Question.

DOth not Victory give a right to the Conquerour?

And doth it not thence follow, that he which is ejected out of his King­dome, by force of a prevailing Partie, hath thereby lost his right of Allegiance from his former Subjects?

And is not then that right devolved on the Conquerour, by the force of these words of God, when he saith, Dan. 4. 17. & 25.32. that he ruleth in the Kingdome of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men? And of Ecclus. 10. 8. because of unrighte­ousnesse—the [Page 2]the Kingdome is translated from one people to another?

And when he doth so, are not all Members of such a Kingdome obliged (as the Israelites in their deportation to Babylon) to yeild obedience to the Con­querour?

Answer.

This Objection consists of divers Branches, and I shall answer it by degrees:

1. That all Victory doth not give a right to the Con­querour, but onely when the Warre being founded on a just Cause, that just Cause hath thus been blest with Victory. And when that is, depends wholly on the stating of that Question concerning the Lawfulnesse of any Warre.

Now because there never can be just Warre on the Subjects part against their Soveraigne because they want the warrant of Supreame Authority, without which (though the Cause be never so just, and the End never so good) all the blood that is shed, is no better than Murther; Therefore though the Subjects in such a Warre should prevaile against their Soveraigne, yet neither is He hereby diverted of Her just Right, nor they inverted therewith, because the Warre was wholly unjust on their part for want of Authority.

2. Therefore if that Party whose Cause is unjust, shall yet prevaile and prove succesfull, then in answer to the Branch, I say, that there is no Right acquired by this: For, tis a mistake to thinke that this is the meaning of Jus Victoria, the Right of Victory, which the Civill Law­yers speake of, as if God had by this lottery testified his Judgment of the Right, and pronounced that Just now, which was Unjust before; or that the present Forces is alwaies to be looked on as the Higher Powers, and al­lowed the Obedience required by the Apostle, as due to them, w ^cg is the mistaking of [...], Power, for [...], Au­thority, and agrees with that speech of the Atheists, Wis. 2. Our strength is the Law of Justice, and that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth. And we know tis Gods or­dinary dispensation now under the Gospel to permit Vio­lence to oppresse the Godly, which sure is no Argument, that those prosperous Ungodly have the sole Right to the Pos2essions of the World, or that the opprest Godly Man shall no longer be thought to be opprest, when the prosperous Oppressour is arrived at the height of his op­pression.

3. The Question then being removed from the title of force (which being it self unjust, cannot conferre Right on any) It must next be considered what dedition (that is, yeilding or resigning up of ones Right) can doe, That will be of two sorts, either of the Prince, or the People; and againe, either Voluntary, or Involuntary.

A Voluntary dedition, or yielding up, of the rightfull Possessor, if he be a private Man, transfers a Right. But a Prince being a publique Person, and having an obliga­tion of protection to His Subjects, cannot without some [Page 4]breach of that obligation abdicate his Kingdome, nor consequently voluntarily yeild up His Power, or if He doe, He cannot transferre the Right to any (save to the lawful Heire or Successour) without the tacit or expresse consent of the People also.

But in case they consent also, then will this Right (in Kingdomes Elective) be transferred by the joynt yeilding of the King and His Subjects. As for Kingdomes Here­ditary, the Subjects consent is not necessary, but the Kings yeilding up of his right alone, is sufficient to trans­ferre the right to the next Heire. Neither can the joynt act both of King and People transferre this right from the next Heire to any other. The Kings yeilding is an absolution of the Subjects from the alegiance formerly due to Him by them, and so makes it lawfull for them to yeild the same to another, and when 'tis thus free and lawfull to them, the intervention of their owne act also becomes obligation on them to submit to that Person so yeilded to. And when this is done (in Kingdomes Ele­ctive) and withall when no Heire is left to make claime, or the claime relinquisht by the right Heire, in Kingdomes Hereditary, then is the Kingdome removed and given by God (who now rules not immediately among us, as he did in the time of the Theocracy among the Jewes, but is then said to remove a Kingdome when his providence so disposes, that by the Lawes and right among Men it is removed) to another.

But till this be done, i. e. till He, or They in whom the right both of present possession, and future claime by inhe­ritance, is truly verted do voluntarily yeild up that right, and when that is done, till they which by their yeilding are freed from their former bands doe now by their owne act enter into new, what force soever there be, and how [Page 5]successfull soever the force, there is not thereby any such Victory compleated as shall be able to conferre Right on the Victor, nor remove it from him that hath, and still protests his Right though as yet he be not strong enough to vindicate it.

4. But then in the next place, if there be a dedition or yeilding up by the King, and that dedition involuntary, that is, such as nothing but the present successe of the force hath inclined him to, then certainly doth it not so divert him of his right, as that it shall be unlawfull for him, when he can to make claime and recover it againe. As he that by a violent Invader is made to sweare to pay such a summe of money; it is acknowledged lawfull for him to implead that Thiese, and recover from him, what in performance of that involuntary Oath he hath paid him.

In this case the difficulty is, what condition those Sub­jects are left in, for that time betwixt the involuntary de­dition of the King, and his renewing his claime, and the solution must be, that a proportion be observed between the Act of the King, and the Subjects consequehnt Act: The Act of the King is but a present dedition, and doth not oblige Him never to make any after-claime againe; and consequently, this gives not any such absolution to the Subjects, as that they may doe any thing which shall prejudice that future claime, or blemish his royalty, such as are taking new Oathers of Allegiance, abjurations of Him & his Issue, Engagements to the usurped power, &c. All that it can doe, is to make it free for them to submit to such other things of an inferiour nature (which in­cludes not any such blemishmēt of the rights of the law­full Prince) provided that they acknowledge not the law­fulnesse [Page 6]of the present usurped Power, nor act as Mini­sters or Instruments thereof. And this is the utmost that seems possible to determine in this matter.

5. As for that power which tract of time may be thought to have in this businesse, that is not considerable where the claime is Continued (for that argues the Dedi­tion involuntary) and much lesse when there is no Dedi­tion at all, for there twas before supposed that force can­not conferre right.

6. And if by this stating of the Case, it follow that the lot of the faithfull Subjects must be very unhappy at this time, and that great disorder must necessarily continue in such a broken Kingdome, as long as the Contention be­tween the violent Usurper and the just Owner thus re­mains undecided. I answer, that this is oft the lot of the most pious Men under the Gospel, who have their good things here mixt with tribulations, and must content themselves in the solaces of a good conscience, in per­forming those duties which cost them dearest, and ex­pect their full payment of joyes without hardships to be payd them in another world.