to do Now the Dr. has the best faculty of turning his Questions that ever I saw when he is to prove that God gives his Authority to Illegal and Usurped powers then the Question is Cannot God make a King without a Legal Title Is God confin'd to Humane Laws in making Kings And when he is to prove that these Usurpers are to govern according to Law then he is for asking Cannot God set up a King without a Legal Title but he must be presum'd to give him Authority to govern against the Laws of the Land No doubt but God can do both but that is not the Question And if we must answer by Questions his Question plainly turns upon him Cannot God make a King without confining him to govern by the Laws of the Land as well as without a Legal Title No doubt he can do that if he please And this brings us to the merits of the Cause which the Dr. would fain shift off And the Question is if a Prince in a Limited Monarchy possesses himself of Arbitrary Sovereign Power and actually administers it contrary to Law whether according to his Principles he hath not God's Authority and ought to be obey'd and we have not the same Evidence that he hath it that we have that Usurped Powers have God's Authority And that is Possession and Providence and if we must presume that God gives his Authority to an Usurper who is in possession of Sovereign Power contrary to Law I would fain see a Reason why we must not presume that God gives his Authority to a Prince who possesses and exercises Arbitrary Sovereign Power contrary to Law And if the Law must be our Rule against the possession of Arbitrary Power why is it not also our Rule against Usurped Powers The one is as consistent with Sovereign Power as the other The one God may give as well as the other the Evidence that God does so is the same in both The one is as contrary to the Law as the other and the denyal of it as much confines God to Humane Laws as the other And here my Argument plainly affects him which he takes no manner of notice of The assuming an Illegal Power Postscript p. 16. is no more against the Laws than Illegal and Vsurped Powers And God when he gives Authority is confin'd to our Laws and Constitutions no more in the extent of Power than in the Person and the only Evidence that we have that God gives it is the possession of it by Providence and whatsoever Power a Prince is possess'd of hath the same Evidence and consequently is a branch of the same Authority And Arbitrary Power is not inconsistent with the notion of Sovereign Power and whatever limitations of Government there are now in the World they are only limitations made by Humane Laws and of no force against God's Authority But this it seems was so very ridiculous that the Dr. had not one single word to say to it And I must tell him that I am not only capable of thinking it an argument against him but I am capable of thinking it such an argument as he cannot answer without quitting some of his Principles And because he despises it so much I do here provoke him to it And in the mean time 't is very ridiculous to scorn an argument and when he comes to answer it to leave out the whole strength and force of it The Reason I added to confirm my Argument was For the formal Reason of Obedience to such a Prince is because he hath God's Authority and the Evidence that he hath that Authority is because he is possessed of Sovereign Power He answers Suppose this tho God's Authority be the formal reason of our obedience to a Prince yet it is not the Rule of our obedience Very well Then the Law is our Rule and why I pray is not the Law our Rule with respect to the Person as well as with respect to the duty we owe him The Law directs to the Person as well as to the duty and directs the duty only to that Person By the Law a Prince ought not to have Arbitrary Power and by the same Law an Usurper ought to have no power at all If therefore the Law be our Rule for the same reason that we ought not to obey the acts of Illegal Power we ought not to obey Vsurped Powers at all Vindic p. 72. But the Dr tells us The Authority of God is only an authority to govern according to the Laws of God and Nature or the Laws of the Land Now the Doctor knows well enough that in this Argument I oppose Arbitrary Sovereign Power not to the Laws of God and Nature but to the Laws of the Land even in the same sense the Dr. understands Vsurped Powers and if possession contrary to Law gives Authority to Usurpation why not to Arbitrary Power But that I doubt is a Ridiculous Question too for men do not love to be ask'd more Questions than they can answer He adds Tho Sovereign Princes may have such an Authority as must not be resisted yet in a Limited Monarchy they have no more Authority from God to transgress the Laws of the Land than in an Absolute Monarchy to transgress the Laws of God and Nature The Proposition couch'd in these words is this That in a Limited Monarchy a Power that transgresseth the Laws of the Land is not God's Authority And then farewel to Usurpation that has not God's Authority For the very being of Usurped Powers is a fundamental transgression of the Laws of the Land And if men have no Authority from Gâ—d to transgress the Laws of the Land then an Usurper hath no Authority at all Arbitrary Power transgresseth the Laws of the Land and therefore it is not God's Authority and Usurpation transgresseth it ten times more and therefore if the Reason be good that also is not God's Authority He goes on indeed Arbitrary Government is not the possession of Sovereign Power which is God's Authority but the Arbitrary Exercise of it What does he mean by this Is not Arbitrary Power God's Authority in an Absolute Monarchy as well as limited power in a Limited Monarchy If he means this he ought to have prov'd it and he may yet prove it if he thinks it will help his Hypothesis But it is the Arbitrary Exercise of it Of what of God's Authority or of Sovereign Power If Arbitrary Government be the Arbtrary Exercise of God's Authority then it ought to be obey'd for God's Authority ought to be obey'd in what manner soever it is exercis'd It or Sovereign Power then I desire to know why the Arbitrary Exercise of Sovereign Power is not the Possession of Arbitrary Sovereign Power as well as the Exercise of a Limited Power is the Possession of that Power The Dr. tells us over and over of the wonderful efficacy of Actual Government Actual Authority Actual Administration which are but other words for the
they might or they might not submit it was lawful but not necessary nor matter of Conscience and they might be determin'd by their honour or interest well suppose all this and that those Usurpers were not so setled were not each of them actually possess'd of Power Did they not actually administer the Government And this the Dr. in that very answer expresly asserts That the Power of the Nation was for some time in their hands Vindic. p. 69. And if it was in their hands then they actually possess'd it and for the time they possess'd it they must according to him be Sovereigns at least Sovereigns of Gods making and the Allegiance of the Subject was so long due to them For it is as certain as any proposition in Logick that actual possession of Power and Subjection are relations and have a mutual and necessary respect to each other and that Dominion and Government makes a King But then what becomes of the fine pretences of Honour Interest and his notion of a thorough Settlement for if these Usurpers were not setled according to his account of a Settlement they were possessed of Power according to his account of Possession of Power And if Actual Government makes a King Cromwel was a King and had the Relation of a King and the People were bound in Conscience to submit to him and then I would feign know how the Drs. Honour and Interest would excuse them Now tho the Dr. will not allow me that his account of a thorough Settlement fits Cromwel to all intents and purposes his Account of Possession of Power and administration of Government fits him just as if it had been made for him Now to say no more this is as great a Reflection upon those Worthies of our Church and Nation as I had charg'd upon his account of a thorough Settlement Well! but this I suppose is a prejudice and no argument But I will tell him what is an argument and directly against him and that is that his Answer there is a plain contradiction to all his Arguments and Assertions here and I pray him to reconcile them He hath given us a great many distinctions already but none of them will serve the turn and if he please to find out one more to make his Answer there and his Doctrine here to agree For if actual Possession of Power and Allegiance have a mutual and necessary respect to each other let him tell me if he please why the Rumps and Cromwels actual Possession of Power and the Subjects Allegiance had not as mutual and necessary respect to each other as the Actual Possession of Power by any other Usurper The Dr. by way of objection to what he had said says All that I know that can be said in this Cause and which those men must say who make Allegiance inseparable from Right is only this that the Relation continues as long as the fundamentum Relationis that whereon the Relation is founded continues and that being a Legal Right while this Right remains such a Legal King tho he be fallen from Power is King still and Subjects are Subjects still and owe Allegiance to him By this time I suppose the Dr. may know that something else may be said in this Cause And I know no manner of necessity why we must say so now for the single question is whether Actual Government and Allegiance are the Relations that make the Relatives and do mutuo se ponere tollere And this may be sufficiently determin'd without mingling the Fundamentum Relationis in the dispute But this objection he made for his own sake and tho it be not needful for us to say that the Relation continues as long as the Fundamentum Relationis continues it was very needful for him to say so And it is the very answer he gives to what I said to prove P. 40. that Actual Government and Allegiance do not mutuo se ponere tollere if a Subject be taken captive or otherwise hindred from paying actual Allegiance is the Relation lost and does he therefore immediatly cease to be a Subject And therefore neither doth a King if he be hindred from the Actual Administration of Government cease to be a King but hath the same Right to our Allegiance in and out of Possession To this the Dr. replies these two cases are not parallel in the first case tho the Subject is taken captive yet the Foundation of the Relation is not destroy'd for his Prince is on his Throne still in the Actual Administration of Government tho he be violently torn from him so that his Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related But when the Prince is fallen from his Kingdom and Power the Foundation of the Relation is at present destroy'd And now we see the meaning of the Drs. objection which was not to answer an objection of ours which we never made nor need to make but to prepare an Answer to an Argument which otherwise he could not Answer But for all this artifice he must have a good hand at reconciling contradictions that can reconcile this Answer with his foregoing assertions The Foundation of the Drs. Argument is that Government and Allegiance are Relations and do mutuo se ponere tollere and then the ceasing of Allegiance destroys the Relation of Government as much as the ceasing of Government destroys the Relation of Allegiance and when a Subject falls from his Allegiance he dissolves the Relation of the Prince to him as much as the Princes falling from actual Government dissolves the Relation of a Subject For this I take to be the meaning of muto se ponunt tollunt But the Dr. whatsoever he had said the leaf before is now for making a single not mutual Respect of it The Prince is in the Throne and in the actual Administration and therefore the Subject is the Subject still whatsoever becomes of his Allegiance and that is nothing destroys the Relation between King and Subject but the Princes losing actual Government but then what becomes of mutuo se ponunt tollunt and Actual Government and Allegiance having a mutual and necessary respect to each other that is not for me to know and the Dr. may reconcile it and if he please he may take his Fundamentum Relationis along with him to help him out And yet after all I must confess the Dr. has given a very good answer for he says that the King is on the Throne still tho the Subject is violently torn from him and the Relation may continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related and this is certainly true But then it follows the Relation of a Prince may continue because he has Subjects to whom he is related for mutuo se ponunt as well as tollunt And if the Relation of a Subject continues tho he be violently torn from his Prince the Relation of a Prince continues
one at least of the Church of England on his side but such a one it seems was not to be found and therefore he gives us two Forreigners both learned men indeed but against one there is just exception and the other is not for him Mr. Calvin for any thing I know may be of the Drs. opinion and any man that considers the turbulent State of Geneva at that time and the Revolution there will be able to give a Reason for it and I think there is no great Question but as he suited his Church Discipline so he did his Doctrines about Government to the circumstances of that State And his Doctrine of a power reserved to inferior Magistrates Calv. Inst l. 4. c. ult to restrain and coerce Kings is another instance of it And the one hath just as much Authority as the other And to say no more the Judgment of Mr. Calvin in point of Government hath always been exploded by the Church of England and it is a great evidence the Dr. is very much streightned for Authors when no body but Mr. Calvin can be found to concur with him He might if he had pleas'd have nam'd Dr. Goodwin and it would have done as well But as for Grotius the Dr. interpâ—ets him as he does the Scripture Grotius does say indeed Grot. in Rom. 13.1 That God rules and changes Governments not only by his common Providence by which he leaves many things in their natural order but with Wisdom suited to the advantage or the punishment of the Subjects c. And what then therefore he believ'd the Apostle meant usurped as well as legal Powers or that it is the Law of God that every person possessing himself of the Throne by Providence is a King of God's making and ought to be own'd as such I wonder how he will draw this out of Grotius's words And Grotius himself plainly asserts the contrary De jure belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. Restat ut de invasâ—re Imperii videamus non postquam longa possessâ—ne aut pacto jus nactus est sed quamdiu durat injuste possidendi causa quidem dum possidet actus imperii quot exercet vim latere possunt obligandi non ex ipsius jure quod nullum est sed ex eo quod emnino probabile sit cum qui jus imperandi habet c. Nec minus licebit invasorem imperii interfâ—ere si diserta auctoritas accedat ejus qui jus verum imperandi habet and that when he speaks to the Question ex professo He tells us that an Usurper not after he hath acquired a Right by long possession or agreement but so long as the Reason of his unjust possession remains While he is in possession the acts of Government which he exercises may oblige but not from any Right derived from him which is none but from the presumptive consent of the Right Heir and then puts the Question Whether it be lawful to depose or to kill such an Usurper and in some cases affirms it and among those this is one If it be with the Authority of him whose the Right is whether that Right be in a King Senate or the People And to these saith he we are to reckon the Tutors and Guardians of young Princes as Jehoiada was to Joash when he deposed Athaliah And it is yet more remarkable what he adds Besides these cases I do not think it lawful for a private person to depose or kill an Usurper And for what reason not one single word of the Doctor 's Hypothesis nor any thing like it of his havinâ— God's Authority or being God's providential King but truly from the old beaten reason the presumptive consent of the true King It may so be saith he that he who has Right to the Government had rather leave the Usurper in possessiâ—n than give occasion to dangerous and bloody troubles c. And again likewise speaking of Contracts personal and real the latter of which he says are Leagues and Contracts made with Princes which bind their Successors and People as well as themselves and then adds A League made with a King remains in force altho he or his Successor be driven from his Kingdom by his Subjects and his reason is For the right of the Government is with him tho he hath lost the possession Sane cum Rege initum fâ—edus manet etiamsi rex idem aut successor regno sâ—â—â—itis sit pulsus Jus enâ—m regni pours ipsiâ—m manet utâ—â—â—que posse sâ—mâ—m amiserit contra si alieni regni invasâ—r volente vero rege aut oppr ssâ—r c. beâ—lo impeâ—atur nihil en siet contra foedus c. ibid. lib. 2. cap. 16. And on the contrary if an Usurper or an Oppressor of a free People before he hath a sufficient consent of them be invaded by War the true K. consenting this is no breach of the League because they have only possession but they have no Right And this is the meaning of that which F. Quintius said to Nabis Livy lib. 34. We made no friendship and society with you but with Pelops the just and lawful King of the Lacedemonians And here by the way we have not only the sense of Grotius but a very good Argument likewise for if in real Contracts made with a King as sustaining the person of a supreme Governour if these bound to his person out or Possession and not to the Usurper in Possession it is plain the Prince out of Possession is the King and the Usurper is none for the Contract or League was made with him as King of such a Country and if he ceases to be King the binding power of the Contract ceases as to him for as the Dr. phraseth it the Man is in being but the King is gone and the Contract goes away with it and being real and not personal passes to him that is King But now if such a Contract does not pass to the Usurper nay if it be no breach of it to fight with and to invade him and if it remains with the dispossessed â—rince then he is the King of that Country and the Usurper that possesses his Throne is not And Grotiâ—s says The Qualities in Leagues of Kings and their Successors and the like properly signifie Right and the Cause of an Usurper is odious This Argument will reach a great way and any man may improve it to deâ—ect the fallacy both of the Doctor 's and of some other Arguments But it may be sufficient here to observe that tho the Dr. ciâ—es Grotius and seems to triumph in it yet that he is not for him but directly against him What follâ—ws is extraordinary What saith the Dr. thinâ—s he of Bishop Overal's Conversation were there no learned men in it and yet they 〈◊〉 this Doctrine before John Goodwin was thought of What kind of Argument does the Dr. call this This is the thing in controversie and the Dr.
this The Dr. says that to reconcile it to our Author's Hypothesis the removed King must signifie an Vsurper and the King set up a Rightful and Legal King Now if the Dr. can make this out from my Hypothesis I will give him the Cause He tells me He doubts not but our Author would be asham'd to say this And he is in the right I should be asham'd to say that and a great many other things too but it seems he is not asham'd to charge that upon my Hypothesis which is a direct contradiction to it My Hypothesis as he repeats it and disputes against it is that an Vsurper is no King and therefore the Removing a King cannot according to that Hypothesis signifie the Removing an Usurper but of a Rightful King i. e. a true King not a pretended one but then I think it follows that the setting up of Kings must signifie the setting up of true Kings likewise and not Usurpers who are not Kings And this I do insist upon and it is not a strife about words and let the Dr. prove if he can that an Vsurper is a King either in the sense of Scripture or in any good Author or by the general consent of mankind And if he cannot then for him to interpret what the Scripture says of Kings in favor of Usurpers is purely arbitrary and he may as well apply the Directions and Precepts of Scripture concerning Husbands to him that commits a Rape For an Usurper is no more a King than a Ravisher is a Husband And here is the plain state of the Case The Scripture asserts and if the Scripture had been silent the Doctrine of Providence sufficiently evidences that God removes Kings and sets up Kings And this proves that what Kings are remov'd they are remov'd by God and what Kings are set up they are set up by God But this does not prove that those are Kings which are not Kings or that Vsurpers are within the intention of those words or that every Providential Dispossession is God's unmaking a King or every Providential Possession of the Throne is God's making a King for this was manifestly otherwise in the Case of David and Absalom Joash and Athaliah and if the Dr. please in the Case of King Charles the Second and Cromwell And â—his Answer the Dr. had before if he would but have minded it However when Persons have Possession of the Throne Postscript p. 12. who have a Legal Title either by Descent or other Acquisition and who are Kings by the consent of all mankind it is plain that God sets them up And it cannot necessarily be concluded that any more is meant by God's setting up Kings and if it cannot necessarily be concluded then there is not from thence any sufficient warrant to call every Vsurper God's King and to pay Duties to them accordingly But saith he this is evidently the Prophet's meaning to attribute all the Changes and Revolutions of Government not to Chance or Fate but to the Divine Providence Well this is true enough whether the Prophet meant it or no. The Dr. adds That whenever we see one King removed and another set up whoever they be they are removed and set up by God And this is true enough as the words lye but in the Drs. sense it is manifestly false for the people saw David remov'd and it was by God also but God by that Removal did not give away his Kingdom they saw Absolom set up too and this also in a sense was by God but God by that setting up did not make him a King and give him the Kingdom But saith he who God ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will Does whomsoever signifie those only who have a Legal Right Does giving suppose an antecedent right in him to whom it is given Does giving it to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those whom the Laws give it Do we use to say a man may give his Estate to whom he will when his Estate is entail'd and he cannot alienate it from the Right Heir we should think this a very absurd way of speaking among men and yet thus our Author must expound God's giving a Kingdom to whomsoever he will to signifie his giving the Kingdom to the Right Heir Now here are as many Sophisms as there are lines and first of all I do readily acknowledge that whomsoever does not signifie those only who have a Legal Right but the fallacy is evident for God gives all the World as well as Crowns to whomsoever he will But for all that no body hath a right to private Estates but by the Laws of the Land And it would be a fine Plea in Westminster-Hall to argue upon God's Donation by Providence Another man hath a Legal Title but God gives the World to whomsoever he will and tho he hath no Legal Title what then Does whomsoever signifie those only who have a Legal Title Thus likewise giving in the notion of it does not suppose an antecedent Right but with respect to God's giving and a Right by Humane Laws it does for God gives Property to them who have such a Right and he does not give it them who have no such Right tho they may possess it by fraud and injustice But here the fallacy lys in dividing what ought not to be divided for what is given by just Laws God gives and the antecedent Right is the Gift of God and what God gives by Laws which he hath made a Rule is not to be defeated by Providence which he hath not made a Rule He asks again Does giving to whomsoever he will signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it I answer no it does not signifie so neither does it signifie Possession only But this I can tell him it signifies every jot as much so in Kingdoms and Governments as it does in private Possessions and Estates And the Proposition in Scripture is as universal that God gives every thing all the Profits Honors c. in the World to whomsoever he will or if it was not in Scripture it is a Doctrine plain enough and every man that owns Providence must own it And it is a pure consequence that every man who is unjustly possessed of an Estate hath a Divine Right to it tho not a Legal one because forsooth giving it to whomsoever he will does not signifie giving it only to those to whom the Law gives it It is in vain here for the Dr. to answer as he does often in his Vindication Vindic. p. 58. That those matters are refer'd to the Redress of publick Laws but these God reserves to his own cognizance and disposal For the Question here is about the importance and signification of these Expressions And here his Questions turn upon him Does whomsoever signifie those only who are redress'd by Publick Laws Does giving signifie only a Sentence of a Judg or the Verdict of a Jury
But then we are never the nearer to satisfaction The Question still returns Is Prodence in opposition to common Right such a Gift So that all this while we are but where we were The Dr. gives a Reason For I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give a Kingdom to a Violent Vsurper as to suffer a Wicked Impious and Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne with a Legal Title which says he God often does Now here are two things to be observ'd 1. God may give a Kingdom to an Usurper if he please as well as he did to Jehu but then when he hath given it him such Gift extinguishes his Usurpation and he justly and honestly possesses it and whatever wickedness he might be guilty of before it is none to wear that Crown which God gives him So that indeed in such a Case God is not a Party to their wickedness but the Reason is not because God permits wickedness with a farther design or because he over-rules it to accomplish his own wise ends but because it is not Wickedness and Injustice 2. What the Dr. brings for a Parallel confutes him God may permit an Impious and Tyrannical Prince to ascend the Throne and he may likewise permit him to ravage and depopulate with a farther design to over-rule them to accomplish his own holy and just purposes But then this does not give God's Authority to his Impious and Tyrannical Acts. And I would fain see a good reason why God's having a farther design in permitting wickedness and over-ruling it gives his Authority to Vsurpation any more than it does to Tyranny And the truth is the Drs. account here furnisheth us with admirable measures of Justice and Righteousness and let us translate this Doctrine to other matters of Providence besides Government and see then how it looks and this we may do by the Drs. allowance for he tells us it is an argument not only against God's making Kings but against Providence in general And therefore I suppose no man will deny but God may give the goods of this world to whom he please he may take them from one and give them to another without injustice the only dispute can be about God's bringing this to pass by the wickedness of men and what hurt is there in this if God can over-rule the violence and rapine of men as to do that in pursuit of their own lusts which God for wise and holy reasons thinks fit to have done suppose a wicked and cunning man spurr'd on by covetousness whom God may permit by fraud and violence to wrong and oppress all his neighbors I ask any man which most becomes the Divine Wisdom to suffer such men when they please to spoil their neighbors only to gratifie their own lusts or to give them success when he sees fit to chastize and punish such persons in their goods or estates I am sure this much more becomes the Wisdom and Justice of Providence than a bare permission of such violence without any farther design And if God may permit such wickedness without being a party to it much more may he over-rule it for wise ends and make them the Executioners of his Justice in punishing wicked people And then why may not God give them those Goods or Estates which he hath taken away by them For I suppose it is as agreeable to the Sovereignty Wisdom and Justice of God to give such Goods or Estates to a violent Robber or Oppressor as to suffer a Legal Proprietor to riot and revel to spend them upon his Lusts and Vices or to make them Instruments of Injury and Injustice And is not this pure Doctrine and admirably suited for the advancement of Righteousness And it is notwithstanding the true state of the Drs. Arguments here for such reasonings extend equally to all Cases of Providence to the Case of private property as well as to that of Crowns and Scepters And the whole Scheme is as applicable to one Case as well as the other The Dr. tells me upon another occasion P. 51. which I here return him he may if he please call this giving account of Providence but I doubt every body else will give it some other name and I hope he himself upon second thoughts will be asham'd of it The Dr. repeats my charge against his interpretation again That it justifies an unreasonable and wicked doctrine Vindic. p. 61. by making the Acts or permissions of Providence a Rule for practice against Right and Justice and says as for Right and Justice it has been consider'd already let us now consider how far the Providence of God may be the Rule for practice It is indeed saith he an impious Doctrine to justifie every action and every cause which has success God many times prospers very evil designs when he can serve any good end by them and therefore to measure the good or evil of things by external success to conclude that it is God's Cause which the Providence of God prospers confounds the differences of Good and Evil and destroys all the standing Rules of Right and Justice Now the Drs. Hypothesis is this very same impious Doctrine For of two Persons claiming the Government who is and who is not King who hath and who hath not a Right to Allegiance That the obligation of an Oath made to the Person of the Governor ceases tho his Person and his Legal Right be still in being That 't is necessary and a duty to take an Oath contradictory to that to another Person all this is purely to be determin'd by Providence without any manner of other Right or Title and contrary to a plain and known Rule acknowledg'd by the Dr. himself and by all the world And if this be not to make external success the measure of Good and Evil and to conclude that to be God's Cause which is prosper'd by Providence I wish the Dr. would tell me what is And if he please likewise to favour me with the Solution of this Question Whether Usurpation be God's Cause if it be whether the Dr. hath any other proof of it besides external success and the Providence of God prospering it if it be not God's Cause what can justifie our swearing to abett support and maintain it So that either the Dr. must maintain this Impious Doctrine that God's Cause is to be measured by Success and Providence or another as impious that we are bound in Conscience to do the utmost to maintain that which is not God's Cause But saith he yet it is so far from being an impious Doctrine that it is a necessary duty to conform our selves to the Divine Providence and to discharge those duties and obligations which the Providence of God lays on us according to the nature and intention of the Providence Now if by the nature and intention of Providence the Dr. means that God by such a Providence intends to lay such duties on us it
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