that is and are in the actual administration of it which is the only evidence we have that they have received it from God For what tho Passive Obedience be due to God's Authority is it therefore due to Usurpation and actual Administration which is not God's Authority and to use some of the Drs. expressions He may harangue upon this Argument as long as he pleases P. 64. unless he can prove that God invests every Usurper with his Authority while the Rightful King is living and claiming And that he does not do so is manifest from this very Doctrine of Passive Obedience For the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience is founded on an irresistable Authority consider then what are the Rights of an irresistable Authority and what the duties of Passive Obedience 1. The Rights of Sovereign and irresistable Authority are that he cannot forfeit his Crown that he cannot be judged nor deposed by his Subjects And therefore when once King he is always so 'till death or a voluntary and legal Resignation 2. Non-Resistance does not merely signifie not to fight against the King but 1. That upon no pretence we must renounce his Right and 2. Must never set his Crown upon anothers head 3. Must not transfer our Allegiance to another Now the Dr. will not except against this Doctrine for the sake of its Author and he may please to observe that we are not so apt to invent as he is to forget and he may trie if he can solve the matter by his distinction between Zeal and Faction But if this be the case then these things necessarily follow 1. That Transferring of Passive Obedience from the Rightful King to the Usurper is a Proposition inconsistent with it self and made up of contradictions Passive Obedience signifies one thing and transferring it the clean contrary And to talk of transferring Passive Obedience is just as if we should say fighting Non-Resistance or Rebellious Allegiance 2. The Argument from the Doctrine of Passive Obedience equally affects his interpretation of Scripture as his interpretation of the Convocation for Passive Obedience is as evidently and plainly enjoyned by the Scriptures as by the Convocation and for the proof of this I refer my self to Dr. Sherlocks Case of Resistance And if his interpretation of Scripture be irreconcilab e with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience then it is not reconcilâ—ble with Scripture and then it â—â—ot true and if to fight against and kill a King to whom we have sworn Allegiance and whom we still acknowledge to have a Legal Right and Title be not Passive Obedience then the Drs. expounding the 13th to the Romans of Vsurped Powers in opposition to a â—â—gâ—tful King is not the sense of Scripture but his own private sense it is not sufficient here to say it is certain they teach both and therefo e they are not inconsistent for that is proving things the wrong way for it is certain they do not teach both iâ— they are inconsistent And therefore if the Dr. would regularly prove that they do teach both he ought to have made it appear by shewing they are not inconsistent and not come off with a short reply it is certain they do so My next Argument is That this interpretation repreaches the Virtue and Loyalty of those admirable men who suffered between the years 42 and 60. The Dr. replies and therefore it cannot be the sense of the Convocation for no doubt the Convocation in 603. had great regard to the Loyalty of these who suffered between 42. and 60. by a spirit of Prophecy I suppose A very wise observation And why might not the Convocation in 603. have regard to the Loyalty of the members of the Church of England in 42. or 60. or 90 either if they design'd their Book as a direction for practice it must regard future time as well 42. as 603. and as well 90 as 42. But the Dr. knows well enough the Question is concerning a Principle of the Church of England and here we have a body of men undoubted Sons of the Church of England and as great and eminent for piety and virtue as that Church ever bred and most of them living at the time of this Convocation and some of them probably members of it And here was a Case where their sense of this Principle was tried to the bottom and besides their plain Doctrines their sufferiâ—gs were a convincing Testimony that they did not believe that the Drs. notion of a thorough Settlement was any Principle of the Church of England And considering all circumstances this brings the dispute almost down to our very senses Answers to the Pamphlet p. 22. As I said it would have been thought madness for a Church of England man to have doubted who in the late times acted most agreeably to the Principles of that Church in the point of Alleg. and Government Archbishop Juxton Bishop Cozens Bishop Gunning c. or Hugh Peters Dr. Owen or John Goodwin or whether the Regicides were Church of England men too in the same points c. So that with the Drs. leave this Argument does not lye so far off as to need any Prophecy to make it good but is plain easie and natural and seeing we are about the interpretation of a Church of England Principle from whom are we most likely to learn it from the Doctrines and Practices of those excellent men and who gave such illustrious evidences of their own sense of it or from Peters Bradshaw Marshall or Milton and I shall crave leave to believe except the Dr. can give me some better Reasons that the Virtue and Loyalty of those admirable men are better interpreters of the Church of England Principles then the villany and wickedness of those Advocates for Usurpation But these it seems are hard and spightful words which the Dr. tells me I give to my Adversaries That indeed is very easily said but it had been much fairer to have given a plain and rational answer to them Concerning this the Dr. said it is a great prejudice but no Argument Postscript p. 14. nor can be formed into an Argument I answered I thought an Argument from example had been an Argument tho not always a very good one He replies Right what and cannot be formed into an Argument Vindic. p. 64. That is a little strange but the Dr. to avoid that repeats another sentence not that which I answered I suppose by virtue of keeping his own Order and Method and I would fain know how that is an Argument which cannot be form'd into an Argument This agrees like the rest of his Principles Well! He tells us Example is only a prejudice not an Argument against plain reasons which cannot otherwise be answered Let Reasons be first answered and then when there is no Reason against a thing the example of great and wise men without any other reason carry some Authority with them especially when we have other good reasons
for doing any thing example gives some more strength And thus the example of Jaddus may be an argument when other examples are none The meaning is that an example against the Drs. Reasons is a Prejudice and no Argument and an example the Dr. mentions against other mens Reasons is an Argument and no Prejudice for I had urged against him his producing the example of Jaddus which was but a single and a suspicious example But that it seems must be an Argument because it is for the Drs. turn but the examples of so many excellent men are but Prejudices because they make against him But by the Drs. favour the examples of these great and good men is an Argument and a very strong one to prove the sense of the Church of England in the point of Submission to Vsurped Powers and such a one as confutes all the Drs. little Reasons to the contrary He urges some Arguments to prove the Church of England on his side and to these we oppose the evident and undoubted practice of that Church in such remarkable and discriminating instances as plainly distinguished between those that were true Sons of that Church and those that were not so and to talk of Reasons against plain matter of fact is disputing against common sense and such reasons are like the Arguments against motion which are best confuted by walking up and down But says he tho he knows the example of Jaddus was alledged by me only to prove the sense of the Convocation and the Dr. knows these great examples were alledged by me for the same Reason He adds and how Jaddus himself understood his Oath of Allegiance to Darius which saith he is a very different case from what he urges yes by all means The examples of those great men did not prove how they understood the Oath of Allegiance nor what they thought of submission to Usurped Powers in Possession against a Legal King out of Possession nor what was the sense of the Church of England in those Cases I suppose because some of them lost their lives and all their livelyhoods and Estates against their own sense and judgment and against the sense and direction of that Church of which they professed themselves and were in truth the most eminent and faithful Members But says he to let pass his transport of zeal and to forgive the froth and folly of it These I suppose the Dr. designs for Civil and obliging expressions for he had but just before complain'd of my hard and spightful words when he urges the examples of these great men there are many things he ought to have considered 1. He should have considered whom he reproached as well as whom he commended Right and I did so but he tells us he reproaches all those who in those times of Confusion submitted to the Vsurped Powers and lived quietly and peaceably under them But who told him so there is no such thing in my Answer or Postscript is there no difference between living peaceably and quietly and becoming Parties to the Usurpation siding with it against the Legal King pleading the Cause of it and swearing to be true and faithful to it These last indeed are reproached by the Virtue and Loyalty of those excellent men and who can help that Virtue and Truth is always a Reproach to Vice and Error But perhaps the Dr would have had me justified the exclusion of Charles the Second and the adherence to the Usurpers against him And this indeed would not have reproached them But it would have reproached much honester and better men than they it would have reproached all those Gallant and Loyal Sufferers for their King and the Laws But no matter for them they are not for the Drs purpose now but he is grown on a sudden so very tender of the Usurpers Party that they must suffer no reproach and rather than that the best men of our Church must not be commended for fear it should reflect on them But saith the Dr. The King found a great many true Friends and Loyal Persons at his return among those men I suppose by virtue of their taking the Engagement and writing Books to keep him out and using all their endeavours and interests for that purpose Well but suppose some of them were true friends to the King why then they are not to be reproached not for their being Parties to the Usurpation against him but because they were his true friends i. e. because they deserted the Vsurpers for they could not be true Friends and Loyal to both And if I have said any thing to reproach them for being the Kings friends and abandoning his Enemies I am content to suffer reproach my self But as the Dr. hath worded this it is not easie to understand what he means He says they were true Friends and Loyal Persons upon his return Does he mean that were then so only but before his return and in the time of Usurpation were virulent and mortal Enemies to him but so soon as he return'd they became Friends and Loyal Methinks this is no extraordinary character They were his friends when he could advance them but in his extremity and when he had need of them they were his enemies i. e. they were true friends to themselves and not to him and such a kind of friendship if it must not be reproached does not sure deserve commendation The Dr. further tells me I reproach all those Loyal Persons who suffered under those Vsurpations and comply now And also all those who have now sworn Allegiance But how can the Dr. tell that I meddle with no bodies Principles but his and the Dr. in the next paragraph tells me I ought not only to consider what was done but upon what Principles they did it and I have considered his Principles and have shewn that they reproach the best Men of our Church but that it seems will not do and I must consider what was done also and reproach all them that did it tho they act upon other Principles and tho I consider no bodies Principles but the Drs. 2. The next Advice is If our Author will argue from Examples he ought not only to consider what was done but upon what Principles they did it whether they were all of our Authors mind that it is absolutely unlawful in any case whatsoever to submit to a Prince who is possessed of the Throne while the Legal King or his true Heir is living tho dispossessed Now I think there is all the evidence in the World that they were of this mind This was the very case there was a Person the Dr. may call him Prince if he pleases and agreeable enough to his Principles possessed of the Throne and the Legal King and Heir dispossessed And it is plain in fact they refused to submit to the Usurper in the Throne and adhered to the Legal King out of the Throne And if the Dr. can find any other reason or assertion of theirs for
but makes it serve as a proof that the Convoc by Settlement meant an illegal Settlement And this is pure reasoning The Convoc meant an illegal Settlement because they meant an illegal Settlem nt and that is because the Dr. will have it so for he does not offâ—r the least shadow of proof And all that he says is which began by Rebellion and Ambition as if the beginnings of a Government and the Settlement of it w re all one as if becau â— tâ—e Convoc in this Chapter speaks or Ambition Rebellion and wiâ—ked means whereby Governments have been acquir'd therefore by the Settlement afterwards they must needs mean the Settlement of illegal Powers Where is the consequence or coherence of such arguings and the Dr. may as well say that the Convocation teaches that Rebellion is Gods Auâ—hority as that they speak of the Settlement of illegal Powers If therefore the Doctor will speak to the purpose let him prove his Principle let him prove that when the Convocation speaks of a Settlement they speak of the Settlement of illegal Powers but it is a wild sort of proceeding to take the main point in Controversie for granted and then to argue from it as if it had never been disputed at this rate a man may make the Convocation-book or any other book say what we please The Doctor knows that I deny that the Convoc speaks of the Settlement of illegal Powers and that on the contrary Powers so long as they continue illegal cannot in the sense of the Convoc be said to be setled But says the Dr. it is manifestly unreasonable unless it had been express'd to expound this of a legal Settlement and is it nor express'd If Settlement means a legal Settlement then it is express'd as full as the sense of words can express it But here the Doctor shifts and evades and does not give a full Answer He grants that Settlement is a term of Law and used by Lawy rs of a legal Settlement and must aâ—ways in reason be underâ—â—ood so in Law where the contrary is not expressed But is this my Anâ—wer Answ p. 18. I grant â—hat I said Settlement was a term of Law but is that all did I not say moreover that most men understand the sense of it and express themselves by it accordiâ—glâ— and d d I noâ— say before the natural and usual Construction of the words and whâ—â— is usuâ—â—â—y underâ—â—ood by them But here the Doctor confines it only to the Law as if there were another and distinct sense of it with resp ct to civil Possessions in common acceptation which is contrary bo h to my meaning and to my words I thought I had asked him a fair Question Postscript p. 1. w en I desired him to shew me any one approved Lawyer or Civilian who are suppos'd to speak the most properly in such matters or any Historian that ever delivered such a sense of these words or that ever affirm'd or in a mere narratory wa declar'd tâ—at an usurped Possessiâ—n was a thorough Settl ment or any Settlement at all when there was a rightful and legal Title in being against it and that Title actually contesting But not a word of that but there is another sense which no body ever heard of that is more fit for the Doctor 's turn and that is reason enough that the Convocation must mean so by them though those Expressions never meant so either before or since And which is the most pleasant of all he teâ—ls â—â—e very magisterially That it argues great perverseness of mind to reject that sense of the word which is proper to the subject to which it is apply'd for such a sense as is fo eign and unnatural Postscript p. 2. Now the Subject to which these words thorough Settlement are apply'd is Government and I had desired him to shâ—w me any approved Author that ever said that Tyrannus sine titulo the Case the â—â—r puts in his book wâ—s a Government throughly setled or any true Government at all But no matter for that the Dr. is resolved to have a Settlement of his own to serve his own purpose Let the world say what they will the notion that I give of a Settlement is that it denotes a rightful and peaceable Possession which every body and the Dr. himself owns to be a Settlement tho he will not allow it in the present case and I cannot blame him because it overthrows his Hypothesis the Doctor 's notion is a Settlement of Possession without Right nay against it nay further against a visible and undeniable Right actually prosecuted tho he cannot and his answerer put it to him to shew that any Author ever gave such an account of a Settlement either with respect to any usurped Possession or with respect to the particular case of Usurped Powers And I shall leave it with the Reader which is the most foreign and unnatural sense and consequently according to him which argues the greatest perversness of mind to interpret it in the usual vulgar and universally receiv'd acceptation or to coyne a new sense of it to fit a present turn and in which it was never understood before The Dr. tells us to confirm his notion That it is plain that the right and settlement of government are two very different things for they may be parted the first relates to the Title the second to the setled Possession and exercise of government And whenever a Rightful King is dispossessed our Author must grant that his settlement is gone tho not his Right well if I must grant it I must and what then Then saith the Dr. if Right and Settlement may be parted I desire to know why there may not be a Settlement without Right and then it is ridicuous to conclude that Settlement must always signifie Right and I wonder whoever said that Settlement either always or at all signify'd Right it signifies a Rightful and quiet possession and that is neither Right singly nor Possession singly but both together joyn'd with quiet from other pretences and this is an answer to what the Dr. desires to know why if Right and Settlement may be parted there may nor be a Settlement without Right because Settlement always includes and supposes Right but on the contrary Right does not include nor suppose a Settlement But this is nothing but fallacy and by this way of reasoning a Man may prove any compounded thing to be without the necessary parts of its composition A House consists of Walls and other things but if the Dr. undertakes the business he can prove a house to be without Walls for it is plain that a Wall and a House may be parted and if a House and a Wall may be parted then why may not a House be without a Wall but let us try it in his own Concessions the page before he grants that in the Lawyers sense Settlement signifies a Legal Settlement now it is plain in that sense
according to him there must be something else visible besides force before it is a duty to obey such alterations And then it follows That the present Possessor must have some other visible Title besides such unjust force But the Doctor referrs us to the words of the Convocation The Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor being always God's Authority and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such alterations are throughly setled to be reverenc'd and obeyed c. Now says the Doctor very triumphantly let any man who understands Grammar construe this otherwise if he can Now I will renounce my understanding in Grammar if I do not construe it otherwise than he does and not only so but plainly shew that his Construction is both false and also ungrammatical He says what Authority is that which must be obeyed and reverenced it is saith the Convocation the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor Very well so far we are agreed he adds And therefore not a new Legal Authority gained by Death Cession or a long Prescription And does the Doctor call this Grammatical Construction This is the only thing in controversie and he draws it from the words by inference or consequence and are inferences and consequences Grammatical Constructions And what does he mean by this inference And therefore not a new Legal Authority what then might it not be the old Legal Authority gain'd by a new Right to it and why I wonder might not the Right as well as the Authority be gained from the Possessor But the Grammatical Construction is directly against him what Authority is that which must be obey'd and reverenc'd it is says the Convocation the Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor And what Authority is that which is wrung from the true and lawful Possessor it is the Legal Authority for that is what the true and lawful Possessor was possess'd of and which only could be wrung from him The Doctor inferrs and therefore not a new Legal Authority and much more sure and therefore not a new illegal Authority The Doctor proceeds What is God's Authority which we must obey it is no other than 〈◊〉 Authority unjustly gotten or wrung by force c. which can receive no impeachment by the wickedness of those who have it Thus far we are right again he adds By what wickedness Their wicked and ungodly and violent means of getting and having it for the Convocation speaks of no other wickedness but the wickedness of Vsurpation And here we are got to inference again and the only thing in controversie is drawn from the words and that unjustly But let us see his Grammar and I would gladly know where the Doctor places the stress of this Construction whether upon the means of getting it or upon the having it if upon the wicked means his Construction is true tho not Grammatical But that is not to his purpose and no body disputes the violent and wicked means of getting it and the Authority after it is got may be legal enough for all that But if upon the having it which is the only thing in controversie his Construction is neither Grammatical nor true not Grammatical for he construes a Substantive by an Adjective or Adverb and transposes the words and I wonder by what Rules of Grammar The wickedness of these that have it is to be construed their wicked and ungodly having it He may call it Paraphrase or Exposition but he can never say it is Grammatical Construction And as it is not Grammatical so also it is not true for it is not the sense of the Convocation for they say nothing of the wicked having it but of the wicked means of getting it they do as more than once in this Chapter and expresly their wicked attempts detestable in the sight of God And therefore I ask as the Doctor does By what wickedness the wickedness of their attempts to gâ—in the Government by Rebellion and Encroachment for this is all the wickedness the Convocation speaks of and not the wickedness of Vsurpation as the Doctor is resolv'd to have it tho the Convocation hath not one single word of it And if the Doctor had exactly repeated this passage it would plainly have appear'd and to use some of his own language he hath honestly cited it but not so honestly repeated it He repeats it only The Authority unjustly gotten or wrung c. But the Convocation says the Authority so unjustly gotten or wrung c. And what does so refer to but the wicke means and attempts to gain the Government they had mentioned before And this plainly shews what the Convocation meant by the wickedness of those that have it which is no impeachment to God's Authority and that is not as the Doctor fansies their wicked having it but their so unjustly getting it and their so unjustly getting it is their wicked attempts to obtain it But so is but a small word and might easily be overlooked and especially when it spoils both the Doctors Grammar and his Argument I hope he will hereafter forgive me a slip of a Particle about which he so unmercifully treats me and that without reason or justice as we shall see hereafter In the mean time the Doctor 's Grammar and Logick together affords us these admirable Doctrins 1. That God's Authority and a Divine Right are actually annex'd to actual wickedness and unrighteousness For the stress of the Doctors Construction lyes in their wicked having it i. e. their very being in Power is wicked their very having it is wicked and ungodly and that is their wickedness injustice and unrighteousness is God's Authority 2. That a man Possesses a thing wickedly which God gives him and which is not all but that he would possess the very same thing justly if men gave it him if upon the Death or Cession of the Right Heir c A Prince acquires a Right he then certainly legally and justly possesses the Throne But if God only gives it him then he hath it wickedly 3. That men are bound in Conscience to support and maintain a wicked and unjust Possessor ev'n in his wicked and unjust Possession and which is yet more ev'n to the manifest wrong and in direct opposition to the Right owner These are Doctrines suited well enough to the Doctor 's Hypothesis But it is no great Credit to any Notions that they cannot be maintain'd but by dishonouring God and breaking up the foundations of all Righteousness and Justice in the world The Doctor tell us He proceeded in the Case of Allegiance to prove the same thing from other Testimonies of the Convocation Book and of the Two first that he mention'd he says I thought fit to take no notice of And it is true I did not and the Doctor has Reason to thank me
did think that Allegiance was not due to Vsurped Powers and that was not their â—aulâ— neither but their fault was that they thought as the Dâ— dâ—es that the Romans were Usurped Powers as the Dr. rightly they looked upâ—n the Romans as Vsurpers over Israel when in truth they were their lawful Magistrates and the Convocation expresly affirms they were so But from whence does the Dr. collect that the Apostle had an eye to this opinion of the Pharisees as he states it P. 82 The Epistle was written to the Converts at Rome amongst whom as there were several Jews so there were a great many Gentiles and of those Jews 't is probable there were not many if any at all of the Pharisees who according to the account we have of them in the Gospel and other Histories were of all the Jews the most obstinate against Christianity and implacable enemies to it now the Dr. intimates that this opinion of the Pharisees was singular and peculiar to them only And it does not seem reasonable that St Pâ—ul should obviate an objection which perhaps not one of them made to whom iâ— wrot and for whom he intended the direction of this Precept and as the Dr. intimates no body else made it besides the Pharisees and who would give as little heed to St. Paul as they did to Chriâ—â—ianity it self And I believe another and more convenient reason may be assign'd the Christian Converts either then actually were or in a short time would be in a state of Persecution from the Heathen Emperors and this might tempt them to undue behaviour towards their lawful Governours The Pleas of Liberty Religion and the illegal and unauthoritative acts of Kings were as plausible then as they have been since and I believe any man that impartially considers the scope and tendency of this precept will find that the end of it was to press the necessity of obedience and to shew the wickedness and danger of Resistance in any case and not to answer an objection of the Pharisees which in all probability was foreign and not at all concerned the Roman Jews and Gentiles who had embraced Christianity Case of Resist ch 4. and truly just so the Dr. himself interprets it and never 'till now to serve a good purpose thought that it had any respect to the Pharisees or their objections And to this I add that if the Apostle had intended to obviate this objection of the Pharisees it seems reasonable and as I said 'T is probable he would have enjoyn'd obedience to Vsurped Powers in express terms and this would have effectually answered the objection and there would have been no avoiding it but as 't is now expressed 't is matter of dispute and the Pharisees might have been of the same mind with the Dr heretofore and thought St. Paul only meant it of Legal P wers and had that been the Apostles end there cannot easily be given a Reason why he did not roundly express it There would have been no danger from the Government as the Dr. knows by experience who puts the Question of Vsurped Powers and writes a Book upon it and the objection would have been plainly answered and the Subjects might without hesitancy rest satisfied upon it But if we may believe the Dr. the Case had not been the same if he had expresly named Lawful Powers tho he had intended it for that would have insinuated that he knew some who were not lawful Powers and such a suggestion without naming them would have made The Pe ple jealous of their Goverâ—â—â—â—s and spoiled his exhortation of obeying t â—â— and so if the Dr please he hath given as a Reason why St. Paul should not name Lawful Powers had he meant them But why he should not name Vsurped Powers had he intended them he hath given no Reason But the Dr. adds Tho there was a distinction between Legal and Vsurped Powers there was no distinction made in point of obedience to them but only by the Pharisees and therefore with respect to the rest of the World he ought to have made this distinction in express words if he intended any distinction should have been made Now as to the Pharisees I suppose the Dr. hath enough already and to shorten the Dispute I will grant him that if there was no distinction with respect to the rest of the world between Legal and Vsurped Powers in point of obedience to them then it was reasonable for St. Paul to have expressed lawful powers had he intended by this Precept to have enjoyn'd obedience only to them But then it follows if there was always such a distinction then there is the same reason that he ought to have express'd Vsurped Powers had he intended to enjoin obedience to them Now I had urg'd him over and over to shew me any one approved Author who had asserted that Tyrannus sine Titulo The Case of his Book and the Case now before us was any lawful or any true Government and the same I had put to him with respect to the Text in hand and after all he names but two Mr Calvin and Grâ—â—tius one against whom there is just exception and the other is directly against him And after such a slender proof peremptorily to say that all the world besides the Pharisees make no distinction with respect to obedience between Legal and Vsurped Powers looks as if he depended more upon confident assertions than clear proofs Let him prove this if he can by induction of particulars the World is wide enough and men have not been nice in giving their judgments in this particular The Question is handled by almost all the Civil Lawâ—ers Mâ—raâ—ists and Câ—siâ—â—s extant and I will joyn issue with him upon it when he please but to invent a new Scheme of Government and without any proof to father it upon all the world is a little th◠〈◊〉 for any man but the 〈◊〉 I had charg'd upon this interpretation of the Convocation Book That iâ— justifies aâ—â—â—reaâ—on Postscript p. 13. â—ome iâ—pious Dâ—câ—râ—â—e by mâ—â—â—â—g the Acts or Permissions 〈◊〉 Providence a 〈…〉 against â—â—ght and Justice This the 〈…〉 a very unreasonâ—â—â—e and â—â—pâ—â—e Doctrine and 〈◊〉 further were I sensible that any thing I have said would justifie this Doctrine I would immediately renounce it Now whether the Dâ— be sensible of it or no is not for me to determine but that he does justifie such a Doctrine I think I have made it evident enough But after a recital of what he had said before and which I think has no need to be repeated so many times over to be even with me he tells me The truth is our Author writes at that rate Vindic. p. 58. that it is to be feared some people will suspect that he does not believe a Providence or does not understand it or has a mind to ridicule it These are hard words if the Dr. could but prove them But this is the least in his
as not at all to wonder at this But he must have a very mean opinion of his Readers that can think such things will go down with them Is it possible that any thing can be express'd more contradictory than the Bishops assertions here are to the Drs. The Bishop sayes Some are Kings and yet reign not as true Heirs the Dr. sayes the contrary He ought to be King but is not the man is in being but the King is gone The Bishop sayes some Reign and are no Kings as Vsurpers the Dr. says that all that reign are Kings and particularly Vsurpers The Bishop sayes that lawful Kings reign by God and Usurpers do not the Dr. the clean contrary And yet the Dr. can with great Modesty ask What is this to the purpose Alas nothing at all only it contradicts every thing in the Drs. two Books But sayes he does not the Convocation allow Joash to be the true Heir while he was kept from the Crown How nicely does he express this the True Heir Yes the Convocation does not only allow him to be the True Heir but the True King also tho the Dr. does not but dates his Authority from his Coronation and is not this very pretty The Bishop sayes Joash was true King all those six years he reigned not and the Dr. answers he was the true Heir i. e. he was not the true King for according to his Principles there is as much difference between the true Heir and the true King as there is between something and nothing And Athaliah an Vsurper tho she reigned six years Right the Convocation does say so and so does the Bishop and so does the Doctor But here is the difference the Bishop sayes Athaliah was never any true Queen the Dr. sayes she was and as true a Queen as Joash was a King bating only the irresistableness of her Authority nay in the matter now compar'd she was a true Queen than Joash was a King for for those six years she was a true Queen and Joash was only a true Heir i. e. she was Queen and Joash was not King A very fair Reconciliation The Bishops words are Joash was King and Athaliah was not Queen all those six years and the Drs. sense is Athaliah was Queen and Joash was not King all those six years And yet the Bishop might be of his mind tho he would not allow them the name of Kings Yes just as much as two persons are of the same mind who manifestly contradict each other What he adds about the Convocation's speaking of a King de facto and what Doctrine he hath prov'd from thence I have answer'd already But for him to say that notwithstanding his saying that true Heirs who reign not i. e. in the Drs. language are out of possession are the true Kings that Usurpers who reign i. e. are in possession of the Throne are not true Kings Bishop Andrews might be of the same mind with the Doctor as to obedience to such Usurpers is to suppose all his Readers out of their wits For if any man can believe that that Learned Bishop did think that the Duties only belonging to a King were due to a Person whom he thought to be no King and were not due to the Person whom he thought was the King it is high time to leave disputing and go range our selves in the Forest For we must give over communicating our minds if the sense of men cannot be learnt from the plainest Expressions The Dr. goes on But the Bishop will not allow that such Kings if he pleases such Usurpers and no Kings for that is the Bishop's Expression reigned by God Right But then he does not mean that such Kings do not exercise God's Authority But that God did not by his antecedent will and app intment place them on the Throne But how does the Dr. know that or where had he this Does the Bishop say or in the least intimate any such thing No matter for that the Dr. is resolv'd to make him say so because it is for his purpose And is not this a pure Interpreter of Authors What Authority has he to make senses for men which they never made themselves He might have said and with the same Justice and Truth that the Bishop when he said Usurpers were no Kings he meant they were Kings when he said they did not reign by God he meant they did reign by him Grant but this liberty that men may clap their own distinctions upon others and we may easily make them say what we please and at this rate the Dr. may make Bishops or Convocations or any body else speak what he hath a mind to Let him shew if he can where this distinction of Exercising God's Authority tho not Reigning by him and of his Antecedent Will are in Bishop Andrews And if he can't let him try if he can make another distinction to avoid the charge of inventing a sense and fastning it upon the Bishop to serve his own turn He adds Thus St. Chrysostom on the thirteenth to the Romans why did Bishop Andrews cite St. Chrysostom Nor that neither nor had any reference to him and how then comes St. Chrysostom to explain the Bishop's sense Suppose St Chrysostom was of that mind does it follow that therefore the Bishop was If this be not his meaning what does he understand by his Particle thus Well! but thus St. Chrysostom on the thirteenth to the Romans why doth St. Chrysostom say any thing of such Kings exercising God's Authority tho God did not by his antecedent will and appointment place them on the Throne nor that neither but the Dr. hath taken this distinction from Dr. Jackson and fastned it upon Bishop Buckeridge and St. Chrysostom tho neither of them say one word of it nor any thing like it And in truth in reference to Dr. Jackson himself he both mistakes and mis-applyes it as we shall see presently But as for St. Chrysostom the Dr. tell us he allows all power and authority to be of God and to be ordained of God and therefore ought not to be resisted whoever has it but yet will not say that all Princes who exercise this Power wickedly and tyrannically whatever their Title be are ordained of God But where had the Dr. this St. Chrysostom as far as I can find says nothing of this There is nothing in him of whoever has this power He sayes indeed the Apostle does not say There is no Governour but what is of God but he speaks of the thing it self there is no power but of God And from whence I think it plainly follows That a Governour or in the Drs. words one that actually governs might not be of God and consequently such a one is not within the Precept of the Apostle according to St. Chrysostom But the Dr. gives a Reason He St. Chrysostom thought it a reproach and blemish to the Goodness and Justice of Providence to say that wicked impious tyrannical