The Duty of Allegiance, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
This Right by mere Providential Possession, disproved by other Arguments.
SEcondly, That mere Providential Possession, without other Title, doth not give the Right of a Throne to one, or take it from another, may appear from the use of Providence.
Providence, or Providential Success, is seen in helping Princes to get other Mens rightful Crowns, or private Men to get their Neighbours rightful Possessions. But the use it serves in these unjust Gettings, is not to give those it helps and speeds therein, any Right or Title to them. For,
1. First, Right is limitted to Righteous Events; but the Success of Providence is to be common to all Successful Events. If Success carryed Right, it would carry it to all that Succeeds; that is, to all that prosperously happens, or comes to pass: And so all Successful Events would have Right in them, and then there would be none Unrighteous among them. But 'tis plain the most wicked Persons, and Projects, have had the most conveyed Successes: This has been the very Difficulty that has ever most Scandalized, and Staggered the Righteous in the Belief of Providence, To see the Prosperity of the Wicked, and their strange Temporal Success in the most ungodly Courses, as the Psalmist observes, Ps. 73. 2, 3. &c. and Ps. 37. 7. There is one Event, saith the wise Man, to the Righteous and the Wicked; the Observation whereof, Makes the Hearts of Men full of Evil; all Things here come alike to all, and no Man knows either Love or Hatred, by all that is before him, Eccles. 9. 12. 3. So that Right is far from being so wide, and extending to so many, as Success doth. It is confined to some Actions and Successes; and an infinite Number of others, God knows, are Unrighteous; and therefore that which carryes Right from God, must be something that is limitted to those good Actions; and Successes that have Right, and not any Thing that is mentioned, or common to all those bad ones, that want it.
And this, in absence of express Revelation to make Divine Right, is Legal or Human Right. This is a Right that God owns; and his Laws about doing Right secure, as far as any Laws can do it. And this Human Right, limits Right only to Righteous Actions and Successes; for they are the only Actions and Successes, which are according to it: And so also do the Laws of God that back it; for they justifie only the Observers of this precedent Right, and condemn all the violent Intruders and Detainers thereof. So this Ground of Right is adaequate to those Actions and Successes that have Right; justifying all those Providential Attempts and Issues, that are according to this Right; and condemning all as Unrighteous that are against it.
2. Secondly, The Providence in the Cases here Disputed, Is a Providence in Unrighteous Actions and Successes. And the use thereof in them, cannot be to give Right to them; for that would be to make Men do Right whilst they are doing Unrighteosly, which is a contradiction.
The Assyrian, for instance, all the time he was spoyling Kings of their Crowns, and People of their Possessions, under the Shelter of this Plea of Providence, was most horribly Unrighteous. His gettings, as I observed before, are term'd Violence and Ravine. All his Violences, which if we look at the Hand of God, upon the Oppressed Kings and Kingdoms, were God's just Scourge and Vengeance upon the Sufferers; as they concerned himself, Were a filling up the Measure of his own Sins, and making him Ripe for like fearful Vengeance. When the Lord hath performed his Work by him, he will punish the Assyrian, Is. 10. 12. When all the rest of the Nations had drunk of the Cup of Fury; the King of Sheshach shall drink after them, Jer. 25. 15. 26. And all the Vengeance that came upon Usurping and Oppresive Babylon afterwards, was a requital of Vengeance for their former Violences. The Vengeance of the Lord, and of his Temple, Jer. 51. 11. His Vengeance in recompensing her, in the way of her own Violence, and doing to her according as she had done to others, Jer. 25. 14. &c. 50. 15. Even because she had spoyled many Nations, all the Remnant of the People should spoyl her: and the Woe should come upon her, because of Mens Blood, and for the Violence of the Land, of the City, and of all that dwell therein, Habak. 2. 8. And the Case is alike with all other, either Princes or private Persons, when they are made use of by Providence in any Unrighteous Acts, which are plainly against the Rules of Justice and God's Laws; as in all the preceding instances, of Providence serving it self by Men, in their doing the worst Things.
Now since Providence is concerned here, in Acts that God Blames and Condemns, and, for which he takes Vengeance; 'tis plain the part of Providence is not to give Right to the Actors, which would render them Unpunishable, Righteous and Blameless; but it has other Ends, which may be served by the Actors having no Right to what they do, but being therein most Unrighteous. For Providence justly serves it self of Wicked, and Unrighteous Men, and Actions, not by commanding any Unrighteousnes, or inclining Men to be Unrighteous, which would make Providence a sharer in the Unrighteousness; but, when in the way of free Creatures, Is. 10. 7.They are bent upon Unrighteousness themselves, as God declares the Assyrian was, in so ordering Occasions and Opportunities, and over-ruling Issues, as shall make them serve his own just Purposes thereby, against a Prince, or People of his Wrath; which the unjust Actors and Executioners, as he says of the Assyrian, never dream'd of. And this serving his own righteous Ends, by Mens unrighteousness, leaves Right and Wrong, to be still the same they were among them. So that look only to the Actor, and there is no Right for what is done, or possessed by him; but look up to God, whose Providence ordered their unjust Actions to fall upon those that offended him, and which he will over-rule to accomplish his just Ends; and the Sufferers themselves must needs say, there is Justice in his Ordering.
And upon this I shall note, What the concern of Providence is, in the unrighteous Acts and Successes of Kings; or others he makes use of, which is expressed by his Sending, or Charging, or Ruleing, or Setting up, or Pulling down, or Giving, or Taking by them, &c. All which speak God's Providence, not giving Right, or authorizing the Actors, or their Actions, but effectually accomplishing, and serving his own Purposes thereby.
They speak not God's giving Right, or authorizing the Actors, or their Actions; as is plain, because it is in Actions that he accounts and calls Unrighteous, and will take Vengeance for, as has been shewn of the Assyrian; and as is plain of all the forecited horribly wicked and unrighteous Actions; concerning which, notwithstanding, the Scripture uses these Expressions. And no Man that will retain any Reverence for God, or Regard of Good and Evil, can think otherwise.
But they speak Providence effectually accomplishing, and serving its own wise Purposes by them.
This is not by God's Counselling, or any ways Inciting the unrighteous Actors, to their wicked and unjust Attempts. The desire and disposition of Mind, proceeds only from Satan and themselves. And when they ingage in them, it is only as set on by their own Ambition or Avarice, or other Corrupt Passions; and all they seek to serve therein, is not God, or his Purposes; which, perhaps, they never think of, but only their own wicked and unjust Appetites. As God declares of the Assyrian, who meant nothing by all his Invasions, as God did, but only pursued an insatiable Thirst of Empire, and thought to destroy, and cut off Nations not a few, Is. 10. 7. no more than the wicked Jews thought of serving those Ends, by the Crucifixion of Christ, for which God had preordained it; or the Actors in any other Wickedness, think of ministering to those good Purposes, whereto an over-ruling Providence makes them serve, by bringing Light out of Darkness.
But when Men are fully disposed, and prepared of themselves, either unjustly to inlarge Empire, or to act any other Unrighteousness; the part of Providence in effectually accomplishing what God designs thereby; I shall particularly note in these two Things.
1. In directing them to Objects. This Providence doth, by suiting Accidents and Circumstances, and making all things conspire that the People, or Persons of his Wrath, shall fall in the way of those that are bent to spoil them, when they have no Discouragements or Impediments, either to dishearten or divert them. Or by over-ruling those things from which they take their Measures and Determinations, so as to fix their Resolutions and Motions against whom he pleases. And this Act of Providence the Scripture notes in the Assyrian, whose general hunger to devour all, was by God thus sixt upon Ierusalem. Cast a Mount against Ierusalem, saith God by the Prophet, this is the City to be visited, Jer. 6. 6. And when he was in Doubt within himself, at the division of the Ways leading to each, whether to march against the Jews or Ammonites; God over-rules his Lots and Divinations, to make them pass by the Ammonites at that time, and fall upon Ierusalem, as Ezekiel declares, Ezek. 21. 19, 20, 21, 22, 24.
2. In determining and over-ruling Issues, making the Actors Violence and Unrighteousness to serve his own Righteous Ends, which they never dreamed of: As he did the Assyrians Violence, to avenge his Quarrel on the People of his Wrath: And the Wickedness and Unrighteousnes of all others, either Princes or private Persons, Providentially limiting all, that they shall neither fall out sooner, nor procede farther, nor rest longer upon the Persons allotted for them, than he sees fit: And that they shall serve, either for Tryal of Patience, or Punishment of Wickedness; or prove Steps to Good or Ill in the end, as he pleases.
Now this Determination to Objects and Issues, effectually accomplishes the Events; which therefore is called God's sending, and charging, or giving and taking, and the like, in the foresaid Scriptures: And all, without the least Regard to authorizing and giving Right to the Actors, which is not to be expected in unrighteous and punishable Actions, and which God therein doth not at all meddle with. What needs Right, is going at all on such Errands, and violently seizing what is their Neighbours. And this they have not at all from him, but the Bent and Disposition thereto is all their own. But when they are set upon this by their own Avarice, Ambition, or other corrupt Passions; Providence ministers Accidents and Opportunities, which come not to them in way of authorizing, but of trying, as they do to every one else, in an unrighteous Action, And these Accidents and Opportunities, to a mind so prepared, will ascertain the Accomplishments, and limit and over-rule it, as God sees fit; and so bear out all these Scripture Expressions of God's accomplishing, without any thing of his giving Right and authorizing; which no one must expect from him in an evil or unrighteous thing.
3. Thirdly, That this Right of Providence, or mere Providential Possession, without other Title, doth not set aside Legal Right, may appear from the Authority of our own Laws. The constant Method of Law is, To give any thing in Dispute to the legal Title, against the illegal Possessor. This is manifest in all private Rights. If a Man has a legal Title to any thing, the Law every Term ejects the illegal Possessor, for all he has the Plea of Providential Possession against the other. And 'tis plainly so in the legal Title to the Crown too.
This appears by all the forementioned Proofs of the Laws looking upon the dispossessed Prince, with legal Title, still as King; and making the Allegiance of all the Subjects to continue due to him; yea, of the Usurper himself, if he were a Subject before. And attainting him, as well as them, for Treasonable Breaches of the same; so making the Providential Possessor a Traitor to the Legal Owner, as I have shewn from sundry Acts of Parliament and judged Cases, in behalf of the dispossessed rightful Kings. All which, establishing the legal King's Authority, against the Providential Usurper's, shew plainly, That our Law thinks better of a legal Right, than of the Author's Right of Providence. To which I will add the Judgment of the Parliament, 39 H. 6. on a Competition betwixt these two Titles. For H. 6. had the Providential Right, and had Reigned King himself for almost Forty Years; and all that the D. of York had to oppose against it was his Legal Right: And yet that Parliament R…t. Parl. 39. H. 6. N…. 18.confess, the Duke's Title of Legal Right could not be Defeated.
Indeed, if Providential Possession were the best Right, there would be very little use of the legal Right. Yes, says he, (p. 15.) it would bar all other human Claims. But the Right of Providence, according to his Notion, has barr'd these better. And what use of a worse Title, to do that which a better has done before? If a P…ince is in the Throne, he needs not to hold by it; for his Providential Possession will exclude all other Princes, and oblige his own Subjects, as effectually as any human Right would. And if he is out of the Throne, he cannot claim by it, because it is the Possessor's by a better Right, and no Man can honestly claim that from another, which he has a better Title to than himself. And if it is of no use to a King, either for holding a Crown whilst he has it, or for recovering it when he has lost it, I think there is no great account to be made of it.
I shall now,
4. Fourthly, in the last place, add some Authorities in this Case, to shew how valid these Legal Rights have been held, against Providential Usurpations and Possessions, both by the Primitive and our own Church.
As for the Primitive Church, they saw several Competitions of these Two Titles. In one Part or other of the Empire, some were still assuming the Purple, and setting up in Fact against the legal Emperor; and these were Possessed for their Time of the Countreys where the Defection was, the People being all in their Power, and publick Acts passing in their Names; and this sometimes continuing for Years, before they and their adherents were Overthrown, or Reduced by the lawful Emperors. If Providential Possession, without other Right then, carries the best Title, here was the Title of Providence, for so much as they possessed; the whole Power of those Places being in their Hands, and they being able there to crush all Opposers. And if God grants Right where he grants Power, here was a Divine Right, to so much as these Usurpers had got into their Power. But yet, the Christians in those Places never thought this a Warranty to cast off their lawful Emperor, as being this way disauthoriz'd by God, and to turn Subjects to these Usurpers, as having God's Authority in these Countreys put into their Hands: So, never any Christians would stick to them, or act under them, as in Obedience to God's Authority they should have done, had they thought them now to be the Emperors of God's making among them. Nunquam Albiniani, nunquam Nigriani, &c. *Apol. c. 35. & ad Scap. c. 2.says Turtullian, that is, Their Enemies could never give an instance when they turned to any such Usurper, or took part in such Defection; Two whereof, viz. that by Niger, and another by Albinus, were fresh in Memory at that time: Herein keeping strictly and conscientiously to the Apostle's limitation, who requires them to submit to the King as Supreme, and to those sent to govern the Provinces, only as to Governors sent by him; and so not to submit, and stick to them, when they set up for themselves against him, 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14.
As for our own Church of England, we have had a like signal Competition between them in the long Usurpations, till King Charles the Second's Restauration; and as full a Declaration has been made of the Churches Sense therein, and of the validity of the King's legal Title, against these Usurpers mere Providential Possession, as can ordinarily be made by the Actings and Sufferings, the Preaching and Printing, of the Church Men, both all the time of the Usurpations, and for near Thirty Years together since. And this, I think, is good Argument in this way of Arguing, viz. from Authority; though, he says, (p. 45, 46.) There is only Prejudice, but no Argument in it. For such Preaching and Suffering, for this Doctrine, by the great…st Lights and con…est Pillars of the Church, during all the Days of Usurpation, and such constant Maintenance of the same, both by Books a…d Sermons on the Aniversary Days, and other Occasions of treating on that Subject, in all Places of the Kingdom ever since till this Revolution, must needs clear this to have been the Churches Doctrine; and that after it had been put most upon studying the Point, and delivering its Sense therein. And this Churches Authority, he says, Is a venerable Authority, and thinks there is good Argument in it, when (p. 3. &c.) he seeks to confirm his own Opinion, from Bishop Overal's Convocation Book.
But a great Pr…judice, he says, (p. 46.) the received Sense, and Censure of those Usurpations is to his Right of Providence: And very well it may, upon many Accounts. For a King, in his Notion, (p. 12.) …s removed, and disauthorized, by God, when Providence thrusts him from the Throne, and …akes the Government, that is, actual Government, out of his hand. And another King, or Commonwealth (for the Case is the same under any Form,) is set up, and cloathed with God's Authority, when Providence advances them to his Throne, and puts the actual Government into their hand. Now, when King Charles …. stood arraigned before the High Court of Justice, Providence had thrust him out of his Throne, and taken the actual Government out of his hand, and put it in the hand of the Rump Parliament. Then had he none of God's Authority, nor any Allegiance due to him? Then his Tryal was no Tryal of the real, but only nominal King; God having first removed that Authority and actual Government from him, which made him King, and Allegiance due to him. Then were his Judges no Traytors; and his Murder no Treason: Which is quite against the received Opinion of Church of England Men.
Again, as to his Son King Charles II. after his Death, when he came into England with an Army, at Worcester Fight, the R…mp Parliament were Providentially possessed of all the Power and Exercise of Government, and had been for two years and an half; which is a longer time than has passed hitherto, for the Possession of the same, or Settlement of the present Government. If then God's Authority goes with such Exercise and Possession, they had God's Authority here, and he had it not. Then if he came as an Englishman, he could be nothing here but a Subject. Then was his leading an A…my through England, and Attempts to raise one in it, against the Rump Parliament, a Rebellious Arming against God's Authority and Ordinance; and he and all his Adherents were Rebels against the Common-Wealth: And all, that stir'd in his Cause afterwards, were Guilty of the Scriptural Resisting of Authority, or higher Powers; and their Sufferings were just Executions: They deserved to dye for it here, and, without Repentance, were in danger to be eternally condemn'd for it hereafter. All which are likewise very cross to the Church of England received Opinions; yea, and to the Opinion of this Reverend Person, who is far enough from charging these things upon them: And his Endeavour in this point is, to exempt his Principle of Providential Right from authorizing the Usurpers of that time, or aspersing the Loyal Adherents of the Legal Right, with the foregoing Imputation.
There is Difference, he says, (p. 46.) betwixt these two Cases; and he instances in many particulars. The only Question is, Whether any of the Points of Difference assigned, make a Difference in the Possessors Authority, and Subjects Allegiance. If not, theirs was God's Authority by his Providential Right, for all the Differences: And the King, and all the Loyalists, resisting God's Authority, would therein have been rebellious, as is before alledged.
For what is the Ground of all Conscionable Allegiance? God's Authority, as he rightly observes, (p. 15. 34.) and nothing else. And what makes any Person, or Body of Men, to be God's Authority or Ordinance? Is it coming well by their Power, without Villanies, or Murder of preceding Sovereigns? Or is it good use of those they have Providentially got under their Power, especially of such of them as had bore Arms in the opposite Cause, and stand still well affected to it? Is it their keeping up Bishops and Episcopal Cler…y, and Church Revenues? Or retaining Fundamental Laws and Constitutions; yea, or even Monarchy it self, or Legal Parliaments; all which are the Particulars of Difference assigned by him in this point? (p. 46. 47.) No, none of these makes any to be God's Authority or Ordinance, according to his Principles; but being set up by Providence in Possession of Power, and act…al Administration of Government. This makes both the Change of F…rm and Government, or the new Degenerate Forms of Government, as he tells us, (p. 4. 5.) from the Convaeation Book, to be God's Ordinance: And therefore as such we must own them, when actually administring, whether they be Monarchy or Commonwealth; whether all Estates, or only Commons; whether a full House, or a few Persons. And also the Change of Persons, (ib. & p. 34.) how villanously soever the Change was brought about; whether by the Injustice of Ambitious Neighbours, or by the Treason and Rebellion of Disloyal Subjects. Then, for all the Villanies of those Usurpers, and the Murder of K. Charles, and their barbarous usage of his Friends, and pulling down Bishops and Bishops Lands, and turning out malignant Clergy, and changing Monarchy to Common-wealth, and a full Representative of the Nation to a Rump Parliament: For all these, I say, since Providence had put them into Possession and Administration of Government, God had put them into his Authority, by this Principle, and they were as truly a Power of his making, and his Ordinance, by this Plea, as the present Power, or any other Providential Power and Possessor, is.
And having thus got into God's Authority, What can make them lose it? Will continuance of the same villanous Practices against the murder'd King's legal Heir, or his Friends, or the Church and Bishops? No, but only like Dispossession again by Providence. Whilst in this Possession then they were God's Ordinance, And for what Cause may Subjects Arm against God's Ordinance? May they do it for their pulling down the Church of England, or the King's Friends, out of an abhorrence they have of past, or for the Oppressions they feel by present Villanies? No, For what then would become of the D…ctrine of Non-resistance? And if they could not with a good Conscience be resisted for these, What is like to become of those Rising? Or, Who can bring them off from being as Damnable a Resistance, as any other Rebellions?
But he adds, (p. 47.) lastly, That their Government was never settled; being frequently changed, and having no National Consent.
As to Settlement, by these Principles, I do not see, that Settlement in Possession should first give Right, or Authority; but only that it should settle and continue them; for Possession gives Authority, by his Account. (p. 15. 23. 25. 32. 36.) Possession of Government must needs give actual Government; and actual Government gives Right to Allegiance, as his Discourse still asserts. (p. 26, 27. 32.) Yea, all the Scripture Texts for Obedience, as he thinks, (p. 21.) require it to be paid only to him, that Exercises Government. And claiming Allegiance, it must imply and carry Authority, since Allegiance is only due to Authority, as he also says. (pag. 15. 34.)
He then who has got Possession of the actual Government, has therewith got possessed of the Authority to govern: God by course of Providence, giving or taking both together, as he conceives, and never seperating them, so as to have Exercise of Government without Authority, or to leave Authority in one that cannot Exercise it and actually Govern; which Points his Proofs still run upon. Then possession of Power and actual Administration, gives or carries Authority; and the Settlement of that Possession, only settles the Authority. He that has a settled Possession, has got a settled Authority; and he, that is unsettled in Possession, has this way an uncertain and unsettled Authority; and as often as Providence gives or recals Possession, it will this way give and recal Authority. But wherever God's Authority is, or for how short a time soever it is, it must be obeyed out of Conscience. And therefore as to Point of Conscience, I think, by his Principles, the Question should be, whether any Usurper is possessed, or, at most, is thoroughly possessed of the actual Exercise of Government? That being the thing wherein Conscionable Allegiance is concerned. But as to the point of Secure Settlement, how long he is like to hold it, or what appearance there is of its being alter'd; that is not matter of Conscience, to shew us our Duty; but of Prudence, to consult what may be wisest for our own Safety. And that the Exercise and actual Administration of Government, was possessed by the Rump Parliament, and other Usurpers, is too manifest to be disputed.
But as to this Seitlement he speaks of; How long time must go to it? He doth not say the present Government hath had the longest time to settle it; and it had not had so much, when he judged it settled enough to take the Oath. And as for the Number of the Nation, he knows, That not many Weeks had passed for the Settlement thereof, before the Imposers themselves were to swear Allegiance; nor many Months before all the Clergy, and all others in any Office obliged by Law thereto, were called upon to do the same. And those Usurpations were of a longer Term, than any of these amount to: So that there is no Pleading want of Settlement in them, in point of time.
Again, how much Quietness must go to Settlement? 'Tis thoroughly settled, he thinks, here, though there is an actual Struggle, and two great Armies, in one Kingdom, contending for the Throne; and unsubdued Risings in another, with Suspicion of Proneness in numbers more among them to do the same. Whatever be made of the Di…contents there has been so much talk and Apprehension of here at home, yet still he will say this is a thorough Settlement, for all there are these Bars in the way to Quiet. And those Usurpations might have shewn more Quietness than this; all the three Kingdoms, at some times, being in a quiet State of Obedience.
And as to the frequent Changes he mentions, they were short liv'd indeed, for Forms of Government. But yet, for all that, being possessed of Exercise of Government, they must have God's Authority, by this Principle, and be owned and obeyed accordingly, whilst they stood. Possession would carry God's Authority, and Subjects Obedience, to change of Forms, as well as to change of Persons. But if frequent After-changes be an hindrance to thorough Settlement, those are not knowable, but by time. And if such Change, when it happens, make all the Possession before to be no good Settlement; in what a Case, on the Author's Supposition of the Dispossessed King's Legal Right, are all Swearers Consciences in such Revolutions? For if they cannot in Conscience swear away their Allegiance from the Legal Right, till a Possessor is well settled; nor his Possession is well settled, if it will be changed; there would be no swearing Allegiance to the new Government, on any such Change, with a safe Conscience, upon his Supposal of its wanting Legal Right, unless a Man knew before hand it will not be changed. And who can know that, of this Government, or of any other, without a Prophetick Spirit, which I suppose no Swearers had. And then, by these Principles, for ought I see, they swore to do, what the Event may chance to make them forsworn in, which Swearing is not to be justified.
And then, as to want of National Consent, (p. 47.) he means, I suppose, by a legal Representative of the Nation. For a Practical Consent they had, all publick Acts proceeding in their Name, and publick Officers acting by Commission from them, and all People submitting accordingly, as they do now, and acquiescing under them. Not to mention any other ways of Peoples expressing Consent by Addresses, and other Applications to them.
But why must we come to consent at all, for giving a Right of Providence? For consent is the way of getting and giving human Rights, where the Consenters have any Right to give. And if Providence be tyed to set up Kings, only by human Consent; that will put an end to the fancy'd Right of Usurped Possession, and bring it to need a bottom of Consent, or human Right, to stand upon. It will also confine the Power of God, in setting up Kings; which is (p. 25. 37, 38.) one of his great Exceptions against the legal Right. For God is confined, if he cannot make a King over Men, without human Consent, as well as if he cannot make one without human Laws. And accordingly, This necessity of human Consent in setting up and authorizing a King, (p. 25.) he expresly excepts against upon that Account.
And if Consent were necessary, Why must it be National in the legal Form? This would be to tye the Right of Providence to Laws; when as the end of seeking a Right from Providence, is to fetch Right from God, not observing human Laws, but acting above and beside them. And if the Right of Providence were to be tyed to any Laws; sure it is most fit to tye it to Laws for Right, or legal Titles. And this also would be, not only a confining the Authority and Power of God in making Kings, but confining it to human Laws, which is the very thing he Objects against legal Rights; for 'tis certainly as much a confinement of him to Laws, to confine him to legal Consent, as to legal Titles: Besides, the Providential Right is to give Authority where Laws are changed, and legal Constitutions, or Representatives are alter'd; it is to authorize change of Forms, as I noted, as well as change of Persons: And therefore would authorize new Forms of Parliament, and making Representatives, as well as all other changes of the Constitution; when once Providence had given Administration of Government, and Possession of Power into their Hands. Lastly, This Consent in Form of Law, is a particular Method of this Nation, but the Right of Providence is to be a general Thing; and so if it needed any, would only require such a way as might be general, and sufficient in every Nation. So that such Consent would have been sufficient, to settle the Providential Right of those Usurpers over us, as sufficed to settle the same in the Four Monarchies over the Jews, or other Conquer'd Nations; and such a Consent no Man will need to look far for, in the present Dispute.
But besides this, The Church of England has declared this Synodically, I conceive; and this it has done, in Bishop Overal's Convocation Book, which he has so unfortunately mistaken, as if it were of his Mind. Some instances I shall give him, Of their preferring legal Right, before his Right of Providence, without other Title.
1. The First is in the Case of Athaliah and Ioash. Ioash had the legal Right, and she Possession for Six Years, or the fancy'd Right of Providence; and Iehojadah and the Jews stuck to his Right, and served him therein against hers. And in this Competition the Convocation Declares, †Chap. 23. and Can. 23. p. 41, 42. vid. 1 Can. 17. p. 28, 29.That Ioash, the legal Heir, was their only Natural Lord and Sovereign, though Athaliah had kept him for Six Years out of Possession. That Athaliah was a Tyrannical Usurper, the Right Heir of that Kingdom being alive: And that nothing was done, in the Process of that Action by Jehojadah, or the rest, which God himself did not require at their hands, Joash being their only Natural Sovereign. Here is Declaring the Legal Heir to be the only Natural Sovereign, and the Allegiance to be Due to him against the Providential Usurper in Possession, which, I think, is a plain Decision of this Question.
2. The Second is in the Case of Jaddus and the Jews, betwixt Two Competitors, Darius and Alexander. Darius had Human Right, and to him they had Swore Allegiance. Alexander, by worsting Darius at the Battle at Issus, got those Parts in his Power by the Author's Right of Providence, and he demands, that they should assist him in his Wars, contrary to their former Allegiance, and become Tributary to the Macedonians, as they had formerly been to the Persians. Jaddus answered, as the *Chap. 30. p. 64.Convocation relates it, That he might not yield thereto, because he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to Darius, which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived, being by flight escaped, when his Army was Discomfited. And in the †Can. 30. p. 65.Canon referring to it, they say, Having so Sworn, he might not lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius, or have sollicited others, whether Aliens or Jews, thereunto. So preferring him, that had the Right, to him, that had got the Possession; and approving of not turning Subjects, and transferring Allegiance to the Possessor, whilst the rightful Prince was living.
To this, he says, (p. 8.) That the Convocation take no Notice, that Jaddus having Sworn to Darius, could not submit to any other whilst he lived, in their Canon upon it. But they recite it in the Chapter leading to the Canon; and the Chapters declare the Opinion of the Convocation, as well as the Canons, and *Conv. Book. p. 92.both passed with one Consent, and were approved by both Houses. And in reference to his Pretence, Of the former Oath to Darius, not to be infringed while he lived, which he returned to Alexander's demand of Assistance; they say in the Canon, that having so Sworn, he might not lawfully have born Arms himself against Darius, or have sollicited others thereto.
He adds, (p. 8.) that for all this, Iaddus did submit, when Alexander came to Jerusalem; and that before Darius's last fatal Overthrow, when in his Flight he was Murdered by his own Servants. That the Convocation might believe too, from Iosephus, and yet think Iaddus's a good Answer about the Obligation of his Oath: Because this Submission, at last, was upon the Direction of the Oracle and Divine Mandate. For Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8.Iaddus as Iosephus relates, on Alexander's coming to Jerusalem, offered Sacrafice, and appointed the People, by Supplications, to seek to God for Help, and Direction. And thereupon, the Night after, God appeared to him in a Vision, and directed them what to do, ordering the manner of their Procession and Reception of him, which he and the People accordingly did with all Solemnity perform. So what he first Answered, they might put upon the Score of ordinary Rule and Obligation. But what exemption he after practised, they might impute to Divine Interposition and Special Revelation, that controls and transfers all human Rights and Titles.
3. The same may further appear, I think, from the Reason they give, Why Antiochus's Usurpation Ch. 31. p. 76.over the Jews was not settled; viz. its not being either generally received by Submission, or settled by Continuance; for Submission, and Continuance, or Prescription, are ways of human Right. And the Romans, who had received such Submissions, and long Continuance thereof Can. 34. p. 82. and p. 119.from the Jews, they declare were their lawful Magistrates, and lawful Authority. And if they judged Antiochus's Usurpation not settled, till it came to stand on these ways of Right; What is this but to make Right necessary to their thorough Settlement?
And suitable to their Decision in these Cases, was the Determination of the same Convocation, not only in what they say, thereto in this Book of Bishop Overal, but also in the Book of Canons made before these, and confirmed by King James: Wherein they determine for the King's legal, and the Churches Canonical Rights, against the Papal Providential Usurpations, as I shall presently observe.
And from these instances, he may see how the Convocation (as I see a *An Answer to a Pamphlet, intituled Obedience and Submission to to the Present Government, demonstrated from Bishop Overal's Convocat. Book.Learned Pen has lately taken pains to prove more at large) when, in case of Usurpations, or Governments of an ill Begining, they declare Obedience Due to them if once they are thoroughly settled, take Right into the consideration of thorough Settlement; not admitting an Usurper to be thoroughly settled in his usurped Power, whilst there is a Competitor alive that has the legal Right, and makes claim of it. The Extinction of his Right by death, or translation of it by his own Consent, is necessary, in their Account, before the other can be settled: And good reason they had to take Right thereinto, because it is a Settlement of Authority, which, as I formerly Chap. 3.shewed at large, is to go by Right. And if the consideration of Right, which may be acquired by the Submission of People themselves, when those are dead that had Right over them, or by the rightful Competitors coming themselves into the Submissions, must come into their Settlement; he will own that his Providential Right can have no Confirmation, from all those Passages he has cited from the Convocation.
I shall only add further on this Argument, That Ecclesiastical Authority is God's Authority, as well as Civil. For God has instituted Government in the Church, as well as in the State; and the respective Rulers are his Deputies and Ministers in both. And God's Providence equally sets any Persons up, and advances them to their Authority in each Case; and, I think, will be allowed in the Author's way of Arguing, to have the Chief, and Overruling Power in disposal thereof. And then, in any Dispute and Competition of Persons, for Church Authority, Possession, or Providential Right, should prevail and carry it against the Canonical Right; the Canons being the same for making, and bounding Right in the Church, that Laws are in the State.
But that, on the contrary, the Canonical Right is to prevail over it, I shall shew briefly in Two instances.
First, From the Synodical Determination of our own Church, in case of the Papal Usurpation over us. His Jurisdiction, in this Realm, stood upon a long Possession, which is the Author's Providential Right. But it was against the Canonical Privileges of the Church of England, which being among the Autocephali, ought to have been independent upon him, and subject only to its own Primate; so it infringed their Canonical Right: Nay, it was an Usurpation, moreover, on the Civil Power and Regality, or on the Rights of the Crown, so as to invade the King's legal Right. But in Synodical Iudgment about this Competition, the Church of England gave it for the King's Legal and Statutable Right, and for the Churches Canonical Right, against his Right of Providence, or Usurped Possession. Can. 1.Declaring his Power to be abolished and taken away, for most just Causes; and that therefore no manner of Subjection, and Obedience, is Due thereto in these Realms. And if this throwing out his usurped Right, by Legal and Canonical Right, were not a good Decision, How shall we justifie the Reformation? And the same Determination was made by those Statutes, wich abolish the Popes Supremacy, and make his Providential Possession give Place to the King's legal Rights. So that both Church and State, gave like Decision and Sentence in this Case.
Secondly, From the Synodical Determination of the Catholick Church, and that in one of the first four General Councils, viz. the Council of Ephesus, against all Usurpations on the Freedoms of other Churches. For those †Cone. Eph. Can. 8.Fathers, on Complaint of the Bishops of Cyprus, That the Bishop of Antioch had invaded the Liberties of their Church, which, by the Canons and ancient Custom, was not to be Subject to him, but only to themselves, Determine for the Canonical Rights, against all Providential Invasions: And That the Invaders shall get nothing by any Successfulness of their unjust Force therein, but shall be bound to recede from all they have so unjustly gotten; and that the Canonical Right and Privilege shall still stand good against them. And had the same Question been put to those Fathers, concerning the legal Right of Princes, as was about the Canonical Right of Bishops; I fancy they would have been as just to Right in Princes, as they were to it in themselves; and have given as much Preference to legal Right, above illegal and usurped Possession, in their Prince's Case, as they did in their own.