The Duty of Allegiance, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Of his Scripture Proofs, and some of his Reasons, for his Right by Providential Possession.
HAving hitherto endeavoured to disprove the Author's Right of Providence, and to establish a Legal or Human Right, for Crowns and all things else to go by, against all the fancied Prevalence and opposite Force thereof: Which I have done from the Nature of things, both the Nature and Effects of Right, and the Nature and Use of Providence; and from the Sentence and Determination of our own Laws; and the Iudgment, both of the ancient Church, and of the Church of England, given both in the Opinions and Practices of Times, and Consent of Writers, and Synodical Decisions, here produced; and pertinently, as I conceive, to this purpose.
And having said thus much, to shew his Providential Possession, without other Title, gives no such Right; I now proceed.
2. Secondly, to answer those Scriptures, and other Reasons, which he has brought to shew it doth give it. All which I shall the sooner dispatch, having already answered several, and subverted the main Grounds whereon the rest are built, in what I have before said.
1. I begin, First, with the Scriptures he alledges, (p. 11. 12. 20.) These are Dan. 2. 21. 37. & ch. 4. 17. & Am. 3. 6. which declare God's ruling in the Kingdoms of Men, and giving them to whom he will, and setting up whom he will over them, and removing and setting up Kings upon any Changes, and doing what is done in a City.
Now, when these are applied to Providence removing or setting up Kings, by means of human Titles, where Revelation doth not interpose; there is no Dispute, but that doth give or remove God's Authority, and therewith the Subjects Allegiance. And this way, all Kings that are, to be obeyed, are set up by God; and all that are to have no more Obedience paid to them, are removed by him.
But when they are applied, as the Author's Principle doth, to Providence doing both, without means of preceding Titles, but by means only of Success and Possession, against human Rights: All the foresaid Scriptures may speak Providence acting in these matters; but none of them by way of giving a Right, or authorizing those that get thereby, or act in them. God Rules by his Providence among Rebels, and Thieves, and Pyrates; but, as the Author says, he gives none of them a Right to act Rebellions, Thefts, or Pyracies. And Providence sets up every one that prospers, and removes every one that is removed, whether from publick or private Right; and gives what is gotten, and takes what is taken, from every other Person, as well as from the King. But his giving, or setting up, or prospering, is not giving or setting up Right in any of them, if it be in an unrighteous thing; nor his taking or removing, taking away the Right which the legal Owners had therein. All these Expressions, when used in such cases, as I have before shewn, (Chap. 5. & Chap. 6.) speak God only accomplishing these Events, not authorizing or giving Right to them. And accordingly they are used about the most unrighteous things, which God himself condemns and punishes, and which all Mankind cry out of, as the most horrible Wickedness and Injustice; as may appear above more at large. So that if not mere accomplishment of an Event, or Possession, but God's giving Right to a Throne, is the Point in Question; these Scriptures, that in these Cases speak of God's Giving, or Doing, with a Respect only to Accomplishment, not to Right, will not serve the Turn.
There are several Steps and Degrees in God's removing (and so answerably in his setting up) a King. The true and full way is, when he removes him by way of Right, or by the known ways of taking his Right from him. One great way of this is removing his Person, by taking him out of the World; which removes his Right with him. And this way of removing Kings is particularly meant in Dan. 2. 21. where the Changes in removing and setting up Kings, is particularly spoken of the Changes from one to another in the four Monarchies; the first whereof was to be from the Babylonians to the Medes and Persians, and was accomplished in Belshazzar, who was slain when the City was taken, and the Empire therewith transferred to the Medes and Persians, Dan. 5. 28. 30. 31. And like was the way of removing the King in the next great Change, viz. by the Death of Darius, when the Empire passed from the Persians to the Macedonians. And by this way of removing their Persons by Death, or of conquered Kings submitting and giving up their own Rights, which is another way of removing human Rights, were the Removals of Kings brought about, in the several Changes of the Monarchies there spoken of. And both these are full Removals of Kings and Kingly Rights; yea, and that against human Laws, whereby God removed them in the Nations: Besides that more immediate way of removing one and setting up another, by Personal Nomination, as he did sometimes among the Jews.
Another Degree of God's removing a King is, not quite removing him from his Regal Right and Title, but from actual Exercise of Government. And this God doth sometimes by internal Incapacities, depriving them of use of Reason, that renders them for the present incapable to Govern. As he did by Nebuchadnezzar, taking from him the Heart of a Man, i. e. Human Reason, and giving him a Beasts Heart, i. e. making him turn Bruitish, fancying himself a Beast, and fit only to live among Beasts, and to delight in them, Dan. 4. 16. 31. &c. This took away his Exercise of Government; yea of Conversation, (v. 25 32.) making him to be driven from among Men; and made a Necessity of some Regent, or other Provision in the interim, till he should recover his Wits again. But the Title and Authority, noted in the Vision by the Stump of his Roots still in the Earth, (v. 15. 26.) was still remaining in him, to secure his Kingdom to him, and to bind his Lords and Counsellors to seek unto him, as he says they did, (v. 36.) when his Reason should return. And of this Removal of him, and giving away his Kingdom, not the Right and Title, but actual Administration, is his other Text, Dan. 4. 17. spoken, which calls this God's giving it to whom he will, and setting up and ruling in the Kingdoms of Men.
Or, sometimes instead of internal Incapacities, God removes them from this actual Administration by external Force, when others, without any good Title of Right, are Providentially possessed of the External Power of their Kingdoms. But when God doth this alone, he doth not fully remove a King, but leaves the Right, and Authority that goes by Right, still with him. So, this is not God's Removal, or Setting up of Kings, that is to remove or transfer Allegiance; God's giving or acting by this way, not of Title but mere Providential Possession, not conferring Right or Authority, as I have shewn before.
He also (p. 18.) urges Rom. 13. 1, 2. which declares all Powers to be of God, commanding them to be obeyed, and forbidding them to be resisted. But these Powers are only rightful Powers and Authorities, not mere Providential and Usurping Possessors; who can have no Authority till they first have some good Title to it, as I think I have sufficiently proved, (ch. 3.) So this will give no Right to his usurping Possessors.
Neither will our Saviour's Argument against the Pharisces, which is another of his Scripture Proofs, (p. 21.) from the Superscription of the Coyn: Which was an Argument to those, who were under a rightful Power, and could not pretend Obligation to any rightful Competitor; and to shew they were Subject to the Romans, who were the only Pretenders to Power over them: But not to shew whether they should have owned them in Competition of a more rightful Prince, as I have declared above, (ch. 3.)
Nor will he prove it from (p. 21.) Jeremiah's Prophesie, calling them to submit to the King of Babylon, who had an human Right over them at that time, and against whom, as I shewed, they were then in Rebellion. Nor from the four Monarchies, which he also alledges, (p. 20. 22) because what Right they had over any they subdued, was in way of human Rights; by the Submissions of People, when they had no Rightful Kings left; or by the Rightful Kings coming into the Submissions, as is before explained. Nor from the Roman Emperors, whom he likewise particularly adds, (p. 20. 21.) because their Government, both over the Romans and others, stood on legal or human Rights, as I have formerly shewed. Nor will it add any Force to any of these to say (p. 20. 22.) they were foretold before in Prophesies. For Predictions only respect the Events, but carry no Right or Authority to the Actors, nor alter the Moral Natures of the Events themselves, to give Right to that which is in it self unrighteous. Christ foretold Iudas's Betraying him, and the Jews Crucifying him; and the Scriptures foretel what Antichrist shall do when he shall come, and many more unrighteous Events and Accomplishments. But as those Events would have been unrighteous without the Predictions, they were unrighteous with them; the Scriptural Foretelling giving Right or Authority to none of them. And these, I think, are all that is material in his Proof from Scripture.
I come next to answer his Reasons for the foresaid Right of Providence, and its Power to over-rule and set aside human Rights.
1. His First Reason is, (p. 23. 24. &c.) because this giving Authority by Right of Providence, is the best and most intelligible Account of the Original of human Government, and of fetching all Authority of a Governor from God.
But as to this, it doth not fetch any Person's Authority from God, any better, or more immediately, as I have shewn, Chap. 2. than human Right doth: Nay, by a worse means, in as much as it puts them in Authority by means of human Wickedness. And human Rights seem a much better and fi…ter way of carrying Right from God, than human Unrighteousness. But God's Authority is carried in God's Commandment, immediately to such a State, and by means of Rightful Title to such a Person; those Rightful Titles putting the Person in that State which God has authorized, and making the Authority to become his, before he act by it, as I have above discoursed. And as to the Question, which particular way of giving this Right, whether free Election of a Governor, or Submission to a Conqueror, or enlargement of Paternal Power by the Continuation of Duty under the Multiplication of Families, to the Father, or the First born, did in Fact give Rise to the first or the most Governments? That is not accounted for in either way, but is an Historical Dispute. But by which soever of the ways any Government was set up, these rightful Titles are a good way of giving the Persons God's Authority, which his mere Providential Possession is not.
As for the Objections he starts and answers under this point, as, p. 25. &c. its barring injured Princes to recover their Rights; and, p. 34. giving Right to Pyrates and Robbers; and, p. 34. 35. the Case of Athaliah and Joash: I have already spoke to them, Chap. 5. as they fell in the way of the Principles I have been hitherto laying down. And as to what he says, p. 27. 28. &c. about the Difference betwixt a maintaining and defending, and a restoring Allegiance; I may take some notice of that anon.
2. His next Reason, p. 36. for this Right of Providence, is, That without it, there is no defending the Doctrine of Passive Obedience. But why so? Because there is no irresistable Authority, but that of God; and unless Sovereign Princes received their Authority from God, Non Resistance would be Nonsense. But they may and do receive Authority from God, and not by a Right of Providence; but either by Divine Nomination, as sometimes in Iury; or by human Rights and Titles, as in all other places. And this way of Right doth give a Person God's Authority, as I have shewn; which his way of Providence doth not: And his fancied way of Providence would not be more immediate, nor so good and righteous a way of giving it. And this Authority of God, conveyed thus to a Person by Rightful Title, is an irresistable Authority, because it is God's, and because it is a Sovereign Authority. There is no resisting any Authority derived from God, but under God, or by seeking to have it by an higher Authority, which is God's too. And thus the Authority of Fathers or Masters, which is God's Authority, may be restrain'd and checkt, when it is abused, by the Authority of the Prince, which is God's too, and an higher Authority. And so may the Excesses of any inferior Magistrate, by the Authority of the supreme Magistrate. All which opposing Authority, by way of Regular Appeals, and under Protection of an higher Authority, is not the criminal resisting God's Authority, but keeping under it, and seeking to be relieved by it. But when this Authority is not only given by God, but is a Sovereign Authority; then there is no Resistance or worldly Remedy against that, because the Sovereign has none above it.
Thus may the Doctrine of Non Resistance be a Rational Doctrine, without his Right of Providence. The Law of Subjection to Sovereign Powers, and not Resisting, makes it a Sin to resist; for (1 Ioh. 3. 4.) Sin is the Transgression of a Law. And Sovereigns having not only God's Authority, but a Supream Authority under God on Earth, is a Reason why it necessarily should be so. But that they should come by this Divine and Supreme Authority, by his Right of Providence, is neither necessary, nor just, nor fit, in my Judgement. But the way of rightful Title, either by Divine Nomination, or Human Right, is the best, and justest, and, I think I may say, from what I have Discoursed thereupon, is the only true way of coming by it.
But though the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, and Non Resistance, may very well stand without his Right of Providence, and still transferring and paying Allegiance to present Powers, against rightful Titles: I think, on the other hand, it is necessarily overthrown by it. I know Numbers of those that Swear the Present Allegiance, upon the Ground of a King de Facto, are of another Mind; and believe it is no Breach of Passive Obedience to one, that has a legal Right, to transfer and ingage their Allegiance to stand by another, who is possessed of his Right; which, I judge, only shews non Attention to the Nature and Import of such Actings. For Passive Obedience implies above all Things, To keep under a King's Obedience: And to cast off his Authority, is the highest Disobedience. And in this lies the uttermost Heinousness and Aggravation of Resistance, that thereby Subjects disclaim their King's Authority over them, and throw off all Obedience to him; and this is plainly done by transferring Allegiance from him. They cannot bear Allegiance to Two, nor have any more than one King, as the Author truly says, (p. 14.) So that in transferring Allegiance to another, they throw off all to him, and are as Men no longer under his Obedience and Subjection: Besides, it puts them among Resisters, and so can be no good Payment of the Duty of Non Resistance. For it ingages them, as I observed, the Nature of all Allegiance is, to stand by the Possessor, and to withstand the other; some by Arms, others by Prayers, every one in his Station. And since both Competitors cannot have the Crown, and both seek it; all that will stand by, and support one, will therein unavoidably resist the other, who comes to recover, and get it from him.
3. Another Reason is, (p. 37.) If we deny this Right of Providence, to carry Allegiance to Usurpers against legal Titles, we deny God's Authority to remove, or set up Kings against human Laws.
But if God please to set up a King by particular Revelation, that will make him a King against human Laws, because God is above Laws; and this no Man denies, that denies this Right of Providence. If God is not pleased to take this way of special Revelations, he is pleased to leave Authority to be carryed by human Rights: And, I suppose, he will think it no Impeachment of God's Authority, in making or removing Kings, to say he cannot do them, but by human Rights, when he will take no other way, but is pleased to leave it to them.
Besides, to come to ways of doing it among other Nations, as well as among the Jews, human Rights, as I observed, is larger than human Laws. And when a Man cannot be set up, or removed by the Laws, God may do both according to human Right, by the Death, or Submission of Competitors. If God please to take a King out of the World, which is his great way of Removing them, and is a way particularly referred to in this Scripture Phraise of Removing Kings, as I before observed, his Right is removed with him: Or, if he bring him to give it up, by his own Consent, his legal Right is that way too removed from him: And the other gets Right over a willing People by his Competitors Oath, or Subm…ssion.
Though Kings then are denyed to be set up, or removed, by mere Providence without other Title; yet is that no denyal of God's Setting up of Kings, which he may do by all the ways of Setting them up; viz. by all the ways of giving Right to Kingly Authority; yea, and that against Laws too, if he pleases, by all the other ways of conferring that Right, viz. Special Revelation, which is above Laws, or Death of Competitors, or Consent of Parties, which departs from the Right, that accrued by them. And this limitting God in giving Right, to …s of giving it, is a limitation he has made himself, and is very well pleased with. And in matters of Right, to be limitted to ways of Right, seems no harder limitation than being limitted to be Righteous.
Indeed it denies his way of Setting them up, viz. By Providential Possession, without other Title. But that, I think, is no denyal of the Authority of God in this Point, because God doth not convey his Authority to any one, or revoke it that way. Authority he conveys by ways of Precedent Right thereto; and Providential Possession doth not carry Right to Authority along with it, as has been proved. It will possess a Man of all the External Strength of a King; and when he has that, he will usurp the Government, and act as a King. But God's Authority, as I noted, is not always joyned to that External Strength: So after Providential Possession has done its Part, Right to Authority will still want to be conveyed. And till God has conferred that on a Person, he has not finished the Work of making him a King; nor till he has removed it from him, has he finished the Work of removing him from being King.
And this is no more to deny God's Authority, in removing, or setting up a King against human Laws, than the same would be a denying his Authority, to remove, or set up a Proprietor against human Laws; for Property must go by Right, as well as Authority. And if God, by Revelation, will take it from one, or give it to another against Laws, it will go against Laws. But if God will not be pleased to interpose by Revelation, if he will set up a Proprietor, it must be by giving human Right to him; or if he will remove one, he must remove the same from him, since there is no other way of giving him Right, to make him a Proprietor, more than of giving it to the other to make him King, if he is not pleased to do it by Revelation.
This denying his Right of Providence then, that is Providential Possession without other Title, in conveying Regal Authority, or making of a King, is not to deny any Authority in God, or any way of his deriving Authority to Men, which really doth derive it, that is, by giving Right to it; but it denies that to carry his Authority, which doth not carry it; or unrighteous Usurpers to have his Authority, whilst they have it not. It denies the wickedness of Men, when 'tis used and over-ruled by him to be authorized by God; or that which is Wrong to be made Right, as it would be, if Provividence, that speeds and makes Men succeed in the Wrong, carryed Right to them that succeed thereby, and to that they succeed in.