A Discourse of God's Ways of Disposing of Kingdoms, &c.

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.

TWO things the Psalmist shews in the words of this Text. First, The true Original of Power. This in David's time all men took [Page 2]to be from Heaven, but from whom there, many knew not. The Eastern Nations, who were generally given to Astrology, took it to come from their Stars; and especially from the Sun, which was the chief Object of their Worship. The Psalmist tells them, No. Promotion cometh not that way: Neither from the Planets ri­sing, nor setting, nor from its exal­tation in Mid-Heaven. That's the meaning of the words, from the East, But Wise-men come out of the East; tho' Promotion come from the North: They are not Country-men. nor from the West, nor from the South.

From the North of the Zodiac, or from [...] the hidden part under the Horizon, they never thought it to come. And (as some think) that's the reason why that part of Heaven is not mention'd.

But the Psalmist might have ano­ther Reason to himself, why he did not think fit to say, it comes not from the North. For there (as he saith else­where) on the North-side of Jerusalem was Mount Sion, the City of the great King of Heaven and Earth. There in David's time was the Tabernacle, and afterwards there was the Temple, in which the Mercy-seat between the Cherubims was the place of the Symbolical Presence of God. p. 2, 3.

could David say, Promotion comes not from thence? No, he saith the contrary in the following words; for God is the Judge: plainly shew­ing, that to him Kings owe their Au­thority. But

Secondly, It is to him as Judge. He gives it Judicially. And so to him they are to account for it. p. 4.

'Tis the Prerogative of God, by which He acts, both in the disposing, and also in the transferring of King­doms.

The word God in bringing His Majesty into this Kingdom, was truly God's making use of the latter branch of his Prerogative, in putting down one, and setting up another. p. 5.

The Powers that be, are of God: That is, the several Kingdoms and States, even all that are in the World, all have their Authority from God.

I. This at first was from God, we are sure, because it was from the be­ginning of Mankind. The first Men that were born into the World, were all of Adam's Family. p. 7.

Noah was the Father of all them that liv'd after the Flood.

When the Fathers or Heads of some of those Nations made Con­quests upon one another, as Nimrod did on the Nations about him, who was therefore call'd a mighty hunter before the Lord; or when they were otherwise incorporated together; these made the ancient great Mo­narchies, whereof the Assyrian and E­gyptian are famous in Ancient History.

Other of those Nations, or rather great Families, continu'd in their an­cient way of Patriarchal Govern­ment. Particularly in that Line out of which God chose his peculiar Peo­ple; Abraham was a mighty Prince in his days: But all his Subjects were of his Family, out of which proceed­ed many Nations. From his Son Isaac [Page 4]there came two Nations of People; one of them by Esau, Father of Edom, the other by Jacob, the Father of Israel; who for their times also govern'd those Families or Nations.

When Jacob and all his Family went down into Egypt, there ended their Patriarchal Government. Af­ter which, being Subjects to the King of that Country, they were brought into a long and sore Bondage, which made their Lives bitter to them for ma­ny Generations.

2. From this God deliver'd them by the hand of Moses. And to shew them how they ought to value this mercy, from thence he entitled him­self to be their King, and dated the beginning of his Reign.

3. This Theocracy, as we call it, continu'd from their coming up out of Egypt, till such time as God, at his Peoples desire, gave them a King to judge them like all the Nations. p. 8, 9.

God was pleas'd so far to grant his Peoples Request, that they should be an Hereditary Kingdom: But for the first King of the reigning Line,I thought the People had chosen him by lot. at Mis­pah. God would have the chu­sing of him himself. And accordingly, first he chose Saul.

Then God made choice of David, I thought the People had cho­sen David too. a man after his own heart.

There was no other standing Go­vernment in that Nation, which God chose to be his peculiar People, but what was administred by single Persons. And those Persons Title to the Government was either Pa­triarchal, [Page 5]or by Divine nomina­tion: Both which ways of coming into Power were so wholly of God, that the People had nothing to do, but to accept the Choice of God, and to submit to it.

II. In other Nations indeed, that did not keep up the Patriarchal Right, there the Peoples Consent was required, except in the Case of Conquest. p. 10, 11.

And this Consent being merely an humane Act, it may seem that the Authority it gives, is not, as we are here taught, from God only.

But we are to consider by what Motives it is, that the People are ge­nerally led, to chuse any one to rule over them. All their Motives may be reduc'd to these two; either Me­rit, or Favour. If there be any other, they are but Compositions of these.

I. The first Choice of Kings I conceive to have been made on ac­count of Merit, the People being led to it by a sense of the Benefits they had receiv'd. I judge so from that which having been already shewn, I take now for granted, that the Earth was peopled at first by great Families. Now when those, by op­pression of powerful Neighbours, or by Civil Discord among themselves, came to be in great distress, such as made them see the necessity of being united in greater Bodies for their own preservation; those Heroic Men, that shew'd them the way of it, and that brought them under Go­vernment and Laws, these were cal­led the FOUNDERS of the Na­tions. Such was Moses among the [Page 6]People of Israel. When he had brought them out of Egypt, they own'd this as a Title to Govern­ment, that he would have had, even without Divine Nomination. Such was Cecrops among the Athanians, and Romulus among the Romans, and other first Kings in other Nations. p. 11, 12.

Next to these, and something like them, were the first Planters of Co­lonies: Such as Cadmus was at The­bes, Aeneas in Latium, and the like. In England such were Hengist, and the rest that began the Seven Kingdoms of the Saxon Heptarchy. From one of these, namely,But not in the Right Line, Sir, under fa­vour. from Cerdic, King of the West-Saxons, the Descent of our Royal Family is unquestionable.

But the most like to Founders are they whom God raises up to be the Restorers and Delivers of a People, when they are either brought low by Tyranny and Oppression, or when they are torn in pieces by Fa­ctions among themselves. p. 12, 13.

Thus when the Roman State, be­ing torn by a long Civil War, had even bled it self to death, (it had certainly expir'd, if it had been left to it self) Augustus came in, and not only bound up the Wounds, but put, as it were, a new Soul into the Body; He made it not only live, but flourish, by his great Care and Wis­dom, and Industry; which so ob­lig'd the People, that they even forc'd him to accept of the Empire. These were such Benefits to Mankind, as whosoever was enabled to do, it was [Page 7]as if God had put a Glory about his Head; it so markt him out to the People, that they could not go beside him in their Choice;No; they took him as a successful Tyrant, whom they had not power to withstand. The Romans did not understand our new-coin'd Choice of God. And if our Regency-men had known that the Prince of Orange was chosen of God, they would not have voted as they did. they took him as one already cho­sen of God. p. 13.

In those Kingdoms wherein the Succession is continued by a new Election upon every Vacancy, or wherein a new Election is made up­on the Extinguishing of the Royal Family, the person on whom the Election falls in either case, owes his promotion to God, from whom it comes the same way to him, as it came to his first Predecessor in that Kingdom. p. 16.

In all sorts of Government, as the Sovereign Power in every Coun­trey or Nation is of God, so they that are invested with it, whether one or many, are in the place of God, and have their Promotion from him.

The Transferring of this Power from one to another, is the Act of God. And this he does, proceeding Judicially, as being Judge. p. 17.

First, God does this: Secondly, He does it Judicially.

For the first of these, God has such an Interest in the disposing of power, as none can pretend to but himself.

Men have their part in setting up [Page 8]what they cannot put down again. It is a Woman's Consent makes a Man be her Husband; the Fellows of a College chuse one to the their Head; a Corporation chuse one to be their Mayor: All these do only chuse the person, they do not give him the Authority. It is the Law that gives that, and that Law so binds their hands, that they cannot undo what they have done.

No more can a Nation undo its own Act, in chusing Men into So­vereign power. I do not say but they may chuse Men into Govern­ment, expresly with that Conditi­on, That they shall be accountable to the people; and then the Go­vernment remains in the Body of the Nation, it is that which we pro­perly call a Commonwealth. But for Sovereign Princes and Kings, even where they are chosen by the Nation; and much more in Heredi­tary Kingdoms; as they have their Authority from God, so they are only accountable to him. For he is the only Potentate, King of king, and Lord of lords. He alone both makes Kings by his Sovereign Power, and by the same he can unmake them when he pleases. p. 18, 19.

Nay, more than so, He puts down one, and sets up another. Both the Words imply something of an high place, and here they are used of Ci­vil Government or Dominion. Of this it is said, That God so deprives one of it, as that he advances ano­ther in his stead.

This can be understood of no­thing else but the Conquest of one [Page 9]Prince over another. For what one resigns by a Voluntary Act, he is said to lay down, or to give it up to another. But putting down is the Act of a Superior, by which one's place is taken from him against his Will. Now God being the Superior that does this by the Act of his Provi­dence, it must be such an Act as gives the Power from one against his Will, to another whom God is plea­sed to set up in his stead. Thus in giving one Prince a Conquest over another, he thereby puts one in Pos­session of the other's Dominions, he makes the other's Subjects become his Subjects, or his Slaves, accord­ingly as they come in upon Condi­tions, or at the Will of the Conque­ror. In short, he giveth him the whole Right and Power of the other Prince. p. 18, 19, 20.

When those Kings, that living in a settled Kingdom, will not govern according to the Laws thereof; it is a breach of Faith, not only to their people, but to God also, where they are sworn to the observing of Laws. And though they are not therefore to be deposed by the peo­ple, yet they cannot escape the ven­geance of God, who ordinarily pu­nishes them with the natural effects of their Sin.

On the other hand, if a Prince will have no law but his Will, if he tramples and oppresseth his peo­ple, their patience will not hold out always, they will at one time or o­ther shew themselves to be but Men. At least they will have no heart to fight for their Oppressor, So that if [Page 10]a Foreign Enemy breaks in upon him, he is gone without remedy, unless God interpose. But how can that be, when God is Judge himself? Should the Judge hinder the doing of Justice? It is God's Work that Foreigners come to do, Howbeit he meaneth not so. He means nothing, perhaps, but the satisfying of his own Lust. But though he knoweth it not; he is sent in God's Message; for which all things being prepared by Natural Causes, and God not hindering his own Work, but ra­ther hastning it; no wonder that it succeeds, and that oftentimes very easily. p. 24, 25.

When it happens (as it doth sometimes, and that especially for the Sins of a Nation), that they come to be under weak or wicked Kings; even these they must not re­sist, God hath taught them other­wise. What then? Must they be left to the Wills of these Tyrants? Or of them that govern weak Kings, which is commonly worse? Must they endure all the load of Oppres­sion that these will lay upon them? That is, For a few Mens pleasure, must a Nation be made miserable? This is far from God's design in the Institution of Government. He makes Kings his Ministers for the good of their People. If any will take that Office upon them, they must be have themselves accordingly. O­therwise, if they take it as given them only for themselves, it is such a breach of Trust, that God cannot but punish them for it. But how should he do this, so as that the [Page 11]punishment may have its effect, in warning others not to transgress in like manner? He cannot do this bet­ter, than by making Men his Instru­ments in it. And therefore it is that God, tho he has infinite ways, yet commonly chuses to employ Men in this Service. He either finds them at home, that are not afraid of the Power, as they ought to be; or he brings them in from Foreign Countries, Whist­ling for the Fly out of Egypt, or the Bee out of the land of Assyria: In plain words, stirring up a Pharaoh, or a Nebuchadnezzar against them. God may employ such if he will, tho none is too good for this work, to execute his righteous Judgments. And when God doth his work by their hands, whatsoever the Instru­ments may be, the Cause being so just, and so evident as we have sup­posed; All men that see it, will say, Doubtless there is a God that judges on the earth.

In the way of Justice, But the Pr. of O­range was not a Sove­reign Pow­er; being dispossest of his Princi­pality. God acts as a judge be­tween Two Sovereign Powers, when they bring their Causes before him; that is, when they make War upon one another. And when he seeth his time, that is, when he finds the Cause ripe for Judgment, if it pro­ceeds so far, then he gives Sentence for him that is injur'd, against him that hath done the Injury. The ef­fect of this Sentence is a just Con­quest; and that is the other way in which God, proceeding judicially, pats down one, and sets up another.

That this may be the better un­derstood, there are four things to be consider'd particularly.

First, That War is an Appeal to the Justice of God.

Secondly, That none can be Par­ties to this, but they that are in So­vereign Power.

Thirdly, That to make it a just War, there must be a just and suffi­cient Cause.

Fourthly, That Conquest in such a War, is a decisive Judgment of God, and gives one a Right to the Dominions that he has conquered from the others.

That War is an Appeal to God; this appears in the nature of the thing. p. 25, 26, 27, 28.

The Parties to this Appeal, are properly such as have no Superior but God. For them that have an earthly Superior, their Appeal lies to him as God's Minister, attending con­tinually on this very thing. p. 29.

Subjects have no Right to make War, without the leave of their Princes. For as God has given Prin­ces the power of the Sword, so he forbids it to Subjects, under a great Penalty, They that take the Sword shall perish with the Sword. And if he has not admitted them to be Parties in his Court, then it is certain that they cannot sue there; or if they do, they can acquire no Flight by it. There is an Original Nullity in all their Proceedings.

As none have right of making War, but they that are in Sovereign Power, so neither is it given to them that they may make what use [Page 13]of it they please: Particularly, they must not make War for the satisfy­ing of their Lusts, Ambition, Co­vetousness, Vain-glory, or the like. Nay, the righteous God will not hold him guiltless that hath Justice in his Cause, and yet in his Heart hath no such thing. Lawful things must be done lawfully. This Princes must look to, as they will answer it to God.

But as far as man can judge, it is a Lawful War that is made for a just and sufficient Cause. p. 32. 33.

One Prince may make War in de­fence of another King's Subjects, if they see themselves in extreme dan­ger of suffering an intolerable Inju­ry by his Oppression of his own people. And in these cases, if one Lawfully may, then it is certain he ought to do it. p. 36.

They are so much the more obli­ged to this, when it is evident, that the threatning mischief is like to fall upon others, as well as them­selves; and them, such as they are bound in Honour and Conscience to protect and support. When by fit­ting still they should certainly ex­pose, not only themselves to be ruin­ed, but also their Friends and Allies to perish with them; in that case, Saevitia est voluisse mori, it is a sort of bloody Peaceableness, it is cruelty to Mankind to go to that degree of suffering Injuries.

But especially, when the Cause of God is concern'd, to whom we owe all things, and ought to venture all for his sake. Surely 'tis his Cause, when it touches Religion; which is [Page 14]all that is dear to him in this world. And tho Religion it self teaches us, if it be possible, as much as in us lies, to live peaceably with all man; yet as 'tis there supposed, there may be Cause to break the Peace; so it adds infi­nitely to that Cause, when it comes to concern our Religion. p. 36, 37.

There is yet a greater Cause for this, when the Suffering-Religion is that which is establish'd by the Laws of that Kingdom; and yet the King that is sworn to those Laws, and therefore bound to sup­port that Religion, is manifestly pra­ctising against it, and endeavours to supplant, and oppress, and extin­guish it. What should other Princes or States that profess the same Re­ligion, do in this case? They see that such a King is set upon the de­stroying of their Religion. He hath declar'd a hostile mind towards the professors of it, in judging them not capable of enjoying their Temporal Rights. If he deals thus with his own People, what are Foreigners to expect at his hands? Can they think themselves secure, because they are at peace with him? They cannot; unless Treaties are more Sacred than Laws. Or can they rely upon his Oath? But they see he hath broken it. And therefore they have reason to judge, That either he makes no Conscience of an Oath, or he thinks Faith is not to be kept with Here­ticks, or he hath a Superior that can dispense with him, or that will absolve him from the guilt of Per­jury in such cases where Religion is concerned. In short, they are sure of [Page 15]his Will to destroy them, and can­not be sure of his Oath to the con­trary. Wherein them can they be safe? But in his want of power to do them hurt? But he will not want power, if they let him go on, for he is getting it as fast as he can. He is now strengthning himself by those ways that he takes to be abso­lute Lord of his own people: And he is now weakning Them, by oppressing all those among his peo­ple, whom he knows to be their Friends and Well-wishers. He doth both these things together: He dai­ly lessens their party, and makes them as many more Enemies, as he gains Men over to his Religion. And if that be such a Religion as pretends to a Right of destroying Men of other Religions; knowing this, they know what they are to expect. When this pretended Right is armed with power, it will cer­tainly fall upon them. So that they must begin before he is ready for them, or else it will be too late to do any thing for their own preser­vation.

But as it is necessary for them to do this for themselves, so they ought to do it much the rather for the sakes of their oppressed Brethren: That, by a timely asserting of their own Right, they may also deliver them from the Evils they suffer at present, and save them from that Destruction which is coming upon them. As it was just and necessary on those former Accounts, so this makes it a pious Cause, and there­fore the more worthy of a true [Page 16]Christian Prince. It has been judg'd so by them whose Names we have in great Veneration. We have the Examples of our own Princes here in England, in the best of Times since the Reformation: These the Reader may sind collected to his hand, in an excellent Book that hath been lately published. But this may as well be shewn in the Example; of them whom our Princes chose to follow as their Paterns; namely, of the Christians in Primitive Times, and especially at the time of the first Nicene Council. In these times we find that Constantine and Licinius, ha­ving shar'd the Roman Empire be­tween them, had passed a Decree together at Milan, for Christianity to be the Established Religion: And when afterward Licinius, in his part of the Empire, would have oppress'd it contrary to Law; for that cause Constantine the Great made War upon him; and in prosecution of that War, thrust him out of his Empire: For which he was so far from being blamed by any Christian in those times, even by those that had been Licinius's Subjects, as most of those Bishops were, that sate in the Nicene Council, that they all gave him the highest Praises and Encomiums, and blessed God that had sent them that happy Deliverance by his means. Eusebius was Licinius's Subject, and he afterwards writ the Life of Con­stantine the Great, in which they that please may read whole Chap­ters to this purpose.

As that is a just War which is made upon just and sufficient Cause, so the Effect of such a War, being a Conquest, is Just.

Conquest being the way by which a Kingdom or Dominion is taken from a Sovereign Prince against his Will, and by which another Prince gets it into his Possession; as often as this happens, there arises a Que­stion between the two Princes, whe­ther of them hath a Right to that Kingdom or Dominion.

For the deciding of this Questi­on, it must be by such a Law as is common to both the Parties, whose Rights are to be judg'd by it. That cannot be the Law of the King­dom; for tho the Prince that is dis­seiz'd, was obliged by that Law while he was in possession, yet now it seems he is not; and it never was a Law to the Prince that is now in his place. It must therefore be a Su­perior Law, such as is common to all Sovereign Princes in their Affairs with one another, and that (as hath been already shewn) is ordi­narily the Law of Nations.

I say ordinarily, because there is yet a Superior Law, namely, the Law of God; whether written in our Hearts, which we commonly call the Law of Nature; or whe­ther an express Revelation from God, such as was sometimes given to Men in Ancient Times; either of these may derogate from the Law of Nations: For this, being made up of Customs observ'd by Princes and States among themselves, is al­ways subject to the will of him that is Lord of lords, and King of kings. [Page 18]But whether, or how far, this may alter the case, will be considered af­terwards; at present we are only to consider what Judgment can be made of it, according to the Law of Nations.

By this it seems to be plain, That the Right should go along with the compleat possession: So as that wheresoever this is once settled, whether by length of time or even sooner, by a general Consent of the people, there it ought to be presu­med there is a Right, at least, there ought to be no farther Dispute of it. There seems to be the same reason for this, that there is for the Law of Nations it self; for if that Law was ordained for the peace of man­kind, this quitting of possession must be a part of it, for there can be no end of Wars otherwise. p. 45, 46, 47, to 51.

This appears by Jephtha's Speech to the King of Ammon that had Chemosh for his God; Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy God giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before as, them will we possess. p. 51.

It is by way of Conquest, that God puts down one, and sets up ano­ther. For so the Babylonian Empire was put down by Cyrus, who set up the Persian in its stead. The Persian Empire was put down in their last King Darius, and Alexander set up the Macedon in its stead. The Mace­don Kingdom was put down in their last King Perseus, and the Roman was fet up in its stead.

All these Kingdoms were chan­ged by Conquests that they made [Page 19]one upon another. And so it was by those Conquests, that God remo­ved Kings, and set up Kings. p. 53.

I do not say but they would have opposed the making of one of those Conquests, namely, that of Alexan­der the Great, because King Darius was then living. But when they saw they could not Oppose, the Con­quest being already made, then Just or Unjust, they submitted to it; and having submitted, they were subject without any more Contro­versie.

Therefore also Just and Religious Kings have reckoned their Conquests among the great things that God wrought by their means; and ac­counted them as much their Subjects whom they had gain'd by the Sword, as them that were born in their Dominions.

Therefore also God hath com­manded his people to give Obedi­ence to the Kings that came in by Conquest, without any other Title. Nay, to such as were capable of no other; for they were forbidden to set a stranger over them, which was not their brother. And yet they were Sub­jects to strangers, such as Cushan, Eglon, and Jabin, &c. And in Zede­kiah's time God commanded them upon pain of death, to become the Subjects of Nebuchadnezzar, who had made a full Conquest over them, and held their lawful King Jeconiab then in Captivity. This is plainly the Doctrine of that Convocation which sate in the beginning of King James I. his time; and therefore it cannot but be very unjust, to charge [Page 20]any Man with Singularity or Novel­ty, that goes in the steps of so many and so great Authors. p. 53, 54, 55.

But some Learned and Judicious Men think, That whereas an unjust Conquest happens through the Judg­ment of God, for the punishing of a sinful Prince or Nation; it doth not appear that he that is the Instrument of this, acquires any Right by it; more than those Pirates or Robbers, who are instrumental likewise, in the punishing of inferior Transgres­sors. And if God gives no Right to him whom he sets up, then it re­mains still in him whom he has put down: So that he is rightful King still, tho he is out of possession, and the other is but an Usurper that is in possession.

In this case, if the Usurper has no pretence of Right, no prescripti­on of Time, no Consent of the people, but only an unjust possessi­on; how a Subject ought to behave himself towards him, even this is a Difficult Question, in a most learned Man's Judgment: Who yet judges, That even here it may be not only Lawful, but a Duty, to obey him that is in possession, when the Legal King is reduced to that pass, that he can no more do the Office of a King to his people. For (saith he) the Kingdom cannot be without Government; and if the Usurper preserves the Kingdom, a Lover of his Countrey ought not (as things are) to give any further cause of trouble by his unprofitable Contu­macy. But then put case the Usurper hath sworn the people to him, and [Page 21]doth the Office of a King, which (it seems) in his Judgment doth not take away the duty that is ow­ing to that former King; how one can pay his duty to both, the ex­pell'd Legal King, and to such an Usurper. This our Author says is a most difficult Scruple; and so it seems both by his, and our most Learned Casuist's handling the Question; where they shew how far one ought, and how far one ought not to comply with such an Usur­pation. p. 56, 57, 58.

But these Difficulties are only in case the possession is obtained by a War that was certainly unjust; for if the cause of the War was but doubtful, and a Conquest follows upon it, there is no place for these difficulties: Much less where the cause of War was certainly Just; for if a Conquest follows upon this, it gives a Right, and then there is no Usurpation.

It has been commonly judg'd by the Law of Nations, That the Right goes along with the Possession. Of this we see Examples in every Re­volution that happens in this or any other Kingdom. When a King is driven out with any colour of Right, the Neighbouring Princes and States make no great difficulty of applying themselves to him that comes in his stead; wherein though perhaps they too much follow their own Interest, yet it cannot be said that what they do is against the Law of Nations. But what should Subjects do in this Case? Of this we have an Example in the People of God, when they [Page 22]pass'd successively under the Yoke of those Four great Monarchs that were formerly mention'd. It is likely that each of those Kings that got the Power over them, first declar'd the Cause of the War that he made up­on the former Lords. In that Case, though they could not judge of the Cause, whether it was Just or Un­just, yet no doubt they did well in adhering to him that was in present Possession. p. 60, 61.

To a People that are in such a case, it is no small Comfort, that whatsoever doubt they may have of the Cause of the War, yet there is no doubt at all concerning their Du­ty. There is nothing more certain than this, that they ought to pre­serve themselves, if they can do it lawfully. But it is lawful for them to forbear fighting, when they are unsatisfied of the Cause: And if their own prince is not able to pro­tect them, it is lawful for them to take protection elsewhere. There­fore in case of Invasion for a Cause which is just, for ought they know, it is lawful for them to live quietly under the Invader: nay, it is not only lawful, but their duty (as hath been already shewn) to acquiesce in his Government, when he cornes to be in Possession.

But when they are certain that a War is made upon their Prince for just Cause; that is, when they plain­ly see he hath drawn it upon him­self, by making it not only lawful, but necessary for another Prince to invade him for his own Preserva­tion; What are the People to do in [Page 23]this Case? No doubt they ought first to have a care of their Souls, and not to endanger them by being Partakers of other mens Sins. They cannot but see, that, by engaging in the War, they abet their own Prince in his Injustice; though not in his doing the Injury, yet in con­tinuing what is done, and in his not giving Reparation. And therefore they are subject to the same punish­ment with him. Nay their Condi­tion is worse than his: For he may shift for himself, and leave them, and all they have, to be a Prey to the Enemy: Who by right of War may do with them and theirs what he pleases. It is therefore certainly their wisest Course to keep themselves free from all offence, both towards God, and towards Man: That having had no part in the Cause of the War, they may not be involv'd in the ill Consequences of it. And this they have reason to expect from a Generous Enemy, that he will not use the Right of War against them that desire to live peaceably. Much more, if he hath declar'd he would not hurt them that should not resist him, they have reason to trust a just Prince upon his Declaration. And if he went so far as to declare, That upon their Submission they should enjoy the benefit of their own Laws; then, although it should come to a Conquest, they may rea­sonably expect to be in no worse condition under the Stranger, than they were under their own Prince: They have his Faith engaged to them for this.

But if the Stranger declares he makes War in defence of another King's Subjects, as (we have shewn) he may lawfully do, when he finds himself in danger of suffering by that King's Oppression of his own People; in this Case, they are first to consider, whether it is a mere pretence, or whether there be a real ground for his Declaration. If they find there is a just and sufficient ground for it, they see in effect, that it is through Them that he is struck at; and therefore the War is not so much His, as their own. It is true according to our Doctrine, they are united to their Prince as a Wife to her Husband; so that they can no more right themselves by Arms, than she can sue her Husband while the Bond of Marriage conti­nues. Yet as, When her Husband uses her extremely ill, she may com­plain of him to the Judge, who, if he sees Cause, may dissolve the Marriage by his Sentence; and after that she is at liberty to sue him as well as any other Man: So a Peo­ple may cry to the Lord by reason of their Oppression, and he may raise them up a Deliverer, that shall take the Government into his hands (a Foreign Prince may law­fully do this, as hath been already shewn) and then they are not only free to defend themselves, but are oblig'd to join with him, against their Oppressor. p. 62, 63, 64, 65.

In this Case, if another Prince, having a just Cause of War, is so far concern'd for such a People, as to take them into his Care, and to de­clare [Page 25]that he makes the War for their Deliverance: The effect of this War, though we may call it a Conquest, because it has resem­blance of it, yet it cannot be pro­perly so in any respect; whether we consider the Prince on whom it is made, or the People that have their Deliverance by it.

As to him, it is properly an Evi­ction by the just Sentence of God; who thus puts him out of a Trust, that he abused, to the hurt of them for whose sakes it was given him. And as to the people, it cannot be a Conquest over them, who are so far from having the War made against them, that it was made chiefly for their sakes. If there be any pretence of a Conquest, it is only over them that were their Oppressors. p. 66, 67.

An Answer to Mr. Ashton's Paper, &c.

THE Matter in dispute is not whether Rightful, Lawful Kings are to be obeyed, but who in our present Circumstances is our Rightful, Lawful Sovereign; not whether Kings be not God's Vicege­rents, but whether God doth not sometimes confer the Right of So­vereignty by a Law superiour to the Laws of particular Countries, that is, by the Law of Nations, which esta­blisheth such a Right upon the suc­cess of a Just War; not whether Sovereign Princes are not accountable only to God, but whether Allegiance [Page 26]be not due where the Rights of Sovereignty are placed, by an extra­ordinary Act of Providence, and the concurrent Consent of the Nation. p. 9, 10.

We must of necessity look back to the Occasions of this great Revo­lution: And there were two prin­cipal Occasions of it.

First, Great and violent Presump­tions of an Injury to the Right of Succession.

Secondly, Too great Evidences of a formed Design to subvert the Established Religion and Civil Li­berties of the Nation.

Now there are two very mate­rial Questions which arise from hence.

First, Whether these were the just Occasions of a War.

Secondly, Whether upon the suc­cess of this War, the Rights of Sove­reignty were duly transferred?

If these were just Occasions of a War, and upon the Success thereof the Sovereignty was duly transferred, then there can be no Dispute left, to whom our Allegiance is due.

It is taken for granted by all who understand these Matters, That as there is a Law of Nature, which de­termines the Rights and Properties of particular Nations; and that all private Persons are bound to submit to the Municipal Laws of those So­cieties for their Peace and Security: So there are other Laws which con­cern those Nations, as they make up several independent Governments upon each other. And there are several [Page 27]Rights which belong to them with respect to one another, which do not belong to private Persons as they live in subjection to any par­ticular Government.

And as there are such Rights, so there must be a just and lawful way for reparation of Injuries. In par­ticular Governments, the thing is plain by Established Laws and Courts of Judicature, whose Sen­tence is executed by the Civil Power; but in Separate Nations, and Independent Governments, al­though there be Laws by consent, called the Law of Nations; yet there is no common Judicature to deter­mine of Right and Wrong; and therefore in case of Injury, there is an allowance for the injured Party by this Law of Nations to right him­self by force, as there would be to every particular Person, if there were no Laws nor Power to see them executed.

There is then a Right in every Sovereign and Independent Prince to exercise Force against another Prince, who detains any Right from him, or doth any Injury to him, or to those he is bound to defend.

The Question then comes to the Just Occasions of such a War; and here are two assigned.

First, Great and violent Pre­sumptions of an Injury to the Right of Succession. This is ex­presly mentioned and insisted on, in the Declaration of the then Prince of Orange (our present King.) p. 9, 10, 11.

There have been many Instances in History of suborned and suppo­sitious Princes, and therefore there was reason that sufficient Evidence should be given in a Case of such Importance, and which was under so great Suspicion. But if there was no reasonable care taken to prevent or remove these Sus­picious, then the Parties most con­cerned have a right to assert their own Pretensions in such a way as the Law of Nations doth al­low.

And in this Case no private Depositions, or confident Affir­mations of such as are Depen­dents, or otherwise liable to Sus­picion, can in reason be taken for satisfactory Evidence. p. 13.

Secondly, There was a further Just Occasion for that Expedition, which was the Design to subvert our Religion and Civil Liberties. As to the Particulars, they are fully set down in the Declaration, and need not to be repeated; That which I am to make out, is, That the then Prince of Orange by his Relation to the Crown, had a just Right to concern him­self in the Vindication of both, and that this is not repugnant to the Doctrines and Principles of the Church of England.

It was not thought disagreeable to them for Queen Elizabeth to assist the Dutch against the King of Spain; yet she had no such rea­son for it as our King and Queen had to prevent the suppression of [Page 29]their own Religion here, and the Rights of that people to whom they were so nearly related. p. 15.

In the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First, when I suppose it will be granted,☜ That the Doctrines and Principles of the Church of England were understood and followed; the King of Denmark had taken up Arms, to settle the Peace and liberty of Ger­many, as he declared: But he met with a great Defeat. Whereupon King Charles the First thought him­self concerned to give Assistance to him: And Archbishop Laud was then employed (as Dr. Heylin con­fesseth) by the King's Command, to draw up a Declaration, to be published in all the Parishes of Eng­land; which was read by the King, and approved by the Council, wherein the Greatness of the Dan­ger they were in is set forth, and the People are exhorted to serve God and the King, and to labour by their Prayers to divert the Danger. Where­in lay this Danger? It is there said to be, That by the Defeat of the King of Denmark, there was lit­tle or nothing left to hinder the House of Austria from being Lord and Ma­ster of Germany. And what then? Why then there will be an open way for Spain to do what they pleased in all the West Part of Christendom. It seems then, it was not thought disagreeable to the Principles and Doctrines of our Church, to hin­der the growth of a Western Mo­narchy, although it be by assisting [Page 30]Subjects against their Princes who promote it. p. 17.

But yet here is another Diffi­culty ariseth, concerning the trans­ferring Allegiance from a Lawful Prince, to him that met with un­expected Success in his Design.

And here I shall endeavour to make it plain, That this is not against the Doctrines and Principles of the Church of England. p. 20.

The Articles of our Church de­clare, That the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm doth appertain to the Civil Magistrate: But they no-where say, That in a Just war the Superior Power cannot be ac­quired; or that God doth never confer it in an extraordinary me­thod.

The Book of Homilies is very severe against Disobedience and wil­ful Rebellion; but it is no-where said, That where the Right of Sovereignty is transferred by a Successful War, there is no Al­legiance due to those who possess it. p. 2.

Ours is only the Case of Just War; ☜ Apage nugas! which is allowed by all sorts of Casuists, who do agree, that Allegiance is due to the Party that prevails in it; and if it be due to one, it cannot be due to another, at the same time, although he be living, and do not discharge Per­sons from their Oaths; for the ob­ligation of Oaths depends on the nature and reason of things, and not upon the Pleasure of those to whom they are made. But where [Page 31]there is a Right to govern, there must be a Duty of Allegiance: And that Success in a Just War doth give such a Right, What Right do you mean? I could produce so many Testimonies, of all kinds of Writers, as would make the reading of them as te­dious, as of those in the History of Passive Obedience. Nay, some go so far, as to assert a Right of So­vereignty to be acquired by success, even in an Ʋnjust War: So 'tis, as much as by a Just War. But we need none of these Testimonies.

But doth not all this re­solve this whole Controver­sie into a Right of Con­quest, 'Tis not a pin-matter whether it does or no. which is not so much as pretended in our present Case?

It's a fine thing to be a Schollar.I answer, That we must distinguish be­tween a Right to the Go­vernment, and the Manner of Assuming it. The Right was founded on the Just Causes of the War, and the Success in it: But the assuming of it was not by any ways of force or violence, but by a Free Con­sent of the People, who by a volun­tary Recognition, and Their Majesties acceptance of the Government, as it is setled by our Laws, take away any pretenceBut not to an Ecclesiasti­cal Whimsie of an imaginary Right by the Choice of God. to a Con­quest over the People, or a Government by Force.

The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, &c.

THAT which has perplexed this Controversie, is the in­termixing the Dispute of Right, with the Duty of Obedience, or making the Legal Right of Princes to their Thrones the only Reason and Foundation of the Allegiance of Sub­jects: That Allegiance is due only to Right, not to Government, though it can be paid only to Government.

It seems to me to be unfit to dispute the Right of Princes; a thing which no Government can permit to be a Question among their Subjects. p. 1.

And therefore I shall not meddle with this Dispute, as being both a­bove me, andThen you'll say nothing to the purpose. no­thing to my present purpose.

Subjects have a plain Rule of Duty without understanding Laws and Politicks, the Intrigues of Go­vernment, the Revolutions of States, the Disputes of Princes; which I am sure is both for the security of Governments and Subjects.

If then Allegiance be due, not for the sake of Legal Right, but Government.

If Allegiance be due, not to bare Legal Right, butThat is, to Glergy-mens Crockets. to the Authority of of God.

If God, when he sees fit, and can better serve the ends of his Pro­vidence by it, sets up Kings with­out any regard to Legal Right or Humane Laws. p. 2.

If Kings, thus set up by God, are invested with God's Authority, which must be obey'd, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

If these Principles be true, it is plain, That Subjects are bound to obey, and to pay and swear Allegi­ance (if it be required) to those Princes whom God hath placed and settled in the Throne, whatever Di­sputes there may be about their le­gal Right, when they are invested with God's Authority.

And then it is plain, That our old Allegiance and old Oaths are at an end, when God has set over us a new King: For when God trans­fers Kingdoms, and requires our O­bedience and Allegiance to a new King, he necessarily transfers our Allegiance too.

This Scheme of Go­vernment may startle some men at first,From you it will startle no man of com­mon sense. be­fore they have well considered it. p. 2, 3.

The Church of England has been very careful to instruct Her Children in their Duty to Princes; to obey their Laws, and submit to their pow­er, and not to resist, tho very inju­riously oppressed; and those, who renounce these Principles, renounce the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land: But she has withal taught, That all Sovereign Princes receive their Power and Authority from God; and therefore every Prince who is setled in the Throne, is to be obey'd and reverenced as God's Minister, and to be resisted; [Page 34]which directs us what to do in all Revolutions of Government, when once they come to a Settlement; and those who refuse to pay and swear Allegiance to such Princes, whom God has placed in the Throne, whatever then Legal Right be, do as much reject the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, as those who teach the Resi­stance of Princes.

For the proof of which, I appeal to Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book. p. 4.

I know not how it was possible for the Convocation to express their sense plainer, That all Usurped Pow­ers, when throughly settled, have God's Authority, and must be o­bey'd: So that here are the Two great points determined, whereon this whole Controversie turns.

1. That those Princes who have no legal right to their Thrones, may yet have God's Authority.

2. That when they are through­ly settled in their Thrones, they are invested with God's Authority, and must be reverenced and obeyed by all who live within their Territories and Dominions, as well Priests as People: If these propositions be true, it is a plain Resolution of the Case; that if it should at any time happen, that the rightful Prince should be driven out of his King­dom, and another Prince placed in his Throne, and settled in the full Administration of Government, Subjects not only may, but must for Conscience sake, and out of re­verence [Page 35]to the Authority of God, with which such a Prince is invested, pay all the Duty and Allegiance of Subjects to him.

As for the first, the Case is plain, That the Convocation speaks of il­legal and usurped Powers, and yet affirms that the Authority exercised by them, is God's Authority, and therefore those Princes, who have no legal right, may have God's Au­thority. p. 5.

The Moabites and Ara­mites never could have a Legal Right to the Government of Israel; What? not by a Conquest? and yet the Convocation asserts, That when Israel was in subjection to them, they knew, that it was not lawful for them of themselves, and by their own Autho­rity to take Arms against the Kings, whose Subjects they were, Prove they were Tyrants. tho indeed they were Ty­rants.

The like, they teach of the Kings of Egypt and Babylon. p. 6

There is no Duty Subjects, as such, owe to the most Legal and Rightful Kings, but the Convocation asserts due to all Kings, whom God hath placed in the Throne, by what visible means soever they obtained it; as to obey and submit to them, not to resist them, nor rebel against them; to pay all Customs and Taxes, to pray for them, nay, to swear Allegiance to them, if it be required. p. 7.

2. The only Enquiry then is,No; it is no part of the Enquiry; for who cares what either they meant, or you mean? what the Con­vocation means by the Government's being throughly settled. A Prince who is through­ly setled in his Throne, has God's Authority, and must be obeyed; but when is his Government throughly set­led?

Now here it is, That men may impose upon themselves if they will, and if they think it their Interest to do so; and may make as little or as much go to a through settlement, as they please;No; they left that to d. Sherlock. for the Convocation has not de­termined the bounds of it. p. 9.

The submission of the Prince in­deed may be thought necessary to transfer a Legal Right; but the sub­mission of the people, of it self, is sufficient to settle a Government; and when it is setled, then it is the Authority of God, whatever the Human Right be.

All Sovereign Powers, whose Power and Government is throughly setled, must be obeyed, whatever their Legal Right be; for they have the Authority of God. p. 9.

All Civil Power and Authority is from God; for he is the Supreme Lord of the World, and has the sole Right to govern his Creatures; and therefore no man can have any Au­thority but from God: This will be readily acknowledged by all, who believe, that there is a God, and [Page 37]that he made and governs the World.

That Civil Power and Anthority is no otherwise from God, than as he gives this Pow­er and Authority to some particular person or persons,But how does God give it him? Perhaps, as he gave you the Holy Ghost. to govern others: For Authority be­longs to a person, and that Pow­er and Authority which any person exercises, is not from God, which God never gave him: If he governs without receiving his Personal Au­thority from God, he governs with­out God's Authority. p. 10.O Sapientia

There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authori­ty to any persons: Either by Na­ture, or by an express Nomina­tion, or by the disposals of Provi­dence, p. 11.

Providence is God's Government of the world by an invisible influ­ence and power, whereby he directs, determines, over-rules all Events to the accomplishment of his own Will and Counsels. p. 12.

Nor does it make any difference in this case, to distinguish between what God permits, and what he does; for this distinction does not relate to the Events of things, but to the wickedness of men. p. 12.

When it comes to action, he over-rules their wicked designs, to accomplish his own Counsels and Decrees; and either disappoints what they intended, or gives suc­cess to them, when he can serve the [Page 38]ends of his Providence by their wickedness; and herein consists the unsearchable Wisdom of Providence, that God brings about his own Coun­sels, by the free Ministries of men: He permits men to do wickedly, but all Events which are for the good or evil of private men, or pub­lick Societies, are ordered by him, as the Prophet declares, Amos 3.6. Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? p. 12.

If the advancement to the Throne invests such a Prince with God's Au­thority, then God gives him the Throne, and does not merely per­mit him to take it; for no man can take God's Authority, but it must be given. p. 13.

By what means soever any Prince ascends the Throne, he is placed there by God, and receives his Au­thority from him. p. 13.

Sometimes he suffers an aspiring Prince to invade and conquer a Countrey; but he never suffers him to ascend the Throne, but when he sees fit to make him King. p. 13, 14.

All Kings are equal­ly rightful with respect to God;So are all Clergy-men. for those are all rightful Kings, who are placed in the Throne by God, and it is impossible there should be a wrong King, unless a man could make himself King, whether God will or no. p. 14.

The distinction then between a King de jure, The Doctor knows not when that Distinction was born, and when it died. and a King de facto, re­lates [Page 39]only to Human Laws, which bind Subjects, but are not the ne­cessary Rules and Measures of the Divine Providence. In Hereditary Kingdoms, he is a righful King, who has by Succession a legal Right to the Crown; and he who has pos­session of the Crown, without a le­gal Right, is a King de facto; that is, is a King, but not by Law: Now 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 God is not bound by Humane Laws,Qui benè distin­guit, benè docet. but can make whom he please King, without regard to legal Rights; and when he does so, they are true, though not legal Kings,I challenge the Doctor te quote any good Authority fer the Notion of a True King. A True and a False Prophet we knew; but a True King is a Novelty. if those are true Kings who have God's Authority.

We can have but one King at a time; two rival and opposite Prin­ces cannot at the same time possess the same Throne, nor can Subjects be bound to two opposite and con­trary Allegiances; for no man can Serve two masters; and yet Allegiance is due to a King by the Laws of God, and to every King whose Sub­jects we are, that if we could have two Kings, we must have two Alle­giances.

He is our King who is settled in the Throne in the actual Admini­stration of Sovereign Power; for [Page 40] King is the Name of Power and Authority,Under de­rivatur King? not of mere Right. He, who has a legal Right to the Crown, but has it not, ought by the Laws of the Land to be King, but is not: But he who is actually setled in the Administration of the Regal Power, is King, and has God's Authority, tho he have not a legal Right.

Allegiance is due only to the King; for Allegiance signifies all that Du­ty, which Subjects owe to their Ring, and therefore can be due to none but the King.

If then he who has the Legal Right, may not be our King, and he who has not, may; when any such case happens, we must pay our Allegiance to him who is King, tho without a Legal Right; not to him who is not our King, tho it is his Right to be so: And the reasor is very plain, because Allegiance is due only to God's Authority, not to a bare Legal Title without God's Au­thority; and therefore must be paid to him who is invested with God's Authority, who is his Minister and Lieutenant; that is, to the Actual King, who is setled in the Throne, and has the Administration of Go­vernment in his hands.

Object. But if this be so, what does a Legal Right signifie, if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects?

Answ. I answer: It bars all other Human Claims: No other Prince [Page 41]can challenge the Throne of Right; and Subjects are bound to maintain the Rights of such a Prince, as far as they can; that is, against all Mankind; but not against God's disposal of Crowns. p. 15.

We swear to maintain and defend his Right, and the Right of his Heirs; but yet we do not swear to keep them in the Throne, which may be impossible for us to do a­gainst a prosperous Rebellion. p. 16.

These seem to me, to be very plain Propositions, and to carry their own Evidence with them; and if this be true, it is a very plain Dire­ction to Subjects in all the Revolu­tions of Government.

The most that can be expected from them, according to the strictest Principles of Loyalty and Obedience,lindx; is to have no hand in such Re­volutions, or to oppose them as far as they can, and not to be hasty and forward in their Compliances; but when such a Revolution is made, and they cannot help it; they must reverence and obey their New Prince, as invested with God's Au­thority. p. 16.

There are different degrees of Settlement, and must necessarily be in such new Governments, which seem to me to require different degrees of Submission, or at least to justify them, till it increases to such a full, and plenary, and set­led Possession, as requires our Al­legiance, as being notoriously evi­dent [Page 42]and sensible to all that do not wink hard, and will not see it.

If the generality of the Nation submit to such a Prince, and place him on the Throne, and put the whole power of the Kingdom into his hands, though it may be, we cannot yet think the Providence of God has setled him in the Throne, while the dispossessed Prince has also such a formidable Power, as makes the Event very doubtful; yet if we think fit to continue in the Kingdom, under the Govern­ment and Power of the New Prince, there are several Duties, which in reason we ought to pay him.

As, To live quietly and peaceably under his Government, and to pro­mise, or swear, or give any other security that we will do so, if it be demanded: It is reasonable we should do so, if we think it rea­sonable to live under the prote­ction of the Government; this all men do in an Enemy's Quarters, and no man blames them for it.

We must pay Taxes to them; for these are due to the Admi­nistration of Government, as Saint Paul observes; For this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are the ministers of God, attending continually on this very thing, Rom. 13. 6. And if we owe our secure possession of our Estates to the protection of Government, let the Government be what it will, we ought to pay for it.

We must give the Title of King to such a Prince, when we live in the Country where he is owned for King; for besides that, it is a piece of good manners (which is the least thing we can owe to him, under whose Government we live) he is indeed King, while he administers the Regal Power, though we may not think him so well setled in his Government, as to all intents and purposes to own him for our King.

Nay, we must pray for him un­der the Name and Title of King, for we are bound to pray for all who are in Authority; and that Prince is, who has the whole Government in his hands, and has power to do a great deal of hurt, or a great of good; and this is so far from being a fault, that it is a duty, while we take care to do it in such terms,lindx; as to not pray against the dis­possessed Prince.

Thus far I think the doubtful possession of the Throne obliges us, and it were very happy if no more were required in the beginnings of such a new Government; but when, besides the possession of the Throne, the Power of the dispossessed Prince is broken, and no visible prospect of his recovering his Throne again; nay, if it be visible that he can ne­ver recover his Throne again, but by making a new Conquest of the Nation by Foreigners, who will be our Masters, if they conquer, [Page 44]and no very gentle ones neither; we may then look upon the new Prince as advanced and setled by God in his Throne, and therefore such a King, as we owe an entire Obedience and Allegiance to.

For we must not take the consideration of Right into the settle­ment of Government;No, have a care of that. for a Prince may be setled in his Throne with­out Legal Right; and when he is so, God has made him our King, and requires our Obedience. p. 17, 18.

The Scripture has given us no Directions in this Case, but to sub­mit, and pay all the Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers. It makes no distinction, that ever I could find, between Rightful Kings and Usurpers, between Kings whom we must, and whom we must not obey; but the gene­ral Rule is, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers, for all power is of God. p. 18.

To say the Apostle here speaks of Lawful Power, is gratis dictum, for there is no Evidence of it: The Criticism between [...] and [...] will not do; for they both signify the same thing in Scripture, either Force and Power, or Au­thority. p. 19.

When the Apostle says, All power is of God, there is no reason to con­fine this to the Legal Powers, unless it were evidently the Doctrine of [Page 45]Scripture, that usurped 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, 4 Dan. 17. which is spoke with reference to the four Mo­narchies, which were all as manifest Usurpations as ever were in the World, and yet set up by the De­cree and Counsel of God, and fore­told by a prophetick Spirit: and whoever will confine the Power and Authority of God,Wisdom will die with this man! in changing Times and Seasons, in removing Kings, and setting up Kings, to Humane Laws, ought not to be disputed with. p. 20.

This I'm sure, The only dire­ction of Scripture is to submit to those who are in Authority, who are in the actual administration of Government, to reverence and obey them, to pray for them, to pay Tribute to them, as God's Ministers, attending continually upon this very thing, and not to resist them; but there is not the least notice given us of any kind of Duty owing, or to be paid, to a Prince out of Au­thority, and removed from the Ad­ministration of Government, what­ever his Right may be. p. 21.

The Prophecy of the Four Mo­narchies is not yet at an end; for under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom of Christ was to be set up, and Antichrist was to appear, and the increase and destruction [Page 46]of the Kingdom of Antichrist is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in Humane Go­vernments; and when God has declared, that he will change Times and Seasons, remove Kings, and set up Kings, to accomplish his own wise Counsels, it justifies our neces­sary, and therefore innocent com­pliances with such Revolutions, as much as if we were expresly com­manded to do so, as the Jews were by the Prophet Jeremiah. This a man may say without Enthusiasm, or pretending to understand all the Prophesies of the Revelations, and to apply them to their particular events; for without that, we certain­ly know, that all the great Revo­lutions of the World are intended by God to serve those great Ends; and when God will overturn King­doms and Empires, remove, and set up Kings, as he sees will best serve the accomplishment of his own Counsels and Decrees, it is very hard, if Subjects must not quietly submit to such Revolutions: we must not, contrary to our sworn Duty and Allegiance, promote such Revolutions,No, tho we be upon the point of losing our Lan's and Li­berties. upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophesies; but when they are made and set­led, we ought to sub­mit to them.

We have no direction in Scri­pture at all about making or un­making Kings, or restoring a dis­possessed Prince to his Throne again; and all the Commands we have in Scripture about Obedience and Sub­jection [Page 47]to Government, manifestly respects the present Ru­ling Powers,Let God Al­mighty turn Kingdoms topsie turvie, as he pleases, the Doctor will always fall upon his feet. without any distinction between right­ful and Usurped Powers; it seems therefore plainly to determin this Question on the side of the present Powers. p. 22, 23.

If the Choice and Consent of the people makes a Prince, then no man is a Subject, but he who consents to be so; for the Major Vote cannot in­clude my consent, unless I please; that is the effect of Law and Compact, or Force, not of Nature. If Subjects give their Prince Authority, they may take it away again, if they please; there can be no irresistible Authority deri­ved from the people; for if the Au­thority be wholly derived from them, who shall hinder them from taking it away, when they see fit?If a man gives me a pair of Gloves, who shall hinder him from ta­king them a­way again, when he sees fit? Upon these Principles, there can be no Heredi­tary Monarchy; one Ge­neration can only chuse for themselves, their Po­sterity having as much Right to chose as they had. p. 24.

I cannot see where to fix the Foun­dation of Government, but in the Pro­vidence of God, who either by the choice of the major or stronger part of the people, or by Conquest, or by Sub­mission, and the long successive conti­nuance of power, or by Human Laws, gives a Prince and his Family possessi­on of the Throne, which is a good Title against all Humane Claims, and requires the Obedience and Submis­sion [Page 48]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. p. 24.

To say that God sets up no Prince, who ascends the Throne without a Humane and Legal Right, is to say, that some Kings are re­moved, and others set up, but not by God; which is a direct contra­diction to Scripture; it is to say, That the Four Monarchies were not set up by God, because they all be­gan by Violence and Usurpation: It is to say, That God, as well as men, is confined by Humane Laws, in making Kings: It is to say, That the Right of Government is not derived from God, without the consent of the people; for if God can't make a King without 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 can't give it himself without the people, nor otherwise than they have dire­cted him by their Laws.

This is all very ab­surd.So's all the rest of your Book, Sir.

The Providence of God removes Kings, and sets up Kings, but al­ters no Legal Right, nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them, to recover their Right, when they can. While such a Prince is in the Throne, it is a declaration of God's Will, that he shall Reign for [Page 49]some time, longer or shorter, as God pleases; and that is an obliga­tion to Subjects to submit and obey; for Submission is owing only to God's Authority; but that one Prince is at present placed in the Throne, and the other removed out of it, does not prove, that it is God's Will it should always be so, and therefore does not divest the dispos­sessed Prince to recover his Legal Right: A Legal and Successive Right is the ordinary way whereby the Provi­dence of God advances Princes to an Hereditary Throne: And this bars all other humane Claims, but yet God may give the Throne to another, if he pleases; and this does not destroy the Le­gal Right of the dispossessed Prince, lindx; nor hinder him from claiming it, when he finds his opportu­nity. p. 26.

It is a great Que­stion,Why, 'tis a Legal Commis­sion, but it has not the Autho­rity of God. which I am not Lawyer enough to decide; Whether a Commission granted by a King out of Possession, be a Le­gal Commission? p. 31.

Oaths oblige every particular man to do no injury to the King's Person or Crown, not to enter into Plots and Conspiracies against him; and as for actual defence, chearfully to venture his Life and Fortunes with his Fellow-subjects to preserve the King. But in case the great Bo­dy of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths, and depose their King, and drive him out of his Kingdom, and set up another Prince [Page 50]in his room, it is worth considering, Whether some private men, i: may be but a little handful, are still bound by their Oath, to make some weak and dangerous attempts, and to fight for their King against their Countrey; certainly this was not the intention of the Oath; for it is a National, not a private Defence, we swear; and therefore a general revolt of a Nation, tho it should be wick­ed and unjustifiable, yet it seems to excuse those, who had neither hand nor heart in it, from their sworn defence of the King's Person and Crown, and to make their compliane with the National Govern­ment, innocent and necessary. For an Oath to fight for the King, does not oblige us to fight against our Countrey, which is as unnatural, as to fight against our King. The sum is this; God, when he sees fit, can remove Kings, or set up Kings, without any regard to humane Right, as being the Sovereign Lord of the World, who rules in the Kingdoms of Men, and giveth them to whomsoever he will; but Sub­jects, in setting up, or removing Kings, must have regard to Legal Right; and if they pull down a rightful King, and set up a King without right, (unless the Consti­tution of the Government in some cases should allow it) greatly sin in it, especially when they have sworn the defence of the Legal Right, and Legal Succession; but the Duty and Allegiance of Subjects does not im­mediately respect Right, but the actual Administration of Govern­ment, [Page 51]when there is a setled Govern­ment in a Nation; for that is God's Authority, which much be obeyed; no man must swear away this, no more than any other part of his Duty; and no man does swear a­way this by the Oath of Allegiance, as I have already shown. p. 31, 32.

Object. But have not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse, as an Usurper has to the Crown, which he seizes by as mani­fest force and violence?

Answ. The Outrages of Thieves and Pyrates are very impertinently alledged in this Cause. They have force and violence, which every man must submit to, when he can­not help it; but Sovereign Power is God's Authority, tho Princes may be advanced to it by no honester means than Thieves take a Purse, or break open my House, and take my Money or Goods. The begin­nings of the Four Monarchies were no better, and yet their Power was God's. p. 34.

This Doctrine of Obe­dience and Allegiance to the present Powers,Gen. 49.14. is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience, and therefore both must be true, or both 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, [Page 52]and are in the actual administration of it (which is the only evidence we have, that they have received it from God) must be obeyed, and must not be resisted. Set aside this Principle, That all Sovereign Princes re­ceive their Authority from God, and I grant that Non-Resistance is Nonsense; ☜ for there is no other irresistible Authority, but that of God. p. 36.

These Principles answer all the ends of Government, both for the security of the Prince and Subjects; and that is a good Argument to be­lieve them true.

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 reverence God's Authority in him; and submit to him without Resistance, tho they are ill used.

They will not indeed serve the Re­volutions of Government, to remove one King, and set up another; and if they would, Princes, might be jealous of them; for whatever Ser­vice they might do them at one turn, they might do them as great Disservice at another: The Revo­lutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty, but God's Preroga­tive; and therefore it is not likely that he has prescribed any certain Rules or Methods for the over­turning and changing Govern­ment, which he keeps in his own hands, and which when he sees fit to [Page 53]do it, he never wants ways and means of doing.

But when any Prince is setled in the Throne, by what means soever it be, these Principles put an end to all disputes of Right and Title, and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience, and a Reverence of God's Authority; which is the fastest hold he can possibly have of them;No; Interest is the fastest hold in these cases. for those whom Religion will not bind, nothing but Force can.

And therefore these are the only principles which in such Revoluti­ons can make Government easie both to Prince and People; and if Government must be preserved in all Revolutions, those are the best Prin­ciples which are most for the ease and safety of it.

But on the other hand, such an immoveable and unalterable Alle­giance, as is thought due only to a Legal Right and Title, and must be paid to none, but to a Legal and Rightful Prince, serves no ends of Government at all; but overturns all Government, when such a Prince is dispossessed of his Throne, how long soever he continue dispossessed: And what long Inter-regnums may this occasion, to the dissolution of Human Societies? p. 43, 44.

I cannot indeed think (neither do I believe, that any body else does) that for a King to leave his Crown and Government in a fright, is in all cases necessarily to be interpreted such an Abdication as is equivalent [Page 54]to a voluntary Resignation; where­by he renounces all future Right and Claim to it. But if he have reduced himself to such a state, that he is forced for his own preservati­on to leave his Kingdom and Go­vernment; it is plain, that in some sense he leaves his Throne vacant too; that is, there is no body in it, no body in the actual Administra­tion of the Government.

Thus far I think Subjects may be very guiltless who do not drive the King away, but only suffer him quietly to escape out of his King­doms; for this is no Rebellion, no Resistance, but only Non-Assistance, which may be very innocent; for there are some cases wherein Sub­jects are not bound to assist their Prince; and if ever there were such a Case, this was it.

What then shall Subjects do, when the King is gone, and the Government Dissolved, the peo­ple left in the Hands of another Prince, without any Reason, or any Authority, or any formed Power, to oppose him? The Go­vernment must be Administred by some-body, unless we can be con­tented that the Rabble should govern.

But I shall not meddle with that Interval between the going away of the King, and the Prince's com­ing to the Throne; but only con­sider him as placed in the Throne, [Page 55]and setled there. And now we can find no alteration in the Ancient government of the Nation, but on­ly the exchange of persons; and all things concur to make this a ve­ry advantageous and acceptable Change, excepting such difficulties, as usually accompany such Revolu­tions. p. 49, 50.

Legal Rights must be determi­ned by a Legal Authority; and there is no Authority can take cognizance of the Titles and Claims of Princes, and the dispo­sal of the Crown, but the Estates of the Realm: They indeed are o­bliged to take notice of the legal Descent of the Crown; ☜ and if through mistake, or any other cause, they set the Crown upon a wrong Head, they must an­swer for it; but private Subjects, who have no legal Cognizance of the matter, are bound by no Law, that I know of, to disown a King whom the Estates have owned, though they should think the Right is in a­nother. p. 52, 53.

Hitherto have been displayed the Principles of some of our heavenly Guides, with re­spect to our Present Settle­ment.

The Conclusion of the whole matter take in the Words of a Worthy Divine, lately delive­red in a Sermon before the House of Commons, viz.

WE may safely conclude from the late Deliverance which we have found, and the Success wherewith it has been attended since, 1. That God has signally ma­nifested his favour to this our Church. And 2. That the King is the Instrument whereby he has con­ferr'd this Favour on us. And from hence there arises a twofold Duty upon us:

1. That we should have a regard and reverence for the Church.

2. That we should pay Ho­nour and Obedience to the King. And,

1. How great a veneration and esteem do we justly owe to that Church, which first rescued us from the Tyranny of the Roman Yoke; recovered the pure Word of God from their usurpation and disguise, and instated us in the true light of the Gospel! A Church, which for the purity of her Faith, and the Regularity of her Institution, has ever since stood the Envy, and en­dured the brunt of Antichrist; and has so many miraculous deliverances to shew, that God has espoused her [Page 57]Cause. We have heard with out Ears, and our Fathers have de­clar'd unto us, the Wonders which he did for her in their days, and our own eyes also have seen the sal­vation of God. How he rescued us from an implacable ravenous Herd of Men, who had nothing but numbers to entitle them to a Catholick Church, and with those numbers they design'd to over-power the Truth; with those Wolves they thought to have worry'd this little Flock: Against us alone they bent all their Rage, and whet their Teeth in the late unhappy Reign; and when their small stock of Arguments was spent, they prepar'd for another kind of onset. But God deliver'd us from all the expectation of the Ro­mans, and shew'd, that it was not their Church, but ours, that is founded upon that Rock: And I wish all they that are still proje­cting to overturn it, would for their own security con­sider this,What do you think of Oli­ver Crum­well? That no weapon ever prosper'd yet, that has been lifted up against it.

And now for any of us to que­stion the honesty of our Mother-Church, which we have seen at­tested by so many unquestionable proofs, by all the demonstration that the nature of the thing will bear, must be something more than Ignorance, something that I am loath to name. To forsake this guide of our youth, who never deserted us in any times of difficulty, never consulted [Page 58]her own safety when she saw her Sons in danger, ☜ but boldly oppos'd every Enemy, and stood in every breach, for us, I say, to desert her upon any score, is such vile ingratitude, as hardly can be parallel'd, but can never be excus'd. What iniquity have your fathers found in me, said God, that ye should forfake me, and follow after other gods. A very seri­ous Expostulation! a most patheti­cal Complaint!

And the same thing may be said in behalf of our native Church. What is there in this our way of Worship that can justly give of­fence? What is there in the sub­stance that the godliest Man can scruple, or the wisest Man can mend? What Suppli­cation or Prayer can be made, for any Bles­sings,A Prayer for honest Clergy­men would do well to be ad­ded. or any Grant, of which our humane nature stands in need, that is not daily and decently offer'd up to God from this our House of Prayer? What Portion of God's Holy Word is there that is not here duly read, and, I hope, faithfully explain'd unto you? What Chri­stian Doctrine have we conceal'd from you, or when have we taught you for Doctrine, the Commandments of men? When ye coin'd new Articles of Faith, and ob­truded them upon us Jure Divino. Where have we de­frauded you of that which is the Word of God, or impos'd upon you that which is not?

If any of these Charges can be made out, then we will willingly bear the blame till there is a Refor­mation; but if they cannot be prov'd upon us, as I am certain that they can't; if our Church has constant­ly discharg'd the du­ty of a careful Mo­ther,God knows they can. then well may she expect from us the obedience of Sons; or else cry out upon our disobedi­ence, What iniquity have you or your fathers found in me?

In the mean while, I wish every man would conscientiously consider this, That a needless Separation is very far from being an indifferent harmless thing; and therefore they whose Consciences will give them leave to communicate with us at some times, I know not how they can excuse themselves for not doing always so; for certainly Union is so positive a Command of God, and the want of it is of so pernicious consequence to the Souls of men, that nothing but absolute necessity can give us a dispensation; nothing can justify us for breaking the Uni­ty of the Church, but when the terms of Communion are utterly un­lawful; if any man thinks that our terms are such, they have their li­berty; and we have ours; and so I hope there may be Charity, although there is not Union amongst us; and therefore leaving every man freely to his own way, as he will answer it to God, who cannot be deceiv'd, as well as to his own Conscience, which [Page 60]can; let us proceed to the last thing propos'd, wherein I hope we do all agree; and that is, in paying Ho­mage and Obedience to our Sovereign;Civil and Sa­cred must be di­stinguish'd. and that not only upon a Civil, but also up­on a Sacred account; not only for wrath, but for Conscience sake. Kings are the only Persons upon Earth unto whom God has given an immediate delegation of his Authority; whom to obey, is to obey his Ordinance; and whom to resist, is to resist his Power: And whosoever denies Obe­dience to be a religious duty, takes away from the King the fairest Jewel in his Crown, and the strongest For­tress in his Dominion.

But this is a Doctrine that has been so frequently discuss'd of late; so learnedly demonstrated, and so un­deniably establish'd amongst us that there is no need to insist upon it now. Only give me leave to say, That not­withstanding the unreasonable Ca­vils of gainsaying men, yet Passive Obe­dience always was, and I hope always will be, the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England. I am sure 'tis a Doctrine of which no Church need to be asham'd, and no King can be afraid: And to this I shall only add, That all that Obedience which the Scripture requires us to pay unto the King, we must now look upon as devolv'd upon Their present Maje­sties, and properly belonging to Their Claim. The powers that are (saith the Apostle) are ordained of God; and up­on that account they justly challenge [Page 61]our submission. And in this point, tho I must not say with St. Paul, that I think I have the Spirit of God; yet I dare say,You mean of a great many of your Church­men: the Spi­rit of your Church, you un­derstand not. that I have the Spirit of that Church in which I was born and bred. And I dare say no more: For Crowns and Scepters are very nice, curi­ous things; something a-kin to the Ark of God; they must be hand­led with Ceremony: and tho we ap­proach them with never so much re­spect, yet by an unskilful touch, we may easily offend; and 'tis a trespass upon Majesty to come too near it.

The 15th of February, the Lords and Commons ordered, That His Ma­jesties most gracious Answer this day, be added to the Engrossed Declara­tion in Parchment, to be enroll'd in Parliament and Chancery; which is as followeth.