind the one by the Act of the other, and that can be no other but God's Authority. In short, Right is the Effect of Law, and Law hath its Obligation from God; and hence it fol­lows, that as God's Authority is necessary to make a King, so is it necessary likewise to create a Right to an Estate; and there­fore in this respect there is no difference between the one Right and the other; for both are ultimately founded on God's Au­thority. God by his Sovereign Dominion can dispose of Estates as well as Crowns against Law, but humane Laws cannot dis­pose of either without God's Authority, but the Power of God to doe a thing is no Proof that he does it, and Providential Possession is still as good Evidence of God's Authority to an Estate, as of his Autho­rity to govern.

There remains yet another Reply to the Objection, which must also be considered, it is this: That all private Injuries are reserv'd by God Vind. p. 46. himself to the redress of Civil Government and Courts of Judicature, and therefore his Providence has no effect at all on such personal Rights: But the nature of the Thing proves, that when such Disputes arise which are too big for humane Judica­ture, which God hath reserved to his own Judgment, as the Correction of Sovereign Princes, and the transferring of Kingdoms; here the final Determinations of Providence in settling Princes on their Thrones, does draw the Allegiance of Subjects after it. This contains the force of his Evasion, and the first Answer to the former may sustice to this; that though this difference be admit­ted between private Robbery, and the Usurpation of a Crown, yet there is no dif­ference between them as to the concurrence of Providence; for Robbery is a providen­tial Event, and if every Event is God's Will and Appointment, the Robbery is confirmed by God's Will, and if the Civil Magistrate does redress it, he fights against God, by contradicting his Order and Ap­pointment. But,

2. There is often no such Difference be­tween Robbery and Usurpation; there is none when the Banditi are so strong and powerfull, that the Civil Powers are not able to subdue them, for then their Inju­ries are too big for legal Redress; there is none in a state of Nature when there is no Civil Government; there is none when Anarchy is introduced by Civil War, and the Administration of Justice is obstructed by Rebellion; and lastly there is none, when the injurious Possession of an Estate cannot possibly be cleared by legal Evi­dence: In all these Cases it is impossible that Oppressions, Thefts, and Robberies, should be redressed by humane Judicature; it is God alone that can redress them, and therefore according to the Doctour's way of arguing, the final Determination of Providence does in such Cases create a Right, and the unjust Possessour is not bound to Restitution.

[Page 72] But, faith the Doctor, to make the Cases parallel, he who Pag. 47. unjustly seizes another Man's Estate, must be throughly settled in it; but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws, and has not ligal Pos­session, and when he has, whether Right or Wrong, he must not be violently dispossessed again. But, 1. If we may suppose a state of Nature, we may suppose a private Man, who is not under the Government of civil Laws, to be throughly settled in an Estate, which is by Right another's, and then the Case is parallel; the unjust Possessor has a Providential Right, and being under no Government, his claim by Providence is the same as the Doctor makes for Usurpers, and it proves a divine Right to the pur­chase of Injustice. 2. When an Estate is unjustly possessed, and yet the just Right cannot possibly be proved by legal Evi­dence, here is a through legal Settlement of the unjust Possession, for which there is no legal redress, and therefore this Case is parallel in that respect to the Usurpation of a Kingdom; the Question upon it is, Whether the Intruder has a divine Right by Providence, and may therefore law­fully keep what God has given him? 'Tis true the injured Person cannot restore him­self by Force, because he has no Authority to use if, but 'tis certain the unjust Selzor is bound to Restitution, though the Law cannot compel him, and therefore has acquired no Right by his providential Pos­session: And so is the Usurper of a Crown obliged in Conscience to restore it, and that is a plain Demonstration that he has no Right to it; but if he will not restore it, the dispossessed Prince has Authority to compel him, he may make a lawful War upon him, he has still the Power of the Sword, and that is a Demonstration that he has God's Authority: And thus much concerning the Objection about Thieves and Pirates. But there remain somethings more to be considered.

The Doctor observes in his Vindication, That his Adver­saryVind. p. 11. is blundered for want of clear and distinct Notions concerning legal Powers, and he pretends to clear all the Difficulties by stating the Terms. Now, says he, We may understand legal, either with respect to the Laws of Nature, the Law of Nations, or the Law of a particular Kingdom; and in this last Sense legal is un­derstood by all Men, who understand them­selves in this Controversie of legal Powers. Well, if I understand not my self, I can­not help it, for I understand as well as I am able, and by legal Powers I have always understood such Powers as are according to Law, either the Law of God, of Nature, of Nations, or of political Societies. In the present Controversie the great Que­stion is, to what Powers our Allegiance is due, we think it is due to legal Powers, and if it would be clearly proved, that an Usurper is a legal Power according to any Law whatsoever, this Controversie would be ended.

He grants however, That le­gal Powers may be understood Pag. 12. in a larger Notion, as that may be said to be legal, which is agreable to the Laws of Nature and Nations; and he adds, In this Sense Submission may make a legal King of him, who by the Laws of the Land can be only King de Facto. Now this, as he says, is worth considering, and a very little consideration will shew the Inconsistency of this Doctrine. For according to the Doctor's Hypothesis, the King de Facto has a legal Right by the Laws of Nature and Nations, and the dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right by the Laws of the King­dom: And hence it follows undeniably, that at the same time two opposite Kings may have a legal Right to the same Throne, the one by the Law of Nature and Nati­ons, and the other by the Law of the Kingdom. But it is easie to shew, that this does imply a manifest Repugnancy, and I will exemplifie it in the instances of Charles and Oliver. Charles is the legal King by the Law of England, and Oliver (who is in Possession with the Submission of the People) by the Laws of Nature and Nations; and hence it follows that Charles has a Right to be King, and Oliver has a Right to be King; but Charles has [Page 73] no Right because it is in Oliver, and Oli­ver has no Right because it is in Charles. But though Charles has a Right to the Crown, yet he has no Right to possess it, for Oliver is a rightful Possessor of it, and yet he has no Right to keep it, because Charles has a Right to take it from him. There cannot possibly be a greater absur­dity either in Law or Nature, than to say that the Possessor and the Dispossessed, the Plaintiff and Defendant, have at the same instant a true and real Right to the same thing in Question. When two opposite Rights are pleaded, the one is undoubted­ly none, if the Possessor has a good Right by the Law of Nature, the Right of the Dispossessed must needs be extinguished, for he cannot have a Right to possess that which is anothers by the Law of Nature, and if he has no Right to possess, he has no Right to recover, and his legal Right at last is only a Right to nothing. If the Doctor therefore can prove that his Usur­per has a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations, I will acknowledge that Allegi­ance is due to him, and there is an end of the Controversie; but in all his Harangues about the state of Nature, the state of Force, and the Submission of the People, there is no Argument that proves it. In a state of Nature, when Men are free from any Go­vernment, a free Consent, or a forced Sub­mission, are enough to make rightful Princes by the Law of Nature: But the Case is different, when rightful Princes are established, and Subjects are sworn to pay Allegiance to them; for then the Subjects are not sui juris, they have no Right to consent, and therefore their Consent is nothing.

But a state of Force the Doctor thinks is parallel to aVind. p. 13. state of Nature, and when a Nation is Conquered, or private Subjects are under the Power of an Usurper, then he thinks that force will justifie Submission; and so do I too, and his own instance does sufficiently prove it, for he tells us, When we happen to fall into the Pag. 14. Hands of Robbers, where the Government cannot protect us, we may very innocently for our own Preservation, pro­mise and swear to them such Things, as are against the Laws of the Land, and which i [...] would be unlawful for us to do in other Cir­cumstances. It is lawful no doubt to sub­mit to Robbers, and in some Cases it may be lawful to dispense with a humane Law for our own Preservation, because it wa [...] not the intention of the Law given to ob­lige in cases of Extremity. But hence he infers, as he thinks, with greater Reason. That if the Government can't protect it▪ Subjects from a greater Force, they are al liberty to submit to the greater Power. Where the greater Reason lies I know not the force of an Usurper is no greater than the force of a Robber is to those who are under it, and if Force does justifie Sub­mission, there is the same Reason for Sub­mitting to both: But what is all this to Allegiance, which is a great deal more than Submission? Force will justifie Sub­mission to Robbers, but will it justifie the assisting of Robbers, or the joyning in Robbery with them? Or will it justifie the assisting of an Usurper against a rightful Sovereign?

But our Obligations to Hit­mane Government are reason­ably Page 14. suppos'd to except the Case of greater Force. What, in all Cases what­soever? The Casuists teach us, that there are many Cases in which Humane Laws do oblige even unto certain Death, asBp. Taylor Due. Dub. 448. Suarez d [...] Leg. lib. 3. c. 3. n. 5. particularly when to undergo the danger of Death is the express Obli­gation of the Law, and such is the Obligation of legal Al­legiance, as appears from the ancient Oath of Ligeance, wherein the Subject is sworn, to bear true Faith to the King of Life, and Member, and terreite Honour, that is, (as the Lord Coke expounds it) until the letting out of the last drop of Calvin's Case. our dearest Heart Blood. 2. When it is notorious that [Page 74] the Tyrant Power threatensTaylor, ibid. 4 [...]9. Suare [...] ▪ ibid. n. 7. Death to Subjects, to tempt them to transgress the Law, and to bid defiance to the Authority of their Superiour, they are then oblig'd to obey and dye, the Law does then require our Fortitude and Patience, and the Lawgiver cannot be pre­sum'd to allow the renouncing of his own Authority, or to make an Exception that Subjects may become Enemies to it.

But the dissolution of the Government, or the Power of Vind. p. 14. the Prince to protect himself, or his Subjects in his Government, puts an end to the Obligation of Oaths. This Assertion depends on his Fundamental Principle, that a dispossessed Prince has no Right to Allegi­ance, & with that Principle it stands or falls: I shall only observe that it follows thence; that our Oaths are cancell'd by every Re­bellion, for that (as far as it goes) is a dissolution of the Government; and it follows also that when a Subject falls under the Power of Robbers, who require him upon pain of Death to renounce his Sove­reign, he is then at liberty to renounce him, and to swear Allegiance to the Robber; for the Prince has no Power to protect his Subject in his Government, and that puts an end to the Obligation of his Oath.

He asserts that every privatePag. 18. Man, or any City, or Garrison, when they are overpower'd, may submit to the Con­queror, and become his Subjects, which implies that they may lawfully transfer their Allegiance to him. But pag. 40. he affirms, that while the Prince is in the actual Administration of the Government, though the Subject be violently torn from him, yet this relation of a Subject may still continue, because he has a Prince to whom he is related▪ and thence it necessarily follows, that he owes the Duty of a Subject to his lawful Prince, and therefore cannot tranfer it to the Conqueror. How shall we reconcile these Repugnanc [...]es? But if his Arguments from Force are valid, they will justify the Translation of Allegiance wherever there is Force enough to exact it; as he saith him­self, it is no matter from what quarter the Force comes, if a Man Pag. 1 [...] ▪ is under a Power which he cannot resist, which will undo [...] and ruine him if he transfer not his Allegiance; it is allone to him as if his King and Countrey were abso­lutely conquer'd, and these are invincible Arguments for Allegiance not only to a Ket, a Cromwell, or a Mussianello, but also to a Captain of the Banditi, or the Rap­parees, when he gets a Subject in his Power.

But we have nothing to do with the Ca­ses of irrisistible Force and Conquest; sup­pose a Nation in America under a King ac­knowledg'd by all to be lawful, and the Sub­jects bound to him by the strictest Ties and Oaths of Allegiance; notwithstanding which they call in a Foreign Prince to in­vade him, actually rebel against him, & force him to leave his Kingdom for the Safety of his Life; afterwards a Convention of the Estates assembles, which solemnly depose their Sovereign, and place his Enemy in the Throne, and proclaim him over the Nation, and enjoin all that have Offices and Preferments, upon pain of forfelting them to swear Allegiance to him, and this they voluntarily doe without any force up­on them: In such a Case as this, to talk of Force and Conquest is only Banter; the Subjects voluntarily rebel, depose, and abjure their Sovereign; and if all this be Perjury and the highest Injustice, i [...] can be no Warrant or Excuse to particular Per­sons, that if they had not comply'd, they had lost their Preferments, or that they follow a Multitude to doe Evil.

The Doctor lays the whole stress of the Controversy upon the Consent and Submis­sion of the People, he annexes and limits God's Authority to it, it is his great Cri­terion of a Settlement, and he makes it a Legal Right by the Law of Nature and Nations. But what he means, or whether he means the same thing by Submission and Consent, we are left to conjecture; we know that Oliver had the intire Submission of the Nation, the Doctor acknowledges that it was lawful to submit, and since they [Page 75] actually submitted, it follows from his Principle that Oliver See Vind. pag. 15. had a Legal Right by the Laws of Nature and Nations. A Na­tional Submission, as he says,Pag. 69. must be declar'd by one means or other: I confess Submission to Oliver was not declar'd by a Recognition of a Free legal Parliament; but it was declar'd by the quiet and peaceable living of all the Estates, and of the whole Nation under his Govern­ment, by their paying him Taxes to support it, by their taking Commissions, and recei­ving Justice and Protection from it, and if all this be no declaration of Submission, there can be no such thing in the World; no Recognitions nor Oaths of Allegiance can be equivalent, for those we see are ta­ken and made in many Senses, they are of­ten obtain'd by Menaces and Promises, by Cabal and Faction, and it is clear from History that the Nation never thought themselves obliged by them to adhere to Usurpers; and yet the quiet and peaceable Submission of a whole Nation to a Govern­ment in the Case of Cromwell, is of no va­lidity with the Doctor to entitle him to a legal Right, and God's Authority.

There is another Difficulty about Consent and Submission, which the Doctor may re­solve when he pleases, whether the Consent of the whole, or the major part of a Soci­ety, be requir'd to the translation of Alle­giance, or whether a lesser Part, a County, a Hundred, a Village, or a City, may sub­mit for its self, and make a King by it self, and pay their Allegiance to him▪ If a single Town should make a little King for it self, according to the Doctor's Notion, there would be, a Settlement of the Government within it self, so he says, Alex­ander's Authority was setled at Pag. 73. Jerusalem, before Darius was fi­nally conquer'd, and yet Jerusalem was no more to the Persian Empire than a Village is to England; and thus upon the late Abdi­cation, as we are taught to call it, there might have been a new Heptarchy of Go­vernments, nay as many as there are Coun­ties, Towns, or Villages in the Kingdom, every Government would have been through­ly [...] in it self, even without a peaceable Possessim and Settlement. Thus when Mon­mouth was at Taunton, and the People ge­nerally submitted to him as their King, his Government was setled in that Town; and private particular Men, being under the Power of the new King, might have law­fully paid Allegiance to him.

The Doctor thinks it very absurd to found the Right of Government upon Humane Laws, or the Legal Consent of the People, but if they consent against Law, their Con­sent does make a Lawful King by the Law of Nature and Nations; he accounts it a monstrous Absurdity to say, that God cannot give his Autho­rity Case of Al. pag. 25. himself without the People, nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws; if Princes re­ceive their Authority from Humane Laws, he cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust, Pag. 36. for which they are accounta­ble; he thinks it a bold Con­tradictionPag. 37. to say, that God can­not remove or set up King's against Law: This is shackling of his Providence; and in fine, whoever will confine the Power of God in setting up Pag. 20. Kings, to Humane Laws, ought not to be disputed with. But now instead of Humane Laws, insert the Consent of the People against Law, and all these Absurdi­ties and Contradictions are easily reconcil'd to Reason and Religion, and he that will not shackle God's Authority and Provi­dence to Submission and Consent, shall not be thought fit to be disputed with.

I grant that the Laws of Nature and Nations do make him a lawful King, who has the Consent of a Free People who are under no antecedent Obligation; But when they are, they have no Power to Consent, and then their Consent is a Nullity by the Law of Nature it self; for it is a Rule in that Law, That Actions which are forbidden by it for defect of Bp. Taylor Duc. Dub. 197. Power are not only unlawful, but also void; this is true in Con­tracts and Acts of Donation, in Vows and Dedition, and all relie upon the [Page 76] same Reason. He that cannot give, [...] he that cannot be given, cannot contract, or be contracted with. Therefore in what Cases soever, the People have no Power to con­sent to the advancement of a new Sove­reign, their consent is nothing in Law, and therefore cannot make a rightful King, ac­cording to the Laws of Nature and Nations.

No [...] suppose as before, that a Rebel­lious People by the assistance of Foreign Power drive their King out of his King­dom, refuse to restore him, or so much as to treat with him, and then set up an Usurper over them; here the Question is, whether their Advancement of the Usur­per was lawful, and whether they had Power to consent to it; if the Doctor can prove the People have Power to rebel, de­pose, and set up Usurpers, let us see him prove it; but if he cannot prove it, he will never prove that such a People had Power to consent, or that a consent which is nothing can effect any thing, can create [...]a lawful Right by the Law of Na­ture or Nations; their consent is void and unlawful, it is a breach of their Allegi­ance, and that cannot absolve them from it; it is Perjury, and that is no release from▪ their Oaths, and in short it binds them only to Repentance and Restitution.

He allows that the lawful Prince, who is dispossessed hasCase of Al. p. 26. a lawful Right to make War for the recovery of his King­dom: I demand, Is not this lawful by the Laws of Nature and Nations? It h [...] law­ful by those Laws, or by none; for it is no proper Matter for political Laws, and they prescribe nothing about it. But the Doctor will grant that, and if he will not, it is easie to prove it by a cloud of Wit­nesses, and by the practice of Nations: But now if the dispossessed Prince by the Law of Nature, and Nations, has a Right to recover his Kingdom, he has certainly a Right by the same Laws to possess it; and consequently the Usurper has no Right to it by those Laws, unless they are contra­dictory to themselves by giving two in­compatible Rights to the same Possession. And this is a plain Demonstration (what­ever becomes of the Usurper in the Vin­dication) that the Usurper in the Case of Allegiance is not a rightful Prince, accord­ing to the Laws of Nature and Na­tions.

One thing more may seem necessary to be considered, because it looks like Argument from Reason, and that is the Discourse concern­ingVin. p. 37, 38, 39. the Relation between a King and a Subject; but I have the Doctor's Warrant to let it pass as a logical Banter; the result of it is this, that the Fundamentum Relation [...]s is God's Authority, and that, says he, is always annexed to the settled Possession of the Throne; but this again is the Fundamen­tal Proposition in Dispute between us; I have endeavoured to answer all the Argu­ments that are drawn from Scripture and Reason to prov [...] it, and the Reader is left to judge whether they are sufficient­ly Answered.