believe them to have as good a Title to the Crown of England as any of their Royal Ancestors ever had so I hope they are so firmly settled in the Throne that all the Powers on Earth will not be able to remove them But I think Dr. Sherlock does by his Principles undermine their Throne for though he invests them with God's Authority because they have the Sovereign Power are able to crush whom they please and are settled in the Throne yet he will not own them to have a legal Right to sit thereon whereas it is most certain that there is nothing can secure to a Prince his Sovereign Power but that which sets bounds to it the Law SECT IV. Wherein is shew'd how little value we ought to have for the Acts and Canons of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I. 1603. FOR to the Authority of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I I may oppose the Authority of several Convocations in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth wherein the Bishops and Clergy were of a contrary Opinion I shall instance in two only the one in the 35th and the other in the 39th Year of that Queen's Reign 1. In the 35th of Q. Elizabeth the Clergy were of Opinion that an Usurper though settled in the Throne had not God's Authority and no Allegiance was due to him as appears plainly from their granting the Queen two Subsidies of four Shillings in the Pound to assist the Dutch in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain 35 Eliz. c. 12. The Prelates and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury have for certain Considerations lovingly and liberally given and granted to the Queen 's most excellent Majesty two Subsidies of Four Shillings in the Pound What were those Considerations Amongst others this was one The consideration of her Majesty's great Charges in the provident and needful prevention of such intended Attempts as manifestly tended to the utter overthrow of the present happy state of her Highness's Realm to the miserable ruin of divers other Princes and Countries associate and near adjoining and to the extirpation and rooting out of the sincere profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere The Temporalities Subsidy-Act explains this to us in these Reasons for their Tax Cap. 13. Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it has pleased God to give your Majesty abroad in making You the principal Support of all just and religious Causes against Vsurpers So that this Island has in your Majesty's Days been as a Stay and Sanctuary to distressed States and Kingdoms and as a Bulwark against the Tyranny of mighty and usurping Potentates Besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we do conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the Ancient Leagues the Justice and Equity of their Causes c. These were the chief Reasons that moved the Clergy to give four Shillings in the Pound to the Queen This was read a third time Mar. 30.1593 in the Lords House these following Bishops being present and no Dissentientes among them as appears from the Journals of the Lords House Cantuariensis Londinensis Godwin de Praesulibus Asaphensis Roffensis Exoniensis Cicestrensis Licolniensis Petroburgensis Herefordensis Bangorensis Wigorniensis Landavensis Sarisburiensis Bathonens Wellensis Johames Whitgift Johan Elmer Gulielmus Hughes Johannes Young Johannes Woolton Thomas Bickley Gulielmus Wickham Richardus Howland Herbert Westfaling Hugo Bellott Richardus Fletcher Gervasius Babington Richardus Coldwell Johannes Still Now I think it is plain from hence that the Bishops and Clergy in the 35th of Queen Elizabeth did believe that an Usurper though he be settled in the Throne has not God's Authority and that those who are oppress'd by him may lawfully resist him and free themselves from his Yoke for had they been of Opinion that it was a Sin in the Dutch to resist Philip the 2d King of Spain as having God's Authority would they not have directed her Majesty's Conscience better in this Matter would they not have humbly represented to her Highness that though Philip the 2d was an Usurper yet he had God's Authority and therefore neither ought his Subjects to resist him nor she to assist them in making resistance Would they not have given her Sacred Majesty good Advice rather than Mony Would they not have admonished the Dutch to lay down their Arms and fly to their Prayers and Tears Who can think they would have been so uncharitable to their Protestant Neighbours as to set forward their Damnation or so foolish as to buy their own at the rate of Four Shillings in the Pound Such Actions as these do plainly shew what Opinion Arch-Bishop Whitgift Bishop Elmer and the rest of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Clergy had concerning this Matter and that as plainly as the Acts and Canons of a Convocation It may here be very proper to consider that the King of Spain had once a Legal Right to govern the Dutch who were his Subjects and ow'd him Allegiance but the Prelats and Clergy of the Church of England did verily believe he had forfeited and lost it by usurping upon them for it seems they were of Opinion that a Prince might usurp upon his Subjects as well as Subjects upon their Prince and this I believe was our Case King James the 2d having been that to us which Philip the 2d was to the Dutch That which I gather from hence is this That Queen Elizabeth's Bishops either did not think that an Usurper was invested with God's Authority or if they did they believed it lawful in some Cases to resist a Prince though invested with God's Authority Now let Dr. Sherlock chuse which of the two he will grant me for I think it cannot be avoided but one of the two must be allow'd 2. In the 39th of Elizabeth Chap. 26. The Clergy think themselves bound c to offer unto her Highness as a Testimony and Token of their good Wills and dutiful Affections some such Aid and Contribution towards the supportation of her Majesties Charges as they are perswaded the greatness of the same most justly may require And the Temporalities Subsidy-Act 39 Eliz. c. 27. has these words This Land is become since your Majesti's happy Days both a Port and a Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyrannies and ambitious Attempts of mighty and usurping Potentates This pass'd the House of Lords Dec. 19. 1596 fourteen Bishops being present and agreeing to it one of which was Arch-Bishop Whitgift c. The conclusion from hence is easy that in the 39th of Queen Elizabeth's reign the Prelates and Clergy own'd not this Doctrine that Vsurpers when settled in the Throne are invested with God's Authority and must be obey'd by all those who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People Besides it ought to be consider'd that the
no more a Divine Right to seize the Publick Treasure of a Nation and to take a thousand thousand Purses at once than a Robber has to take one Purse and I am no more in Conscience bound to submit to an Usurper and not to resist him than I am bound to submit to a Robber and tamely to deliver my Purse to him I beseech him to tell me why Tyrants and Usurpers have a Divine Right to their stollen Goods but Robbers and Pirats have it not The Reason he assures us is this The Scripture expresly tells us that Kingdoms are dispos'd by God And I ask him Are not Mens Purses and Mony and Goods at his disposal Are not all Things his And who shall dispose of what is his but himself Does God dispose only of Crowns and Scepters and leave lesser Matters to be dispos'd of by others As therefore he thus argues All Power is of God and therefore whenever any Prince by what unjust means soever with respect to Men is plac'd in the Throne and settled there he is advanc'd by God is God's Ordinance God's Minister and must be obey'd for Conscience-sake So in like manner I will argue according to his Principles thus All Riches are of God 1 Chron. 29.12 for Riches and Honours come of him And therefore when any Robber by what unjust means soever with respect to Men gets Riches he is enriched by God is God's Steward and God has but taken away the Stewardship from another and given it to him and he may as properly call the Goods he has unjustly gotten his own as the former Steward could when they were in his keeping And therefore the Outrages of Pirats and Thieves are not impertinently alledg'd in this Cause They have says he Force and Violence which every Man must submit to when he cannot help it And what else have Usurpers but Force and Violence which every Man must submit to when he cannot help it O he tells us Sovereign Power is God's Authority though Princes may be advanced to it by no honester Means than Thieves take a Purse I ask him Does he think that a Prince who is advanc'd to Sovereign Power by no honester Means than Thieves take a Purse has any Divine Right to his Crown Yes he will say because God has given him a Crown But how has God given him a Crown He will answer by the disposals of his Providence In like manner may I say that a Robber has a Divine Right to his ill-gotten Goods for God has given them to him by the disposals of his Providence And whereas he says The beginnings of the four first Monarchies were no better and yet their Power was of God I may with full as much reason say that the beginnings of some poor and mean Robbers who afterwards grow Rich by spoiling others are not one jot worse than the unjust beginnings of the four Monarchies and therefore their unjustly-gotten Wealth is of God I will undertake to make out that Thieves have as much Divine Right to their stollen Goods as any Usurper has to his Crown But to push the Matter further III. Suppose that A has unjustly gotten the Government into his Hands and by Force and Violence settled himself in it and consequently according to his Doctrine has got God Almighty's Authority I ask the Doctor who gave A Authority to get God Almighty's Authority into his Hands Will he say God gave him Authority to get God Almighty's Authority If so then A did not sin for no Man sins that acts by God's Authority and yet he did sin because he us'd very unjust means to get God's Authority Will he say that Man gave him Authority to get God's Authority into his Hands Then Man gave him Authority to sin against God for I suppose he gets God's Authority by unjust means but no Man can do this no Man can give another what he has not himself for no Man has Authority to sin against God We have thus brought our Vsurper to the Steps of the Royal Throne without any Authority but now we must change his Name and call him Vsurper no longer tho he ascended the Throne an Vsurper yet he is no sooner in it but he is God's Ordinance God's Minister God's Lieutenant God's Vicegerent God's Anointed He was whilst he made his way to the Throne an unjust Oppressor and a Murderer for he waded through Blood to it But behold a sudden Conversion a wonderful Change wrought on him a wonderful Change indeed like that of Transubstantiation for though he be made God's Vicegerent and has received from him a Commission to be his Minister for the Good of his People yet still he is what he was before a Devil But behold him sitting upon the Royal Throne with a Crown on his Head and a Scepter in his Hand full of Majesty and having God's Authority to bestow Bishopricks and Deaneries on those of the Clergy that flatter him and to kill and murder the Laity as fast as he pleases Dr. Hicks immediately hastens to Court and lest the new Prince should commit a mistake in governing according to the Political Law he instructs him in the Nature and full Extent of his Imperial Law and presents Jovian to him Dr. Sherlock comes next and acquaints his Sacred Majesty that he has God's Authority which is always irresistible and forthwith presenteth his two Cases the one of Allegiance c. the other of Resistance c. But he wisely takes care to blot out that Passage in his Case of Resistance c. P. 128. That when St. Paul says All Power is of God he means only Legal Power for the Book with that Passage in it would be a very unfit Present for an Usurper Next comes the Guide of the Inferior Clergy and assures his Majesty that he is ready to serve him with Tongue and Pen and promises the same in the Name of all his Scholars Then come the Addressers from Cities and Corporations and these tender their Lives and Fortunes and Obedience without reserve The Dispensing Judges bring up the Rear and these bring the Body of the Laws in their Hands and lay them at his Majesty's Feet assuring him that notwithstanding whatever Bracton and Fortescue and other famous Lawyers have said to the contrary he is above the Law and may if he list rule without it And now if we will take Dr. Sherlock's word for it the Usurper is settled in his Throne the whole Administration of the Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in his Hands every thing is done in his Name and by his Authority tho as I have shew'd Authority he has none the great Body of the Nation has submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crush'd by him whenever he pleases This this is his Right and Title to the Crown that he can crush those who will not submit whenever he pleases And if this be not a settled Government he despairs of ever
Law He blames those that have not taken the Oaths Page 2. because they go wholly upon this Principle That Allegiance is due only to Legal Right and take away says he that and you remove all the difficulties they labour under and I suppose it is for their sakes that he has as far as in him lay taken away the Legal Right from their Majesties that so he might remove all the difficulties which the Non-swearers labour under But he seems not to care what becomes of their Majesties nor what difficulties he throws them into And he blames likewise many of those that have writ in defence of the new Oaths because they suppose that a Legal Right is necessary to make Allegiance due Page 1. and have therefore endeavoured to justify the Legal Right of their present Majesties This it seems is become a Crime to justify the Legal Right of Their present Majesties which yet if we do not justify we condemn our selves But why should we not justify the Legal Right of Their present Majesties Why should we for the sake of a few Non-swearees betray our Cause and tacitly own that we believe King William and Queen Mary to be Usurpers He gives two reasons for this and I think he is a very bold Man that will venture to give reasons for so unreasonable a thing Now his Reasons are 1st Because it is unfit to dispute the Rights of Princes 2d Because it is unnecessary 1. Because 't is unfit to dispute the Rights of Princes But though it may not be fit to dispute the Right of a Prince Page 1. when settled on the Throne yet it might have been fit to assert it though no Government can permit it to be a Question yet it might have been his declared Opinion one would think that he out of gratitude to his Royal Patron should have own'd him to be Rightful King nay methinks his interest should have prompted him to it For I must tell him there is this in the case which he little thought of That if K. William have not a legal Right to the Crown Dr. W. Sherlock can have no legal Right to the Mastership of the Temple For 't is the Law alone that invests King William with a Power to bestow these Preferments and therefore if the King be only King de facto that is in his sense an Usurper I know not how the Doctor will be able to make out that he is any more than de facto Master of the Temple without a Legal Right to his Place A froward Prince would hardly bear such ill treatment as this I 'm sure his Legal King would not and a mild King does not deserve it from him I doubt not but he has done a great deal of mischief though I do not say he design'd it by refusing to take the Oaths And did it become him to publish such a Book to the World and by implication declare to all his fellow Subjects That he for his part does not look upon King William and Queen Mary to whom he has sworn Allegiance to be any more than a King and Queen de facto that is according to him Usurpers 2. He says 'T is unnecessary to defend the Legal Right of King William and Queen Mary For whom is it unnecessary For him it may be because he does not believe it but 't is not unnecessary for those that own their Legal Right Nay there is nothing more necessary than this and therefore two Parliaments this and the last have recogniz'd their Title But it seems those Parliaments did a very needless thing and wanted this Doctor to give them better Advice for he that can sit in his Study and there make and unmake Kings at his pleasure may surely be fit to give Counsel to Parliaments The Doctor and I are in one thing agreed That Allegiance is due to King William and Queen Mary but we differ about the foundation and reason of our Allegiance He thinks that we ought not to take the consideration of Right into the Settlement of Government Page 18. for he says A Prince may be settled in his Throne without Legal Right and when he is so God has made him our King and requires our Obedience and I cannot be of his Opinion He says That his Allegiance may be due to one who has no Legal Right to Govern him I say that I owe Allegiance to none but him who has the Legal Right I shall therefore do these two things 1. I shall give my own Opinion with the Grounds and Reasons of it 2. I shall examine his I. I shall give my Opinion with the Grounds and Reasons of it which I shall do in these following Propositions 1. Allegiance is Obedience according to Law 2. No Man can have any Right to my Allegiance who is not my Lawful King These Propositions are I think in themselves evident and need no proof And therefore 3. King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England and the Dominions thereunto belonging This appears plainly from that Declaration which the Lords and Commons Assembled at Westminster presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange Feb. 13. 1688. wherein they set forth Declaration of Lords and Commons presented to the Prince and Princess of Orange That King James by the assistance of divers evil Counsellors Judges and Ministers employ'd by him had endeavoured to extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom and many instances they give of his misgovernment and that he had Abdicated the Government and the Throne was become Vacant And then they assert the several Rights of the Subject which the late King had notoriously violated and last of all Having an entire confidence that his Highness the Prince of Orange would preserve them from the violation of their Rights and from all attempts upon their Religion Laws and Liberties they resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be declared King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging And the Prince and Princess of Orange at the Request and by the Advice of the Lords and Commons 1o. Willielam Mariae c. 1. did accept the Crown and Royal Dignity of King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions and Territories thereto belonging They did accept the Crown they did not snatch it by force and violence They were no Conquerors no Usurpers And afterwards in an Act past December 16. 1689. the same Parliament recogniz'd their Title in these words The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleas'd Almighty God in his marvellous Providence and merciful Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve Their said Majesties Royal Persons most happily to reign over us upon the Throne of Their Ancestors for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises do truly
Throne Such a Divine Right as this Saul and David had who were expresly marked out by God and such a Divine Right would any Prince have if God should make any declaration in favour of him Dr. Burnets Enquiry into the measures of Obedience c. But this pretence of a Divine Delegation can be carried no further than to those who are thus expresly marked out and is unjustly claim'd by those who can prove no such Declaration to have been ever made in favour of them or their Families nor does it appear reasonable to conclude from their being in possession that it is the Will of God that it should be so This justifies all Vsurpers when they are succesful 2. A Prince may have a Divine Right to secure him in the possession of the Throne such a Divine Right has every Prince that has a legal Right and indeed every private Man has such a Divine Right to secure him in the possession of that which is his by Law And though a Man has no Divine Right to his Property Ibid. but has acquir'd it by humane Means such as Succession or Industry yet he has a security for the enjoyment of it from a Divine Right So though Princes have no immediate Warrants from Heaven either for their Original Titles or for the extent of them yet they are secur'd in the possession of them by the Principles and Rules of natural Religion Our Saviour's Argument says he relies wholly on the possession of Power Whose Image and Superscription has it In answer to this I will only give him Dr. Hammond's Comment upon the place The coining of Mony is part of the Supream Power or Regal Prerogative incommunicable to any other and your acknowledging this to be the Currant Coin supposes Cesar whose Signature it has to be your lawful Prince to whom therefore the Tribute is due as to the legal Protector of your Civil Commerce Look therefore upon your Coin for the stating your Question whose Image or Signature it has on it And when they confess'd it to be the Roman Emperor's Image our Saviour thence concluded Render therefore unto Cesar the things that are Cesar 's you that acknowledg Cesar's Supremacy over the Jews ought not to dispute but pay him that Tribute which is due to him as Supream II. This he says gives the casiest and most intelligible account of the Original of Humane Government that all Power is from God All Men do not think the Account he gives of Government is so easy and intelligible but it matters not how easy and intelligible it is if it be not true III. This Doctrine he says is founded on the same Principle with the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive-Obedience Is it so then it has a very weak Foundation and there is good hope it will not stand long for Passive Obedience as taught by him is knock'd down And I wonder much that Dr. Sherlock would reprint his Book intitled the Case of Resistance of the Supream Powers stated c. without taking any notice of Mr. Johnson's Remarks upon it But he thinks he may well despise that Authors Books tho written with Judgment because the Author himself after all his Merits is so little regarded SECT III. Reasons and Objections against Dr. Sherlock's Doctrine 1. THe First Objection that I shall make is an Objection that he himself rais'd against his own Doctrine but I think he has not well answered it and therefore it still remains an Objection against him I will deliver it in his own Words This makes a Prince lose his Right by being notoriously injur'd for if a prosperous Vsurper gets into the Throne and settles himself there God has taken away his Crown and given it to another and therefore he ought not to attempt the recovery of his Throne nor any other Prince to assist him in it which is to oppose God and to challenge that which he has no longer any Right to This is the Doctor 's own Objection and I think 't is a very strong one let us hear what he says to it for I do not think he has given a satisfactory Answer He answers That the Providence of God alters no Legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossest of them to recover them if they can While such a Prince is in the Throne it is a Declaration of God's Will that he shall reign for some time longer or shorter as God pleases and that is an Obligation to Subjects to submit but that one Prince is at present plac'd in the Throne and the other remov'd out of it does not prove that it is Gods Will it should be always so and therefore does not divest the dispossest Prince of his Legal Right and Claim nor forbid him to endeavour to recover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no Obligation to the Prince in Possession to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his Legal right To this I reply 1. The Doctor owns that the dispossess'd Prince who had God's Authority has lost it and methinks he should own too that he has lost his Legal Right for either the Authority must stay with the Legal Right or the Legal Right must go away with the Authority unless the Doctor will say that God Almighty has not Authority to deprive a Prince of his Legal Right And if so I ask the Doctor From whom did the Prince now dispossessed receive his Legal Right from God or the People From the People he will not say for fear I should bring him to renounce another Principle He must then say that the Prince deriv'd his Legal Title from God And why may not God who gave him a Legal Right take it from him And how is he sure that he has not How does he know that Gods Providence alters no Legal Rights God may alter Legal Rights if he pleases and that he does not or will not is more than he can tell The Legal Right therefore seems to me to be lost according to the Doctor 's Principles But 2. Suppose the dispossessed Prince still to retain his Legal Right I ask Is his Legal Right the same that it was before he was dispossessed Yes he will say for the Providence of God alters no Legal Rights Has he then a Right to every thing that he had a Right to when he was in Possession Yes says he for otherwise the Legal Right would not be the same as it was I ask then whether he has a Right to the Allegiance of his Subjects No says he that is due now to another that is to be paid to him who has God's Authority Then say I the Legal Right either is quite gone or at least it is not the same for before he was dispossessed his Legal Right did entitle him to the Allegiance of his Subjects now it does not The Legal Right therefore signifies nothing and entitles him to nothing And what will it signify to have a Right to his Crown if his Subjects
Acts and Canons of this Convocation wherein Dr. Overall was Prolocutor were never ratified in Parliament But you will say They however give us the Judgment of the then Church of England To this I answer 1. That here is Church against Church and Convocation against Convocation nay two Convocations and I might have said four in Queen Elizabeth's Reign against one in the Reign of her immediate Successor K. James Now methinks the Authority of two or more Convocations in Queen Elizabeth's Reign should outweigh the Authority of one single Convocation in the reign of King James unless it can be made out that the Church grows wiser and better every Age and every Year than other which I make some doubt of 2. That in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Head of the Church agreed with the Members for both the Queen and her Convocations were of Opinion that 't was lawful for the Hollanders to shake off their Obedience to their once Sovereign King Philip but in the following reign of King James the Head of the Church and the Members differ'd about this Point and the King was on the Hollander's side as appears from a Letter which that King wrote to Dr. Abbot Part of which I have thought fit to transcribe Good Dr. Abbot I Cannot abstain to give you my Judgment of your Proceedings in your Convocation New Obs Vol. 3. Numb 22. as you call it You know all of you as I think that my Reason of calling you together was to give your Judgments how far a Christian and a Protestant King may concur to assist his Neighbours to shake off their Obedience to their once Sovereign upon the Account of Oppression Tyranny or what else you like to name it In the late Queen 's time this Kingdom was very free in assisting the Hollanders both with Arms and Advice And none of your Coat ever told me that any scrupled about it in her Reign Upon my coming to England you may know that it came from some of your selves to raise Scruples about this Matter Yet I never took any notice of these Scruples till the Affairs of Spain and Holland forc'd me to it All my Neighbours call on me to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain and the Honour of the Nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned especially after so much Money and Men spent in their Quarrel Therefore I was of the Mind to call my Clergy together to satisfy not so much me as the World about us of the Justness of my owning the Hollanders at this time This I needed not have done and you have forced me to say I wish I had not You have dipp'd too deep in what all Kings reserve among the Arcana Imperii And whatever Aversion you may profess against God's being the Author of Sin you have stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenc'd as such If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom you leave me to seek for others to fight for it For you tell us upon the Matter beforehand his Authority is God's Authority if he prevail Mr. Doctor I have no time to express my Mind farther in this thorny business I shall give you my Orders about it by Mr. Solicitor and until then meddle no more in it for they are Edge-Tools or rather like that Weapon that 's said to cut with the one edge and cure with the other I commit you to God's Protection good Doctor Abbot and rest Your good Friend James R. And this I think lessens the Authority of Dr. Overall's Convocation very much that it is the Authority of a Church without a Head for it is plain that the Head of the Church is on my side And I lay some weight on this that King James who was a Sovereign Prince and as fond of Power as any other plainly told Dr. Abbot that he scrupled not about the Lawfulness of what the Hollanders did in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain upon the account of his Oppression and Tyranny Hence we may gather that were K. James I. to judg between the late King his Grand-Son and the People of England he would surely give Judgment on the Peoples side for he cannot condemn the People of England without condemning the Dutch And his Judgment in this Case I think we ought to value more than the Opinions of an hundred Doctors that differ from him But 't is time now to draw to a conclusion The Cause I am engaged in is God's Cause and the King 's and Queen's Cause and the Peoples Cause it is God's Cause whom Dr. Sherlock seems by his Principles to make the Author of Sin for whatever aversion he may profess against God's being the Author of Sin he has stumbled upon the threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is God's Authority and should be reverenc'd as such And it is the King 's and Queen's Cause whom the Doctor supposes to be Usurpers though I do not say he has call'd them so I know no necessity there was for his writing on this Argument and much less for his reasoning on the supposition of unjust Usurpations for here was no such thing as Usurpation unless to defend our Civil Rights and Liberties and Religion establish'd by Law must be call'd Usurpation and unless he will call an excellent Prince who came to deliver us from Popery and Slavery an Usurper And though it may be allowable to put the Case Preface as he says at the worst yet methinks he ought not to have left it at the worst he should not have let his Reader run away with this Opinion that King William and Queen Mary have not a Legal Title to the Crown And though he forbids his Reader to charge him with reflecting on the present Government yet there is no intelligent Reader but must take his whole Book to be a Reflection upon it and will conclude from his not declaring King William and Queen Mary to have a Legal Right to the Crown that he does not believe it For a wise Man I think would have declar'd it had he believ'd it and Dr. Sherlock never gave any just occasion to the World to mark him out for a Fool. And it is the Peoples Cause I mean it is the Cause of all those that are the King 's and Queen's Loyal Subjects for since he says That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obey'd even though they turn Usurpers and oppress their Subjects and destroy the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government it is plain that he charges all those who assisted his Highness the Prince of Orange and were the subordinate Instruments of our Deliverance with down-right Rebellion against the late King And these were the Reasons that mov'd me to engage my self in this Controversy Whether I have detected the Doctor 's Errors and defended the Truth as I ought I leave the Reader to judg God be thanked we have a Prince who wants not courage to defend his Legal Right with his Sword and I believe he will never want Writer's to justify it with their Pens and to prove that neither was he an Usurper not were they that assisted him Rebels FINIS