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
desires me to shew him where the Convocation says that a Government which is illegally acquir'd cannot be throughly setled till it becomes legal But what need is there for that It is not the custom of all Persons howsoever learned to express themselves in such a peremptory manner as the Dr. does he tells us indeed that God cannot make a King except he oblige the People to obey him but that is not always the manner of the learned who are contented with affirmative expressions as more modest But saith the Dr. if this had been their meaning it had been easily said and had prevented all mistakes about it which their words without this limitation are apt to betray men into say you so then I doubt a thorough settlement is not so plain a matter as every body can see and the Doctor 's believing his own senses is but a banter But however they might have easily said it and if the Doctor 's sense had been their meaning might they not as easily have said that and I wonder which is eâ—â—er said A Government which is illegally aâ—quir'd cannot be throughâ—y seâ—â—ed tâ—â—l 〈◊〉 becomes legal or a Government throughâ—y setled by the consent of the People without or against the consent and actual claim of the Right Heir This is as eaâ—â—e said and all the words besides in the Convocation intire whereas the words the Dr. thinks they might have said cannot be put in without putting out a great many other and making an alteration of the whole sentence so that if the easiness of saying was any reason it is against him and they did not mean his sense because they might have so easily said it and have prevented all mistakes but the truth is this signifies nothing either way and all it proves is the want of better arguments The Question is not what they might but what they have said and if they have expressed themselves in words importing it then they have said it and that they have done so I think I have prov'd sufficiently The Dr. does not think so and therefore adds I believe all unbiass'd men Vindic. p. 4. who are not prepossess'd with other notions and concern'd that the Convocation should be on their side would never dream of our Authors sense of the Convocation well I cannot tell what men may dream but I think except they do dream they cannot agree to the Doctor 's sense for a through settlement contrary to a legal visible Title actually contested is a thing only in imagination and never had any real being As for what he says of being concern'd that the Convocation should be on their side I wonder who is most concern'd for that these who do not urge it nor act upon the Authority of it although they believe it plainly and evidently justifies Case of All Pres ib. p. 3 and speaks for them or he who grounds his liberty and freedom of thinking in these matters upon it who produces it to rescue him from the appearance of Singularity and maintenance of Paradoxes which otherwise the Doctrines in his Book are not riously â—able â—o and who neither hath nor pretends to have any other Authority of the Church of England besides And it is plain the strength of his Cause depends upon it so that if the being concern'd that the Convocation should be on their side may be apt to byass men in their interpretation of the sense of it the Doctor if he please may consider it for it affects no body so much as himself But let us hear his Reasons For saith he If the Convoc meant no more than our Author says that a Government illegally begun when it is â—egally setled has Gâ—â—s Authority what a wonderful discovery is this that legal Princes have Gods Authority for who doubts of this what need was there to introduce this with such a long pompous Preface of the changes of Government by the Ambition of Princes and the Rebellion of Subjects for let Governments begin how they will when they are once legally setled no man that I know of who owns the Authority of any Government to be from God disputes theirs This I think I am to thank the Dr. for for though he brings it as an Objection against the Interpretation I have made of the sense of the Convocation I take it to be a considerable Confirmation of it For though I do not believe that no body disputes this nor that the Convocation thought so as we shall see presently yet if it were so it makes nothing against my Interpretation but for it For where is the harm of interpreting the meaning of the Convocation according to the general sense of mankind And if no man who owns the Authority of any Government to be from God disputes that Governments let them begin how they will when they are once legally setled have God's Authority why does not the Convocation mean so too if their words will bear it which the Dr. owns Vindic. p. 5. and I wonder which is most likely to be their sense that which no body disputes or that which every body disputes for I hope we may think without any Reflection upon them that a wise and grave Convocation were not as ready to maintain Paradoxes as the Doctor is And what an admirable Objection is this What wonderful Discovery is this who doubts of this As if a Convocation sat for nothing else but to make wonderful discoveries and if this signified any thing it is an Argument against half the Book And all the plain and undoubted Truths they deliver we must not believe to be their sense and for this weighty reason because no body dâ—sputes them But then the Dr. wonders at my reason p. 5. Answ p. 21. viz. Lest it should be thought the wicked ways of attaining this Right was a prejudice to the Right it self and people should from thence take occasion to rebell and disturb all the Governments in the world because they could not shew an express order from God or derive the pedigree of their Governments from Adam or Noah to prevent the terrible confesion that such a Notion would make in the world they say that the wicked ways of attaining it or the wickedness of the persons that have it is no impeachment to the Right it self but when it is attain'd it is God's Authority and ought to be obey'd Vâ—ry well these I own to be my words and where is the occasion to wonder at them That is to say he says a wise and grave Convocation write a whole Chapter to confute a Nation without naming it or giving any hiâ—t at it which if ever it entred into any mad mans head yet never did never can disturb any Government till a Nation is fitter for Bedlam than to be diâ—ected by a Convocation This is a terrible Objection for I hope a grave and wise Convocation did not sit to make directions for Bedlam But what now if by all this Rant about
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
consersu These Examples says he are nothing to the purpose for these Governments were in their infancy scarcely constituted and confirmed c. And then immediately adds Governments indeed acquir'd by the Right of War by Prescription usually become lawful Imperia vero jure belli acquisita c. but in the Tribe of Judah the Kingdom by the appointment and promise of God belong'd to the male Heir of David 's line and the chief Priest Nobles and People could not transfer it and it had been impiety in them to have confirm'd Athal by consenting to her noâ— was it in their power or consent to neglect or laâ— aside the Heir of David and put these together Governments indeed acquir'd by the Right of War became lawful by Prescription but in Judah the Peoples consent signified nothing And what is this but Prescription joyn'd with the Peoples Consent nay he expresly joyns them in the Sentence immediately following Praescriptio Consensus Regni And is there a Disjunctive too The whole Sentence is Electio senatus populique vel Exercitus Praescriptio Consensus Regni P. 922. sive Reipublicae quae in aliis regnis Electivis aut nondum constitutis aut jure belli acquisitis locum habere possunt in Regnum Judae locum non habent In which short Sentence there are no less than four Disjunctives and what fair reason can be given why this only should be express'd by a Conjunctive except he had intended it should also be understood in a conjunctive sense So that if the â—octor had considered the whole of what I had cited and the place I had refer'd to he might have saved the trouble of crying out of prevaricating and corrupting But why did not I express this And what then must a man corrupt an Author because he does not cite his words tho he gives his sense But the reason was because it was not at all to the purpose for which I cited the Bishop My end was to shew against the Author of the Pamphlet that his Notion of a Thorough Settlement was inconsistent with the Sense and Doctrine of Bishop Buckeridge And therefore all the conclusion I draw from thence is this That the Author's full possession of Dignities Prerogatives c. to which our Allegiance is due is a Notion that before now never saw the light among the true sons of the Church of England Now that Author had said nothing of the Peoples Consent and I was not concern'd to obviate a Notion which the Author with whom I had to deal had not mention'd nor insisted on And that Answer was out of my hands and gone to the Press before the Doctor 's Case of Alleg. came abroad and his new business of the Peoples Consent took vent And I dare be bold to say that that Author nor any man else of the Church of England ever thought of it before except it had been with thoughts of abhorrence for 't is a Notion with a Commonwealth in the belly on 't and plainly centers in Commonwealth Principles for if the Consent of the People can make Allegiance become a duty contrary to Laws and Oaths their Dissent may make it no duty contrary to the same Laws and Oaths If their Consent can make one King or which is the same thing make their Allegiance due to him when by the Laws and their Oaths they have obligations to another they may make or unmaker Kings as often as they please for their consenting to one is the discharging another and at length all the business of Governments will be resolv'd into the Peoples Consent But to return But does not the Bishop say That Athaliah had not acquir'd a Right to the Crown neither by the Consent of the People nor by the Prescription of six years Right but what follows is not so which shews what his judgment was that such an Usurper as Athaliah might acquire a Right to the Crown either by the Consent of the People or long Continuance Bellarmine indeed had objected That Athaliah's Government was approv'd by the Peoples Consent and that she had reigned quietly six years And the Bishop answers she had acquir'd a Right neither by the Consent of the People nor by Prescription But it does not follow that therefore he thought the Consent of the People in such a case as Athaliah's where the right Heir was in being and claiming would make a Right He proves indeed they did not consent because they ought not to have consented which is both against Bellarmine and against the Doctor and one of his Reasons is That Jehoiada had been a Traitor to the heir of the Crown and to the King himself And the Reason he gives of that is and let the Doctor observe it Filius enim in regnis haereditariis in â—â—so instanti articulo mortis paternae rex est ipso jure ipso facto p. 920. For in hereditary Kingdoms in the very instant and moment of his Fathers death the son is King ipso jure ipso facto He seems indeed to argue from Bellarmines Principles and sarcastically returns them upon him siccine vero is it so indeed What is the reason then that so soon as they hear of the then King Joash they so easily and so unanimously conspire against Athaliah Had they no scruple of Conscience no remorse to betray her whom by their own free Consent they had made their lawful Queen And it is demonstration that the Bishop answers upon supposition only and not upon his own Principles as if he had thought the Consent of the People in such a case would have made a lawful Prince and have convey'd a Right and Title to the Government for he expresly says in this very Case p. 922 That the Consent of the Kingdom in the Doctor 's phrase a National Consent had no place in the Kingdom of Judah and upon this occasion delivers a Doctrine in general concerning hereditary Kingdoms The Priests In vero rege haereditario declarando inaugurando potestatem habent sacerdotes Proceres populus at jus Regni confert deus natura non Respublica p. 923. Nobles and People have a power in declaring and inaugurating the true King but God and Nature confer the Right to the Government and not the Commonwealth Which is a sufficient evidence what the Bishops judgment was in this point and that his judgment was not as the Doctor says that such an Usurper as Athaliah might acquire a Right to the Government by the consent of the People But suppose it was What service would that do the Doctor the Doctor 's own iudgment is otherwise If the Bishop did think that an Usurper might acquire a Right by the consent of the People the Doctor thinks he is mistaken And how can such an instance if it were true serve his purpose But the Doctor is for drawing the conclusion without admitting the Premises nay he is for drawing the same conclusion from
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
he does by his Providence in other Kingdoms set up Kings as he sees fit without any regard to the Right of Succession or Legal Titles Vindic. p. 9. But now in his Vindication we have another account For says he if they do not prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most Rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no Right and place them in the Throne of those that have the Right there is no sense to be made of them And what is this to Providence which is the main thing in controversie and for the proof of which the Doctor cited those passages Suppose they do prove God's Sovereign Authority to remove and pull down the most Rightful Kings and give his Authority to those who have no Right Do they prove likewise that a Providential possession of the Throne is God's giving his Authority or that which he did by his Prophets in Israel he does by his Providence in other Countries God's Sovereign Authority is no Question between us The Convocation allows the Doctrine but says withal that no man in those cases can act upon it without God's express warrant The Doctor expresses this oddly And give his Authority to those who have no Right and place them in the Thrones of those that have the Right If this is to be understood Grammatically and which is the Doctor 's Hypothesis That when God has given Authority and Government to a Person he hath no Right to it and when he hath taken them away That Person hath still the Right This is neither the Sense of the Convocation nor yet Sense For the Convocation says God may overthrow Kings notwithstanding any Right they can challenge which intimates not the continuing but the determining their Right as Jeram after God had given his Kingdom to Jehu had no longer Right to it but was as the Convocation says Jehu's Subject and there is nothing more absurd than to say that a man hath no Right to what God gives him and that he hath yet a Right remaining to what God takes away from him The Doctor goes on P. â— Our Author's Hypothesis is as direct a contradiction to this as words can make it for if no Prince can have God's Authority nor must be obeyed unless he have a Legal Right either an old Hereditary Right or a new acquired Right by the Death or Cession c. What hard shifts we are put to to obscure what will not admit of a plain answer What is this to the purpose the Doctor cited those passages or to the Question before us And where I pray did I ever say that no Prince can have God's Authority without such Rights No doubt he may have it if God gives it him And that is the only Question Jehu had God's Authority without these Rights But then God expresly and by name gave it to him Let the Doctor prove that possession of the Throne by Providence is equivalent to an express Nomination or that it is a sufficient Evidence that God hath given such a Possessor his Authority and till then all his Arguments from God s Sovereign Authority signifie nothing To argue from Gods power of disposing Kingdoms without Legal Right to his actual disposing them so and because he can give his Authority to one who hath no Right therefore he that is possess'd of the Throne without Right has that Authority is neither Logick nor Sense And how insignificant then is all this that follows Then says he God is bound to thâ—se Laws in advancing Kings which he prescribeth to others then he cannot set up any Kings or Emperors who have no just Right or Claim for he cannot unmake a Rightful King if he cannot absolve Subjects from their Allegiance nor make a King without a Legal Right if he cannot give him his Authority and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects to him God can remove the man by death but cannot unmake the King â—â—rss he unmake himself by resigning his Crown He can set a man upon the Throne but cannot make him a King w◠〈◊〉 the leave of the Right Heir under an hundred years prescription And after having made me say all this frightful stuff he adds Where ever our Author learnt this Doctrine I am sure the Convocation never taught it him And is not this an admirable way of disputing to make his Adversary say what he please and then Expose it But I tell him I learnt that Doctrine neither from the Convocation nor from any body but himself But the Doctor is so warm in this wild Rant that he utterly forgets that what he says is equally against his own Notion and Interpretation The consent of the people is that which according to him settles a Government and makes it a duty to obey and without such a consent 't is no duty And cannot God set up Kings without consent of the People then he cannot make a King for a King without Subjects is no King He may set a man upon the Throne but cannot make him a King without leave of the people And so the Doctor may take his Rebuke again wherever he learnt this Doctrine I am sure the Convocation never taught it him For they have taught over and over that the people of all sorts have no interest in nor any thing to do with the Government and it should seem that one main end of their Book was to confute and shew the falsity of such Opinions into which notwithstanding the Doctor 's fine Principle of the Consent of the People is finally resolv'd But such Arguments as these will prove any thing in the world the Papists may prove all their fabulous Legends God may and is able to work Miracles now as he did by Moses the Prophets and Apostles and therefore St. Rumbald and a great many other of their Saints did all those wonderful things they ascribe to them And the Doctor knows such things have been urged to justifie very ill things and by men who have own'd the same Principles as he does God may now give the Land to his People as he did of old Canaan to the Israelites and therefore they may cut off the Malignants as a Company of cursed Canaanites to possess their Estates God may now give the same liberty he did to the Israelites to spoil the Aegyptians and therefore whatever we can get from the Aegyptian Church of England is our own I do not say the Doctor concludes so but his Arguments do and every one of these Consequences are as good as the Doctors And if Providence comes in the place of Prophecy and what God did of old by his Prophets he does now by his Providence and Providential Events convey the same Right and Authority as God's own immediate and express direction then this is very good arguing and the Doctor 's Principles will justifie such Practices tho He does not But yet further to shew the unreasonableness of the Doctor 's Inference and
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
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.
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
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
Resisâ—an e and this is venemous too Postscr p. 17. and how can I help it if his Case of Resistance contains such Venom But for part I took it for antidote and for that end recited it as a Preservative and Antidote And the Argument I rais'd from it is this That what the Doctor had lay'd down concerning Vsurped Powers Postscr p. 18. was the sense of the Church of England at that time And the Reason I gave for it was for this passage was never question'd till he hath now done it himself But this was so very venomous that the Doctor would not come near it Well! he tells us he hath changed his opinion indeed about the Authority of Vsurpers And I have nothing to say to that he may change his opinion as often as he please But he tells us he has Scripture and Reason the Authority of the Church of England to justifie this change But I do not think these are half so changeable as the Doctor 's Principles nor will turn with the Compass he pretended he had them before and with as much assurance as he does now And whether he hath them now to justifie him is the subject of our present Controversie He adds But what a charitable opinion our Author has of the present Government Vindic. p. 79. and of all that comply with it we may see in the parallel he makes between my Case and that of Hazael As if swearing to King William and Queen Mary were as great as notorious as se f-evident an impiety and wickedness as all the villanies which the Prophet Elisha foretold Hazael 2 Kings 8.12 that he would be guilty of I know the Evil that thou wilt do unto the Children of Israel their strong holds wilt thou set on fire and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword and wilt dash their children and rip up their women with child Now the Doctor 's Reader especially if he be easie of belief is to suppose that I said all these matters and made such terrible comparisons whereas in truth I said no such word nor any thing like it I compar'd indeed Hazael's change of mind Postscr p. 18. and the Doctor s and what is that to the Government or to those that comply with it 〈◊〉 wonder the Doctor did not tell me that 〈◊〉 parallel'd his Case of Allegiance with Hazael's slaying the young men and this would have been dreadful indeed and would have shewn what an opinion I had of his Arguments whereas I do not think they are half so formidable nor will do any mischief at all Hazael indeed thought it was impossible for him do those things the Prophet told him he would do and which afterwards he actually did And had the like Question been put to the Doctor concerning his present Opinions and Practices I believe he would have return'd such an Answer i. e. he would have thought it as impossible for him to own and practise what he has done as Hazael thought it impossible for him to do what he afterwards did And what is this to my opinion of the Government and of those that comply with it But this is another Artifice of the Doctor 's He would fain interpret what I say against him and his Hypothesis to be against the Government and all those that comply whereas I dispute against no body but him He does not know whether I have or have not a charitable opinion of the Government or the Complyers but he knows what opinion I have of his Hypothesis and Arguments and let him defend them as well as he can without troubling himself with Inquiries that do not concern him and entitling other men to matters that are peculiarly his own To my Parting Request the Doctor answers I do affirm it again That I was never factious against taking the Oaths nor made it my business to disswade men from it when my Opinion was asked I declared my own thoughts but never sought out men to make Proselytes Now he had been told that never was a very long time Postscr p. 18. and some body or other might chance to remember He answers He fears not our Memories so much as our Inventions and bids us produce the man And yet for all this swaggering the matter is not so very plain but it needs a Distinction to help him off And thus follows Tho our Author seems very well acquainted with the thing call'd Faction i. e. 't is a very factious thing to write against the Doctor yet he is not willing to understand the word and therefore I must tell him that when I say I was never factious against the Oath I do not mean that I was never hearty and zealous against taking the Oath for I hope there may be Zeal without Faction or that when I was pressed to discourse the matter I did not talk with as much warmth and concernment as other men But Faction is quite another thing it shews it self in Separations and Schisms in Rancour and Bitness Envyings and Emulations in violent oppositions to Government in changing and confining friendship to a Party in Censures and Reproaches in stigmatizing alâ— Persons of another Perswasion as perjur'd Knaves These were intended for a Complement to his Adversary and the Non-sweâ—rers For he tells me I seem to be well acquainted with the thing faction and so I am to thank him for all these fine Characters Now I have no Answer to hard names but methinks he might have spar'd Schismaticks Postscr p. 10. 'till he had answer'd a small Question I put to him about that affair Now this is a very pleasant business the Doctor I suppose would perswade me to prove him a Schismatick Bitter and Envious a violent opposer of Government c. for not taking the Oath And yet he is so kind to bestow all these favors upon us And I do not know why they might not fit him as well in the same Capacity But what he said or did is Heartiness or Zeal what we do is Faction and I know not what Now I will readily grant him when he said he was never engaged in any Faction against the Oath he did not intend to call himself a Schismatick Envious Censorious and all the hard Names above but that he did design likewise to quit himself of Heartiness and Zeal is evident enough from the second Page of the Preface to his Case of Allegiance There he tells Tho I refused to take the Oaths I never engaged in any faction against it And how does he prove that It follows I never made it my business to disswade men from it when my opinion was asked I declared my own thoughts but I never sought out men to make Proselytes What is this to Schism and Rancor and Envy and Emulation and all the rest of thâ—t Black Catalogue May not a man make it his business to disswade men from what he conceives an â—â—l Thing and perswade them to what he