That Power does not give Right but is a certain sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power he hath given the Authority therefore my Doctrine is not the same with Hobbism p. 15. Confut Your Doctrine is the very same with Hobbism because you plainly confound Right and Wrong most rightful and most wrongful Monarchs and make them to be equally the Effects of God's Omnipotent Power and Providence which is perfect Hobbism and destructive of True Religion and Morality If God's permission of Might and Power to this or that Man be a certain sign to us that God hath given him Authority and Right then it unavoidably follows that Might and Right are inseparable and then all Murders Treasons Robberies Rapes Sacriledges Injuries Oppressions and unjust Violences are for ever justified and legitimated and there can be no such thing as Good and Evil Right and Wrong Lawful and Unlawful Error 20. The Outrages of Thieves and Pirats are very impertinently alledged in this Cause They have Force and Violence which every Man must submit to when he cannot help it but Sovereign Power is God's Authority though Princes may be advanced to it by no honester Means than Thieves take a Purse or break open my House and take my Mony or Goods p. 34. Confut. Though the Case of an Usurper doth in many things greatly differ from that of Thieves and Pirats yet in this they both agree that neither hath true Right the Divine Providence by permitting the Usurper to be in the Throne gives him no more Right to it than his permitting a common Cut-purse to steal my Mony gives him Right to it As we submit to an High-way Robber because he is too strong for us and we cannot help it so do we to an Usurper For I do not think you can name one Mâ—n truly Loyal that would submit to a manifest Usurper if he could help it And if you suppose the Regnant Prince not to be manifestly an Usurper of necessity he is lawful and rightful Prince before God and all the World For de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio things not plainly evident are to be esteemed as not at all And this doth principally sway with me as to the present Government The great Law and Rule of Conscience touching Allegiance I take to be this that whoever is in possession of the Crown compleat Allegiance is due to him unless it be plain and evident to each Man's Conscience sincerely studious of his Duty to God and the King that he is an Usurper But that their present Majesties are so is impossible to be proved That an Hereditary Kingdom be governed by a Monarch is from God as Principal and from the People as Instrumental but that it be governed by a notorious Usurper is from Satan and not from God though God doth innocently permit it as he doth all other Sin Error 21. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God p. 14. Error 22. Nor does it make any difference in this Case to distinguish between what God permits and what he does p. 12. Confut. That all Kings are not equally rightful with respect to God is plain from God's own words They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Hos 8.4 And from this undeniable Truth that God is Author of Just Monarchy but he is not Author of Usurped Monarchy it is contrary to his Holy Nature and to his Holy Law For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in Wickedness Psal 5.4 True it is that God doth innocently permit Usurpation and his Permission is not idle but unsearchably operative but still he is no way Author of it for Usurpation is Sin and God cannot be Author of Sin to think it is Impiety and to speak it is Blasphemy So that all usurping Kings are made by Satan and not by God and every time we say the Lord's Prayer in Faith we do inclusively and by implication pray against usurping Kings Error 23. The distinction then between a King de jure and a King de facto relates only to Humane Laws which bind Subjects but are not the necessary Rules and Measures of Divine Providence p. 14. Confut. It relates to Divine Laws as Principal and Supream and to Humane Laws as Subordinate and Instrumental and all such Humane Laws as are manifestly good just necessary and convenient for the Common Safety and Quiet are in a large sense rather Divine than Humane though in a strict sense they are not Divine The Divine Laws are the necessary Rules and Measures of our Duty but not of God's Providence For he permits all the Sins of Angels and Men contrary to his Holy Laws and yet is no way Author of Sin Error 24. The Doctrine of the Church of England is That usurping Kings after they are once throughly settled in the Throne are to be submitted to as God's Ordinance and compleat Allegiance is to be paid them as invested with God's Authority whatever their Legal Right be For the proof of which I appeal to Bp Overal's Convocation-Book p 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Confut. Not to dispute whether Bp Overal's Convocation Book is to be admitted as an authentick and adequate Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of England that Book doth not prove your Point For it proves only this That usurping Kings when once throughly settled in the Throne cease to be Usurpers and become lawful Kings and invested with God's Authority This I grant But doth this Convocation-Book say that there can be a through settlement of Kings in the Throne without Legal Right This it saith not and therefore you greatly err in replying upon that as a Proof which really is none but your own Mistake and Miscollection You your self confess pag. 9. That the foresaid Convocation has not determined when a Government gotten by Usurpation may be said to be throughly settled Now I affirm in contradiction to the Scope and Tenour of your Book that no Government can be thoroughly settled without Legal Right It is very probable that Convocation had in their Eye the two recent Cases of Holland and Scotland 1. As to Holland while the King of Spain denied them to be a free independent and Soveraign State and claimed them as his Right and maintained his Claim by the Sword and refused to treat with them as a Soveraign State the Convocation might probably think that the revolution in Holland was not throughly settled But after King Philip by his Agents condescended to treat with them as a Sovereign State and did so own and admit them it is manifest that from this time they began to be throughly settled and though the begining should be supposed to be by Usurpation yet now it ceased to be so and became a Just Government by the Law of Nations 2. As to Scotland while Mary Queen of Scots was alive though Prisoner in England the Convocation might perhaps
A Confutation of sundry Errors in Dr. Sherlock's Book concerning Allegiance Error 1. THE Scripture hath given us no Directions in this Case but to submit and pay all the Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers It makes no distinction that ever I could find between rightful Kings and Usurpers pag. 18. Confut. Why then did you stand off so long from swearing Allegiance to their present Majesties out of scruple of Conscience And why do you condemn Oliver Cromwell and the Rump-Parliament and the late Inter-regnum as a Rebellion And why do you approve the Peoples Combination against and killing Athaliah as an Usurper and setting young Joash the right Heir in the Throne To say that there is no difference as to our Duty and Allegiance between a manifest Usurper and a manifest rightful Owner of the Crown is in effect to say that a manifest Usurper is not an Usurper which is a Contradiction The Scripture largely taken doth comprize the Principles of Natural Religion and all the Rules and Maxims of Order Government and Civil Society common to Christians and Heathens who all agree in this That there are two sorts of Kings a manifest Usurper and a manifest rightful Owner of the Crown and accordingly there are two kinds of Subjection one due to an Usurper and another due to a rightful Owner of the Crown for as these two Kings differ in specie in kind so the Subjection due to the one doth differ in specie in kind from what is due to the other If you abandon this Distinction you justify the Cause of traiterous Absolom and his Adherents against Innocent David and his Adherents and there can be no such thing as Usurpation of Crowns and Kingdoms Error 2. Joash was first anointed and proclaimed before any one stirred a Finger against Athaliah Now this is a very different Case from raising Rebellions against a Prince who is in the possession of the Throne to restore an ejected Prince p. 34. Confut. Though Joash was first anointed and proclaimed King before Athaliah was kill'd yet it is plain that the preparations to kill her and the full purpose of their Mind so to do were long before And were these not so much as the stirring of a Finger against Athaliah's Person Crown and Government If the same kind of Subjection was due to Athaliah a notorious Usurper which was due to Joash the rightful Owner as you all along assert then Jehoiada and all the Godly and true Loyalists in Judah were guilty of traiterous and wicked Conspiracy If not then the grand Principle of your Book falls and you shew your self a Betrayer rather than a Defender of true Loyalty and Allegiance Error 3. This of Athaliah was a peculiar Case for God himself had entailed the Kingdom of Judah on the Posterity of David and therefore nothing could justify their Submission to an Usurper when the King's Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine Entail But c. p. 35. Confut. It is plain from the Story that the Nobles Commons and Clergy of Judah did out of conscientious Prudence and Respect to the Common Quiet submit to the Government of Athaliah after they knew she was an Usurper and that Joash the right Heir was in being and preparation for the Crown until they had by innocent Policy made themselves strong and were sufficiently prepared to depose and kill her this their Submission was just and laudable And this Case doth strongly prove that a notorious Usurper is to be submitted to by all the People when he cannot be deposed and cut off without endangering the Common Quiet and Safety of the Realm but when it can with general Safety and Quiet to the Realm be effected it is lawful and laudable to effect and accomplish it For though the Kingdom of Judah was a Theocracy yet other Nations and Kingdoms are not without Order and Government agreeable to the general Rules of God's Word and in that respect are a kind of Theocracy though not in the strict sense And it was upon Grounds and Reasons common to other Nations and Kingdoms that Athaliah was deposed and killed viz. because she was a notorious Usurper and it was against the Common Quiet and Interest of the Realm to bear with and submit to her any longer Vbi eadem ratio ibi eadem lex It was never God's intention to continue the Crown in the Posterity of David let them live as they list but on supposition of their walking in God's Ways as David did Which because they did not therefore God made Jeroboam King over ten Tribes and afterward did alienate the Crown of Judah from the House of David to the Babylonians Persians Grecians and Romans Error 4. If the Choice and Consent of the People makes a Prince then no Man is a Subject but he who consents to be so for the major Vote cannot include my Consent unless I please that is the Effect of Law and Compact or Force not of Nature pag. 24. Confut. It was the Choice and Consent of the greater part of the People according to God's Word Deut. 17.14 15. which made Saul the first King of Israel Whose Election not being consented to by some therefore the Scripture brands them for Sons of Belial 1 Sam. 10.27 Here the major Vote did conclude the rest You cannot be a good Subject without your own Consent but a Subject you may be against your Will tho the King be made by consent of the People according to the general Rules of God's Word because it is pro bono Publico for the common good and absolutely necessary for the uphold of Order Unity and Government among Men that in such Cases the major Vote concludes all the rest the Light of Nature doth so dictate and common Sense allows it Error 5. If Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away again if they please there can be no irresistible Authority derived from the People for if the Authority be wholly derived from them who shall hinder them from taking it away when they see fit Upon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can only chuse for themselves their Posterity having as much right to chuse as they had pag. 24. Confut. If indeed the People be the sole principal Cause of conferring Authority upon the King then they may take it away when they please even as God himself doth But this they are not they are only Causes instrumental and subservient yet so necessary to the Being of just and legal Monarchy that without their Consent Tacit or Express no just Monarchy can begin and be sounded Yet will it not hence follow that the People may at their pleasure recal the Authority which they have given for being only Causes instrumental and subordinate they can act nothing without the Concurence of God the supream Cause and Governor of the World But God doth oblige them to stick to and abide by their King whom
they have chosen it is not in their Power to undo what they have done they have bound themselves by Oath and Covenant Explicit or Implicit to their King to be his Liege-men and Loyal Subjects and a necessity lies upon them of keeping it if they do not they are persidious The Wife by her own Act and free Consent gives Power to the Husband over her own Body and to be her Head and yet she cannot unmarry her self and recal what she hath done Bishops as Causes instrumental under Christ ordain Presbyters and give them Ministerial Authority yet can they not therefore take it away at their pleasure The French Kingdom is Hereditary and not Elective and yet the Constitution thereof is such that Daughters cannot succeed to the Throne if the French King should go about to alter this Constitution without Consent of the People Would they think it any Injustice or Rebellion to resist the invasion of this their Fundamental Constitution While the King upholds the Government according to the Original Contract and Covenant between Him and the Nation he may in no wise be resisted tho he have his Authority from the People as God's Instruments but if he go about to enslave and ruin the Nation contrary to the original Contract and Covenant it is no unlawful Resistance for the Nation by Force of Arms to save it self and to withstand the Invader and Destroyer of its Liberty Rights and Interest For this is no resisting of Authority but a just vindication of National Rights against an Illegal Monarch who pretends Authority but really hath none neither from God nor Man For neither God nor Man gave him Authority to be perfidious and to enslave and ruin the Nation contrary to the Fundamental Oath and Covenant between Him and the People It is this which is the Measure of his Authority and this being extinguished by his own perfidious violation of it his Authority as the necessary Consequent thereof must needs die and be extinct with it Tho an Hereditary and Successive Kingdom be not Elective yet it is not a new Monarchy but a continuation of the Old which began by mutual Covenant Tacit or Express between Prince and People and when this Foundation falls the Government is dissolved and is no longer a just and legal Monarchy but an Usurpation and illegal Invasion Error 6. An Usurper by long continuance may out-live those who formerly wore the Crown but does it give Right to him who has none that he out-lives those who had the Right For though no Body else has any Right to the Crown how does this make him a rightful King who has no Right p. 24. Confut. It is allowed by all as a sure Maxim In aequali jure melior est conditio possident is He who is in possession of the Crown hath sufficient Right to it when no one living hath better Right to it than he If I find a Thing and no one claims it nor can the right Owner be found it becomes mine by right of Occupation He that was an Usurper ceases to be so by the decease of the right owner He is to repent in his own Breast and Bosom privately of his wrongful Intrusion but the right Owner being dead and all that claim under or by him he is no longer an Usurper but rightful Proprietor Error 7. The Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative p. 43. Confut. There is no inconsistency between God's Prerogative and Subjects Duty in all Revolutions and Changes of Government but Harmony and Concurrence There was a great Revolution of Government in Israel when they ceased to be governed by Judges and the Order of Kings began and yet in this famous Change God as Principal and the People as Instrumental did concur in the Institution of Saul for their first King After his Death there was another great Revolution though David by Divine Designation was immediately to have been King over all the Twelve Tribes yet for seven Years the far greater part adhered to the House of Saul until God moved the Hearts of all the People unanimously to chuse and submit to David as their King When the Lady Jane who had the weaker Title was proclaimed Queen of England after the Death of King Edward and was in possession of the Throne the Protestants in Suffock out of conscientious Loyalty adhered to the Lady Mary tho a Papist and by their Means as God's Instruments she acquired the Throne and her Title prevailed as being most rightful After the Death of Henry the Third the French King there was a concurrence of God's Providence and the Subjects Duty in setting the King of Navarr in the Throne though the greatest part of the Nation had been against him and had proclaimed another King and bound themselves in a solemn League not to admit the King of Navarr yet it being his Right at last it prevailed Error 8. There are but three Ways whereby God gives Kingly Power and Authority to any Persons Either by Nature or by an express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence p. 11. Confut. Nature by it self without Morality to rule and guide it is a Beast or Machine and therefore it can have no hand at all in the Institution of Just and Law ful Kings Nature and Morality differ as the Horse and the Rider as the Pen and the Writer Nature indeed led guided and instructed by Morality doth subserve God the Governour of the World in the Institution uphold and continuation of every Just and Legal Monarchy but without it Nature is blind and brutish in Things concerning Order and Government both Divine and Humane and therefore there never was nor can be a Lawful King by meer Nature distinct from Morality Now all Morality is founded in Free-will and Rational Election Choice and Consent And consequently every Just Monarchy is founded in mutual Covenant Tacit or Express between the Prince on one part and the People or Community on the other part agreeably to the general Rules of God's Word for the mutual Good of Prince and People Ruler and Ruled God's express nomination of this or that Man to be King obligeth all the People to own and submit to him as their King and him to consent to be King over them but till there be a mutual Consent the Kingdom is not founded it is but in preparation if the major part consent all the rest are concluded and are to be esteemed Subjects of the Kingdom and though the major part dissent yet having God's Word and express nomination on his side all the rest owe Consent and may be compelled to it Error 9. Whether their present Majesties have Legal Right to the Throne is certainly needless in this Cause to dispute and serves only to confound it by carrying Men into such dark Labyrinths of Law and History c. as very few know how to find their way out again p. 2. Confut. It is certainly necessary for
justifying our swearing Allegiance to them that they have legal Right to the Throne for unless they have legal Right to it they have no Right at all and having no Right they must needs be Usurpers and being so it is only an equivocal Allegiance that can be due to them But equivocal Allegiance will not suffice Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato The Law enjoining us to swear Allegiance to them cannot in reason be thought to mean equivocal Allegiance such for kind as is due and payable to an Usurper but it must needs mean that kind of Allegiance which is naturally due from Subjects to one that is rightful Prince before God and Men and no Usurper And if there should be any Ambiguity or colour for scruple touching the Sense of the Oath it is abundantly cleared by this one thing that the Law makers by enjoining the Oath must needs mean that kind of Allegiance which fully agrees with the Publick Prayers in the Liturgy constantly used by the Law-makers and imposed upon all Conforming Ministers which is not equivocal Allegiance but the same that was due and pâ—id to Q. Elizabeth K. James I K. Charles I and his Son successively viz. full and compleat Allegiance without all Equivocation For no one can use say amen to and heartily join in these Prayers for their present Majesties without All Hypocrisy and Deceit who thinks them to have no legal Right to the Throne that they are but Usurpers And therefore the Non-swearers consistently to their own Principle refuse to use the prescribed Forms in the Liturgy for their present Majesties tho tantùm non they admire the Liturgy The Doctor by supposing it neeedless to dispute whether their present Majesties have legal Right to the Throne and undertaking to prove that they have Right tho no legal Right that they have God's Authority and yet no legal Right doth greatly err For there are but two kinds of Right Legal or Evangelical Evangelical Right doth not come into question for that is founded in Regeneration and Heavenly Adoption and is wholly supernatural and invisible Either they have legal Right or they have none And it is plain they have for it lies upon the Non-swearers to prove that they are manifest Usurpers which they can never do but by carrying us into the dark Labyrinths of Law and History which can only confound and serve to make plain things obscure but can prove nothing against their Majesties Right Error 10. We have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to the present Powers whatever the Usurpation were p. 21. Confut. We read of good King Hezekiah that the Lord was with him and he prospered whithersoever he went forth and he rebelled against the King of Assyria and served him not 2 King 18.7 Now either this his Rebellion against the King of Assyria was sinful before God or it was not If yea then I see not how this Scripture can agree with it self for it doth manifestly imply that God was with Hezekiah and did prosper him in this his Rebellion against and refusal to serve the King of Assyria and so is the Opinion of the generality of Interpreters who acquit Hezekiah from all Sin in this Matter there being no Divine Obligation upon Hezekiah to serve and be tributary to the King of Assyria If it was not sinful then here is an Instance of an honest and justifiable Rebellion against an Usurping Power and consequently had Hezekiah submitted to the Usurpation of the King of Assyria he had been blame-worthy Curse ye Meroz said the Angel of the Lord curse ye bitterly the Inhabitants thereof because they came not to the help of the Lord to the help of the Lord against the Mighty Judg. 5.23 It is plain from the Context that King Jabin for twenty Years did mightily oppress Israel and usurp Dominion over them and here the Inhabitants of Meroz a City or Town in Israel are cursed by the Angel of the Lord for not concurring with Deborah and Barak and their Brethren the Israelites in warlike resistance and opposition against the usurping Tyrant and Oppressor Jabin After Jeroboam had set up false Worship in Israel and cast off the Lord's Priests from executing their Office unto the Lord they and after them out of all the Tribes of Israel such as set their Hearts to seek God came to Jerusalem to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their Fathers So they strengthned the Kingdom of Judah and made Rehoboam the Son of Solomon strong three Years 2 Chron. 11. Here the Subjects of King Jeroboam are praised by the Spirit of God for leaving him and going over to King Rehoboam and taking part with him against Jeroboam and consequently they had been blameable if they had done otherwise Error 11. Our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on the possession of Power Whose Image and Superscription hath it p. 21. Confut. That our Saviour's Argument relies wholly on Possession be it right or wrong so as to oblige Men to pay the very same kind of Allegiance to a manisest Usurper which is due to a most rightful King which is the principal point aimed at and contended for by you is not true Our Saviour did not bring in any new Doctrine touching Sovereignty and Subjection but by his Doctrine and Example taught every Soul to be subject to the Higher Powers according as his Apostle Paul doth But it was never the Apostle's meaning to confound the distinction between a notorious Usurper and one that is notoriously no Usurper but rightful King before God and all the World as to Subjection and Allegiance But though the present King should be a manifest Usurper yet may nothing be attempted against his Person Crown and Government which is against the Common Good and Quiet when the Remedy will be worse than the Disease but where the Common Good and Quiet of the Realm cannot be upheld without removing the Usurper there it is lawful and laudable to remove him and to set the right Owner in the Throne but it can never be lawful to do so by the right Owner for Evil is not to be done that Good may come Error 12. Why should we think the Apostle here intends a Distinction unknown to Scripture And let any Man judg in what Perplexities this Sense of the Apostle's Precept would involve the Consciences of Men For these are great Disputes among Learned Men and how then should Unlearned Men understand them And I cannot think that the Resolution of Conscience in such Matters as all Mankind are concerned in should depend upon such Niceties as Learned Men themselves cannot agree in p. 19. Confut. Learning is an excellent Gift of God and greatly serviceable to his Kingdom and Glory but when destitute of Heavenly Wisdom and Grace rightly to use it it becomes the Devil 's great Engine whereby he upholds Atheism Infidelity Heresy Schism Idolatry Superstition and false Religion in the World and
doubt whether the Crown of Scotland might be said to be throughly settled but after she was dead there was no question to be made of King James his right for if it should be supposed that he was an Usuper before yet after her Detth he had unquestionable Right and began to be fully and throughly settled in the Throne by the Law of Nations and the municipal Laws of Scotland Error 25. To fight against a King and not to fight for him I think are two very different things and when Kings make it impossible to fight for them without fighting against the Religion and Liberties of our Country they may thank themselves if their Subjects cannot defend them p. 49. Confut. Either the King is rightful King or he is not If yea then he is God's Ordinance and how can we in fighting for God's Ordinance be said to fight against it and true Religion If not then he is not God's Ordinance and why then may we not fight against him as Jehoiada and the good People of Judah did against Athaliah You and your Fellows think it your Vertue and Praise that you had no hand in the late Revolution Now either the late King James when the Prince landed was rightful King or he was not If yea then why did not you preach and press the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience Why did you not convince the People that he who is not for his rightful King and Soveraign is against him and that to fight for him is to fight for God's Ordinance Why did you basely and treacherously both Clergy and Laity forsake him in his Distress and stood looking on his Misery and afford him no help at all Was this Loyalty to your King Is it true Loyalty to be Neuter between God's Ordinance and Satan's Ordinance But if the late King James when the Prince landed was not rightful King but an Invader and Subverter of the Legal Monarcy and of True Religion and National Rights and Liberties and if the Prince came to save the Legal Monarchy and to rescue the National Rights and Liberties and to preserve and uphold True Religion why should it be your Vertue and Praise to have no hand in the Revolution Error 26. To judg truly of the legality of the late Revolution requires such perfect skill in Law and History and the Constitution of the English Government that few Men are capable of making so plain and certain a Judgment of it as to be a clear and safe Rule of Conscience p. 2. Confut. Certainly either the Prince of Orange's Undertaking Landing and Progress in his Affairs to the time of his being set in the Throne by Common Consent of the Nation and the two Princesses was Lawful or we have done ill in giving such solemn Thanks to God for it as we have and not only we in this Nation but Scotland also and Ireland as to the Protestant part and all the Reformed Churches beyond Sea and vâ—â—y 〈◊〉 of the Popish Party even Princes and Sovereign-States have approâ—â—â— it But too much Light puts out some Mens Eyes It is sufficient as to you that nothing at all in the late Revolution came to pass without the Providence of God for this with you is all in all in pulling down and setting up of Kings whether they have legal Right or not As to the Non-swearerâ— the chief of them had a principal Hand in the late Revolution and did eminently and publickly by Word and Deed and published Declaration concur to it and the thing it self was so manifestly just that it did overpower Mens Minds with its Evidence and could not be gain-said Indeed there was for some time dispute about the Point of Abdication But all the while it was indisputably plain that the Throne was empty and the Government of the Nation for a time was unhinged and the late King by hearkening to Popish Counsels and obstinately relying upon them had brought all this upon himself The late Revolution needs not our Arguments to make it good there is no necessity of turning over Volumes of Law and History for decision hereof it commends it self to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God to be no prosperous Wickedness but God's great Goodness and Mercy to three Protestant Nations if we had but Grace to be thankful for it and rightly to use and walk worthy of so great a Blessing So great that I greatly fear what between the Non-swearers and the deceitful and equivocal Swearers and the malicious haters of Godliness and Holy unity among us and the self-seeking Spirit which so sadly prevails we shall yet have cause of renewing days of Fasting and Prayer and happy we if we can so prevail with our God Error 27. If Princes receive their Authority from Men and Humane Laws I cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust of which they must give an account to those who have entrusted them with it p. 36. Confut. The Prince receives his Authority from God as Principal and from the People as Instrumental yet is he not strictly accountable to us but to God as being God's Trustee over us and neither our Servant nor our Equal but Superiour to us all Yet is he inviolably bound to perform Covenant with us no less than we are bound to perform Covenant to him If he shall contrary to the fundamental Oath and Covenant between Him and the Nation go about to enslave us to subvert the Legal Monarchy and those Laws by which the mutual Rights of Prince and People do consist he ceases to be our lawful King and becomes the same with an Usurper We in so judging do not exercise any superiority over him nor call him to account but as Men endued with common Sense and Reason we judg righteous Judgment God himself permits us to judg between him and us And now O Inhabitants of Jerusalem and Men of Judah judg I pray you betwixt me and my Vineyard Isa 5.3 Doth this make us superiour to God Do we in discerning between Right and Wrong and judging according to Truth exercise Authority over God and call him to account Sure Kings are not above God! while they have legal Right to the Throne they may not be resisted but if they have no legal Right to it they may be resisted as was Athaliah when it can be done with Common Safety Many more Errors might be set down out of your Book according to the old and true Maxim Vno absurdo dato sequuntur mille grant one Absurdity and a thousand follow But I have neither leisure nor list to meddle with more and had rather see their Majesties unsubdued Enemies effectually reduced and clothed with shame and these three Nations freed from every Adversary and evil Occurrent and an end put to War than read Books stuft with cold Arguments and dead Syllogisms to prove their present Majesties now no Usurpers though lately they were their Throne being now throughly settled If really they were Usurpers from the beginning I doubt they are so still God hath indeed blessed his Majesty with great Success but we are great Sinners against God and engaged in a very expensive War against an Enemy not to be despised and as we have ground to hope so we have great reason not to be high-minded but fear for if we have not Success I doubt all Paper-Arguments and artificial Syllogisms and Books of Dispute will prove too weak to convince Mens Minds that their present Majesties are throughly settled in the Throne FINIS