The Duty of Allegiance, Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Of the Author's Right by providential Possession, without other Title. It destroys the Obligations by Right and Wrong.
I Come now in the Third place, to that which is more particularly the Plea of this learned Man, which is the Plea of Providenc…, to give or grant Right: And this, though it be not a legal Right, but leaves that still to go as Law directs it; yet, he says, is a better Right than that, and such, as in the fight both of God and Men, ought to set the legal Right aside▪ And this he makes to be the Right of every Regnant King, or Possessor, of a Throne. Providence that gives Success, and speeds him in compassing it, he thinks is God's Grant, and gives him a Right to the Crown he has got into his Possession. And p. 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24 25, 27, 28, 34.whosoever is set up thus by God's Providence, as every King is, that is set up at all, is God's King, in his Notion, or a King of God's making: And so, let who will have the legal Right, must be owned by all Subjects, that would receive him for their King, whom God has made their King, or be under one that he has authorized to rule over them: And this in short, I think, is the Substance of his Notion.
Now as for this Plea, though it doth not carry Allegiance by legal Right, yet it is for carrying it by Right; viz. by the Right of Providence, which he thinks is a better Right, and ought to take place of Right by Laws, in as much as God's Prerogative carryed in Providence is above human Laws. But this way the Possessor has the best Right; and that I own would go far in taking off all the foresaid Difficulties, which are all on supposition of the other's Right. So this way to ingage in Oaths of A…egiance to stand by the Possessor, in keeping, or getting that Estate and Property he has the best Right to, would only be to do him Right, which is not to be Unrighteous; or to pay him Allegiance, who has the most rightful Authority over us, would only be to obey Authority, which is no Undutifulness. And as to point of former Oaths, it would put an end to their Obligation, as to all time coming; for we cannot bind our selves by any Oaths not to obey God, or not to obey those, to whom he gives the best and most rightful Authority over us. But some Doubt may be made whether it would not leave the Oath of Allegiance to have been a false Oath, and Forswearing of our selves at the time of taking; as Swearing to do what we were not to do, nor ought to perform: For that Oath recognizes, and proceeds upon the legal Right, and seems designed to bind Men to it against all Providential turns, promising to defend it against all Attempts, which such turns make as long as they are continued; and that without any other limitation, as may seem, than whilst there shall be such legal Right to defend.
But as for this Plea of the Right of Providence, or Success in seeking another's Crown giving the best Right to it; I think it is not only a great Mistake, but of such ill Consequence, as would neither do the Cause of Authority and Allegiance, no… any thing else any good. I know the Consequences which I think chargeable upon this Principle, the Piety of this Author will abhor as much as I do: But admit the Principle, and neither his Wit, and Reason, whereto the serious World stands so highly obliged, nor any human Understanding, I conceive, can keep them off and guard against them; and this Principle I come next to examine. And if upon Examination it shall appear, that this fancy'd Provinential Right is no Right; or that it doth not set aside the legal Right: Then 'tis plain, that all the first mentioned Difficulties against the new Oaths for transferring Allegiance on such Revolutions, are still in full Force on the supposition he lays down, viz. that the Dispossessed King's legal Right still remains. And there will be no way left, either to justify those that have, or to satisfy those that have not Sworn; but proving the legal Right of those they are required to swear Allegiance to, upon which the publick Acts make the King and Queen, and demand the Allegiance to them. So that the Question, Who has the legal Right, must both come into this Dispute, and determine it, which sets aside the whole intent of this reverend Person's Book.
One way there is of Providence giving Right; viz. by giving a rightful Title to a Thing, either before or after a Man has got it. Whosoever comes by such Titles, comes to have them by God's Providence, which orders them to fall on particular Persons, as it doth all other Things. But the present Dispute is about Providence giving Right, by mere Providential Possession, without means of any rightful Titles: Or, whether Providence in giving one Man Possession of another Man's Right, (as one Prince suppose of another's Crown) gives the Possessor a Right to it.
Now mere Providence giving Possession, or Success in compassing of a Crown, doth not at all affect the Point of Right, I conceive, on one side or other; it doth not make Right, but suppose it otherwise mde; and is not determined to the keeping, but as open to the breaking of it. If it be a Success in Possessing what is a Man's own Right, it is a Righteous Success; and that not as giving Right, but as getting what was so before. If in getting Possession of another Man's Right, it is an Unrighteous Success, as getting a Thing when a Man has no Right to it: In short, mere Providence giving Possession or Success, shews not the Right, but the Fact; it doth not make Right, but suppose it; and its Business is only to accomplish Events, not to justify or authorize them, or the Actors in them.
To clear this Point of mere Success of Providence in giving Possession, without other Title, not giving any Man Right to another's Crown, or to any other Thing, which another has a legal or human Right to. I shall first show that it gives no such Right. And then answer those Scriptures, and other Reasons, which he has brought to shew it doth give Right.
1. First, I shall sh…w it gives no Right, nor alters any precedent Rights, either by Divine or human Titles. And moreover, what its Part really is, and what Providence doth about Events, particularly about Unrighteous Successes.
1. First, I say, mere Success of Providence, in giving Possession without other Title, gives no Right, either to a Throne, or other Thing. It doth not give a Right to one, that has otherwise no rightful Title; nor take it away from another that has; but leaves the Point of Right to rest with the Titles to it, and lye at their Doors where it found it.
The Author thinks it doth give Right, because this Possession being by Providence, to be Possessed p. 12, 14.of a Throne▪ is to be set up and placed there by God. As to be Dispossessed, or Thrust from a Throne, i… to be removed by God. And all who are so Placed in a Throne by God, are rightful Kings; yea, Equally rightful with Respect to God, viz. as equally having his Grant, though one may have a legal Title, and another may want it.
But now, That such Right is not either got, or set aside, by such mere Providential Possession, without other Title, may appear, I think, on several accounts, viz. from Consideration both of the Nature of Right and Wrong, of Providence, of our own Laws, and other Authorities.
1. I shall begin, First, with the Considerations of Right and Wrong. And from them I think it will appear on these accounts following.
1. First, This would destroy all Obligation by Right and Wrong among Kings.
The Obligations of Right are, First, in getting, to tye men up from taking what is anothers Right, and is the Justice of not violently seizing. Or, Secondly, in holding, to tye men up from keeping what is another's, and is the Justice of not violently detaining, but making Restitution.
Now both these Obligations, this Principle of mere Providential Possession, without other Title, giving Right, destroys.
1. First, as to the Obligation of not holding or Detaining another's Right, but making Restitution: When one has taken another's Crown, it undeniably sets that aside. For, if a Man may with a good Conscience keep it, what Obligation has he to restore it? And if, in the sight of God, he has now the best Right to it, why may he not conscionably keep it? For God will not be angry with any Man, for holding his Right, or keeping what is his own; or for not restoring to the loser what now is no longer his, which then would be altered in Nature, and be Gift, not Restitution. And whatever Men may think of his Right to what, in their Reckoning, was so unrighteously got; yet this Right he has, and as good as the best Right, as the Author tells us, (p. 14. Prop. 4.) all Possessors of Thrones be…ng equally Rightful with respect to God. So that he may hold it very righteously, and with a clear Conscience, as any other Persons may their most rightful Properties.
But now, this is,
1. Against Restitution of other Mens Rights, and the Obligation of Kings thereto, in common with all other Christians.
Thou shalt not steal, is God's Command about other mens Rights and Properties: And the inseparable Consequent thereof is, That when any one has violently taken them, he shall restore them. The Justice thereby required is to give every Man his own; and where it was unrighteously taken away before, to give it, is the same as to give it back, or righteously to restore it. So, when a thing is taken by Wrong, if Right doth not bind to give it to the right Owner again, it doth not bind to give every Man his own; that is, it binds to nothing.
Now this Restitution is, of what a Man has got by Providential Possession. The other must have lost Possession before he needs to have it restored to him: And he must have possessed himself of it, before he can restore it. And therefore if Right binds the unjust Taker to Restitution, it must bind against Providential Possession; and the mere Possessor, without other Title, gets no Right by taking, if he is bound to restore to the rightful Owner what he has taken from him.
Again, these Precedent Rights, which the Commandment calls for this Re…litution of, by those that have taken them, and are the Providential Possessors, are human and legal Rights and Properties. For God made no Civil Properties, either to Thrones or private Estates, any where but among the Jews: All the World besides, hold these Properties by human and legal Rights. And these Rights the Command of not Stealing, or of giving and restoring Right, enjoyns the Providential Possessors, whether Kings or others, to restore to the right Owners: For it is a Command, not only for the Jews, but for all Persons and Places; and so for guarding and restoring the Rights of all Places, i. e. Human Rights, against all that take them away, that is, Providential Possessors. So, mere Success in taking another Man's human Right, or Providential Possession, without other Title, gives the Possessor no Right to it, and least of all, a better Right to it than the dispossessed Owner, in the account of the Commandment; since the Command says, it is still the others Right, and bids him, that has got it unrighteously into his Possession, to restore it.
And this Restitution of others human Rights, which a Man, by mere Providential Success, without other Title, has got into his own Possession, is a Law to Kings, in common with all other Christians. For Kings, though they are our Governours, are God's Subjects and Servants, and bound equally as we are to his Laws. If they are saved, it must not be as Kings, but as Christians; and that is, by keeping the Commandments, as they promised in their Baptism, and this, of not Stealing, but restoring what should be unjustly taken, among others; and this, in any Rights or Properties, they take from one another. The Command is, to do this to thy Neighbour; and one King is certainly Neighbour to another: And the Greatness of the thing they have taken, when they unrighteously invade a Crown or Kingdom, will never be thought to lessen the Obligation to Restitution. For no Man will say, they are bound to be just in a little thing, but not in a great one; and that if a Man steals twenty Shillings, he is bound to restore it, but not if he steals a thousand Pounds.
2. 'Tis against the Scripture Declarations about Kings, who had so unjustly possessed themselves of others Kingdoms. Who so guilty of this as the Assyrian and Babylonian Kings. (I…r. 25.) who were the great Robbers of Crowned Heads, and Spoylers of Nations, recorded in Scripture. This they succeeded in to admiration, as the Scourge of God; and got them into their Possession, which is the Right of Providence: But what thought the Spirit of God of these Possessors of other Kings Crowns, and Subjects Lands and Properties? It calls them aIs. 14. 4. 5. 6. 20.the Wicked, the evil Doers, the Oppressors, the bC. 21. 2.Spoylers, the cN…h. 2. 11. 12.Lyons. All their unjust Gettings, and Devouring of Nations, it calls an dHab. 2. 5 9.evil Coveto…sness, and eV. 12▪ 8.establishing their City by Iniquity and Violence, and fNah. 2. 12.filling their Holes with Prey and Ravine. And for all these their Oppressions, Hab. 2. 8. for Mens Blood, and for Violence and Direption of the Land, or of Lands and Countries, as *ad loc.Grotius; and for the Iniquity of their Fathers, Isa. 14. & Jer. 51. it denounces to the Babylonians the most extreme Plagues; yea, the Judgment of a just Retaliation, That they should be punished, Jer. 25. 12. 14. &. c. 51. 56. by recompencing and requiting them in their own way, and according to their own Deeds; God making other Nations to serve themselves of them, as they before had served themselves of others. Now if Success and Possession was God's Grant, and gave them the best Right to them, why is building up their Empire thereby, and having and holding such an heap of Nations and new Possessions, termed evil and insatiable Covetousness, Iniquity, Violence, and Ravine? And why all this Vengeance for the same? Sure, not for holding what God by a just Right had this way made their own.
This heaping up of ill got Nations, and unjust Possessions, is charged also as increasing what is not Habak. 2. 5, 6.his, and great and sudden Woes Denounced thereto. And what sort of Right then is it, That such Possession gives when the thing Possessed is none of his, and heavy Woes light upon him for taking, and not rest…ring it to the right Owners?
3. It would leave no such thing as an Usurper in the World, contrary to the common Sense of Mankind: For an Usurper is one that Intrudes upon another's Right; but there is an end of Usurpation, when a Man only holds his own and the Possessor has the best Right. And thus it would be, if Providential Possession gave such Right, as is pretended.
And the Effect of this would be, That no Dispossessed Prince could ever righteously endeavour to recover his Throne; or any other Princes, who thought him wrong'd, righteously assist him therein. For it would be very unrighteous in him, as in any other Person, to covet or take away the Possessor's Right; that is, not to let every one have his own, or to give him what in Right belongs to him; as the Throne this way would to the Possessor, more than to any other Man.
To this the Author says, p. 26. That Providence leaves the dispossed Prince his Legal Right; that is, for all this Providential Change of Persons, the Law, which makes the Legal Title, is still the same it was. But has it the same effect it had, to make the Crown his? No; Providence, he says, is a better Right, and makes the Crown another's. Now, if where another has got the better Right of Providence, this Legal Right cannot make the Crown his; with what Justice can he, or any of his Friends, though least obliged to the Possessor, seek by Force to get it? Can he justly take that by Force, which is none of his own? And would it be just to force away another's rightful Crown from him? So this legal Right cannot justifie him in any Attempt to disseize the Possessor, who holds it by a better Right, than he can pretend to it. The Reason is, because it has only the Name of Right, without any Thing of the real Purpose, and Effect thereof; for the use and in…nt of Right is to make a Thing his. Whereas, by a better Title, the Crown this way is anothers; and it can be the Property but of one of them, not of both. And since it is all the intent of Right to make Property, that only is the real Right that gives the Property; and both cannot have a real and effective Right to it at once, because they cannot both be Proprietors: So the best Right alone stands for the Right; and whilst it lasts sets the Weaker Right aside; and therefore the Dispossessed Prince having only the Legal, which is the worse Right, in respect to the Possessor, whose Title is better, has no Right. And then his seeking to recover, and take possession of that Throne, whereto at present he has no good Right; and from him that has, must unavoidably, on this Principle, be very Unrighteous.
But now, it is not Unrighteous for those Dispossessed Princes, that have legal Rights to their Crowns, to seek to recover them, if they can, out of the Hands of the unjust Possessors; as David did when Dispossessed, and Driven out of the Land by Absalom; and K. Charles II. when kept out by Usurpations of that Time; and as was done of late by the Duke of Lorrain; and is wont to be done in all Times, as such Dispossessed Princes can find any Assistance, or Opportunity to Repossess themselves: And the common Sense and Justice of Mankind acquits them of all Unrighteousness in so doing. And this the Author himself owns, both in the place last Cited, and in other places.
Now this, I think, is a clear Proof, that Possession, or a right of Providence▪ doth not set aside a legal Right; since▪ on the contrary, a legal Right stands Good, and is to set it aside. The legal Owner may make any attempts to Dispossess, and turn out the Possessor, and it is all Right, and has nothing Unrighteous in it. And what a kind of Right must that of the Possessor be then, which may be broken and invaded without any Unrighteousness, and which he may very Righteosly be Hindered and Dispossessed of? This right of Providence, which doth not render the Dispossessed Invader Unrighteous, is much the same for Right as the former rightless Authority, which can challenge no Obedience, is for Authority; that is, some Men may call them so when they please, but in reality they are not so at all.
Particularly one Scripture Instance, justified by the Chap. 23. & Can. 23.Convocation in Bishop Overal's Book, by †De jur. B. & P. l. 1. c. 4. Art. 18.Grotius, & others, and by this Reverend Person himself, amounts fully to a judged Case, I think, in this Business; and that is the Case of Ioash. Here was plainly a Contest which should have the Subjects Allegiance, legal Right, or illegal Possession, which is set up by him as the Right of Providence. Athaliah was set up by Providence, and possessed of the Throne, and had been so for above six years, 2 King. 11. 4. Young Ioash, who had been kept from Athaliah's Cruelty by the Care of his Aunt, had no Possession, but had t… Legal Right▪ being the legal Heir of the House of David. Now, when this young Heir was madeknown to them, which were the Jews to own, and to whom were they to pay their Allegiance; to him, that had the legal Right, or to her, who had the Possession? To him that had the Legal Right they pay it: Iehoiadah the Chief Priest, and the other Jews, without any Regard or Conscionable hindrance from her present Possession, agreeing together by Cov…nant and Oath to set up and to serve their Rightful King. And accordingly they did so, and thrust her out of the Possession of his Throne; and are all confessed to have done well therein.
To take off this, he says, (p. 34. 35.) all this Story amounts to, is only returning to their Allegiance, after the Legal Heir …as p…ssessed of his Throne; Joash being first Anointed and Proclaimed, before any stirred against Athaliah. But I think entring into Plots, and binding themselves by Oaths and Covenants to pull her down, and set up another, and coming all armed to set up and defend the new King; were Breaches of Allegiance to the height, if their Allegiance was due to her, as having the actual Administration of the Government, and being in Possession of the Crown. And all this was before they Anointed and Proclaimed the young King. (2 King. 11. 4. &c. to verse 12▪) And when this Proclamation came, is Proclamation in one corner of a City thorough Settlement, so as immediately to settle one, and dispossess the other, though in quiet Possession, for any thing that appears of all the rest of the Kingdom? And yet this th…rough Settlement in the Exercise of Government, which this young Prince had not time to exercise, much less to be se…ed in, is to carry▪ Allegiance on any Change, according to his Notion. And after all, if the Right must have the Allegiance after Proclamation, it will not serve in the present Dispute; which is about the Dueness of Allegiance …o one supposed to have legal Right, who had long been Proclaimed and Possessed King.
He adds, (p. 35.) That in this Case God …ad in…ailed the Crown. … where the Right comes upon a Person by a Divine▪ Inta…l, when the Person is known, Subjects are never to submit to any Usurper's Government, but to persecut… them to the utmost.
But what need of having Recourse, to the Divinity of the Intail, in this Case? The Purpose of it is only to make Ioash's Right, to be a better Claim, and to stand Good against Athaliah's Unrighteous Possession; and this is the common Effect of all Right, whether Divine or Human. For all Rights, whether Human or Divine, equally oblige the Unrighteous Providential Possessor to restitution, as I observed; that being to give the same Guard to Rights out of Iury, as to Rights in it. And if human Right equally oblige to Restitution, it will stand good against the Unjust Providential Possessor, as much as divin… Right would; for that could only oblige him to restore it. And all Right, obliging the violent Taker thus to Restitution, makes that no Man can ever Ground a Right on doing Wrong.
The Validity and Goodness of Ioash's Right to the Throne then, which Athaliah he… in her Unjust Possession, was as it was a Right, not as it was Divine. And had the Intail been human, his Right would have been as Good against her usurped Possession. And having the best and only Right, to the regal Authority, he only had the Authority; and then to him alone was the Allegiance Due. Authority still being his, who has the best Right to it, and obliging Subjects to Obedience, whether a Man is possessed or no of External Strength to exercise it; yea, and to as full and firm an Allegiance, when it is held by an Human Title, as when by a Divine Title, as I have shewed before, ch. 3. pag. 23.
And as for what he ascribes to the Divine Intail, viz. when the Person is known to make it unlawful to submit to any Usurper against him: Was not this Divine Intail as Strong, for Iehojakim and Zedekiah, as it was for Ioash, they being all equally of David's Line? And yet it did not make it unlawful for the Jews to submit to the usurping Kings of Egypt and Babylon, whilst they knew of these Persons. (2 King. c. 23. & c. 24.) Nay, God himself approved of that Submission and Subjection, and threatens Zedekiah, (Ezek. 17.) for his Perfidiousness and rebellious Breach of the same. So the hindrance of Submission to usurping Athaliah, lay not in the Divineness of the Intail, which might as well have brooked Submission unto her as unto them, and which differed not in this from other Intails, viz. in giving such Right as would last, and have its effect, after another was wrongfully possest of it; but such as the right Owner himself might part with, and give up by his Consent: But it lay in the Crown's being intail'd at all, to give a certain Person Right; and in his standing upon that Right, and claiming it. What made the Difference in point of Submission, in these Cases, was, because there was no Competition in their Case; Iehojakim and Zedekiah coming themselves into those Submissions, under the Egyptian and Babylonian Usurpers. But in her Case, there was Ioash claiming his rightful Throne, which she was unrighteously possest of: And when he made the Claim, and stood in Competition, his just Right was to carry it against her unjust Possession; as it will do in the Case of any other Person, no Right yeilding to wrongful Possession, but obliging the Possessor to restore it back again. And when his Right was good, to carry the Regal Authority, and make it his own; it was of course to carry the Allegiance, which was the Due thereof, and that without any Hindrance from her Possession, as has been formerly proved. (Chap. 4.)
Thus, on all these Accounts, doth this Principle of Providential Possession, without other Title, setting aside Legal Right, destroy all that Obligation of Right which lyes in not holding or detaining, or in making Restitution of what is unjustly got, among Kings.
2. Secondly, as to the Obligation of Right in getting, viz. its tying Kings up from violently taking each others Crowns, which is the Justice of not seizing a Neighbour's Rights, in my Opinion it will set that aside too.
The Reverend Author, I know, is by no means for allowing of the unrighteous Invasions, either of ambitious Princes, or rebellious Subjects, on any rightful Princes Crowns; which the Convoc…tion, as he observes (p. 4. 5.) from Bishop Ove… al's Book, has taken so great care to condemn. Nor should the Principle allow a…d justifie it, if he could hinder it. But Principles of True and False, Right and Wrong, must rule us, not we rule them. And if this Principle of his Right of Providence, or of God's granting a Right to what Providence, without any other Title, in Fact accomplishes, and God declares he gives, be true; I think it will give them a Right to make the Attempts, as well as to hold what they can take thereby. And if they can shew the same Right for one, as for the other, if this be a true Principle of Right, it will serve either, and make them equally Righteous in both.
If Possession without other Title is the Right of Providence; the means of Possession, without other rightful Title, is Power: And this Power is exprest, in all the intermediate Attempts and Successes, to possess themselves. So, as Possession is the Right; these Attempts that give Possession, give Right. And it would be somewhat strange for that which directly and immediately creates and gives Right, to be it self unrighteous.
But the main Reason I shall here urge, is, These Attempts have the same Right of Providence, which Possession it self has.
The Grounds of the Possessor's Right are, because Providence, which is God's Act, helps him to it: And because God declares in Scripture, That he has given the Possessor what he has thereby got. Which real Act of God in Providence, and Declaration of Grant thereby, he thinks is a good Grant of God, whose Grant is the best Right, and must set any human Right aside.
Now both these are as much for the intermediate Attempts, either of Rebellious Subjects, or Ambitious Monarchs, to possess themselves of others Crowns, as for holding them when they are possessed of them.
They have plainly the same Providence, which, as the Author says, (p. 12.) Has a hand in all Events, and doth order and dispose them. Every intermediate step they take, and advance they make, in pulling down or setting up Kings, is by and under Providence, or as truly Providential as the last is.
They have as plainly also, The same Scripture Declarations of God's sending, or charging, or giving Things, into the hands of the Ambitious, or Rebellious Attempters.
Thus 'tis plainly said of as unjust Attempts, as ever were of Ambitious Princes; particularly of the Assyrian, when he was going, like a Ravenous Lyon, to devour and prey upon all the Neighbouring Crowns, and Kingdoms. In those unjust Attempts, and Expeditions, (Is. 10. 6.) I will send him, I will give him a charge to take the spoil, and tread the Nations down, saith God; calling him in these Executions, (ver. 5. 15.) the Rod, and Staff, wherewith he Smites; and the Ax and Saw wherewith he Hews and Tears the People of his Wrath. And after of Cyrus, the King of the Medes, when he set out, on a like Attempt, to devour Babylon. The Lord hath raised up the Spirit of the King of the Jer. 51. 11. Is. 10. 26.Medes, says the Prophet, of the expedition of Cyprus against Babylon. Thou art my Battleax, Jer. 51. 20, 21, 22, 23.and Weapons of War, saith God of him, with thee will I break in pieces the Nations, and destroy Kingdoms. With thee will I break in pieces the Horse, and Chariot, and his Rider, Man and Woman, Young and Old, Shepherd and Flock, Captains and Rulers.
And the same is as plainly said of Rebellious Attempts of Distoyal Subjects; yea, of Absalom when he rebelled and rose against David, the best of Kings. I willraise up Evil against thee out of thine own House, saith 2 Sam. 12. 11, 12.God, speaking of this Insurrection; and I will take thy Wives before thine Eyes, and I will give them to thy Neighbour, to lie with them in sight of this Sun; (which Absalom did on Achitophel's Ch. 16. 21, 22.Advice, to assure all the People the Breach betwixt his Father and him was gon past Reconciliation.) And this I will do before all Israel, and before this Sun.
Such as these are the Scripture Declarations, concerning the Attempts of Ambitious Princes, for Rebellious Subjects, in this Case. He says, of the Attempters. That he raises, and stirs them up; that he sends, he charges, he smites, and hews, and saws, and breaks in pieces by them, and gives, and takes, and doth what is thereby done. All this they may plainly produce, and plead, as said by God, to give Right to them in their Attempts to get a Crown. And what more, or fuller Declarations, doth he pretend to give them a Right to wear it, when they have violently got one? So that if this help of Providence, and these and such like Scripture Declarations, must carry, not only accomplishment, but a Right from God to the Actors in the Things so spoke of; they will carry as good Right to a Foreigner for Invading, or to a Subject for Rebelling to pull down a King, as they will to either for Possessing his Throne, when they have got him down; they are as full to make Right in the Unjust and Rebellious Attempts, as in the following unjust Possessions. And why should they not be as Effectual, since Holding and Possessing is not less against Right, than Attempting is? And this way, not only the unjust Holders of others Crowns, but the Rebellious and unjust Attempters of them, would have good Right for what they do; and Men were unjust in their Censures, that thought them either Wicked or Unrighteous.
I shall only add on this Point, that this Success of Providence without other Title, is to give Right both ways, (p. 12.) both in pulling down Kings, and setting up Kings. And accordingly, (p. 11. 20,) one of his Proofs for this Providential Right, is that saying of Daniel, (ch. 2. 21.) That God removes Kings, and s…s up Kings, which he understands of God's Providence, though without other Title, not only accomplishing such Removal, or Advancement, but giving Right to it. Now Providence giving Right to pull down Kings, must be giving a Right to those that pull them down; for Right cannot be given more than Authority can, as he notes, (p. 10. Prop. 2.) but to some Person. And who are they that pull down Kings, but either Ambitious Foreign Princes, or Rebellious Subjects? Therefore Providence must give this Right to them. And if they act nothing without a sufficient Right of Providence, Wherein should such injust Invasions, or Rebellions, be thought Unrighteous?
Thus would this Author's Principle of Providential Possession, without other Title, giving the best Right to Crowns, Destroy all Obligation of Right and Wrong among Kings, either in getting, or in keeping Crowns. And what a calamitous Misfortune would this be to them? For what Men in this World have more to secure therein than Kings? And the Obligations of Right and Wrong, are the best Security to them, as they are to all Mankind besides: If they are under no Obligation to do Right, they will have no claim to receive any, but be left as Nature's Out-Laws; and where there is no regard to Right, the sole regard is to Power; and then as all they can take of anothers is their own, so all that will be anothers, either Foreign Princes, or Rebellious Subjects, which can be taken from them: Now this is a State, that is not Human but Foreign. It is the State of Beasts, or Creatures of Prey, that have no restraint but Power, and catch what they can; and would be aggravated, and made so much worse in Men than it is in them, because Men have Reason, and they have none: For Prey without Reason, is infinitely less Mischievous, than Prey with it; if making a Prey of others is the only use to be made thereof. And can this possibly be the State of God's Vice-gerents, which doth not only Unking, but Unman them, and make their State worse than that of the Beasts themselves?
And this is to bring in all the mischievous Effects of Mr. Hobbi's Notion of Power, in making his State of War; for where all is lefe to Strength and Power, there is a State of War. Peace stands by Right, which is to restrain Power; for where Right Rules, it will be held quietly and securely, by the weaker against the stronger. But War gets, and holds all by Power: And this is the most rightful way of getting and holding, if Power carry away the best Right along with it. So that whosoever has Power enough, has Right to seize as much, and to subdue as many as he pleases.
Mr. Hobbs, he observes, (p. 15.) makes Power, and nothing else to give Right to Dominion. But he makes a Derivation of Right from God, who is Lord of the World by a Title of Right, having made it. And makes Power only to carry this Right from God, which it carries inseperably, though not naturally, or as a certain Sign to us, that where God has placed and settled the Power, he has given the Authority.
I will not here Dispute why it may not be left to Power, or Strength, to carry Right and Authority in the Spring, as well as in the Stream; and to give Right, as well as inseperably to carry it. But for all this Difference about the way, how it came by it, since Strength always has Right, there will be no Difference in the Effect. Strength, or Power, it seems, still carryes Right from God inseperably along with it. And Right always carried by Power, is not a Right to settle Peace, but to make War; not a Right to secure the Weaker, but to give all to the Stronger: So his Power carrying Right, throws all into a State of War, as much, I conceive, as Mr. Hobbs's Power giving it; and adds the grant of God to boot, as if in this way of getting all by War, and the Stronger taking from the Weaker, they all the while kept to that course of Right, which God has given them to walk by. Nay, if at last, by breaking the Strength of rightful Opposers in this way of power, they come peaceably to enjoy such Gettings; yet is not that the Peace which God intends, which is a Peace with Justice, or for every Man peaceably to enjoy his own, not for one Man to live at Peace in possessing another Man's Rights and Properties; which God all the while calls upon him to restore to him, to whom of Right they do belong.
To this effect, of its destroying all Obligation of Right and Wrong among Kings. I add,
2. Secondly, That this Notion of Providential Right would confirm and authorize all illegal Invasions of Kings upon their own Subjects. The Reason is, because when he invades either their Liberties or Properties, and grasps at more Authority or Possessions among them, than doth by Right and Law belong to him; all the Success he has is by Providence: And these unjust Attempts upon his own Subjects, have like Scripture Declarations, as other unjust Attempts on any Neighbour Kings. Let the Evil of the City be Arbitrariness and Oppression; shall there be any Evil in the City, saith the Prophet, and the Lord hath not done it? Am. 36. Do the Israelites labour under the heaviest Servitude and Oppressions, whilst Subject to the King of Egypt? God turned their Hearts to hate his People, and deal subtilly with his Servants, says David, Ps. 105. 25. Doth Rehobeam's Heart devise Tyranical Rigours and Oppressions, and his rough Answer threaten the people to Chastise them with Scorpions? The Scripture tells us, the Cause was from the Lord, 1 King. 12. 13. 14. 15. Unrighteous, Ravenous, and Oppressive Kings, whom God calls his Rod, and Staff, and Battle Ax, and the like; are as much so, when turned upon their own Subjects, as when upon foreign Princes. And whatever are the Counsels of the King's heart, whether against Subjects or Strangers, the Scripture declares in general, That the King's heart is in God's hand, and that he turns it whithersoever he will, Prov. 21. 1. So that in their Domestick Invasions, Kings have as good Plea of Providence, and as good Scripture Declarations, of God's turning their Hearts, and causing, and doing, and acting, by them therein, as in any others. And in Reason, methinks, if they were to get Right by any Invasion of Rights, it should be most especially in invading the Rights and Liberties of their own Subjects. The Consideration of their being Subjects may give more pretence, and embolden him to take greater Liberties, and bind them to more patient Sufferance, than when the like is done to other Kings, that stand with him upon even Terms, and are no ways Subject to him at all.
But now, 'tis plain Kings do not get Right by such mere unrighteous Invasions, without other Title, of Subjects Rights and Properties. As Abab did not, by unjustly possessing himself of Naboth's Vineyard: Nor Iehojakim, by having his eyes and heart only for shedding innocent Blood, and Oppression and Violence, and by building his House by Unrighteousness, and his Chambers by Wrong; whom God did not look upon as having any Right therein, but denounces a Woe upon him, Jer. 22. 13. 17. And if this must be the Consequence of this Right of Providence, to give as good Authority and Confirmation to any Invasions our Kings shall make upon our Rights, as to any, that other Princes shall make upon theirs; I think neither Prince nor Subjects have any great Cause to be fond thereof.
3. Thirdly, It confirms the unjust Possessions and Invasions one private Subject shall make upon the Properties of another. If Robbers or Pyrates possess themselves of other Mens Money or Goods, by this Principle they have a better Right thereto than the legal Owners. For their Possession is by Providence, that delivered the Sufferers into their hands: And it is as much authorized as the other, by Scripture Expressions. The Lord hath taken away, saith Iob, when the Sabean and Chaldean Robbers had taken and carried away his Substance, Iob 1. 21. And, 'tis what the Lord hath sent, is the Reflection of all serious persons upon these Misfortunes. So there is as much Providence, and as much said of it in private as in publick Robberies. Both then have equally the Right of Providence: And that, says he, is better than any Right the Legal Owners had by human Laws. So that as it ousts Kings of their Crowns, it will oust private Persons of their Purses; and make all private Robbers, as well as publick Usurpers, to hold their Purchase by the best and most rightful Titles.
To this he says, (p. 34.) That the Dispute is not about human or legal Right in either Case. 'Tis not, I grant, whether either Usurpers or Robbers, have a legal Right to what they have got; which no Man, that understands what he talks of, will Dispute; but 'tis whether they have not another Right, viz. Providential Right, which shall set aside both the Dispossessed Prince's, and Private Owner's legal Rights. And if Providence, and the foresaid Scripture Declarations made such Providential Right; 'tis plain they are as much on the side of a private Robber, as of an Usurper, and so would give that Right to both, if they did to either.
But the Dispute, adds he, (ibid.) is about Authority; and no Man will pretend that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Authority, which the Persons robbed are bound to submit to. But who puts the Objection so? What the Thief pretends to, is the Purse, which is matter of Property; and what the Usurper claims, is the Crown, which is matter of Authority: And Right is necessary to both in their respective pretences, if they would hold them righteously. This can be no legal Right, which rests still with the dispossessed Prince and private Sufferers. But the Author has found a Providential Right better than the Legal, to give the Usurper the best Right to the Authority. And that will serve as well for the Thief or Pyrate, and give him the best Right to the Property. And if he can hold his stolen Goods, by as good Right as Usurpers may their Usurped Crowns; by this Principle, in the Eyes of God, he may all the time be very Righteous: For God is no respecter of Persons; and so when he justifies one, he will not condemn the other, when he can make the same Plea, and acts upon the very same Grounds.
If this Right of Providence is the best Right, it will be the best for every thing that is to go by Right; and then it will be the best Title to Property, as well as to Authority. Yea, Goods and Properties are expresly mentioned in those Scripture Declarations, which are thought by him to carry this Right of Providence to unjust Possessors of others Crowns. When I send the Assyrian against an Hypocritical Nation, I will give him a charge to take the Spoyl, and the Prey, saith God, Is. 10. 6. And God is as expresly said to have taken David's Wives, and to have given them to Absalom, as to have given him his Crown, 2 Sam. 12. 12. So the gift and charge of God in Providence, was as much for Estates and Properties, as for Crowns; and gave a Right to both, if it did to either. Nay, there is more likelihood of Providential Possession, without other Title, giving Right to Goods and Properties, than to Authority. For Money and Goods may be forcibly taken, but Authority, as I formerly observed, cannot be forcibly taken, being a Moral Quality, and Spiritual Thing: And it seems very strange, that forcible Possession should be a Title to Authority, which cannot be forcibly Possessed. But it would be more strange, if at the same time, it gives the Usurper a Title to what he cannot, it should be able to give him no Title to what he can, and doth by force Possess himself of.
To all this I might add, How the making such Scripture Expressions of God's Acting in Providence, a Commission of Right to the Actors, in all the evil Things spoken of, would lead us to justify all other Unrighteousness. If the Jews murder our Saviour Christ himself by wicked Hands; he was first delivered to them, not only by the foreknowledge, but determinate Counsel of God, saith St. Peter, Act. 2. 23. If one Man kills another, God delivered the slain into the Hands of the Murderer, saith the Law, Ex. 21. 13. If the Righteous suffer violence from the Wicked, those Wicked are God's Sword, saith the Psalmist, Ps. 17. 13. If in Extremities of a Siege, Parents shall act the most unnatural Things, Eating the Flesh of their own Children; or, each Man Eating the Flesh of his Friend, I cause it, saith the Lord, Ier. 19. 9. In sum, whatever ill is done, it is brought about by the Providence of God, as well as by the Wickedness of Men. Shall there be Evil in a City, and the Lord hath not done it? saith the Prophet, Am. 3. 6. I form Light, and I create Darkness; I make Peace, and create Evil: I the Lord do all these Things, says God, Is. 45. 7. He hath wrought all Things for himself, saith the wise Man, even the Wicked for the Day of Evil; or to vent their Wickedness on them, to whom he sees fit to send Evil, Prov. 16. 4. So that if the part of Providence, were not only to accomplish the Events, wherein all that God himself doth is most just, and for just Ends, but also to give Right to others, that act in them; these Wickednesses would be rightfully done, and there would be no such thing as Unrighteousness left in the Actions of Men.
And thus on all these Accounts, I think, it may sufficiently appear how this fancied Right of Providence, or making mere Providential Possession of other Mens legal Rights, without other Title, the best Right and Title to them, would quite destroy the common nature and use of Right and Wrong. If there is any such Thing as Right, it must govern Providential Possession, and not give way to it. Attempts for Possession must suppose Right to justify them: And Possession it self must suppose other Right, to continue and hold it on, because if it is a Possession, not of our own, but of another's Right, it must not be held, but restored and given back again. And the governing and guarding Possession, is all the use and intent of Right among Men; which is for this very Design, that every Man may quietly and uninterruptedly have, and hold his own. So once exempt Possession from being subject to Right, and the use of Right is gon; and make Right to go by Possession, and there is neither need of, nor benefit by Right among Mankind.