Dr. SHERLOCK's TWO KINGS OF BRAINFORD Brought upon the Stage IN A Congratulatory Letter TO Mr. JOHNSON Occasioned by The Doctor 's Vindication of Himself in Taking the Oath of Allegiance to Their Majesties after the Time indulg'd by the Law was expired LONDON Printed in the Year 1690. Dr. SHERLOCK's Two Kings OF BRAINFORD Brought upon the STAGE SIR THis is to congratulate your Victory over that Passive Obedience Doctrine the Chief Confessor of which is far from imitating you who were a real Martyr for that Truth which is opposite to it The Great Champions on the other side were Dean Hicks and Dr. Sherlock these gave the word to the Party the first would prove it by Man's Law the last by God's and thus the Laws both Humane and Divine were press'd into its Service Dean Hicks his last Effort for it was in Signing or Dictating the Weak Dying Declaration of the late Bishop of Chichester who had suck'd it in with his Milk and might be thought to dye with a Surfeit of it But the Dean finds yet no occasion to renounce any part of that Doctrine the Defence of which some say procured his Deanery According to his Golden Book God himself had fix'd his Allegiance unalterably to the Vid. Dr. H. his Jovian Late King as long as he should live and to the Sham Prince after him unless his Spurious Birth be fully proved For the Dean had taught that God had Preface to Jov. p 56. given the Imperial Crown of England for an inalienable Inheritance to the Royal Family that is as he immediately explains it to the next Heir upon the Line to exclude whom or any Person of the Royal Family from the Absolute Right or Birth-right which God alone had given him he asserted to be to oppose the Will of God nor does he seem yet to have thought of our Doctor 's Distinctions for Preserving and maintaining the Right of such an one and yet obeying another as having Gods Authority Wherein the Doctor sets up Two Kings one of Right the other by Providence But upon this Point the two Brotherly Champions are divided and leave you Master of the Field while they engage against each other That Dr. Sherlock gives up the Point of Succession and says what amounts to a total yielding the Cause to you may appear from the most Cursory Consideration of his Book and tho I must confess he has a great Art in Startleing his Reader Pag. 3. and helping himself off from Assertions which at first look very Gross yet I cannot but think that in the main he leaves either himself or his Beloved Doctrine without Excuse and where his present Actions oblige him to depart from it he shews it is like a parting with a right hand or right Eye and therein indeed does more for the Government than other Men and endures little less than Martyrdom I need not profess to you that I have no disesteem for the Man but his Opinions in relation to Civil and Ecclesiastical Government are in my apprehension so Derogatory from the Goodness of God Vid. Anonymus his Letters to him about Church Communion so uncharitable to Men and destructive to Humane Societies that I long since thought my self bound publickly to avow my dislike of them tho the Government and consequently in his Sense Gods Authority were on his side as I am sure the Government is now on mine it being founded upon Legal Principles as directly contrary to his as he often is to himself I maintain by Law that their Majesties are rightful King and Queen and came by their Power by due means which is impossible to be proved upon his Grounds The Absurdity and perhaps Blasphemy of his you can best set in their true Light and expose to the just Abhorrence of Mankind and have already done it by way of Anticipation But tho you have gained the Victory over his Opinions about Civil Government and every Lash you bore for the sake of our English Liberties shall rise about you in Circles of Glory yet such Men will be likely to reap the Spoil till they who maintain the Right to be in King James shall as the Law declares them if they act accordingly be adjudged Traytors to their Majesties and till the Principles of Hobbs and Matchiavel become as Odious as the Doctrine of our Pretenders to the Spirit of the Church of England was in the time of King James Vid. Dr. H's Sermon Vid. Dr. Sherlock 's Case of resistance When that Sovereign Power which was taught to be inseparable from his Person and could make Repeal and Dispence with Laws touch'd but the Hem of the Canonical Garments then the Dying Voice of a Meek Moses and the louder Cry of that Blood which was Sacrificed to their Idol could not be heard for the Jangling of Aaron's Bells Then they who had been transported with the Fallacious Promise of Maintaining the Church of England began to bethink themselves that there was not the least word of Religion and what comfort could it be to them to have Diana's Greatness out of Danger when others were likely to enjoy the Profit of the Shrines Till then the King 's Most Illegal Acts had the Authority of Sovereign Power that is as the Case of resistance Doctor tells us Gods Authority and it would be hard if that Authority could not make them Legal They thought they had this fast on their side and not foreseeing any Probability that there would be a Flaw in the Succession till this Generation should pass away by making that Sacred and Inviolable they hop'd to secure Reverence and Authority to themselves who had taught the Oracles to Philippize and speak as the Present Powers would have them On the other side King James and his Sottish Priests thought those Warm Men of our Clergy believed their own Doctrine and would inculcate it to their People however even the Clergy themselves should be used And finding the Lay-Herd like the Tribe of Issachar imagined that the Levites who had taught them to crouch under their Burden would have had more Modesty and Sense of Shame than to be Clamorous But certain it is how much soever they inveigh'd against your true Representation of the Behaviour of the Primitive Christians towards Julian they out-went the Pattern and were beholden to you for their Justification Far be it from me in the least to reflect upon the Vid. Pref. p. 4. Body of the English Clergy their Learning the World Admires their Prayers at least called for their Majesties and the most of them Swore Allegiance to them as soon as the Law required it and it is to behop'd with Sincerity Yet if they were means of delaying our Settlement or of undermining it I should not think my self Guilty of Profaneness or Infidelity in telling them they would thereby Blacken themselves and Obstruct the Propagation of that Religion Vid. the Doctor 's Pref. p. 4. which by Profession
Right before that Settlement may stiâ—l fight for it Obj. If it be said that the Subject-matter confines his Position concerning God's Authority tho' spoken absolutely to the Duty of Subjects who are by God himself discharged from their Allegiance but concerns not the dispossessed or any foreign Prince Answ 1. Then at least this shews That a Prince in Possession has not God's Authority absolutely for that is to be resisted by no Person whatsoever 2. But more particularly Admit every Act done by the Possessor towards a Settlement were sinful yet as soon as and for the Time that he is setled if the Doctor stand to his own Notion the Prince who usurp'd upon the other has God's Authority of his immediate Gift God the Sovereign Lord of all things Pag. 15. did set him up without regard to Law or legal Right nor does Pag. 2. it with the Doctor make any difference in this case to distinguish between what God permits and what he does the Event Pag. 12. is ordered by God and the Scripture he says expresly tells Pag. 34. us that Kingdoms are disposed by God If therefore the Kingdom be taken from the ejected Prince and given to another by God himself authoritatively not barely by permission and surely all his Acts must have Authority 1. Does not the dispossessed Prince in fighting for it deny the Authority and Force of Gods Gift 2. Does not God himself warrant him that is in Possession to defend his Gift or 3. Shall it be said agreeably to the Doctor himself that God design'd to take it away again till by restoring the Power to the other he has given him the Stamp or Sign of his Authority Till the Doctor answer these Questions with some Consistency it may well be held that the Attempt for a Restoration cannot be justified till Success and by consequence no more than any Usurpation nay here is an Usurpation upon God's Authority and Legal Authority the Doctor tells us is but Man's Pag. 25. But if God's Authority is no Reason why a dispossessed Prince may not strive to regain the Possession how can that be a reason why those who live within that Kingdom and have never bound themselves by Oath to the Possessor or taken benefit of his Protection and had sworn to maintain the others Rights may not when they can put themselves under their former Prince or any other to whom he will resign his Pretensions If God's Authority in giving the Kingdom may be oppos'd by the ejected Prince it may be thought a much stronger Case for the Non-swearing Multitude because God had never decided the Chance against them directly as he had done against the Prince however there would be this only Difference that the People resisted God's Authority over them the Prince God's Authority against him 3. If God has taken the Kingdom from the dispossessed Prince he becomes but a private Person Besides the Subjects being oblig'd to obey God's Authority with the other how can the Right of Government be where it is not the Subjects Duty to obey if not actually yet when there is opportunity But while the Possessor is setled Page 14. the Doctor owns that he alone has God's Authority to govern them and God requires their Obedience Wherefore it can never be lawful for the Prince out of Possession to attempt a Recovery of it till the Subjects are discharg'd from their Obedience to the other so that the Subjects may fight against the Possessor of the Crown as well and as soon as the former King 4. If a foreign Prince should without receiving any Injury or being invited by them that have be at liberty to follow the Temptation of Ambition tho another is by God himself appointed and setled King within such a particular Dominion would not this be contrary to God's Authority nay if Injury should warrant any other Prince not only to damnifie this Prince and his Subjects in proportion to the Injury received but to strive for the Crown when he has a fair Game for it may not Subjects in the like Circumstances as well shake off God's Authority as the other go about to unsettle and dislodge it and make himself King where God had appointed an other to be his Vicegerent 5. If the dispossessed Prince or any other may fight against God's Authority where it is setled without regard to another Prince's Right let the Doctor if he can assign a Reason why the Subject unless humane Law otherwise provide may not fight against the same Authority when exercised without any regard to Laws or when the Prince Case of Allegiance page 2. assumes an absolute Power where the Constitution gave but a limited one The most probable Account why a Prince may fight after running away is that he never yielded or promised not to try another Vid. pag. 9. Thâ— Submission of the Prince indeed may be thought necessary to transfer a legal Right Chance or more favourable Providence and the same holds for the Subject who has no way in Person or by his Representatives consented to that Power which the Prince assumes nay this is stronger on the Subjects side for till such Consent the Prince is not possessed of an absolute Power tho God has given him the other's Crown In short the Doctor owning that a Prince who came to a Crown by undue means has God's Authority when he is setled and yet that the Prince rejected by God may fight against his Authority whenever he has an inviting Opportunity does as Cicero says of the Epicuraeans in Name place God in the Government Nomine ponere re tollere Deos. but in Reality exclude him Since the Doctor seems to look upon himself as of a Nature superior to other Men at least His Thoughts are not as their Thoughts I shall not presume to judge of them otherwise than as he explains or hints them in justifying in the lump all that Preface p. penult ever he taught that is not here particularly retracted This I conceive may be my Warrant for drawing together a Scheme of his Book into a Speech to the old Passive Obedience Men and all others who may stand at gaze Gentlemen Tho I was long since satisfied that our Religion Vid. pag. 50. Laws and Liberties could not without a Miracle be preserved but by this Government and The Words in Italick are his own that the Return of the late King after his resigning himself into the Hands as well as Conduct of the French King must have involved the Nation in unspeakable Vid. pag. 50. Calamities yet as much as the Authority of my Example could prevail I strengthned the hands of the Enemies to the Peace of our Israel but having forfeited my Preferments by not giving that Assurance Pref. pag. 1. which the Law required of being True to their present Majesties it is the most probable Conjecture that I acted very honestly and sincerely and that I
never thought there was any possibility of King James his Return to reward my Loyalty to him without Reserve I shall fairly represent my Thoughts about this matter and Page 66. shall take all due care not to impose upon my self nor others by some little Fallacies To speak plainly This being an hereditary Monarchy I thought the present Settlement an Usurpation and that Usuâ—pations are not to be obeyed I think it an Usurpation still but find we should be ruined if we might not obey Usurpers I except the Rump Parliament and all Enemies to the Church of England After I had heartily prayed that I might not forfeit the Exercise Pref. p. 3. of my Ministry for a meer Mistake and continued to pray that I might not forfeit after I had forfeited and yet exercis'd it after the Forfeiture at last I found out two Expedients for the Monarchy 1. That every one who could catch it had an hereditary Monarchy for some Usurpers have left it to their Heirs 2. That whatever the Constitution may be it is but humane and must yield to the divine Law of Providence This seem'd to be new and singular and therefore I suspected the Thought or Inspiration call it which you please or at least feared it would never pass for currant Doctrine unless I could get it to be stamp'd with Church Authority This I was the more puzled to do because I found our Homilies to be very stiff for adhering to a Natural Prince But would you think it that very Declaration of our Church which the Conclave at Lambeth publish'd you may be sure not without consulting me to justifie not Swearing Allegiance to their Majesties confirm'd my former Notions and suggested some new Thoughts to me which removed those Difficulties which I could not before conquer That taught me to obey the Power which is uppermost tho the Form of Government be degenerate Call it Rump or what you will That taught me to pray for King Case of Allegiance page 4. Pref. page 2. William and Queen Mary by Name according to the Apostle's Directions to pray for all that are in Authority And this I did before I own'd that they were the Power which God had ordained but now I thank God I have received that Satisfaction which I desired from these self-evident Principles tho they were long hid from my eyes Pref. page 2. 1. That Allegiance is due not for the sake of Legal Right but Government that is not upon the account of Pag. 2. Right but of Force when those who will not submit may be crush'd at the pleasure of the Prince in Pag. 9. Possession 2. Allegiance is due not to bare Legal Right but to the Pag. 2. Authority of God That is not confin'd within Legal Bounds but is due to Gods Authority to which nothing can give Bounds Or if you will have it in other Case of Resist p. 197. words to a Power Independent on Laws 3. God when he sees fit sets up Kings without any regard to Legal Right or Humane Laws 4. Kings thus set up by God are invested with Gods Authority And that you may not think that I mean Pag. 3. that only they that are set up by God without regard to Right and Laws have a Power without Limitation you must consider that Allegiance is due to Gods unlimited Authority in all 〈◊〉 â—hatever for their very Persons are the Higher Powers and Authority is not in Laws Case of Resistance Pag. 13. Laws were never called the Higher Powers ' neither in Sacred nor Profane Writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament always signifies the Authority of a Person ibid. p. 194. but in Persons or rather as the Powers are Persons and Persons Powers it is not in Law but in Power These are Principles upon which I can Swear Allegiance to Turk or Teckeley or what is worse to a Rump Parliament or Protestant Rabble if they get the Power into their Pag. 50. Hands and are not likely to lose it till I might Starve Say not this is Hobbism Indeed it Entitles our Pag. 15. Gown to the Favour of all Governments better than Hobbism does Mine are the only Principles which Pag. 43. can make Government easie both to Prince and People in all Revolutions For afâ—er any Prince had lost his Crown either because his Subjects would not assist him or resisted his Exercise of that Absolute Authority which God gave no Prince would accept the Government but the People must be always in a State of Confusion unless Princes were assured that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience was believed as part of Gods Law Besides Mr. Hobbs taught the Absolute Power of all Princes only as a Philosopher upon Principles of meer Reason but we by adding the Authority of Scripture are sure of as profitable an Office in the State as the Keepers of the Sibylline Leaves had among the Romans by always finding a Prophecy to serve the Exigencies of State But we are not only Keepers but Interpreters of the Divine Law and the full power of declaring the Sense of it is with our Convocation whether the King Ratifies its Acts or no as the Legislative Power is with the King yet as Bishop Sanderson long since shewed the King is pleased not to make a Law without the Consent Vid. Sand. de obligatione Conscientiae p 189 203 209. of the People nor the Clergy to publish Canons without consent of the King But King James the First not having consented to the Publication of these Canons which seem design'd to quiet the Dispute about his Title James the Second being gone and no King here that we would own then was a proper time for the Church Vid. The question upon his Title in the Fundamental Constitution of â—â—e English Government Ch. 9. The Opinion of two Parlâ—aments 25 28 H. 8. and the Common Law in relation to Foreigners to exerâ— its full Authority especially since it derives the Power of all Princes from an Absolute Power in the First Father and therein shews that the late King exercised no Power but what he had of Right and there is one * * Bishop Overall's Convocation book Canon 28. Canon against Invasion by any Bordering Prince which we thought a direct Parallel to to the present Case How much soever that Convocation laboured to ingratiate themselves with the then Possessor of the Crown they took care to have the Favour of all others who should once come to be Settled and always to be of the strongest Side But whereas Mr. Hobbs makes Power and nothing else to give Right to Dominion we who are Gods Pag. 15. Ambassadors take care to have a share secured to God even in Authorizing those Revolutions which are brought about by the Sins of Men. Government we say is founded in Right I God is the Natural Lord of Pag. 15. the World and whoever has the Power has a
certain Sign to us that God placed him in it however the Right to the Crown is so Sacred that God himself cannot alter it without a miraculous Interposition For that Providence which removes and sets up Kings does not tho God Pag. 26. Pag. 14. gives the Man in Possession the true and rightful Authority of a King and makes him true and rightful King And indeed notwithstanding Gods setting up a King and making him Rightful as far as his Authority can the measures of Obedience are Doubtful there are different degrees of Settlement and Submission and the Convocation Pag. 17. Book leaves it a very great question Whether Allegiance can be due to an Usurper while the right Heir lives I should not tell any but Friends the Art I have used about the Story of Jaddus the High Priest whose Scruple against taking an Oath to Alexander during Darius his Life is the Foundation of a Canon wherein the Church declares If any Man affirm that Juddus having Sworn Allegiance Canon 30. to Darius might have lawfully born Arms against him he doth greatly Err. I know that if I had taken notice of this part of the Canon it would have seem'd a very Foreign Interpretation to say The meaning was no more than this that he having Sworn Allegiance to Pag. 8. Darius could not make a voluntary Dedition of himself to Alexander If this Art of mine should be publish'd in the Streets of Gath some Barbarous Philistines would be ready with rude Clamours and unchristian Vid. Pref. p. 1. Censures to say That I used the Canons as I did Bracton whom with a curious Vid. Case of Resistance p 196. Bracton Lex facit Regem attribuat ergo Rex Legi quod Lex attribuitâ—ei viz. Dominationem potestatem non est etenim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex piecing together the beginning and end of a Paragraph I brought over cleaverly to my side after the Rogue had said in the middle That the King receives his Dominion and Power from the Law But not a word more of this and take a short safe Rule with you Never Resist when you are like to be Crush'd for it and not to do your Legal Prince any Service Be not righteous over much why should ye destroy your selves Ye may be preserved for Good Times should your Legal Prince Land with an Army then your Oaths of Allegiance may equally Ballance on both side and you may lye still till Providence has declared it self or take that side which has most Indications of its Favour In this last Particular I may seem to misrepresent the Doctor who may be thought to have determined the Point absolutely on the side of this Government when the People have not only submitted to it but the late King's Power is broken and there is no prospect of his helping his Friends In such case he says If it be visible that the dispossessed Prince can never recover his Throne again Page 18. but by making a new Conquest of the Nation by Foreigners who will be our Masters if they conquer and no gentle ones neither We may then look upon the new Prince as advanced and setled by God in his Throne and therefore such a King as we owe an entire Obedience and Allegiance to 1. But if we observe what he says upon the Enquiry by what means the dispossessed Prince shall recover his Right it will appear that he lays the Subject under no higher Obligation to the Prince in Possession than not to assist the other but I do not find that he thinks they are bound to defend the Possession though they have sworn Allegiance which implies a legal Defence according to their Abilities so that if he speaks out he will not yield entire Obedience and Allegiance to be due all Men he says are not bound to list themselves Soldiers and though he allows the Militia and Posse Com. to be a legal Defence he no where says that Men are bound to act Page 31. in it against their legal King as he supposes the dispossessed Prince to be so that Men only run the hazard of the Penalty if Providence should still keep on the side of the Possessor Nay upon his Principles if it be safe Duty leads us to take part with his legal King out of Possession Whether a Commission granted by such a King be a legal Commission Page 71. he makes such a nice point in Law as he is not Lawyer enough to decide but if we go to him as a Divine he will tell us the Sovereign Power is inseparable from his Person and tho Case of Ref. pag. 20. the Commission be not legal in form it has the Authority of Sovereign Power 2. I do not find that he allows the Prince who is in Possession to defend God's Authority against the suppos'd legal Right and neither Prince nor People may defend the Kingdom against the legal King and foreign Forces 3. If the Doctor thinks the Rights of the Church or of the Monarchy injured in either of these Cases he seems to encourage the Subjects to resist God's Authority In the late Times of Rebellion and Usurpation he says all the Friends of Monarchy Page 48. and of the English Government and of the Liberties of their Country and of their own Honors and Fortunes were bound in Interest to take all Opportunities to restore the late King The Church he owns is provided for now Page 50. But he says if it be well considered the Defence of Monarchy Page 47. and the Rights and Prerogatives thereof will appear a very material part of the Oath which may bind Subjects when the Person of the King is changed and may make them think themselves more obliged to restore such a Prince when they cannot restore Monarchy and the ancient Laws and Government of the Nation without him God's Authority it seems in these Respects is suspended under God's King or other Minister if he but allowed the same under Man's his legal King I fear it would set aside his Doctrine of Passive Obedience when the Constitution is violated as according to his Notion of the Rights of Soveraignty that is of the Person of the King it is greatly by the Bill of Rights nor is it likely to be restor'd but with the late King to whom they had ascrib'd it 4. The danger from the Foreign Invasion be may answer in the same way as he does the danger of the legal Prince's losing his Right for ever if not assisted by his old Subjects viz. This may be called a difficulty in Providence but no difficulty to the Subject if he pursue his Duty that is if according to his Rule he cautiously wait upon the Motions or rather Events of Providence 5. If the Doctor will in such a Case yield as entire Obedience to the King of Providence as he did to the legal King he has as I shall shew learn'd this
from Principles directly contrary Vid. infra at large to the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non resistance the Professors of which as himself tells them do not think it a sufficient Confutation of their Doctrine to say Page 34. that this puts it into the King's Power to invade the Laws and Liberties the Lives and Fortunes of hss Subjects at pleasure Perhaps he was not aware that herein he exposed his own Doctrine as well as his old Friends for he admits a possibility for a Prince in a limited Monarchy to govern arbitrarily Non-Resist pag. 209. and to trample upon all Laws and yet will allow no Remedy but Patience In the Time of Charles II. when this slavish Doctrine had prepared Men for Submission to Tyranny and Popery of which the Discovery of the Plot and Management of that Discovery gave an immediate prospect the Doctor 's business was to Vid. Pref. Liberty of Thinking cramped allay Mens Fears and cramp their Endeavours to secure the Religion and Laws upon these dazling Assurances 1. Though we might be ruin'd and Violence might Case of Resist p. 209 210. overwhelm this Generation yet the Constitution might revive in future Ages till the breach of it were setled by a Law The Prince cannot make or repeal a Law without the Consent of the People you may be sure when the People are made Slaves they will be very loth to part with their Liberty 2. The Prince would offer constant Violence to himself especially if he were a Papist it would grieve him to the Heart to overthrow the Protestant Religion by Law established 3. Subjects are not bound to assist him in his Usurpations he must work without Tools the Age is so vertuous that none could be found 4. It would be dangerous for Subjects to serve him contrary to Law because if the Law should have its course again they might be punished 5. If we believe him all our Historians scandalize King John and Ric. 2. for in this long Succession of Princes in this Kingdom there has been no Prince that has cast off the Authority Pag. 212. of Laws and usurp'd an absolute and arbitrary Power Even King James you must understand exercis'd the Rights of Sovereignty when he dispens'd with the Laws and might have done it safely had he not violated the Rights of the Church That the Doctor then impos'd vain Assurances himself is now convinc'd and admits his bare possibility to have been reduc'd to act but still he would have the whole Difficulty left upon Providence and that Men should stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord. Besides what has already been observ'd these Consequences are obvious from his unretracted Doctrine 1. That all Kings are absolute and have Authority from God to trample upon our Religion Liberties and Laws at their soveraign Will and Pleasure 2. That all who joyn'd in Arms with King William before the Abdication resisted the Ordinance of God and without Repentance shall receive Damnation 3. That King James has still a legal Right to the Crown and therein one would think to our Obedience 4. That he may use Arms to recover that Right which the Doctor ascribes to him But how the Subjects and this King himself are in this Case cramp'd by him has appear'd Pag. 16. before 5. That they who fought against the late King in Ireland fought against their rightful King before Providence had declared God's Will 6. That the Doctor 's Justifrcation of himself for refusing the Oath of Allegiance so long and taking it at last amounts to this that agreeably to what he had before taught from Press and Pulpit he held that Allegiance ought not to be paid to Usurpers but having met with Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book which teaches that Usurpers are to be obeyed when setled in the Power his own Reason took its rise from that Authority to satisfie him that Allegiance is due to Usurpers tho the others legal Right remains and upon this Account he has taken the Oath to their Majesties Wherein he retracts his suppos'd Error that Usurpers are not to be obeyed but retains a real and pernicious one That their Majesties are Usurpers His declaring That he is far from intending to reflect upon the present Government is a Pag. ult Protestation contrary to the plain Fact Tho the Intention makes the Crime the Law implies the Malice when the Fact cannot be excus'd The Doctor confesses there is no prospect of Securing the Church of England and the Laws and Liberties of the Nation by other means than by this Government Yet this Pag. 50. is so far from prevailing with him to renounce King James his Right that notwithstanding his particular Obligation to the Mildness and Gentleness of this Government and his urging the Obligation of Gratitude upon Pref. p. 1. Pag. 39. others who will not Swear now he does He publickly maintains those Principles upon which it is impossible that the late King while he Lives should lose his Right or their Majesties be other than Usurpers and prefers the Vanity of asserting That he never taught but one Error to the Security of our Religion Laws and Pref. p. 5. Liberties For which it is to be presum'd his Book will undergo a publick Censure And the University of Oxford which condemn'd your Book to the Fire out of Loyalty beyond Law would make a due Atonement if they offer'd Case of Resist and Case of Alleg. up the Doctor 's Political Treatises to its injured Manes Sure I am the Bishop of L s Chaplain had no regard to his Master's Honour and uncovered his Spiritual Father's Nakedness when he Licensed such palpable Reflections upon that Action of his which was much more Commendable and Glorious than his Defence before the High Commission Court But besides those Observations which may occur to any Body upon the first running over Dr. Sherlock's Book there are others which may not be thought of till things of the like Nature are sorted together and set in a proper Light As First That he would set aside the Consideration of Law and Legal Right as Useless Unfit and intricate yet shews himself under an Absolute Necessity of having recourse to it 2. Takes upon him to explain it but verifies his Censure of it by his uncouth way of understanding it Secondly That in the room of Law he would set up Scripture and Reason without regard to Law but abuses Scripture and perverts it to the bringing God to Authorize Usurpation upon Princes and Tyranny or Usurpation upon Subjects and makes Reason inconsistent with its self but his Inconsistencies return so often that I need not make any distinct Head of them Thirdly That he would maintain his Old Doctrine of Passive Obedience as far as he can with colour make it consistent with his present Actings yet he effectually renounces it and says those things which if he had pursued the thoughts with that Force which Nature
has given him would have brought him to a sound Judgment in this matter Fourthly Would excuse his holding off from the Government and his Behaviour while he did yet is Self condemn'd Fifthly Seems to make his court to the King out of Possession and to their present Majesties yet neither did nor does by this Book serve either but quite the contrary First He would have the Justification of the right Waved as an unfit Dispute and besides To judge of Page 1. the Legality of the Revolution he says requires such perfect Skill in the Law and History and the Constitution Page 2. 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 It is to be observed that here the question is not in relation to them who were to consider of their Duty before the Revolution but what might satisfie their Consciences when it was settled and when it might be look'd on as settled And this very matter he himself thinks a plain case in our Law he says the Law it self as well as the Principles of Reason and Religion P. 59. c. 60. have annexed the Authority of Government to the Possession of the Throne And has no other colourable means of proving a Settled Possession but by the Law of the Land for he places it under God in the regular Consent and Submission of the People and owns that the Submission has been made by a Legal Representative of the People That Page 9. Page 51. the Law only tells us who is King that he has no Right that is no Authority but by Law And that our Representatives in a Convention at least in Page 54. Page 65. Parliament are the Judges in whose Judgement we should acquiesce And they 't is certain have declared that their Majesties are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen Vid. The Act Settling the Crown And that which declares the Acts of the First Parliament to be binding Laws Is not this a plain case without troubling the Subjects with particular Controversies But then he confounds this matter which otherwise were plain when he offers at the Law 1. Tho the Statute 11 H. 7. shews that Legal Allegiance is due to the King in Possession and that he is the Legal King he will have it that the Law does not deny Page 65. the others Legal Right to the Crown 2. Whereas the Lawyers say and prove from History Records and Law-books that the Constitution of this Monarchy is as has been observed of the Jewish Hereditary as to a Family elective as to Persons The Doctor will have it that the Lineal Heir has the Right to the Crown and yet that it is Hereditary Page 52. to any Person who gets a settled Possession tho he be not of that Royal Family which has through Providence either by Affinity or Consanguinity maintained the Possession for near 1000 years as may easily be proved and I hope may continue the Possession till time shall be no more 3. Whereas the Lawyers say that our Monarchy is limited and founded in Contract that a King who Acts without regard to the Fundamental Contract is not a Legal King and that the Natural Allegiance due to our Country supersedes the Obligation of what otherwise was due to him He will have the Law to allow a Legal Right to the Crown unto him who is out of Possession and lost it by the Just Judgment of God for exercising an Authority which the Law condemns and rejects And tho the Law in a limited Monarchy Page 30. sets Bounds to Sovereign Power yet that Scripture and Reason require our not Resisting a King Page 30. when he Subverts the Laws and Liberties and Legal Established Religion of the Kingdom by Illegal Methods as if he had Gods Authority for all this nor can they find a Contradiction in the thing that God should give a Prince Authority Case of Resistance p 119. to govern according to Law and yet Subjects are at Liberty to resist when the Bounds which God had set him are willfully transgressed And if a Lawyer may be allowed to Reason upon this Point he would say if he may not be resisted because he has Gods Authority Because he has Gods Authority he ought to be obeyed in every thing not contrary to Gods Law For it is certain the Sovereign Power which is Gods Authority is to be obeyed actively in all things within that Limitation A Person may act beyond it but the Power never can which shews a necessary Distinction between Persons in Power and the Power which they have or exercise tho the Doctor allows of none and helps himself by confounding and joyning what God separates which is as bad as separating what he has joyned Thirdly That he would set up Scripture and Reason without regard to Right or Law appears from the very Scheme of Government which he lays down in his first Section The design of this Book is particularly to prove it to be without regard to the Right of the Government leaving the question of Law in great measure to his Case of Resistance the chief design of which was to shew that the Scripture requires Obedience to the Prince that has Right by Law without regard to any other Law but that which settles his Title This was a giving up the Cause as to what he would enforce from the 13th to the Romans for tho he had then asserted that that Chapter and the whole Scripture where ever it speaks of Higher Powers always means the Authority of a Person not of a Law To serve his turn then he would allow no Man to be Gods Ordinance in an Case of Resistance p. 113. Hereditary Monarchy but the next Heir in the Line in Consequence of which the Scripture speaks of no Higher Power but what is Legal This point he is forced to give up as to the next Heir and yet finds another Heir according to his fancied Law of the Monarchy but in the main keeps to his Fundamental Error that the Scripture means Persons and not Laws where it speaks of Higher Powers Nay and must be of Persons alone without regard to Laws for otherwise the Scripture affords no proof that God ever sets up Persons without regard to Laws and makes them his Ordinance Now the Doctor all along supposing that their Majesties did not come to the Crown according to the Law of the Government finds it convenient that the Scripture should be held to have no regard to the Law which shews who have right to govern and yet even in that respect it is evident that he must own the 13th to the Romans not to speak of Persons barely as invested with Natural Power that is Force but Moral that is Legal Power for he will not yield that the People who have the most Natural Power have in any case Right to Govern It must
therefore be meant of Persons in Authority and none can be in Authority but they that have Right to Govern Which shews that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be applied indifferently either to Natural or Moral Power It must here be confin'd to Moral notwithstanding all the Doctor 's labour Page 19. to the contrary Having Dispatched this Question in relation to the Right to Govern it will be much more easie to silence all pretences to inforce from that place of Scripture a Right to Govern by Gods Authority without regard to Law For it is evident that he who of himself assumes a Power which no Law gave is not Gods Ordinance or any Power in that respect And when the Constitution of a Government had placed the Power in King Lords and Commons that is Gods Ordinance Whoever Invades that Share or Manner in which it is enjoy'd by either acts not only without but against Gods Authority And it Modus habendi potestatem Vid. Grot. is evident that where the King has not the Power so Absolutely in him as to make Laws of his sole Authority he is not the Higher Power for whose Security our Doctor broach'd his Non-Resisting Doctrine The Doctor may by some be thought to be for halving that Doctrine and to have changed his half which before was to serve Tyranny now for that which he counts an Usurpation upon the Tyrant But indeed he now joyns both halves together for without that he sees it is impossible to make any thing for his turn of the 13th to the Romans for the one half must needs be excepted by the same reason that the other is If a Lay-man may attempt to explain the 13th to the Romans these particulars may farther be observed upon it in relation both to the Right of Government and the Law of the Government 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle uses where he requires Obedience implies a Regular Subjection and determines the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if otherwise doubtful to regular that is Legal Authority 2. The Doctor himself owns in effect that Obedience is not due to the Person but to his Authority or at least not to the Person alone but for the sake of his Legal Power or Authority that is to or for the Law and not the Person alone When the Doctor elsewhere says it is to the Person and not the Law But whether he does not admit the Law to deserve a Place let the World judge To what particular Prince says he we must pay our Allegiance Pag. 54. the Law of God does not tell us but this we must learn from the Laws of the Land Nay tho sometimes he tells us the King 's most illegal Acts have the Authority of Soveraign Power at others he Case of Res pag. 191. owns that his personal Commands have not for if they had they would justifie his Instruments who should act by such Authority against the Law in which Case he confesses his Command will not excuse them and tho he contends that all Kings setled in Possession have God's Authority which in the nature of the thing cannot be limited by humane Laws yet he says when driven to it that the King has no Right but by Law and Pag. 65. the Law may determine how far his Right shall extend 3. It is to be considered that tho it be for the Doctor 's purpose to have it believ'd that the Powers in Case of All. pag. 30. Case of Res pag. 24. being when the Apostle required Subjection were not legal Powers it is plain that they were both as to the Right and Exercise of that Government to which Subjection was required Our Saviour as himself says elsewhere left Soveraign Princes in the quiet Possession of what he found them possessed of Case of Res pag. 55. 4. When our Saviour and his Apostles gave Rules for Subjection there was no Competition between Princes or Powers about Right or Titles to the Government wherefore had it been usurp'd or never so arbitrary and tyrannical there was no choice but that or Tyranny Submission or Confusion 5. Whereas the Doctor in Confirmation of his Sense of Rom. xiii says that the Romans themselves were great Pag. 21. Usurpers 1. This is not to the purpose in that place the Epistle being to the Romans themselves 2. If he means it in relation to the Jewish Christians the Doctor will hardly prove the Roman Power over them an Usurpation for this I would refer him to the Consideration of Herod's Will and how far he submitted his and his Childrens Rights to the pleasure of Augustus Caesar Vid. Joseph The Doctor 's next Attempt upon Scripture to my thinking is very bold nor do I well know by what term I ought to call it but shall fairly represent it Which is this That the Scripture never speaks of the bare permission of any Events but makes God the Author of all the Pag. 12. good or evil which happens either to private Persons or publick Societies he foresaw that the Objection to this is obvious have not then Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Usurper has to the Crown This he answers by an Evasion The Dispute says he is not p. 34. about humane and legal Right in either Case but about Authority But it is plain that it is between Humane and Divine Right and tho I had humane Right on my side the Robber has the Divine in the Doctor 's Sense Providence having given it him by consequence tho the right Owner may endeavour to force it from him as he who is dispossess'd of his Throne may if we believe the Doctor fight against the Possessor yet against all other Men but the Owner the Robber would have a Right If the Heirs or Executors of the Party have a Right by the same reason would Heirs or Assigns of a dispossessed Prince and if it be lawful for a Prince who came to Possession by undue means to defend his Possession after it had been setled upon the Doctor 's way of arguing so would it be lawful for the Robber But the Doctor in not having determined that a Prince may defend a wrongful Possession leaves that matter as doubtful for the Robber Thus he makes Robberies and Usurpations which indeed are but greater Robberies to be authorized by God Almighty But says the Doctor The Scripture is express That Kingdoms Pag. 34. are disposed by God some no doubt have been by an evident Manifestation of God's Will and then I hope he will not say it is an Usurpation no more than it was Robbery in the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians But if the Doctor will say that God directly gives it to an Usurper 1. it argues that God's Gift cannot give a Right for if he did it would cease to be an Usurpation 2. He who came by undue means to a Throne may have
Fight against our Country which is as Vnnatural as to Fight against our King describes as a Tyrant and Unnatural Lord. Besides the former Particulars which in Justifying the Revolution prove their Majesties to have been Rightfully declared King and Queen tho the Doctor will have the Dispossessed Prince to remain Legal King and to have Right to the Government the Doctor shews their Majesties Right to be Legal now they are settled He affirms that the Law it self as well as the Principles of Reason and Religion have annexed Page 59. the Authority of Government to the Possession of the Throne that no Authority but the States of the Realm page 52 53. can take Cognizance of the Titles and Claims of Princes and the disposal of the Crown that private Subjects ought to submit to their Determination that no Law binds us to disown a King whom the Estates have owned That such a Possessor is a True and Rightful King and has the True and page 14. Rightful Authority of King Surely then he is a Legal King and less Subtle Wits would not free themselves from a Contradiction in saying that the Rival is the Legal King still He has a doubtful Passage where he may seem positively to deny that the ejected Prince continues a legal Prince he admits that he and his Friends have been in a Mistake but whether in relation to the legal Prince or the nature of the Allegiance due to him you may take which you please There is nothing says he to prejudice any Man against the present Government or to Pag. 50 make the Restoration of the dispossessed Prince necessary but a mistaken Notion of Allegiance to that Prince whom we suppose to have the legal Right tho he be dispossessed and another established in his Throne which I have already prov'd to be a Mistake It was necessary for him to leave this with two Handles lest what he has driven at all along should be taken for his positive Assertion that he and his Party suppose that 't is believ'd That the late King has the Right still and this King is an Usurper Yet I take the genuine Sense to be thus We have had mistaken Notions of the Allegiance due to King James whom we suppose to have the legal Right But however he as I before observ'd admits that in some Cases God may leave a free People to choose their own Pag. 13. King says withal That the late King in some sense left his Pag. 50. Throne vacant and yields what infers it absolutely In which he shews the Submission of the People to Their Majesties to be full and legal and that the Law of the Monarchy is preserved and one would think this should make them legal and rightful King and Queen And yet this may be prov'd more evidently out of the Doctor 's own Concessions upon the Submission of the People Himself makes nothing wanting Pag. 51. He begins to doubt whether this is requisite and uses it but as the Objection of others Pag. 9. He says inded it may be thought necessary and the whole Book and Preface shew that himself thinks so but the Submission or Consent of the legal King to transfer a legal Right to the Possessor He says indeed it is nonsense to suppose the Consent of the King Pag. 59. de jure but if the Law shews that he consented I hope it is good Sense and Reason to say that he has consented nor must the Doctor cavil if he yields such Law to be in force He tells us the Stat. 11 Hen. 7. which says in the Preamble That Subjects shall be obliged to pay Allegiance to the Pag. 62. King for the time being is an authoritative Declaration of the Pag. 63. Law and himself shews That this has been admitted for Law in the Reigns of legal and rightful Kings Pag. 53. He must farther yield when press'd to it that King James has directly consented to that Law and that as much as if it had been particularly recited to him not only in accepting the Government under the legal Limitation but in swearing to maintain the Laws in general and to suffer them to have their course If then this be the Law he has submitted and consented to it and his leaving the Government was as good as a recommending the Execution of it to his People And if he has consented that they should pay their Allegiance where they should make their Choice and Submission it follows that he has consented to the Translation of that legal Right to their Allegiance which he once had But that which legally transfers the Allegiance of the Subject must transfer the Right of the King and he who has no Right to their Allegiance has no Right to be their King I hope when the Doctor has consider'd this matter he will say that the late King has no manner of Right and that their Majesties are our only Lawful and Rightful Soveraigns Fourthly His Excuse for holding so long off and Account of his Behaviour while he did is very lame and unsatisfactory I. It manifestly appears that he held off and came in upon the same Principles and it may seem very strange that a Man should be so long in understanding what necessarily flows from his own Doctrine what he now retracts is evidently contrary to his own Sense of the 13th to the Romans Preached and Published six Years since and if a Jewish Example An. 1684. made him then bring in an Exception to his Rule Vid. the examample of Joash Pref. p. 6. Book p. 34 35. he might have had as full an Example to set aside the Exception in the Case of Rehoboam who for slighting that Constitution by which he was to govern was adjudged by God himself to have forfeited his Right and particularly commanded not to claim it by Arms. The Government established upon that Revolt was more plainly God's Ordinance than the Doctor 's Usurpers and Tyrants Wherefore for all the Jewish Presidents he might have kept throughout to his own Interpretation of the Text and have believ'd that it made Usurpation as well as Tyranny God's Ordinance especially since it is evident that the Text relates to both or neither Obj. Indeed I meet with an Objection to this in both his Treatises of Government viz. That only the Kingdom of Judah had been entail'd on David's Posterity Case of Resist p. 131. and that nothing could justifie an Usurpation against his Posterity within that Kingdom tho it might be justifiable Case of All. p. 35. as to that of Israel but in truth the Doctor here comes to his Rule from Success they kept Judah but lost Israel which had been included within the first Settlement God Almighty by his Prophet told Solomon If 1 Kings 9. 4 5. you will keep my Statutes and my Judgments then I will establish the Throne of thy Kingdom upon Israel for ever as I promised to David
beginning that Argument fails 3. If it were as much broken at the beginning as now that was not the Argument but some more private Motive 4. If that Argument cannot have full force now himself in holding out so long and others of his opinion in coming into this Government with the same opinion and retaining it may be thought in great measure the occasion Tho Providence had made a Settlement early it was prudent not to venture too far on its side and to see whether it was any more than a pattern or platform to be pulled in pieces presently as soon as God Almighty had taken a view of his Handy-work Or rather tho this was a Settlement which bound the Laity the Clergy Gods peculiar Lot and Inheritance had an Exemption till himself had spoken to them by his Church At least they ought to stay till they saw the Church of England secured and that there was no * Page 50. prospect of securing it by any other means then their Interest obliged them to pretend to Loyalty with the forwardest Shall they ungratefully reject this Blessing from Heaven While they keep up an Empire within an Empire the Changes of Civil Government will not bind them till they are subdued upon the Struggle and by Providence condemned to Affairs truly Spiritual Good God! How long shall Men be made Slaves and the Peace and Settlement of Kingdoms †P. 45. Properties to an equivocal Word When they have to deal with those of Rome then in pious Condescention and Christian Charity to Vid. Dr. Sherlock of the Vnity of the Church compared with his Sermons and Tracts of Church-Communion and Vnion with Christ Jesus themselves the Laity shall be called in to their Aid When a turn of theirs is to be serv'd or colour'd then Church-men alone without a King are as good Authority as can be urged to the Members of the Church of England For the most part Church-men with a King at the Head of them are the page 10. Supream Authority and Judges in all Controversies about Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Matters and neither can ascribe too much to the other while they hold together Sometimes Constantine and his Arrians at other times he and the Orthodox are the true Church But Orthodoxy like Civil Government went along with the Power Tho the right Faith like the Dispossessed legal King may retain the Right still unaltered yet Error carries on the Name of Church as well as the other does that of Government and ought to be submitted subscribed and sworn to as long as it has Power to Crush the Obstinate Refusers Gods Authority if not Infallibility attends the Chair when it stands guarded in Conjunction with the Throne and no Man ought Saucily to Affront the Powers by preaching up the True Religion where a False one is settled Nay they ought to pray that God would keep and strengthen the Power in that False Worship And according to some Mens Reasons Error in the Chair is more Gods Ordinance than Truth out of it All the Stories of Miracles wrought at the Tombs of Martyrs must be look'd on as lying Legends for who can think that God would give such publick Approbation to their Affronting his Ordinance and Authority Fifthly It is probable the Doctor did not perform his Duty to the late King upon his own Interpretation of Scripture and Providence even before the Abdication But that he did not after is evident for while he not only thought him to have the Right as it is to be presum'd he does still but that God had set up no other Government he did not use the means in his power for the restoring him to full Possession and preferred his own Safety to the Obligation of his Oath to maintain and defend his Right which whether possible or no the event only could shew but it is a safe Rule to run no page 16. Hazard He still leaves him a Right to contend for his lost Crown but sets up the Supream Law common Safety against that Sacred and unalterable Right I shall forbear to draw together into full light all those Instances whereby it appears that he is far from serving their Majesties But in one respect he has not followed the Rules of Prudence in relation to his own Interest How much soever W. I. might grasp at an Absolute Power it is plain from History and Records that he would not pretend to the Name of Conqueror least he should create a Jealousie in his People And had the Clergy of that Age Flatter'd like others since he would have certainly shewn Marks of his Displeasure if it had been for no other reason but that he might demonstrate to his People that they ought to have no Apprehensions of losing their Rights and Liberties upon the Change I shall run the Parallel no farther than to say That no Man can reasonably expect their Majesties Favour who tells them or the World that they are invested with an Absolute Power of the Gift of God without regard to Right without regard to Law Arbitrary Power tho it is a Plant which rises towards Heaven as it pretends a Descent from thence is not likely to over-top King William's Laurels It is a Contradiction to the end and effect of his coming an Enemy to his Crown and Dignity a Friend and Creature of France and King James Nursed up here for their Service And as it gave Rise to that Power with which its Chief Patron has plagued Mankind its Teachers cannot but expect a Reward or more easie Servitude than others if he should accomplish that Universal Tyranny for which it is calculated The Doctor affirms with great Assurance that his are the only Principles which in such Revolutions as page 43. he treats of can make Government easie both to Prince and People And says he if Government must be preserved in all Revolutions those are the best Principles which are most for the Ease and Safety of it But 1. If the Government be limited it is not for its Ease and Safety that the Prince should be thought to have an Arbitrary Power of Gods Gift 2. If the Person of the Prince be the Government it is not for his Ease and Safety that no Laws no Submission of the People can engage his Subjects to this Prince against a supposed Legal King 3. It it much more easie to perswade Men to refer the Determination of Legal Rights to the Legal Authority page 52. of the Estates of the Realm which the Doctor owns to be conclusive than to satisfie them that they ought to Swear Allegiance to a King while a Legal Right remains to his Rival 4. How much soever Subjects may be harangued into a Neutrality they who assist neither are likely to be treated as Enemies which side soever prevails But the Philosophy of Hobbs or Divinity of the Graver Stoicks agree neither with our Constitution nor with Gods Methods in governing the World
so acted as to obtain God's Favour and God may give him an Establishment tho he did not give the Throne and therefore God did not authorize the Usurpation which was the Man's Sin 3. However publick Good may require his Establishment 4. If the Scripture be not so taken as to discharge God from authorizing the Sin in the Usurper by the same Rule we shall be bound to believe that he authorizes private Robberies and the dispossessing Men by Wrong for the Scripture says God hath made of one blood all Nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the Earth and Acts 17. v. 26. hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their Habitations according to which in such a literal Sense as the Doctor puts upon Texts relating to the Changes of Governments God has appointed those very bounds which an ill man gets by Violence or an unjust Neighbour by a false Land mark Upon the whole tho God permits the Sins of Men his Authority gives no Sanction to them but it does to humane Laws and when Necessity for the good of Communities sets aside particular Provisions made for that end God authorizes that Act declaratory of the Supream Law The general Rule of Scripture if a Lay-man may say so in relation to the Duty both of Prince and People is to seek Peace and ensue it Whoever therefore after a Government is once setled by the Submission of a People and the main ends of Government are preserved be it the ejected Prince or other shall attempt to break the Peace and deprive Communities of those Comforts which God in great mercy gives them he sins against God's Establishment for as the Doctor says upon another Account the Preservation of humane Society will Pâ—g 40. justifie what it makes necessary Dean Hicks I must needs think is in this particular more Orthodox than our Doctor but the Dean had learnt his Orthodoxy from the Lawyer Fortescue who has these memorable Words Jovian p. 253. All Laws published by Men have also their Authority from God for as the Apostle saith all Power is from the Lord God wherefore the Laws that are made by Men which thereunto have receiv'd Power from the Lord are also ordained of God This the Dean receives and improves his way having suppos'd that he had shewn by our Law that the King is irresistible in all Cases If says he all Laws of Men be the Laws and Ordinances of God then I suppose the Common and Statute Laws of every Empire which absolutely forbid the Subject to resist the Sovereign are so too If our Doctor had attended to this Passage in the most plausible Book that ever was written for Passive Obedience to absolute or Imperial Power superiour to the Political the Doctor might have avoided many Inconveniences which he has run himself into 1. He need not have contradicted himself sometimes making every King to have Authority from God without regard to Right or Law at other times that the Law must teach who is King and what his Authority 2. If he had suppos'd God to have given the Sanction to Laws but not to Usurpations he would not have charged God foolishly 3. He would never have put God Almighty to the Necessity of a Miracle to justifie the Instruments in freeing Oppressed Nations if he would have allowed Men in many Cases to have been the first Agents or at least to have cooperated with God without Sin as if so good an end as the Preservation of Religion and the fundamental Laws of Societies were never to be accomplished by good means But in making God always the first Agent and to act alone in the disposition of Kingdoms he makes him too much the Author of those Sins which Men may commit in some Changes And yet this serves the Doctor better than the yielding that God has in any Case lodg'd any Power in Communities and that they may dispose of it as they shall think fit for if they could he owns it would imply a Trust and would render Kings accountable to them for notorious Violations Indeed when he is not aware of this Consequence he grants that God sometimes Pag. 13. leaves a free People to chuse their own King And therefore unless there can be no limited Monarchy but God has assertain'd the Rights of all Kings as such by his own Confession elective Kings are accountable but that would justifie the Revolution if this Monarchy should prove in any Sense elective and be sure the Doctor will keep off from that till the King of France is less formidable 4. He might have spar'd his Objections or rather Pag. 24. Sir Robert Filmer's against the force of the Choice and Consent of the People to make a Prince or indeed any Laws for if God gives the Sanction and Authority to such Consent as is agreeable to his Word and that natural Law which he has given all Mankind with regard to the Constitutions of respective Governments then there is no force in the Objection that the Majority cannot conclude the rest nor our Ancestors by their Consent bind us And observe how little the Doctor attended to the Consequences of this Objection 1. If the Majority cannot conclude the rest how can the Submission of the People make a Settlement and yet he owns that it does 2. If our Ancestors could not bind us how comes that Agreement which he supposes to have made this an Hereditary Monarchy to leave a Legal Right to one against the present Interest and consent of the Nation 3. How can our Submission to their present Majesties bind our Successors And would not his Notions effectually unhinge all Governments Thirdly But if the Doctor had pursued as he ought those true Principles which he sometimes falls upon unawares he would have given the World more Satisfaction of his Sincerity and would not by Halting between two Opinions leave it as a Doubt what is his real Judgment I hope he will not say I misrepresent him when I draw from his own Concessions such a Scheme of Government contrary to his Doctrine of Passive Obedience as will with great clearness prove their Majesties to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen Hitherto you have been entertained with a Melancholly Scene of a poor injured Prince who for the Exercise of a Power which God had given him was according to the Scope of the Doctor 's Book and of those Canons which converted him to this Government thrust from his Throne by a Fortunate Usurper and Rebellious Subjects and Providence was put to great Difficulties to assert his Right But now another Scene opens that King for whom the Doctor bespoke your Service and for the sake of whose Right he would have it thought a Duty in all like himself not to be hasty and forward in their Compliances with Gods Providence Page 16. upon a single Decision least they should hâ—lp to give Advantages against the Right is fled out
of another Kingdom and has but one more to try his Fate in so that there is two to one on the side of the Possessor Now therefore he who had the Right has justly Forfeited And the Supream Law the publick Good warranted a Revolt from him and meeting our Deliverer as a Blessing from Heaven All this may be little expected from the Doctor but tho it may startle and surprize you I shall prove it Page 3. and shew from him 1. That our Monarchy is limited and the King has no Authority but what the Law allows him Page 30. Page 65. which sets Bounds to Sovereign Power As I before observed he owns that the King has no Right but by Law and the Law may determine how far his Right shall extend And thus Man's Law limits Gods Authority This is more than he would own expresly that I can find in the time of C. 2. but even then he admitted that he who Governs by Caâ—e of Resist p. 197. Arbitrary Will is a Tyrant and no King Yet he then left it to his pleasure whether he whom he calls the Law maker would Govern by Laws or Sovereign Will. Case of Resist p. 196. This was suitable to the use he then had for the 13th to the Romans but now it serves only to countenance what he will have an Usurpation And yet it will be a question how he can be an Usurper who as the Doctor confesses as he is King receives his Right from Law having no Right but by Law And what he says in another Page 42. respect as far as he quits his Government he quits the Allegiance of the Subjects might be easily improved here 2. That if Kings receive their Authority from Men and Humane Laws their Power is a trust of which they Page 36. must give an account to those who intrusted them c. tho no express Provision were made in the Law to call them to account 3. That King James notoriously violated the Subjects Rights and broke the Constitution upon which himself page 27. stood and struck at the Dearest things their Religion established by Law and their Properties is almost as plainly signified by him as if he had named the Man 4. He is express in relation to the late Revolution that a Prince Forfeits the Affections and Legal Defence of Page 30. his Subjects by the Exercise of an Illegal and Arbitrary Power Where 1. he owns a Forfeiture And 2. of what is essential to the Sovereignty that Love or Filial Duty to Princes which our Clergy tell us is required under the Honour due to Parents 3. A Legal Defence is certainly due by Law to a King as such and therefore when that Defence is no more a duty Allegiance ceases especially the Subjects having Sworn to this And if the Oaths taken to the Prince are discharged as to any part by a Forfeiture it will be difficult to shew why that Forfeiture ought not to extend to the whole 5. He as good as yields that the late King Absolved the Subjects from their Allegiance to him Speaking Page 48. of the late King and his People and their chief Interests in comparison with former times which he would make greatly to differ from the present The bold steps says he and extraordinary Methods he had taken gave them great Apprehensions that all these were in danger even the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown it self the Preservation of which was a main end of the Oath of Allegiance by his Submission to the See of Rome and rejecting the Oath of Supremacy and as far as he could absolving his Subjects from it Add to this what he said elsewhere The Defence of Monarchy and the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown will appear a very page 51. page 47. material part of the Oath of Allegiance It must be considered that all which he makes requisite for transferring the Legal Right of Government to an Usurper who obtains a settled Possession is the Submission or Consent of a Legal Prince Since therefore the Prince in this consented as far as he could to divest himself of his Supremacy which I hope he will say is essential to his Sovereignty it may seem that his Sovereignty may as well be transferred to the People as to any Prince being the Doctor and the Convocation have no Scruples upon the Degeneracy of the Form of Government And therefore our Parliament justly affirmed the Power to have been The Act about the Law proceedings devolved upon the People when they ordered Indictments for Offences during the Vacancy to be laid Contra pacem Regni He grants farther That the Safety of the People is the Supream Law That it will be hard to convince any considering Men that that which is necessary to preserve a Nation is page 41. a Sin This indeed he applies to Submitting to an Usurper But the reason of it goes farther He admits That we have no Direction in Scripture at all about page 22. making or unmaking Kings To which I may apply what he brings to another purpose That when we page 45. are to learn our Duty not from any express Law of God or Nature but from the Reason and Nature of things It is a sufficient Argument that it is not my Duty which will expose me to great Sufferings without serving any good end nay which exposes me to Sufferings for contradicting the natural End and Intention of my Duty And soon after he admits That Men were not made for Princes to be their Slaves and Properties but Princes were made for the Government of Men. That necessity of Preservation may absolve Subjects from their Oaths to their Prince And that page 42. the Preservation of Humane Societies is the ultimate end of Government and will justifie what it makes necessary page 40 41. page 33. Farther yet and more particular I do not think says he the Right and Interest of any Prince so considerable as the Safety and Preservation of a Nation and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects I shall not enquire how far this agrees with his Assertion That if a Limited Monarch were not as irresistible Case of Resist p. 208. as the most Absolute the most Absolute and Despotick Government is more for the Publick Good than a Limited Monarchy But certain it is had the Doctor taken as much time to consider the direct Consequences of these Noble Truths for justifying the Shakeing off a Tyrannical Power Usurp'd over the Subjects as he did for bringing himself to submit to what he will have to be an Usurpation upon a Legal Prince he could not but have seen that they who contributed towards this Revolution discharged their Duty to God and their Country much better than they who were Unnatural to their Country in adhereing to the Interest of one whom the Doctor Page 2. An Oath to fight for the King does not oblige us to
If the first shut God out of the Government the other brings a Deity upon the Stage as Familiarly as Poets with their Fictions or Players in their Machines And it is observable that tho God is made the Actor and Authorizer of the Event he is render'd a Nonassister of either of these Kings as well as the Subjects are Divine Right and Divine Providence poizing the Scales According to that of the Poet. Victrix causa Diis placuit sed victa Catoni Where the Hero has a more noble and generous Character than his Gods But that I may not only overthrow the Doctors Startleing Scheme of Government without advancing page 3. another I conceive these Propositions may do more good in the World 1. That Allegiance is a Legal Bond or Tye importing Active as well as Passive Obedience to Legal Authority 2. That he to whom Allegiance is not due is not Legal King nor has Right so to be or ever can be without a new Submission of the People either of Free Choice or by Constraint unless it be by the visible Designation and Appointment of God Almighty 3. That no Divine Law or just Inference from thence sets aside Humane Constitutions suitable to Christianity and beneficial to Civil Societies 4. That no Divine Interposition or Act of God which is not so visible as may satisfie all Men before the Success what is the Will of God can be said Authoritatively to alter or diminish Rights to Crowns or the Liberties or Properties of Subjects 5. That Humane Constitutions may be vertually Repeal'd or Suspended when they cease to answer the main end or Law the good of the respective Societies 6. That they who contributed towards our present Settlement did what had been justifiable tho they had fail'd of Success the late King having long before ceased to be a Legal King 7. That Their Majesties are our sole Lawful and Rightful King and Queen according not only to the Supreme Law the publick Good but to the positive Laws and Constitutions of this Government known and declared as there has been occasion in all Ages from the first Foundation of this limited Monarchy 8. That they no more consult the Honor and Interest of their Majesties than the common Safety who now advance the old decanted Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience to a Power exercis'd without any regard to legal Right or humane Laws Dr. Sherlock owns it as it was taught by himself and Dean Hicks to be a meer Jacobite The Doctor now sets it forth in a new shape with King William's Livery but it 's only a Picture in a Scene which cannot stir to help in any Exigency He makes it the Doctrine of Fate which was taught by one Sect among the Heathens and laugh'd at by all others He who has baptiz'd it by the Christian Name of Providence can find no other Godfather to it but himself yet is far from promising and vowing in its Name that it shall manfully resist the Devil and all his Works it is enough not to assist If the Devil and his Agents get the better their Authority is God's Ordinance and it is no Sin to follow whither Fate draws But the Doctor has taken it from common Drudgery and honorably confin'd it to the Government of States and Kingdoms in private Robberies it gives not the Robber Authority over Persons as it does to Usurpers he has only Right to what it puts into his hand Pag. 24. This Doctrine which is always attendant upon Fate or Providence is the Clergie's Writ of ease the Prince's false Friend and changeable Courtier but professed Enemy to the rest of Mankind It served the King-craft of James I. though he had not the Courage to give Sanction to those Canons which would enforce it by Spiritual Thunder proved Fatal to his Son enabled the two Brothers to Revenge the Contempt of it seem'd to expire under the last but gave dangerous Symptoms of Life and Vigor upon the Abdication Since this evil Spirit now haunts the Land again it is a Task worthy of your Pen to send it well whipped to the place from whence it came and to 〈◊〉 it to its native Shades that it may never rise in dark Clouds to blacken our Deliverance Pref. Pag. 4. This the World expects from you and is earnestly desired by Sir Your Faithful Friend and Servant FINIS Page 32. Line 7. Read that is believe