perceive the same Principles will always have the same practices This is indeed very spightful but it is withal very ridiculous the Dr. does not deny but tho he was not factious yet he was hearty and zealous against taking the Oaths P. 79. and had he at that time any kind inclinations towards Rome But malice is foolish and that is answer enough to such charitable inuendo's Well But thus Papists dispute against the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith And what if they do and therefore whoever disputes thus against the Scriptures not being clear in a particular Text looks very kindly towards Rome An admirable consequence As if there was no difference between concluding that the Scriptures are not clear from the controversies about them and therefore are not a Rule of Faith and concluding from a particular controversie that the Scriptures are not clear in a particular point And I hope a man may think a particular Text obscure and may collect it from the disputes of learned men about it without any great fear of running into Scepticism or infallibility But be that as it will it is not the Case here and the Dr. does not fairly represent my words or meaning For I never said The Scriptures cannot be clear in the point for I think they are clear enough to any unprejudiced man But all that I said was That it is not clear that there is such a Law of God That is it is not clear that the Drs. sense is the sense of Scripture and I hope there is some difference between saying the Scripture is not clear and saying his sense of it is not clear So that if the Dr. please the Question is not whether the Scripture be clear in the point but whether the sense he hath given of it be clear And that it is not I said is evident not only from the controversies about it in the late times of Vsurpation but c. which the Dr. thus expounds That is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of controversie that is to say the Dr. expounds away my meaning and then disputes against his own exposition for I believe that the contrary to what the Dr. asserts is clear in Scripture tho Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Goodwin have controverted it and I think it is not the less clear for any thing they both have said about it But I think likewise that the sense some men give of Scripture and particularly the sense the said two Drs. have given of the 13 to the Romans c. is not clear and that it is not so may be evident from the controversies about it which I did not express so generally much less with an universal negative as the Dr. expounds it but with limitation to a particular time and occasion in the late times of Vsurpation for tho it cannot be said that nothing is clear which is matter of controversie yet it may be said that something is not clear which is matter of controversie and it may appear not to be clear not merely from its being controverted but from that joyn'd with some other circumstances as is the Case and the controversie about it in the late times may be an evidence that it is not clear tho the bare controversie about it may not And let any man consider the state of this Controversie in those times and the Parties ingaged in it and he may easily be satisfied Now the Drs. Hypothesis and Arguments were proposed by those Advocates for Vsurpation with all art and skill and as much to advantage as the Dr. himself hath done And if the Dr. doubts of this I will upon his request make it good by enumeration of particulars and it must be confessed that that was a fit season to examine into this Doctrine and the members of the Church of England were at that time as judicious and learned for their intellectuals and as pious and sincere for their morals as any age hath bred And that which gives a lustre to their virtues and recommends to the World not only their memories and practices but their Doctrines also as far as a meer humane example can recommend them is that after the example of their glorious Sovereign they were all Confessors and some of them Martyrs for the Doctrine of the Church and the Laws of the Land And these were the men that held the other side of the Question And of this very case it is that the Dr. speaks so contemptibly and scornfully That is to say nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of controversie as if there was no difference between a bare controversie and a controversie in these circumstances for this I plainly refer to and it is next to impossible that the Dr. should understand me otherwise for what can I possibly mean by the controversies about this Doctrine in the late times but what was manag'd by the Regicides and their Abettors on the one side and if the Dr. please on his side of the Question and on the other by the Loyal and Excellent members of the Church of England And I wonder what he means by being clear is that clear which appears or is pretended to appear only to men of vitious and corrupt Principles and for corrupt ends I speak here of the late times and does not appear nor can be seen by men of the greatest integrity and abilities And this is plainly the Case and let the Dr. if he can shew me any one Person when this controversie was at the heighth who own'd his Hypothesis who was not likewise very corrupt in his Principles relating to Government or on the other hand any one Person who was of true Principles and of the Church of England that embraced this Doctrine or Exposition or who did not as far as appears perfectly and in express terms disown and abhor it And this I think if the byass be not very great may easily satisfie any man that the Controversies in the late times about this Doctrin are a sufficient evidence that such a sense as the Dr. contends for is not very clear except a man is resolved to call that clear which no body can see but himself And this plainly shews the inconsequence of his Inferences Thus saith he Hereticks oppose the Articles of Faith Yes just thus that is they produce all the Orthodox plainly and clearly determining on their side Thus Papists dispute against the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith That is by shewing when that controversie was in debate that all and every one of the Protestants gave their judgments that the Scripture was no Rule of Faith I added to shew the Drs. sense was not clear That no learned men could ever espy this Law before the times of John Goodwin To this he replies what does he think of Mr. Calvin and Grotius who have both passed for learned men And they espyed this Law before John Goodwin Now I expected the Dr. would have produced
AN ANSWER TO Dr. SHERLOCK's Vindication OF THE Case of Allegiance DUE TO SOVEREIGN POWERS Which he made in REPLY to an ANSWER to a late PAMPHLET INTITULED Obedience and Submission to the Present Government Demonstrated from Bishop Overal's CONVOCATION-BOOK with a POSTSCRIPT in Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance c. By the same Author London Printed for Joseph Hindmarsh 1692. A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for Joseph Hindmarsh PArey's Surgery Davela's History of the Civil Wars of France Evelyn's Sylva Saunderson's Sermons Bishop Brownrigg's Sermons Snape's Anatomy of an Horse Dr. Rawleigh's Sermons Dr. Outram's Sermons Mackenzie against Stillingfleet Discourse of Primogeniture Practical Rule of Christian Piety L'Estrange's Tully's Offices Doctors Physician or Dialogues concerning Health The whole Art of Converse Arbitrary Government display'd Hudibras Fourth Part. Alamode Phlebotomy or a Discourse of Blood-letting Eutropuis in English or a Breviary of the R. History Chalmer's Spelling-Book Behn's Miscellany Poems The Whole Duty of Man in French The Works of Mr. John Oldham Tate's Miscellany Poems Maimbourgh's Prerogative of the Church of Rome The History of Count Zozimus Discourse of Monarchy The French Bible The Testament in French Titus Andronicus Majestas intemerate Dr. Pelling's Apostate Protestant Dr. Curtis's Sermon Dr. Allestree's Sermon Sheridon's Case Gouge's Principles Spirit of Meekness Stafford's Tryal The History of Passive Obedience Compleat 3 Parts The Case of the Afflicted Scotch Clergy History of the Scotch Persecution Don Sebastion Modern Policy Rebells Catechism writ by Dr. Heylin Scotch Memorial Proteus Ecclesiasticus Answer to Obedience and Submission to the Present Government Demonstrated from Bishop Overall Perjur'd Phanatick Essay on Pride Dr. Talbor of Agues Venice Preserv'd a Tragedy Elliot against Oates The History of Edward the Third a Tragedy The Mistake or False Reports A Play Slainee's Sermon Hindmarsh's Sermon Hool's Vocabulary Erasmus Colloquies 24 s. Ingratitude of a Common-wealth Aristella Castalio's Latine Testament City Politicks Plays Sir Courtly Nice Plays Banditti Plays Dame Dobson Plays The Poet's Complaint of his Muse by Mr. Otway Seneca's Morals Martin's Letters Disappointment or The Mother in Fashion a Play Roll's Loyalty and Peace Hesketh's Sermon Robert's Sermon Loyal Satyrist Vindication of the Church of England Pelling's Good Old Way Puffendorfe's History of Popedom Christian Prudence Christianity a Doctrine of the Cross Historical Relation of the late Presbyterian General Assembly Vindication of the Government of Scotland during the Reign of King Charles II. By Sr. George Mackenzie The Moral History of Frugality By Sr. George Mackenzie THE Dr. inâ—imates that his Answerer who writes with great triumph and assurance thinks it unpardonable in him P. 1. who hath been so weak by a figure I suppose as to confess he is not infallible ever to believe his own senses again Now if the Dr. thinks it decent to recant in ruffling language and to propose his new opinions in such a strein of confidence and defiance he may enjoy his own humour for me I have once told him my mind about it and shall give him no farther trouble on that account And if he likes it he may go on and represent some of those men who not long since stood upon the same bottom with him and own'd the same Principles only with less heat and violence by all the spightful characters and insinuations he can and at the same time tell the world he is not angry and complain of rage and venom changing and confining friendships to a Party But methinks he might have spared the Answerer for writing with triumph and assurance if he had done so except the Dr. can shew his Patent that no body may write so but himself And I will forgive him if he can find any thing in my Answer or Postscript comparable to that Triumphant conclusion of his Vindication If he his Answerer will promise to examine them his arguments well before he answers I shall expect to hear no more of him Now it is a little of the thickest for a man to boast at this rate and at the same time to charge his Answerer with writing with Triumph and Assurance In like manner he might have spared the reflexion that follows he tel s me he shall beg leave to follow his own method and justifie what he hath said in the same order he hath aid it in And then adds his his Answerers altering of which has more of art than honesty in it Now if I had misrepresented his Arguments or perverted the sense of them or drawn from them any odious or uncharitable inferences and with great honesty insinuated that he did not believe a Providence or had inclinations to Rome Vindic. P. 48. 58. there might have been some colour for this reflexion But if he hath notoriously done all these himself as will plainly appear in the following discourse then his own reflexion fastens upon him and he had better have let it alone for his own sake at least tho it had been civil enough for his Answerer But some men are very free of their challenges But when they are answer'd they are up in the boughs and out of all bounds the Drs. Hypothesis was answer'd and there is the plain Dishonesty of the business But as for his Method and Order 't is all one to me he may take which he likes best to justifie his Doctrines and Argumâ—nts provided he will but justifie them but that he will not do and as yet he hath not done as will appear upon examining what he offers in his vindication The Dr. begins wi h a Proof from the Observator P. 2. an admirable Historian to fetch an instance from Tâ—tle of an Usurper Preface if he please in his next he may quote Mercurius Politicus or the London Diurnal but this pretended Letter of King James hath already been so well examin'd by a leaâ—ned Author that I have no occasion to concern my self any further with it But if it were admitted to be true and not suppositions There is a great deal of difference between the judgment of King James as it is expressed in that Letter and the Doctors King James expresseth it with words of abatement and caution you have stumbled upon the threshold of that opinion which makes God the Author of sin in saying upon the matter that even Tyranny is Gods Authority and again you say upon the matter But the Doctor says it is as sure as can be and hopes he may be allow'd to believe his own senses As if King James might not have eyes and senses as well as the Doctor But what King James could not did not charge directly upon the Convocation the Doctor plainly declares to be the sense of it and hath made it the foundation both of his freedom of thinking and of writing a Book Now suppose King James did conceive the expressions of the Convocation had such a tendency Case of Alleg. Preface and that upon the matter they might mean so which
a good reason why the providence of God does not take effect against Legal Rights But how will this agree with the Drs. Doctrine and Argument Does God reserve the redress of these contrary to his own Decrees and Orders Do such reservings exclude himself and his own interpositions by providence When God has done this once shall he never be at liberty to dispose it otherwise and will not the Dr. allow the Providence of God to change and alter whatever reasâ—ns the Divine Wisdom sees for it but what God has once done he iâ— resâ—lv'd to abide by whatever hâ— tâ—â—â—ks fit to do afterwards which is to oppose God's Authority and to shackle and 〈◊〉 providence that it shall not after its usual methods in the Government of the Woâ—ld which are his Arguments but the very page before and if they prove any thing at all they are equally valid against such a Reserve as against any other Legal Right and if the Dâ— will answer them fairly he will save any man the trouble of answering his Book The Dr. adds But the very nature of the thing proves that such disputes which are too big for a Legal decision or any Humane Courts for the decision of which God has erected no universal Tribunal on Earth he has reserved to his own judgment such as the Correction of Sovereign Princes and the transferring Kingdoms and Empires And here the final determination of providence in setling Princes on their Thrones draws the Allegiance and Submission of the Subjects after it and in such Cases God does not confine himself to determine on the side of Humane Right but acts with a Sovereign Authority and gives the Kingdoms of the World to whom he please as he can best serve the wise and many times unsearchable designs of his providence by it To this I answer and because he hath the same in other places I shall do it distinctly 1. The Rights of Princes may and ought to be determined by Law as well as those of Subjects I have already instanced in the differences between the Houses of York and Lancaster where the Law hath decided the controversie and the Case hath been the same in other Kingdoms but I wonder whoever insisted on a Providential Title or thought it a sufficient competition for a Legal Tiâ—le There is never a Prince nor private Man in Christendom nor the Dr. himself that would change his Legal Title for a Providen ial one which is a preâ—ty plain Case that however some People may talk of it no body believes it But because there are no Judges and Juries appointed and the Rights of Princes are not to be tryed in Westminster Hall nor in other Courts of Judicature therefore Possession and Providence must determine it But this is manifestly false for the Law is as proper a Judge of the Rights of Princes as of any other their Persons are not under the Law but their Titles are and the Laws declare who is and who is not King as much as they do who is or who is not any inferior Proprietor And as to what the Dr. says of a Tribunal I suppose he means to inforce this upon the Subject for the matter is declared by the Law and there needs no Tribunal for that no more than there needs a visible Judge of controversies in matters of Religion 't is a duty under the direction of the Law and every Person concerned is bound to take notice of it But as for the other if the Law may take its course there are Tribunals enough But indeed when the Prince is dispossessed there is no Tribunal to force this and to punish the neglect that is there is no Power to hang a Man if he does not take notice of the Law and there is power to hang him if he does This makes some difference as to punishment but none as to duty for the obligation arises from the direction of the Law and not from the external force to compel the observance and the direction of the Law binds when there are and when there are not Courts of Judicature to put it in execution 2. There is no Tribunal for the Correction of Princes but Gods Very true And therefore they are not accountable to the People for mal-administration Their Persons are sacred their Authority irresistable and unalienable And these were the Inferences that hitherto the Men of the Church of England have drawn from this Doctrine but the Dr. hath found out a new Inference that the Subjects may resist him and shake off his Authority and kill him too if need be and all for this weighty Reason because they have put another in the possession of his Throne I know the Dr. calls it Providence but that is the English of it 3. 'T is true God hath reserved to himself the Correction of Sovereign Princes and somtimes he doth here actually correct and punish them and dispossession is sometimes design'd as a Punishment by God himself But still the Question returns is such a dispossession by providence a sufficient evidence that God hath given away the Kingdom from the dispossessed to the Possessor of the Throne and 'till that can be made out all these Arguments and Inferences signifie nothing And that is manifestly false in the Case of David he for the punishment of his sins was dispossessed by his own Son but God by that providence did not take away the Kingdom from David and give it to Absolom And God had then erected no Universal Tribunal for the decision of such Cases no more than he has now The Question therefore is not whether there are some Cases too big for a Legal Decision or Humane Courts or whether God hath reserv'd to his own judgment the correction of Princes and transferring Kingdoms But the Question is whether the Possession of the Throne by providence divests the Rightful King of the Crown and of the Allegiance of the Subjects while his Person is in being and his Legal Right remains And that the matters being reserved to God's own Tribunal does not prove the nature of the thing indeed proves that cases that cannot be redressed by publick Government are reserved to God's own judgment but their being so reserved which is the full of the Drs. Argument does not prove that therefore every Providential Possession of the Throne is God's final determination or any warrantable evidence to conclude from thence that God hath made him a King and the People his Subjects Dr. Sherlock makes another Collection from providence in this very case No Vsurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of the natural Prince such Vsurpers Case of Resist p. 132. the they have the Possession of the supreme Power yet they have no right to it and tho God for wise reasons may sometimes permit such Vsurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence he secures their Title too 4. The Dr. says that in correction of Princes
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
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 practice besides the absolute unlawfulness of owning the Usurper he would do well to produce it He says it is probable some few might be of his mind But why does not he name one single man of them that was not of this mind that he can never do nor does he in the least undertake it But boldly affirms that it can never be proved and it is very improbable for it was neither the Doctrine of the Church nor the Law of the Land But that is the matter in dispute and by what Rules of Logick is the grand matter in controversie brought for a proof The Question is whether it be the Doctrine of the Church or Law of the Land and the practice of those great men is urged against the Drs. interpretation and is a proof against him and how comes the thing to be proved to be brought in proof against that which proves it against him But this is usual with him But says he that it was their general sense that it was absolutely unlawful to submit to the Usurper while the Legal King is living tho out of Possession can never be proved No that is very strange the Assertion is plain enough in Bishop Sanderson Dr. Hammond and all them that wrot upon the point and one would have thought the practice of all the rest was a very good proof of their Sentiments in this matter can any man believe that men would lose their lives and estates and expose themselves to the greatest difficulties and extremities for not doing what they thought they lawfully might do And in such a case to call for proofs is to abuse mens patience and in the Drs. language argues great perverseness of mind But after all the whole advice in this Paragraph is nothing to the purpose I brought the examples of these great men against the Drs. Principles and Interpretations and he advises me to consider whether they acted upon my Principles and what is that to the purpose if the Dr. can prove they did not act upon my Principles or that they acted upon Principles that are contrary to them I am contented to own that their examples is an argument against my Principles as they are now against his Principles But this he will not meddle with and instead of that he is for advising me I thank him to prove it my self 3. Another thing I ought to have consider'd he says is when he resolved to argue from example he should have carefully considered whether there are not more and greater examples on the other side whether supposing the Case to be as he represents it there be any thing like it in all story either sacred or profane whether both Jews and Christians did not always submit to the Present Powers when the Government was setled by what wicked means soever it began Now the Case which the Dr. represents and which I dispute against is the lawfulness of submitting to and joyning with Usurped Powers in opposition to the Legal King when out of Possession and claiming and insisting upon his Right And I had over and over provoked him to give any approved instances of any men that own'd his Hypothesis And when he cannot be prevailed upon to produce one single instance and example To tell me I ought to consider whether there are not more and greater examples on the other side is extraordinary If there be more and greater examples why does not he shew them and clear his Hypothesis from the charge of Singularity and Parodox But when he does not name one nor so much as offer at it when he immediatly tells me he shall not enter upon this Argument but turns me over to some body else that will do wonders in this point no man knows when to talk of more and greater examples and the practice of Jews and Christians which his Reader must find out as well as he can and to confront the most plain and visible examples with imaginary ones and practices in the Clouds And after all the urging and provocation to name not one and yet still to insist upon it and cry there are more and greater This is such a way of vindicating as is as new as his Hypothesis and very well agrees with it and if this be disputing we shall never have done Now the Dr. comes to consider what I had said further upon this head I said the Dr. owns that this is a Prejudice and so it is Posts p. 14. and a very considerable one and I wonder what he hath said to remove it not one word to the purpose he tells indeed of some differences but not one that is any difference as to the matter before us of Submission to Vsurped Powers and he replies let us then try that And in order to that he begins But to state the matter so plain Vindic. p. 66. that our Author himself had he never so much mind to it shall not be able to mistake or misrepresent it And have I mistaken or misrepresented it That the Dr. would insinuate but then he should have told me where and in what instances that it seems is another Question however the Dr. is resolved to have it so or would perswade a credulous Reader to believe it tho he hath not named one particular wherein I have mistaken or misrepresented him and this will appear more fully upon examining what he says in reply he tells us he must first premise that they are two different Questions when it is lawful to submit to Vsurping Powers and when 't is a duty 't is lawful when we are under force as can compel us 't is a duty when the Government is throughly setled Very well This is the Drs. State of the matter now but where hath he stated it so before there is not a word of it nor any such distinction in his Case of Allegiance and how then should I know it I suppose by Inspiration and it is a pretty way of mistaking and misrepresenting him because in answering his Case of Allegiance I did not divine what he would say in his Vindication But the truth is the Dr. mistook he found the former state of the matter would not do and if he had kept close to that he could not have answered what had been objected to him and therefore hath given a new state of the Question And he might have said so and not by an insinuating preface have laid his own mistakes at other mens doors Let him shew me if he can that he hath in this manner stated the Case in his former Book if not why does he talk of mistaking and misrepresenting it Well! let us take his new State and see what he can make of it He tells us while we are in this state under force we may either submit or not submit without sin and then that which must turn the scale are arguments from interest and here is the ground of this new State he had said before and it was
and Societies must hang together as well as they can For there are no Bonds and Ligaments of Duty and Conscience For he tells us very expresly that the Subjects were not in those days bound in Conscience to submit Vind. p. 66. to those usurped powers who notwithstanding actually govern'd and exercis'd the whole administration of Government for some years Well! I perceive some Objections will not be answer'd except a man contradicts himself but they must be answer'd however The Dr. goes on to tell us that since here was no such settlement as would oblige the Subjects in conscience to obey and submit Vind. p. 70. he shewed there were other very great reasons why they should not submit And this he sayes answers all my little objections Now we are once again to remember that the Dr. quarrels with me for altering his Order and Method and tells me there is more of art than honesty in it And here again he has done it himself For all that is said before on this Head was urg'd by him in the last place and accordingly in the same order answer'd and in his Vindication he hath begun with it and inverted his own order and 't is plain Artifice to disguise the weakness and insufficiency of those other matters he then urg'd for had he reply'd to them in the same order every Reader might have perceiv'd it The Objection which he calls a prejudice which he laid down Case of Alleg. p. 45 46. and which he was to answer was That his Hypothesis equally serv'd all Revolutions Rump Protector c. and yet under that Vsurpation the Loyal Party thought themselves bound in conscience to oppose it at their utmost peril And shall we arraign them all as resisting God's Ordinance His Answer is There is a great difference between the two cases and he undertook to shew it upon many accounts and adds And all together will be more than answer enough My Answer was Those were no differences as to the matter before us of Submission to Usurped Powers Postscr p. 14. And what does he reply to this with respect to those many differences he reckons up not one single word but resolves all his Answers into the former Reply For instance he had urg'd as one great difference The great Villanies of those days open and bare-fac'd Rebellion the murder of one of the best Princes I answer'd the Dr. maintains that submission is due to Vsurped Powers by what ill means soever they attain'd it that therefore makes no difference in his argument He replyes What not to prejudice wise and good men against all compliances He should have added what he says in his Case of Allegiance though they had been lawful and that would have shewn the unreasonableness of urging prejudices for the practice of wise and good men against what had been lawful He adds for who that could possibly avoid it and to explain this he tells us in a Parenthesis that is where strict duty does not oblige nor irresistable force constrain would submit to such men i. e. The former Reply of not being bound in conscience because that Government was not setâ—led He urg'd the barbarous usage of the King's friends c. I answer'd this made some difference in point of interest but none in point of conscience He replyes nor did I say it did only it created an Aversness He had before said it made it useless and impossible but now it created an averseness as more agreeable to his present Reply which was a Reason not to submit when they were not obliged in conscience the former Reply again tho not one word of it in his Case of Allegiance He urg'd the Church of England was overturn'd Bishops Deans c. turn'd out I answer'd the Case was concerning Civil Government not Ecclesiastical he replyes But yet whoever loves the Church will not choose to submit when they are not obliged in Conscience to such Vsurpations in the State as overthrow the Church The former Reply still and of which there is not the least mention in the Case of Allegiance but I think the direct contrary For I ask had they been bound to submit notwithstanding such invasions on the Church if the Government had been throughly setled This he intimates by his Reply P. 47. and then I would desire him to explain what he means when he says in his Case of Allegiance they had no way to keep their Livings especially if they were of any value but by renouncing the Church of England as well as by submission to that Government which says he I believe notwithstanding their ready complyance in taking the Oaths the Clergy at this day would more universally have refused than they did then What if it be a duty to submit and take the Oaths Does Allegiance to the Civil Government cease to be a duty if they overturn the Church This will reflect upon St. Paul's Doctrine and the practice of the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours And I doubt I had very good reason to make this Answer I hope the being disabled to keep a Living especially if it be a good one is not a sufficient Reason to rebel The Dr. is pleasant in his Reply and tells me he would desire me carefully to consider it for it did not concern them Very well but it concerns him or else his reason above is very ridiculous for if men may refuse to submit when it is a duty because they cannot hold a good Living according to the Constitutions of the Church Then I doubt it follows that Civil Duty is to be measur'd not by a Thorough Settlement but by Ecclesiastical Preferments Another difference the Dr. mention'd was The whole Government in Church and State was overturn'd which was the Fundamental Constitution of the Nation I answer'd This was but changing the Form of Government and the Convocation speaks of Degenerate Forms of Government and Usurped Powers are not to be limited to a King but to a Government and the usurping upon the Lords and Commons as well as upon the King is but Usurpation still He replyes I grant it but when such degenerate Forms are not thoroughly settled the subversion of the Fundamental Constitution is a reasonable prejudice against submission when it is not a duty So that we have nothing but the sâ—me Answer over and over In his Case of Allegigiance he mentions a great many differences and I had suited my Answers to them and shew'd they made no difference in the Argument and when he comes to reply he gives one Reply to them all And that is that all his differences are come to one single difference and the Question at last is come into a narrow compass and with respect to the duty of Submission to Usurped Powers the Question is not whether they attain the Usurpation by Villanies or by barbarous usage of honest and loyal people or by encroachments on the Church and the persecution of its