not give some Authority and yet we find that he in the course of his Providence does intrust less than Sovereign Power in the hands of those to whom he gives no Authority As the Power that every Oppressor has is from God but God surely gives him no Authority to oppress IV. But let us suppose now that whoever has Sovereign Power has also Sovereign Authority and must not be resisted and then I will prove that the Sovereign Authority is always in the People for bare Sovereign Power is only Sovereign Force and Sovereign Force is the greatest natural Strength and surely the greatest strength is in the People if the Doctor will allow me that five or six Millions of Men have more strength than one single Man who is seated on the Throne Nay according to this Principle Sovereign Authority can never be any where else but in the People because the People cannot part with their strength nor confer it on the Supream Magistrate it is so their own that they cannot give it away But you 'l say they may promise that they will not use their natural strength otherwise than the Supream Magistrate or than the Law shall direct True but though they promise that they will not use their natural strength otherwise than the Law directs yet still they retain it nor are they upon their making of such a Promise weaker than they were before there being not the least abatement of their natural strength So that if they had Sovereign Power before they made such a Promise it follows that they have it still And therefore if as he says Power be a certain sign to us that where God has plac'd the Power he has given the Authority It is infallibly true that the Authority is in the People and can be no where else because there God has plac'd the Power Hence I observe 1. That the Doctor is really no Friend to crowned Heads for he has unking'd them all he has taken away from them their Sovereign Authority and given it to the People Now suppose that an oppressed People should be sensible that they have the superior Strength and should be so cunning as from thence to conclude with the Doctor that they have God's Authority to deliver themselves from the Yoke of the Oppressor I think according to his Principles he ought to allow they have Authority to free themselves from Oppression because they have Power Supream Power or strength lodg'd in them and God never intrusts Sovereign Power in any Man's or Mens hands to whom he does not give Sovereign Authority Besides it may be consider'd that though when they see an Usurper on the Throne they should with the Doctor conclude it to be God's Will that he should reign for some time longer or shorter as God pleases Yet they are taught by the Doctor That this does not prove it to be God's Will it should be always so And therefore when they find they have strength to resist the Tyrant and can agree together to make use of it they will presently conclude that it is not God's Will that they should be Slaves one Week or Day longer And thus the Doctor 's Tyrant is on a sudden tumbled down from his Royal Throne by that very Argument that he made use of to set him up 2. That the Doctor is fallen out with the University of Oxford who condemn'd this Principle That all Civil Authority is deriv'd originally from the People and if the Fires be still continued there his Book will be in some danger Nay he is all on a sudden fallen out with himself and from being a mighty Assertor of the Prerogatives and Rights of Kings is become a Republican And who can doubt but for the future Lex Rex Vindiciae contra Tyrannos Milton's Defensio populi Anglicani and such-like Books will be in great esteem with him But this is only a slip of the Doctor he still means well to Kings especially if they be such as he sets up Now England behold the King that Doctor Sherlock gives thee he is an absolute Lord and some will call him Tyrant For V. He that is a Sovereign Prince and has God's Authority but no Legal Right is an absolute and unlimited Monarch and consequently such a King as England never yet own'd for it is Law that sets bounds to Regal Power and therefore he that is our King but not by Law is an absolute and unlimited Monarch And I am sure whatever Notions some Men who understand little of our Laws have concerning the boundless Power and uncontroulable Authority of Kings yet the Laws do really bound the Regal Power this the Lawyers teach us This is the Doctrine of Westminster-Hall And I think in a matter of this nature it is more reasonable to take the Judgment of Lawyers than of Divines VI. He that has God's Authority without any Legal Right cannot be limited by Laws For God's Authority cannot be limited by Men and therefore if it be true that he who has no legal Right to govern has God's Authority when he is settled in the Throne then it follows that he has an Authority that cannot be bounded by humane Laws For a Power that God gives none can set bounds to besides God and if he has made no limitations of the Regal Power as 't is plain he has not just as plain as it is that he has said nothing about it then no limitations can be made such a King cannot yield that any limits should be set to God's Authority which he is invested with unless he should have a new Authority from Heaven impowring him to do so And the People cannot set bounds to it neither with nor without his Consent not without the King's Consent for that would be rebelling against God's Vicegerent and trampling on Divine Authority that would be no less than a robbing of God a stealing of God's Authority and the worst of Sacriledges nor can they set bounds to his Power with his Consent for if he cannot part with any of his Power they cannot take it for that would be like receiving of stollen Goods Besides it may be considered that surely God gives a Prince no more of his Authority than is fit and necessary to serve the Ends of Government and therefore he cannot part with any of it or if he should he would not have enough left him to serve the Ends of Government at least he could not be sure that he should have enough unless he were also sure of this that God at first gave him more than enough which he cannot be certain of He may indeed know that he has more than he needs for his present Occasions but he does not know how soon the Scene of Affairs may change and then all God's Authority even the whole Imperial Law may be little enough for him I have as much Zeal and dutiful Affection for their Sacred Majesties King William and Queen Mary as any of my fellow-Subjects and as I
believe them to have as good a Title to the Crown of England as any of their Royal Ancestors ever had so I hope they are so firmly settled in the Throne that all the Powers on Earth will not be able to remove them But I think Dr. Sherlock does by his Principles undermine their Throne for though he invests them with God's Authority because they have the Sovereign Power are able to crush whom they please and are settled in the Throne yet he will not own them to have a legal Right to sit thereon whereas it is most certain that there is nothing can secure to a Prince his Sovereign Power but that which sets bounds to it the Law SECT IV. Wherein is shew'd how little value we ought to have for the Acts and Canons of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I. 1603. FOR to the Authority of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I I may oppose the Authority of several Convocations in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth wherein the Bishops and Clergy were of a contrary Opinion I shall instance in two only the one in the 35th and the other in the 39th Year of that Queen's Reign 1. In the 35th of Q. Elizabeth the Clergy were of Opinion that an Usurper though settled in the Throne had not God's Authority and no Allegiance was due to him as appears plainly from their granting the Queen two Subsidies of four Shillings in the Pound to assist the Dutch in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain 35 Eliz. c. 12. The Prelates and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury have for certain Considerations lovingly and liberally given and granted to the Queen 's most excellent Majesty two Subsidies of Four Shillings in the Pound What were those Considerations Amongst others this was one The consideration of her Majesty's great Charges in the provident and needful prevention of such intended Attempts as manifestly tended to the utter overthrow of the present happy state of her Highness's Realm to the miserable ruin of divers other Princes and Countries associate and near adjoining and to the extirpation and rooting out of the sincere profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere The Temporalities Subsidy-Act explains this to us in these Reasons for their Tax Cap. 13. Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it has pleased God to give your Majesty abroad in making You the principal Support of all just and religious Causes against Vsurpers So that this Island has in your Majesty's Days been as a Stay and Sanctuary to distressed States and Kingdoms and as a Bulwark against the Tyranny of mighty and usurping Potentates Besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we do conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the Ancient Leagues the Justice and Equity of their Causes c. These were the chief Reasons that moved the Clergy to give four Shillings in the Pound to the Queen This was read a third time Mar. 30.1593 in the Lords House these following Bishops being present and no Dissentientes among them as appears from the Journals of the Lords House Cantuariensis Londinensis Godwin de Praesulibus Asaphensis Roffensis Exoniensis Cicestrensis Licolniensis Petroburgensis Herefordensis Bangorensis Wigorniensis Landavensis Sarisburiensis Bathonens Wellensis Johames Whitgift Johan Elmer Gulielmus Hughes Johannes Young Johannes Woolton Thomas Bickley Gulielmus Wickham Richardus Howland Herbert Westfaling Hugo Bellott Richardus Fletcher Gervasius Babington Richardus Coldwell Johannes Still Now I think it is plain from hence that the Bishops and Clergy in the 35th of Queen Elizabeth did believe that an Usurper though he be settled in the Throne has not God's Authority and that those who are oppress'd by him may lawfully resist him and free themselves from his Yoke for had they been of Opinion that it was a Sin in the Dutch to resist Philip the 2d King of Spain as having God's Authority would they not have directed her Majesty's Conscience better in this Matter would they not have humbly represented to her Highness that though Philip the 2d was an Usurper yet he had God's Authority and therefore neither ought his Subjects to resist him nor she to assist them in making resistance Would they not have given her Sacred Majesty good Advice rather than Mony Would they not have admonished the Dutch to lay down their Arms and fly to their Prayers and Tears Who can think they would have been so uncharitable to their Protestant Neighbours as to set forward their Damnation or so foolish as to buy their own at the rate of Four Shillings in the Pound Such Actions as these do plainly shew what Opinion Arch-Bishop Whitgift Bishop Elmer and the rest of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Clergy had concerning this Matter and that as plainly as the Acts and Canons of a Convocation It may here be very proper to consider that the King of Spain had once a Legal Right to govern the Dutch who were his Subjects and ow'd him Allegiance but the Prelats and Clergy of the Church of England did verily believe he had forfeited and lost it by usurping upon them for it seems they were of Opinion that a Prince might usurp upon his Subjects as well as Subjects upon their Prince and this I believe was our Case King James the 2d having been that to us which Philip the 2d was to the Dutch That which I gather from hence is this That Queen Elizabeth's Bishops either did not think that an Usurper was invested with God's Authority or if they did they believed it lawful in some Cases to resist a Prince though invested with God's Authority Now let Dr. Sherlock chuse which of the two he will grant me for I think it cannot be avoided but one of the two must be allow'd 2. In the 39th of Elizabeth Chap. 26. The Clergy think themselves bound c to offer unto her Highness as a Testimony and Token of their good Wills and dutiful Affections some such Aid and Contribution towards the supportation of her Majesties Charges as they are perswaded the greatness of the same most justly may require And the Temporalities Subsidy-Act 39 Eliz. c. 27. has these words This Land is become since your Majesti's happy Days both a Port and a Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyrannies and ambitious Attempts of mighty and usurping Potentates This pass'd the House of Lords Dec. 19. 1596 fourteen Bishops being present and agreeing to it one of which was Arch-Bishop Whitgift c. The conclusion from hence is easy that in the 39th of Queen Elizabeth's reign the Prelates and Clergy own'd not this Doctrine that Vsurpers when settled in the Throne are invested with God's Authority and must be obey'd by all those who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People Besides it ought to be consider'd that the
AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. Sherlock's Book ENTITULED The CASE of the ALLEGIANCE DUE TO SOVEREIGN POWERS STATED and RESOLVED c. BY JAMES PARKINSON M. A. LONDON Printed for David Hay M.DC.XCI AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. Sherlock's Book ENTITULED The Case of the ALLEGIANCE c. I Have Examined Dr. Sherlock's Book Entituled The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers c. And I must own that he has done what I expected he would For I expected he would start some new Doctrines to maintain his old Principles And he has fully answer'd my Expectation He tells us he has renounc'd no Principle that ever he taught Case of Allegiance Pref. excepting one in the Case of Resistance so that though he be a fallible Creature yet it seems he is but one degree beneath Infallibility But tho he may be mistaken yet this be is sune of Case of Allegiance Pref. That he never acted with more sincerity in any Affair of his whole life than he has done in this matter from the beginning to the end for which I will take his word for I had rather believe than censure and judge him Though he refus'd to take the Oaths yet he never engag'd in any Faction against it nor made it his business to dissuade men from it But did he not when his Opinion was ask'd declare his own Thoughts And were not his Thoughts against it And was not this enough for the Oracle of the Party whenever he was consulted freely to declare his Thoughts Oracles are sometimes dumb and will give no Answer but this Doctor was always a Speaking Oracle to the Party And who can think that he ever spake in vain Who can believe that those words which dropp'd from his mouth and dropp'd into the Ears of those that admired him and blindly believed in him could ever fail of making or confirming Non-Swearers He had no aversion to the Government of King William and Queen Mary and why should he The Government surely is almost as good as it was when the Seven Right Reverend Bishops were sent to the Tower it is almost as good as it was when Father Peire was at the Helm nay I will be bold to say it is very nigh as good as it was when he assisted at the degrading of the Excellent Mr. Johnson But was he not thankful to God for it no only he had no averston to it He prayed for King William and Queen Mary One would think that had he prayed heartily for them in the Church he would have own'd them in a Court of Justice by taking the Oath of Allegiance to them No this he could not do he still refused the Oaths out of pure Principles of Conscience but however he prayed for them And this was a disposition of mind prepared to receive satisfaction whenever it was offered This I believe and I doubt his desire of satisfaction has secretly and insensibly distorted his Judgment I am sure distorted it is But is his Judgment always distorted Was it distorted while he refused the Oaths And is it distorted now he has taken them Yes so it is his Judgment stood awry before because he was not for King William and Queen Mary and his Judgment still stands awry because though he swears Allegiance to them yet he does it in a wrong sense he swears to them no otherwise than he would be ready to swear to any Usurper when setled in the Throne And I know not what else should have thus distorted his Judgment unless it were a great desire of satisfaction For the Principles on which he grounds his new Allegiance are false and precarious and will satisfy no man who has not as great a desire of satisfaction as he himself had But though he desired satisfaction yet it seems it did not come presently to him he did in his thoughts ever and anon make a step towards King William but still his old Principles drew him back and in this state of wavering and doubting he continued almost two years moving forwards and backwards looking sometimes on King William who had God's Authority to bestow the Preferments and sometimes on King James who had as he would make us believe the Legal Right He likewise drew up his thoughts in writing and shewed them to some of his Friends and told them where he stuck but stick he did and could find no help for it What was the desire of satisfaction grown languid and weak no but though that was as strong as ever yet that alone could not do the job Still he stuck and had stuck to this day had he not been relieved by Bishop Overall 's Convocation Book Doubtless the Members of that Convocation spent their time to good purpose and Dr Ouerall did great service to the Church by registring what passed in that venerable Assembly Dr Overall was no Bishop during the time of that Convocation nor for some years after that for had it not been for his Convocation-Book this Reverend Doctor had forfeited the exercise of his Ministry for a mere mistake But what were the wonders that this Convocation-Book has wrought on him why it confirm'd his former Notions and suggested some new thoughts to him which removed those difficulties that he could not conquer before So that it seems he would not have us think he had all his good Notions from the Convocation-Book no he had many of them before he read it and that Book did only confirm them And besides all this he tells us That The venerable Authority of a Convocation gave him greater freedom and liberty of thinking Preface which the apprehension of novelty and singularity had cramp'd before And now the Doctor swells and is puffed up with the Sacred Authority of a Convocation His Soul was not at liberty before it was chain'd and fetter'd and he was afraid to let his thoughts rove and wander but now he has the Convocation on his side his thoughts are at liberty and he resolves to wander and I likewise resolve to follow him as far as I shall see it necessary Page 1. Case of Allegianc At his first setting out he complains that the Controversy is perplext but I doubt that before I shall get to the end of his Book I shall have greater reason to complain that he has perplext it more But what is it that has perplexed the Controversie Why it is the intermixing the dispute of Right with the duty of Obedience as if we could be bound to obey one who has no right to our Obedience Page 1. it is a making the legal Right of Princes to their Thrones P. 1. the only reason and foundation of the Allegiance of Subjects and I would fain know what other foundation of Allegiance there can be Bishop of Sarum's Pastoral Letter p. 6. For Allegiance is Obedience according to Law that is to say not a blind and absolute Obedience but such an Obedience as is defined and limited by the
firmly assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think and do hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second having abdicated the Government and Their Majesties having accepted the Crown and Royal Dignity Their said Majesties did become were and are and of right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State Crown and Dignity of the said Realms with all Honours Titles c. to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And when that Parliament was dissolved and a new one summoned to meet at Westminster there was a new Recognition of Their Title in these words We Your Majesties most Humble and Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled do beseech Your Most Excellent Majesties that it may be publish'd and declar'd in this High Court of Parliament and Enacted by Authority of the same That we do recognize and acknowledg Your Majesties were are and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland c. And if this be not a Legal Title I know not what a Legal Title means It is as good a Title as Edward the Confessor had as good a one as W. 1. W. 2. Hen 1. K. Stephen Hen. 2. K. John Hen. 3. Edw. 3. Hen. 4 5 6 7. Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of those two Queens either had or could pretend to and these whom I have mentioned had as truly a Legal Right to the Crown as any of the rest whom I make no mention of And the true Reason why I instance in these is this Because it is certain that none of these were Kings by any Divine Right of Succession If Proximity of Blood be absolutely necessary to a Legal Title then Edw. the Confessor had none for when he ascended the Throne Edgar Atheling his Elder Brother's Son was alive Then W. 1. had none both because he was illegitimate and also because Edgar Atheling was still living Then W. 2. and Hen. 1. could have none while their Elder Brother Robert was living Then K. Stephen could have none for the Right of Blood was in Maud the Empress Hen. the first 's Daughter Then Hen. 2. could have none so long as his Mother Maud was alive Then K. John could have none for Arthur his Elder Brother's Son had all the Right that Proximity of Blood could give Then Hen. 3. could have none at least not before the 24th year of his Reign or thereabouts at what time Eleanor Sister to Prince Arthur died Then Edw. 3. could have none during the Life of his unfortunate Father Edw. 2. who was Depos'd Then Hen. 4 5 6 7. could have none there being another Family which had the proximity of Blood on their side Then Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of them could have none for it is certain that one of the two must be illegitimate because Katherine Q. Mary's Mother was living at the time when Q. Elizabeth was born And yet we do not find that any Learned and Pious Bishops or any other dignified Clergy-men ever refused to accept of Ecclesiastical Preferments from any of the forementioned Princes and to swear Allegiance to them Nor can it be said that they swore Allegiance to them as to Kings de facto but not de jure at least wise this cannot be affirmed of those who lived before the Reign of Edw. 4. for then arose this distinction and not before The Scotch Parliament calls this a Villanous distinction I think I may say it is a distinction that is not well grounded for it seems to me to be founded on a false Principle That Proximity of Blood gives such an indefeasible Right or Title to the Crown that he who is next on the Royal Line whatever his natural or moral incapacities are cannot be barr'd from succeding to the Throne Which is directly contrary to a Statute made in the 13th of Q. Eliz. ch 1. wherein it is affirmed That the King Lords and Commons have right to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Inheritance and Government thereof And 't was by the said Statute made Treason during the Life of that Queen to hold affirm or maintain the contrary and after her decease forfeiture of Goods and Chattels and I know not of any Law of God that the Queen and Parliament broke when they made that Statute A King de facto is not as the Doctor imagines an Usurper but he is a Lawful King He is one to whom our Allegiance is due as appears from a Statute made in the 11th of Hen. 7. ch 1. and Allegiance is due to none but him who has a Legal Right for Allegiance is Obedience according to Law and consequently must be paid to him to whom the Law directs us to pay it and to say that the Law directs us to pay our Obedience to one who has no Legal Right to it does not sound well 4. It follows from hence that our Allegiance is due to K. VVilliam and Q. Mary for it is due to a Lawful King and it has been shew'd That Their Majesties are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen And this is the foundation of my Allegiance II. I must now examin Dr. Sherlook's Opinion concerning this matter His notion is this Page 10. That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obeyed by all Subjects as the Ministers of God without enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne And he tells us That the Convocation has determin'd two great points whereon this whole Controversy turns 1. That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority 2. That when they are throughly settled in their Thrones they are invested with God's Authority and must be reverenc'd and obeyed by all who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People This is his Doctrine And this says he I will endeavour to prove from the Authority of Scripture and Reason Scripture and Reason I am always ready to hear he that brings me a plain Scripture proof commands my assent and he that gives me a good Reason will easily persuade me And therefore though the Venerable Authority of a Convocation stands in the front of his Book yet I intend it shall Lackey after his Reasons and his Scripture Proofs SECT I. Dr. Sherlock's Proofs from Scripture and Reason Examined HIS Proofs from Reason and Scripture must he says necessarily be intermixt and interwoven with each other and to set the matter in as clear a light as he can he reduceth the whole
into the Propositions following Prop. 1. That all Civil Power and Authority is from God c. This is loosly expressed and in general terms and may be allow'd to be in some sense true and therefore I will let it pass and will desire him to consider that so is every thing from God except Sin so are Riches and Honours from God tho Men bestow them so is the Doctor himself from God tho his Father begat him and so is his Book from God for God gave him Power to write it though I do not think God gave him any Authority Prop. 2. Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God than as God gives this Power and Authority to particular persons c. A great discovery this That God does in some sense give whatever may be said in any sense to come from him as if a creature could snatch any thing from his Creator against his will But how is Civil Power and Authority from God And how does he give Civil Power and Authority to particular persons He tells us Prop. 3. There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any persons either 1. By Nature Thus Parents have a natural superiority over their Children but by what bounds this Paternal and Patriarchal Authority was limited we cannot tell 't is in vain to enquire after it now And so he has taken his leave of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha 2. By a particular nomination Thus God made Kings only in Jewry but this does not at all concern us 3. By the disposals of his Providence That God Governs the World I am very sure for his Word assures me of it and 't is the greatest comfort of my Life to consider that there is a Wise Just and Good God who Rules the World But how does he Rule the World How does he set up and pull down Kings and bring about the great Revolutions and Changes of Governments Does God prescribe to any people a form of Government Does he appoint or dictate the particular Laws of each Country Does he nominate the Supreme Magistrate Does he set bounds to the Supreme Governor's Power No he does none of these things but leaves them to the Reason and Prudence of Men. But yet God is not altogether unconcern'd he does not sit on his Throne in Heaven a mere Spectator of human Affairs without ever intermedling in them But he interposes as becomes a Wise Governor of the World by directing and guiding the minds by moving and inclining by checking and restraining the wills of his creatures in an unknown manner How or in what manner he directs the greater and the lesser Wheels of Providence we cannot tell but that he does direct them is not to be doubted In the general I think we ought to lay down this Rule Never to ascribe to God any thing that is unworthy of him that is disagreeable to his Wisdom or Jushice or Equity or Goodness and therefore since his Divine Laws are full of Wisdom Equity Justice and Goodness we ought never to think that he who has oblig'd Mankind by such excellent Laws does by any secret influence move them to a violation of them He indeed sees the unruly Wills and Affections of Men and knows that they will abuse the Power they have and unjustly catch at more to oppress their Brethren and he in his Wisdom permits sometimes that they should attain their wicked ends but when ever he does so we must not take it for a mark of his approbation nor argue thus That because they prosper therefore God is pleased with their doings for he will certainly sooner or later punish them for what they do But you 'll say when an Usurper prospers and ascends the Throne and is setled in it Does not God then make him a King and invest him with his Authority No such matter he is still a private Man without Right to Kingly Government unless an Unjust action can create a Right But though an unjust action cannot create a Right yet God can give him a Right True But how shall I know that he does so That says the Doctor you may know by the event if you see him able to crush whom he pleases and seated upon the Royal Throne assure your self that God has set him up and made him a King for the most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will and setteth up over it the basest of Men. Now in answer to this Dan. 4.17 I allow the Doctor that God does in some sense set up a Tyrant but then I desire him to consider that Satan likewise sets him up and wicked Men set him up and he sets up himself He sets up himself by abusing the Power he has by encreasing it more and more through his restless Ambition and by raising of Forces to gain the Sovereign Power And wicked Men set him up by giving him assistance for the accomplishing of his wicked designs not that they love to be Slaves but they are willing to enslave others and tyrannize over them And Satan sets him up by tempting him to get the Sovereign Power and make himself a God upon Earth And lastly God sets him up But how does God set him up Why God gives him those natural powers and faculties both of Mind and Body which fit him for great Undertakings and moreover he in his Providence gives him many favourable opportunities for encreasing his Wealth and enlarging his Power and strengthning his Interest amongst his Fellow Subjects And these are a Ladder by which he may possibly climb to the Sovereignty And though God has in his Word forbidden him to invade the Rights of others and advance himself to the Throne by unjust means yet he permits him to do so though he who sets bounds to the raging Sea And says Hitherto shalt thou come but no further Job 38 11. and here shall thy proud waves be stay'd could easily restrain an Ambitious Usurper and stop him from ascending the Royal Throne yet he for wise ends suffers him to go on and prosper in his unjust Enterprizes Thus God sets up a Tyrant but gives him no Authority and the Devil sets him up and wicked Men set him up and he sets up himself And this is agreeable to the Style and Language of Scripture which tells us in one place That Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel 1 Chron. 21.1 2 Sam. 24.1 And in another place That the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he moved David against them to say Go number Israel and Judah So that here the same sinful Action is in words ascrib'd to God and Satan for both are here said to have mov'd David to number Israel and the word in the Original is in both places the same it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to Seduce Entice or Persuade and who will think that God does persuade or
entice men to sin otherwise than by giving Satan permission and leave to tempt and entice them Well then God never sets up Usurpers so as to give them any Authority P. 13. and therefore that is very false which Dr. Sherlock delivers for a certain truth viz. That God never suffers an Aspiring Prince to ascend the Throne but when he thinks fit to make him King for he is not made a King upon his ascending the Throne nor has he any Regal Authority unless the Dr. can prove that barely to ascend the Throne is to be a King And when he can prove that I 'll undertake to make out That to ascend the Temple-Pulpit is to be Master of the Temple and then he must have a care of getting another to preach for him P. 13. But says he unless all Kings are set up by God and invested with his Authority we can never know what Kings have God's Authority who those are whom we muâ—t obey out of Conscience and whom we must not obey Which is just as if one should say Unless every one that comes up into the Temple-Pulpit be Master of the Temple one cannot be able to know who is and who is not Master of the Temple One would admire that one who has so good a faculty of explaining Mysteries should not be able to distinguish between a King and a Tyrant nor know the difference between Accepting and Snatching of a Crown Prop. 4. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God This I utterly deny For God surely sees and knows that one ascends the Throne by Fraud and Perjury and Violence and Oppression and Murther and that another is freely chosen by the Voice of the People for the great esteem they have of his Justice and Valour and other noble Qualities that fit him for the exercise of Sovereign Power Now will any man say that a Holy and Just God makes no distinction between these two Will any man affirm that God puts no difference between one that enters by the Door into the Sheepfold and another that climbs up some other way Between the Shepherd who feeds the Sheep and a Thief or Robber that comes to steal them Men do not judge them to be equally Rightful Kings and yet Men judge by a Rule that God has given them viz. the Rule of right Reason and why should we think that God judges otherwise in this Case than Men do Men who judge thus are not mistaken in their Judgments and I do not see any reason why God who cannot be mistaken should not judge in this Case as Men who are not mistaken do In short If Men who think an Usurper is not a Rightful King be not mistaken it is reasonable to conclude God thinks so too and on the other hand If God thinks an Usurper to be as much a Rightful King as any other methinks this should be a very good Reason for us to think so too For if we think as God thinks we shall not err in our thoughts But how does he prove that all Kings are equally rightful with respect to God Because says he they are plac'd in the Throne by God And are they not plac'd in the Throne by Men is not the hand of Man visible in this matter Nay is not the hand of Man the only visible hand and do not the hands of violent Men set the Crown on the Head of an Usurper and does he think that such a one is with respect to God as Rightful a King as God's Anointed King David was I grant that if God were the only Person that plac'd Princes in the Throne if he did always himself put the Scepter into their hands and by a Voice from Heaven or an express nomination made Kings there would then be no question but all would be equally Rightful Kings though not equally good ones As Saul's Title was as good as that of David though he was not so good a King But since Men are concern'd in advancing Princes to the Throne and they may and do often by unjust means place them thereon to say that all Kings are equally Rightful with respect to God is to say that God has no regard to the sinful Means that are us'd to set up such Kings it is to confound the Notions of Good and Evil of Right and Wrong and to turn the World into a mere Bedlam Add to this That if all Kings were equally Rightful with respect to God then why should he complain as he did They have set up Kings but not by me Hos 8.4 they have made Princes and I knew it not Since if what this Author affirms be true God himself set up the Kings which they set up and made the Princes which they made and did as truly make them As if they had been expresly nominated and anointed by a Prophet at God's Command as Saul and David were P. 13. To conclude this Head If all Princes when they are advanced to the Throne by what means soever they are lifted up above their Brethren be equally Rightful Kings then surely they have equally a Commission from God to act as Kings but Usurpers have no Commission at all from God to rule his people they have no Authority and they can have none unless God's word has lost its Authority for I 'm sure that forbids all unjust Usurpations and thereby plainly tells us That Usurpers have no Authority unless God should give them Authority to do what he in his Word has forbidden which I hope the Doctor will not affirm Prop. 5. The distinction then between a King de Jure and a King de Facto relates only to Humane Laws c. If by a King de Facto he means as it is plain he does an Usurper and by a King de Jure a Rightul King I grant that if the foregoing Proposition were true this would be true too for if all Kings be equally Rightfu with respect to God then all Kings are Kings de Jure with respect to God and consequently as he says the distinction of a King de Jure and de Facto would relate only to Humane Laws So that here is nothing else asserted in this Proposition but what was in the former Only I must tell him what I have observ'd already That this distinction is not to be allowed with respect to Humane Laws for in England whoever is a King de Facto is also a King de Jure for he has a right to our Allegiance Prop. 6. We can have but one King at a time I 'll give him this and I hope King William is the Doctor 's King Prop. 7. He is our King who is setled in the Throne in the actual Administration of Sovereign Power c. If he means by setled legally setled I agree with him otherwise I deny it For I know of no other Settlement but a Legal one that can make a King A Settlement without Law which the Doctor speaks of is
the Settlement not of a King but of a powerful Usurper 't is just such a Settlement as a Thief may have for a time who breaks open another Man's House and turns him out and takes possession of it Prop. 8. Allegiance is due only to the King This I freely give him And from hence he concludes That we must pay our Allegiance to him who is our King though without a Legal Right His Supposition is false for he supposes that one may be his King without a Legal Right which I deny He may be and is an Usurper who has no Legal Right but he is not our King he is a private Man intruding himself into a publick Office which he is not call'd to and no Allegiance is due to him But says he our Allegiance is due to him who is our King though without a Legal Right because Allegiance is due only to God's Authority not to a bare Legal Title without God's Authority Here he separates two things which do always go together a Legal Right and God's Authority for God does not give Authority to any but those who have a Legal Right I grant that God may nominate Kings if he pleases and then doubtless they would have his Authority without a Legal Right nor would they need any Legal Right since they would have a Divine Right which would be better But since he does not nominate any Kings as he formerly did in Jewry we have no way to know who has God's Authority but by knowing who has the Legal Right SECT II. An Examination of some other Reasons and Arguments urg'd by Dr. Sherlock for the further Confirmation of his Doctrine contain'd in his 4th Section 1. HE observes That the Scripture has given us no Directions in this Case but to submit and pay all the Allegiance of Subjects to the present Powers Nor was it necessary that the Scripture should give us any other directions in this case for why may not Reason without Scripture direct us in this case as it did direct Men before the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans was written But Scripture he says makes no distinction that ever he could find between rightful Kings and Vsurpers And what then Scripture makes no distinction that I can find between my right Hand and my Left but a little Sense and Reason will teach me to distinguish Was it necessary for the Apostle when he taught Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers to have added if they be truly the higher Powers but if they be not the higher Powers you need not be subject to them Was it needful when he said Servants obey your Masters to have immediately subjoin'd this if they be really your Masters but if they be not your Masters you need not obey them Was it necessary when he gave this general Command Wives submit your selves to your own Husbands to have immediately added if they be indeed your own Husbands but if they be not your Husbands you need not submit your selves to them No more was it necessary for the Apostle to distinguish between a rightful King and an Usurper because every one that has but common Sense and Reason can do this with ease without Apostolical help An Usurper of Royal Power is not to be reckon'd amongst St. Paul's higher Powers nor is he any more my King as being not called to that Office than he can be called my Master with whom I have made no Contract And therefore to say the Apostle here speaks only of lawful Powers is not as he says gratis dictum it being the only reasonable interpretation that the words can bear Had there says he been any such Rule before given to submit to lawful Powers but not to submit to Vsurpers there had been some pretence for understanding St. Paul 's all Power of all legal Power but there being nothing like this any where in Scripture if he had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express words or else no Body could reasonably have understood him to intend this Precept of Subjection to the higher Powers only of Powers that had a legal Right Nay on the contrary say I if St. Paul had not intended any such distinction he should in express words have forbidden such a distinction he should have told us that we ought not to distinguish between rightful Kings and Usurpers for that we should thus distinguish Reason will teach us but that we should not distinguish can be only Matter of Faith I would think my Obedience due to an Usurper if I had plain Scripture for it but Reason I am sure does not teach it The Doctor himself formerly taught that when St. Paul says All Power is of God he means only legal Power and that I believe was a true Exposition of the Text But it seems he has now renounced it as he tells us in his Preface to the Case of Allegiance c. and I know no other reason he has for so doing but only this because it cannot stand with his new Doctrine The Criticism he says between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not do No matter for that I lay no weight upon it and yet by the by I must tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do differ in proper speaking for the former is Power whether legal or no the latter is only legal Power or Authority What he says That if St. Paul had meant only legal Powers then in order to the fulfilling of this Precept it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to that end to be well skill'd in the History and Laws of a Nation c. is so weak an Objection that it neither needs nor deserves an Answer For though he will not take the Judgment of two Parliaments that have declared King William and Queen Mary to be lawful King and Queen of England yet others think it reasonable to rest satisfied with their Declaration What he adds concerning the Titles of the Roman Emperors in St. Paul's Time Enquiry into the Measures of Obedience That they were either stark naught or doubtful I cannot allow for since both the People and Senate had acknowledged the Power that Augustus had indeed violently usurped it became Legal when it was thus submitted to and confirmed both by Senate and People and it was established in his Family by a long Prescription when this Epistle was written But he goes on and tells us That the Reason the Apostle gives for submission to higher Powers is not a legal Right but the Authority of God To which I answer That the Authority of God does suppose a legal Right God giving no Authority to any one to rule over others who are not legally deputed to the Office God's Authority is I conceive a Divine Right Now we may distinguish of a Divine Right for 1. A Prince may have a Divine Right to ascend the Royal
are under an Obligation not to assist him Why all the Comfort that he gives his Legal King is this he tells him that God does not forbid him to recover his Legal Right nor forbids those who are under no Obligation to the Prince in Possession to assist him to recover his Legal Right ... But he must expect no Assistance from his Subjects for indeed they are none of his Subjects now tho he has still a Legal Right to be their King I will desire the Doctor to view this Matter in a like Case that he may see the absurdity of it A lays claim to certain Lands which are in the Possession of B and in order to the Recovery of them sues B in Westminster-Hall brings his Writings and Deeds into Court and desires they may be read brings his Witnesses and prays that they may be heard The Judge tells him plainly that 't is needless to read over his Deeds and examine his Writings and hear his Witnesses that this will but perplex the Controversy and distract the Jury and trouble the Court to no purpose and that he has a readier way to decide the Matter and then immediately without hearing the Cause gives his Instructions to the Jury Look you Gentlemen here is a Question about certain Lands which A claims but B possesses where the Legal Right is whether in A or B we know not nor does it concern us to enquire It is plain that wherever the Legal Right is the Possession is in B and you need enquire no further And therefore you ought to find for the Defendent 'T is the Will of God it should be so his Providence has so appointed it and we must obey But mark you Gentlemen in case that A should have the Legal Right which I say belongs not at all to you to enquire your finding for B does not take away from A his Legal Right It is plain that the Providence of God has remov'd A from the Possession of his Lands and has given them to B but that alters no Legal Rights nor forbids A who is dispossessed of his Lands to recover them if he can While B is in Possession of them it is a plain Declaration of God's Will that he shall have them for some time longer or shorter as God pleases and that is sufficient Warrant for you to find for B. But that B is at present in Possession of these Lands and A depriv'd of them does not prove it to be God's Will it should be always so and therefore it does not divest A of his Legal Right and Claim nor forbid him to endeavour to recover his Lands nor forbid the Mob who are under no Obligation to Usurpers and Invaders of other Mens Rights and Properties and are always kind to and ready to help injur'd Persons to assist A to recover his Legal Right For Gentlemen let me tell you Legal Right is the ordinary way whereby the Providence of God disposes of Lands and this bars all other humane Claims but yet God may give the Lands of A to B if he pleases but this does not destroy the Legal Right of A who is depriv'd of his Lands nor hinder him from raising the Mob to eject Bâ—vi Aâ—m's This is the very Doctrine that this Author teaches and if this be not Enthusiasm I know not what is One would admire that any Man who converses so much with Lawyers should advance such a Doctrine which destroys all our Laws and unsettles our Civil Rights and Properties and tends to nothing but Confusion For if this Doctrine be true that he teaches the Lawyers may fling away their Law-Books and shut up Westminster-Hall for why should Clients come to them for Advice if this were the best Advice they could give that they should raise as great a Force as they can to recover their Legal Rights for this might have been done without consulting of them Surely the Lawyers will con him no Thanks for this Book But what does he care he is above the Lawyers and above the Law too and by his own Authority join'd with that of the Convocation can repeal all our Laws and null Acts of Parliament and declare that whatever the Law or Custom has hitherto been yet for the future Possession alone shall give Right Nay by this Doctor 's Principles a Murderer is the Minister of God and ought to be cleared in any of the King's Courts For let us suppose B to be murdered and A to have been the Murderer I will by the Doctor 's Principles teach A how he shall defend himself A therefore shall own the Fact that he did really kill B but he had an Impulse from God so to do and this Impulse was equivalent to a Divine Command and a Divine Command is a sufficient Warrant for any Man to send another out of the World The Judg interrogates him further how he can prove that he had an Impulse from God 'T is plain says A that this Impulse was from God because without his Power I could not have done it and God never intrusts any Man with power to kill another unless he give him Authority to do it So that Providence is the Murderer and not I. The Judg then well instructed in Dr. Sherlock's Principles tells the Jury that here is one of our Sovereign Lord the King's Subjects murder'd and that A owns he did it but they must bring him in Not Guilty because though he did kill the Man yet he did it with God's Authority I dread to mention the horrid and blasphemous consequences of this fanatical and enthusiastical Doctrine for hereby all Villanies and Thefts and Murders and Massacres every thing that is abominable both to God and Man will be charg'd on God And this is a sufficient Argument that it cannot be true II. I will borrow another Objection of Dr. Sherlock's and that is this Have not Pirats and Robbers as good a Title to my Purse as an Vsurper has to the Crown which he seizes by as manifest Force and Violence Does not the Providence of God order and dispose all these Events And are we not bound then as much to submit to Pirats as to Vsurpers To which he gives this Answer The dispute is not about Humane and Legal Right in either Case True for neither has a Robber any legal Title to my Purse nor has an Usurper any legal Right to the Crown but the dispute is about Authority which is the only reason of a conscientious Subjection But what I beseech him is this Authority which he says the Dispute is about is it Humane and Legal Authority No for that is the same with Humane and Legal Right It is he tells us God's Authority Now no Man says he pretends that Thieves and Pirats have God's Authority to which we must submit And I wonder that any Man should pretend that Usurpers have God's Authority to which we must submit God's Authority is a Divine Right Now I think an Usurper has
Acts and Canons of this Convocation wherein Dr. Overall was Prolocutor were never ratified in Parliament But you will say They however give us the Judgment of the then Church of England To this I answer 1. That here is Church against Church and Convocation against Convocation nay two Convocations and I might have said four in Queen Elizabeth's Reign against one in the Reign of her immediate Successor K. James Now methinks the Authority of two or more Convocations in Queen Elizabeth's Reign should outweigh the Authority of one single Convocation in the reign of King James unless it can be made out that the Church grows wiser and better every Age and every Year than other which I make some doubt of 2. That in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church agreed with the Members for both the Queen and her Convocations were of Opinion that 't was lawful for the Hollanders to shake off their Obedience to their once Sovereign King Philip but in the following reign of King James the Head of the Church and the Members differ'd about this Point and the King was on the Hollander's side as appears from a Letter which that King wrote to Dr. Abbot Part of which I have thought fit to transcribe Good Dr. Abbot I Cannot abstain to give you my Judgment of your Proceedings in your Convocation New Obs Vol. 3. Numb 22. as you call it You know all of you as I think that my Reason of calling you together was to give your Judgments how far a Christian and a Protestant King may concur to assist his Neighbours to shake off their Obedience to their once Sovereign upon the Account of Oppression Tyranny or what else you like to name it In the late Queen 's time this Kingdom was very free in assisting the Hollanders both with Arms and Advice And none of your Coat ever told me that any scrupled about it in her Reign Upon my coming to England you may know that it came from some of your selves to raise Scruples about this Matter Yet I never took any notice of these Scruples till the Affairs of Spain and Holland forc'd me to it All my Neighbours call on me to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain and the Honour of the Nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned especially after so much Money and Men spent in their Quarrel Therefore I was of the Mind to call my Clergy together to satisfy not so much me as the World about us of the Justness of my owning the Hollanders at this time This I needed not have done and you have forced me to say I wish I had not You have dipp'd too deep in what all Kings reserve among the Arcana Imperii And whatever Aversion you may profess against God's being the Author of Sin you have stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenc'd as such If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom you leave me to seek for others to fight for it For you tell us upon the Matter beforehand his Authority is God's Authority if he prevail Mr. Doctor I have no time to express my Mind farther in this thorny business I shall give you my Orders about it by Mr. Solicitor and until then meddle no more in it for they are Edge-Tools or rather like that Weapon that 's said to cut with the one edge and cure with the other I commit you to God's Protection good Doctor Abbot and rest Your good Friend James R. And this I think lessens the Authority of Dr. Overall's Convocation very much that it is the Authority of a Church without a Head for it is plain that the Head of the Church is on my side And I lay some weight on this that King James who was a Sovereign Prince and as fond of Power as any other plainly told Dr. Abbot that he scrupled not about the Lawfulness of what the Hollanders did in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain upon the account of his Oppression and Tyranny Hence we may gather that were K. James I. to judg between the late King his Grand-Son and the People of England he would surely give Judgment on the Peoples side for he cannot condemn the People of England without condemning the Dutch And his Judgment in this Case I think we ought to value more than the Opinions of an hundred Doctors that differ from him But 't is time now to draw to a conclusion The Cause I am engaged in is God's Cause and the King 's and Queen's Cause and the Peoples Cause it is God's Cause whom Dr. Sherlock seems by his Principles to make the Author of Sin for whatever aversion he may profess against God's being the Author of Sin he has stumbled upon the threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenc'd as such And it is the King 's and Queen's Cause whom the Doctor supposes to be Usurpers though I do not say he has call'd them so I know no necessity there was for his writing on this Argument and much less for his reasoning on the supposition of unjust Usurpations for here was no such thing as Usurpation unless to defend our Civil Rights and Liberties and Religion establish'd by Law must be call'd Usurpation and unless he will call an excellent Prince who came to deliver us from Popery and Slavery an Usurper And though it may be allowable to put the Case Preface as he says at the worst yet methinks he ought not to have left it at the worst he should not have let his Reader run away with this Opinion that King William and Queen Mary have not a Legal Title to the Crown And though he forbids his Reader to charge him with reflecting on the present Government yet there is no intelligent Reader but must take his whole Book to be a Reflection upon it and will conclude from his not declaring King William and Queen Mary to have a Legal Right to the Crown that he does not believe it For a wise Man I think would have declar'd it had he believ'd it and Dr. Sherlock never gave any just occasion to the World to mark him out for a Fool. And it is the Peoples Cause I mean it is the Cause of all those that are the King 's and Queen's Loyal Subjects for since he says That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obey'd even though they turn Usurpers and oppress their Subjects and destroy the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government it is plain that he charges all those who assisted his Highness the Prince of Orange and were the subordinate Instruments of our Deliverance with down-right Rebellion against the late King And these were the Reasons that mov'd me to engage my self in this Controversy Whether I have detected the Doctor 's Errors and defended the Truth as I ought I leave the Reader to judg God be thanked we have a Prince who wants not courage to defend his Legal Right with his Sword and I believe he will never want Writer's to justify it with their Pens and to prove that neither was he an Usurper not were they that assisted him Rebels FINIS