of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation This is Rebellion supposing a Kingdom not universally oppressed And this secures the Prince as well as the Providence of God in the Dr's unintelligible Notion But this is to say God as well as Man is confined to Humane Laws in making Kings p. 25. A. I suppose the Dr. living among such an Honourable Society of Lawyers hath heard of being tryed by God and the Countrey And so the King and Queen may be made by God and the Countrey God feeds us but we must put Meat in our Mouths God Clothes us but we must put on our Clothes God doth what we do when we use the Means appointed by God And when the Dr. is in a reasoning Humour he will tell us that there is no doubt but several Governments have been begun by and Originally derived from the Choice and Consent of the People p. 23. but still it is God who by his Providence advanceth Men to the Throne But of this before As for those who advance Conquest I have spoken my Mind formerly And I add that when the whole Community be it by the Sword is subdued as the Jews were by Caesar and have promised Subjection and own the Authority of the Conqueror and he promiseth them Protection I grant this gives the Conqueror Humane Right and Title as well as Gods Authority For he holds his Crown as some speak jure Gentium concessu Gentium But if the P. of O. did Conquer England against which he declared and acted nothing like a Conqueror in any part of the Nation where his Army Marched but every where like a Saviour and Deliverer I say if the P. of O. did Conquer the Nation the Princess of Orange did not And Queen Maries Title can be no other way God save Her Majesty for I am Her most Loyal Subject and Servant but by the Election of the People in Convention and now confirmed by Act of Parliament Which I desire all Conscientious Men to consider Finally As for Submission that is an Implicite Covenant as I have shewed and must be kept So that tho' the Dr. cannot yet with all or the most Judicious Philosophers Schoolmen and Reformed Divines I can see where to fix the Foundation of Government and that is in the Agreement of the People And this is the ordinary Disposal of Providence But let it be by the Election and Consent of the People Or by Conquest and so by After-Covenant Or by Submission which is an Implicite After-Covenant Or by continued Usurpation as the Dr. speaks which still is founded upon After-Covenant and Promise all these are the Disposals of Providence So that the Dr. very weakly for I do not believe he doth it craftily gives only the General Cause which no Man denies But we desire to know what is causa secunda proxima particularis the second next and particular Cause as the Schools speak of this Revolution and Government And the Reason is either we have done very well or very ill in joining with the P. of O. And we would gladly convince the Dr. or any Man else that we have hazarded all that is dear to Man Virtuously and Honourably to preserve Gods true Religion and Worship as by Law Established to save the English Monarchy from the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome and to continue the Liberties of our Native Countrey The Providence of God is no Rule or Reason or Measure of our Duty But the Law of God and Nature and the Laws of the Land when they contradict not these And the Dr. will tell us so when he thinks of it p. 32. The Divine Providence hath Ways and Methods of removing Kings and Setting up Kings which we are not aware of nor concern'd to know because it is no part of our Duty To sum up all this In this Revolution some talk of Desertion and Abdication Some of Conquest Some of Gods Providence as the Dr. and some of the Election of the People 1. As to Desertion and Abdication whether the Late King did in a proper and strict sense Abdicate the Kingdom is a matter that I need not dispute but surely the Convention did well to take this into Consideration that the Kingdom was left without any Order or Government in a very troublesom time But supposing that it was a proper and strict Abdication this doth not make the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen of England This must be some other way 2. As to Conquest And 3. As to Gods Providence I have said enough to satisfie any Consciencious and wise Man who will lay aside Prejudice and Prepossession And therefore 4. I am fully satisfied in my own Conscience and will dispute the Case with any Learned and Consciencious Divine that it can be justified no other way but by the Election of the People in Convention As for the Examples of Jehoiada and Joash and Athaliah and of Jeroboam and Jehu I think there may be a better Account given than the Dr. gives But this is nothing to the main Controversie between him and us That concerns the Non-Swearers I shall only give you a familiar Simile or Example out of Scripture of the Election of a King tho' it doth not quadrare in omnibus it is not nor needs be fitted in all Circumstances to the Kingdom of England In the first Book of Sam. chap. 8. The People of Israel desire a King Then it follows they had none before Whereupon Samuel told them his Message from God and at last yielded to the importunity of the People And he called all the People Chap. 10. that is All the Heads Elders and Princes of the People a great Convention Parliament or Assembly of the Nation And they chose Saul And all the People shouted and said God save the King And those whose Hearts God had touched went with him And they that despised him were called Children of Belial And I shall only add Samuel's Admonition and Counsel Chap. 12. ver 24 25. Only fear the Lord and serve him in truth with all your heart for consider how great things he hath done for you But if ye shall still do wickedly ye shall be consumed both ye and your King I know that there are two Prejudices as the Dr. speaks in like case rather than Objections against this Truth 1. This will not please the King and Royal Family 2. This occasions Subjects to Rebel when they think fit 1. This will not please the King and Royal Family A. We are confident that this is an Insinuation of weak Spirits and directly contrary to the Great and Heroick Designs of their Sacred Majesties and their Impartial Administrations of Justice and God forbid we should do any thing justly meriting the loss of Their Majesties Favour and their Hearts confiding in us I am sure that the pleading for our Liberties is no Prejudice to the Kings Crown or Prerogatives Why should not our Soveraign look
GOD THE KING AND THE COUNTREY United in the Justification of this Present Revolution Containing also Animadversions on Dr. William Sherlock's Book Intituled The Case of Allegiance Due to Soveraign Powers stated and resolved according to Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England By TIM WILSON M. A. and Rector of Great Mongeham in Kent Licensed Jan. 29. 1691. LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers Chapel 1691. To the Sacred Majesties of King William and Queen Mary by the Grace of God King and Queen of England Scotland France and Ireland Defenders of the Faith c. May it please Your Majesties THE Divine Providence that disposeth all things to the emolument and advantage of those that love God hath sent Your Majesties to be our Saviours and Deliverers from Popery and Slavery to the Joy of all sound Protestants not wholly sunk and buried in prejudice And we see the Prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers and Queens your Nursing Mothers But the Government of Moses whom God sent into Egypt to deliver his people was not without some Murmurers and men of a revolting spirit who looked back towards Egypt Victorious David had that crafty Politician Achitophel his Adversary and Absolom who stole away the hearts of this people and Sheba a Mover of Sedition The Reign of Solomon had some who complained of Grievances and Oppressions tho' he honoured God by building a Magnificent Temple The most excellent Deborah tho' she had some that jeoparded their lives unto death with her yet she had others who for their Divisions caused great thoughts of heart It is my affection to the Protestant Cause and Your Majesties Government that moves me thus resolutely to rush into your Sacred Presence I am very sensible that false Principles will create Practices correspondent to them And therefore I have examined some new and strange Notions of Gods Providence and Humane Governments of late asserted by some Doctors To say That a Prince hath Gods Authority tho' he hath no Humane and Legal Right and that there is another Person who hath Legal Right is dismal to consider in the consequences thereof If this Poison creeps into the Church I tremble to reflect upon the Effects of it It is good for nothing but to produce Insincerity and to make men swear to live peaceably when they have War in their hearts I am confident of Your Majesties Protection for I have acted in this Affair with a full satisfaction of Conscience and the greatest Evidence of Reason And no History can exceed if parallel so great valour and courage mixed with so much grace and clemency as hath shined in King William This is to be like God who is Almighty and yet slow to wrath whose Power is irresistible and yet he delights in Mercy Go on and prosper most victorious Prince and may the God of Heaven bless you with success by Sea and Land against that proud and persecuting Monarch who hath been the Ruine of so many Innocent Protestants in his own Dominions May God give Your Majesties the Necks of your Enemies and may they all tast of Your Forgiveness and Bounty but never forsake Your first Friends who ran all hazards with Your Majesty I pray with Tertullian who saith We Christians pray for our Emperors 1. That they may have a long Life which contains Health Joy and Prosperity 2. A constant safe and secure Government 3. Faithful and Trusty Domestick Servants free from Treachery and secret Conspiracy 4. A strong and valiant Army 5. A faithful Senate Council or Parliament 6. Obedient Submissive and Loyal People 7. A quiet and peaceable Reign In a word whatsoever can be the desire of Caesar God inspire Your Majesties with heavenly Grace and Wisdom and sound Knowledge and good Vnderstanding to go in and out before this great People and moreover give you Victory and Peace and Length of Days and at last may Angels convey Your Souls into Abraham's bosom This is the constant prayer of Your Maiesties Most Humble most Loyal and most Devoted Subject and Servant Tim. Wilson The Apostle asserts in the 13th Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans That all Emperors Kings Princes and Governors receive their Power from God And that the Right of the Sword is delivered to the Magistrate by God And therefore all are obliged to be subject to the Higher Powers and not to resist And whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and shall receive damnation FOR the right understanding whereof I shall premise these Principles 1. All Dominion is Gods 2. God gives Dominion and Power to some persons over others 3. The Law of Nature which is the Divine Law unwritten is a Rule by which all Nations should walk 4. This Law of Nature teacheth all Inferiours to honour their Superiours and Subjects to pay Tribute honorary Gifts c. to their Kings 5. The same Law of Nature secures every mans Propriety so that there can be no Alienation without consent explicite or implicite There is saith Aristotle Rhet. b. 1. c. 13. as all divine by Nature a common just and unjust though there be no mutual communication nor compact 6. The holy Scriptures do not contradict the Law of Nature but inform mankind more plainly what is duty Lastly The sacred Historian Moses and other holy Writers leave Positive and Political Laws to be practised according to the Usage of several Countries I suppose as the known truth is that God Created Adam and Eve And Adam begat Cain and Abel Now what Land or what substance and goods Adam gave Abel he had Right to by the Law of Nature as well as what he got by his own industry and labour Neither could Adam or Cain take any of Abels Flock without sinning against God tho' there had been no Agreement between them For this Law was written in Adams heart Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy Neighbours There is a Natural Right and there is a Civil Right Natural Right is by the Law of Nature Meum and Tuum were before there was any written Law Civil Right is that which the Municipal Laws of every Countrey gives And if good and consonant to Reason they are but confirmations or explications of the Law of Nature or conclusions drawn from it or securities of mens Lives Goods and Possessions from wicked men who would use no conscience We know saith St. Paul 1 Tim. 1.8 9 10. that the Law is good if a man use it lawfully knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient c. Government as Government agreeth to Heathens Jews Turks and Christians all alike It is man as man who is the object thereof The Nature and Definition and Properties are the same The holy Scriptures intend not to teach us to be Politicians no more than to be Philosophers but to be Christians and
which concern the Duty of Subjects and the Publick Good And as for the Instances in Scripture out of the Books of the Kings and Chronicles it is plain that there was a Covenant between the King and People And after the Deposing of Athaliah all the Congregation made a Covenant with the King in the House of God 2 Chron 23.3 And what doth a Covenant signifie if it may not be defended and justified If such a dead Dog as I am were worthy to admonish an English Monarch I would advise him to make Law the Rule of his Reign and shew his Prerogative in Acts of Bounty Mercy and Mitigation of the Rigour of some severe Laws And I would not tell him that it is Rebellion for an Innocent Subject to defend himself And yet I imagine that I am as great a Friend to Monarchy and to the Church of England as the greatest Passive-Obedience-Doctor is 4. We have the End of Government For the good of the whole Sodiety Power and Authority is ordained of God for the Happiness of Mankind By this we are legally secured against wicked Men in our Houses Possessions Lands and Estates in our Liberties and Properties and in whatsoever belongs to us as Members of a Civil Society Political Order is a just Disposition between King and Subject as well as between Subject and Subject God is the Author and Lover of Order and an Enemy of Disorder and Confusion And Government was constituted by the singular Wisdom and Providence of God for the good of his Creatures From hence I may deduce these Inferences 1. Hence the Power and Authority of Kings and Governours is clearly Divine They are constituted Rulers by God and are his Ministers And therefore Honour and Obedience is due to them for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 2. Hence it follows evidently That Princes and Governours ought to Rule in Gods fear and so perform their Office as Gods Vicegerents administring Justice impartially knowing whose Authority they have Hence Princes are called Pastors of the People and Fathers of the Countrey And should bear the Name of Gods and Children of the most High not only in Power but in Goodness 3. Hence it necessarily follows that all Subjects ought to reverence and honour their King and Governours with most humble Service Homage and Obedience in all things But of this more anon 2. I shall consider the several kinds The most common Distribution is into Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy The first kind or Form of Government is Monarchy I approve of this as best according to the saying of the most Famous Poet The Rule of many is not good Let there be one Ruler one King to whom God gives the Scepter He is King who hath Supream Power subject to none And a Monarch is either Absolute or Conditional And again either Elective or Successive Elective when in a Kingdom a Person of a new Family or of the same Family is chosen Successive when the next Heir Male and in some Kingdoms the Female is owned and proclaimed Thus the Kingdom of England is by Inheritance and Succession And our King never dies as we say But the King of England is not Absolute but Limited And hath Lords and Commons without whom he cannot make nor repeal Laws And we have Magna Charta unviolable And the Subjects great Felicity and no less the Kings Honour who Rules not over Slaves but Freemen 3. I shall shew the Latitude of Subjection It is a Civil Filial Fear of the King And excludes all things that tend to his Dishonour and includes all things that tend to his Honour It contains all Duties and Services required of Subjects to their Prince There is an universal Obedience next under and after God in all things Legal due to the King who Reigns by the Ordinance and Appointment of God Native Religion and true Christianity is the greatest Interest of Princes A good Conscience and pious Heart abhors Obmurmurations Factions Seditions Rebellions or whatsoever can be conceived to disturb the Souls subjection to the Higher Powers It is gross Hypocrisie to pretend to follow the Holy Jesus and not render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's I am sure that Christ and his Apostles taught Subjection to the Roman Emperor as the Ornament and Honour of their Religion This Subjection first forbids light and vain thoughts of the Kings Authority and Person 2. Uttering Wicked and Trayterous words speaking evil of him Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy People Exod. 22.28 And curse not the King no not in thy Thought Eccles 10.20 And the Holy Ghost brands them with the odious name of filthy Dreamers who despise Dominion and speak evil of Dignities St. Jude ver 8. In brief It excludes all retaining of his Dues Tribute Custom c. all Cheating him of his Revenue all Disobedience to his wholsom Laws all Contempt or Violation offered to his Sacred Person 2. Subjection includes or comprehends all Duties of a Christian Subject to his King For that which is in one place Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers is in another Fear the King and Honour the King And in the Fifth Commandment Honour thy Father and Mother Here as by Father and Mother all Superiors are meant not only our Natural Parents but also our Political Father our Governours especially the Supream Magistrate the King As it is well explained in our Church-Catechism To Honour and Obey the King and all that are put in Authority under him Which also is the Interpretation of all sober Divines So by this word Honour all kinds of Duty and Services from all Inseriors to their Superiors respectively are comprised So to Honour as to Fear Love and Obey them c. This is expressed also by St. Peter Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supream or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well This is yet more fully and largely set down by St. Paul Rom. 13. Where this Doctrine is not only declared but pressed and confirmed by many strong and solid Reasons We must needs be subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake v. 5. If you make Conscience of your ways give the King his Due There is nothing more plain than this Chapter for Subjection to the King and Submission and respect to his Officers without murmuring and repining when according to Law they demand their Dues The humble Christian and obedient Subject who willingly submits to the Kings Laws may be assured that in that particular he pleaseth God and he always hath the Testimony and Satisfaction of a good Conscience But the stubborn and disobedient who will not render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's assuredly displeaseth God and can never quiet his Conscience but runs the hazard of a most ignominious esteem in
be not a settled Government I despair of ever knowing what it is Now I say in plain English This is a mutual Covenant between Governours and Governed and gives the Formality of Relation between King and Subject But then in this Case the King hath an Humane and Legal Right as well as Gods Authority which the Dr. seems every where to deny For he infers pag 5. Therefore those Princes who have no Legal Right may have Gods Authority But I say That tho' such Princes as the Convocation speaks of had no Legal Right before yet when they are throughly settled they have Legal Right And this is the difference between the Dr. and me And pag. 9. The Submission of a Prince indeed may be thought necessary to transfer a Legal Right but the Submission of the People it self is sufficient to settle the Government and when it is settled then it is the Authority of God whatever the Humane Right be See pag. 25 c. He seems to assert That no Right can be Legal and Humane but Successive or Hereditary Right § 4. p. 26. I know Great Learned and Pious Authors who are of this Opinion as I have proposed it and the Dr. cannot appear singular in it and to advance Paradoxes as he speaks § 1. p. 3. to any Man who hath throughly studied these Controversies But then all or most of those Divines and Politicians assert Defensive Arms in some Case And that the several Forms of Regiment are according to Agreement or an Ordinance of Man And they usually say that the Call of the People is Essential to Magistracy in such extraordinary Case And so the Powers that are are ordained of God and must not be resisted Again if the Dr. means first By Actual Possession of the Throne the Power of the Sword or Strength or the Princes being in Whitehall and having the Royal Forts c. at his Command then this alone cannot give Right tho' it is the Disposal of Providence And this I take to be Hobbism Scepticism or Atheism And such things I have read in some Oliverian Pamphlets to justifie that Damnable Rebellion as the Disposal of Providence And thus to say that Conquest Election and Usurpation were all one to the Primitive Christians as some of late have said is most abominable and to be exploded And the Reverend Dr. verges so near this that I wish he would explain himself better if it be not his meaning See § 4. p. 18. The Scripture hath given us no Direction in this Case but to Submit and pay all Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers It makes no Distinction that ever I could find between a Rightful King and an Usurper c. A. The Scriptures not being an absolute Rule of Policy as I said before suppose that we know who is our King or Governour or who are the Higher Powers by Reason and the several Laws and Constitutions or Immemorial Usages of several Countries And then instruct Subjects in their Duty But of this Section I shall speak in its Order 2. If the Dr. means by Actual Possession of the Throne such a Covenant or Settlement as is before mentioned then I say whoever hath such a Settlement hath not only Gods Authority but Humane and Legal Right tho' he is not the next Heir or immediate Lineal Successor And of such a Prince I grant the Subjects need not inquire Quo jure quâve injuriâ as the Schools speak he came to the Throne or whether he had Reason to Invade or Conquer or not He is King and hath Gods Authority and must be obeyed And in this case the old Maxim proves true Vox Populi est Vox Dei The voice of the People is the voice of God God chuseth whom the People in this manner chuse But I do not think that any rational Politician or judicious Divine grounds this Position upon the Disposal of Providence firstly I am sure most do not But upon such Principles as these 1. No one Form of Government is Natural or Moral but purely of Positive Agreement And tho' it is good Manners in the Subjects of a Monarch especially of an English Monarch to believe Regal Government best and to believe that Hereditary Government or Monarchy is most prudential and excellent And that Lineal Succession is not to be altered but upon very sufficient grounds And tho' no Man ought to meddle with them that are given to change which may possibly befall a King as well as his Subjects yet no Man can with a good Conscience condemn any other lawful Form of Government As the Government of the Consuls and Senate of Rome of old Or the Government of the Duke of Venice or Senate at present Or the States General of the United Provinces All whose Subjects are to obey and not resist their several Sovereigns by St. Paul's command Rom. 13. For they have their Power of God and Gods Authority 2. The Publick Good is the Sovereign Law of all And so tho' Subjects have Sworn to maintain their Sovereign yet if he and they are Conquered and the Conqueror gives them their Lives Liberties or Estates whereupon they Promise or Swear Allegiance to him they must for the future own him as their Soveraign Lord. Or if they are grievously oppressed so that the Publick Good of their Countrey or the Preservation of their Laws Liberties and Religion requires them to forsake their King who as I suppose would have brought them into Slavery or Non-assistance as the Dr. confesseth when a loving valiant and good Friend comes to save their Religion Laws and Properties In this case the Subjects ought to obey him that hath Actual Possession of the Throne For he is their Elected King and hath Humane Legal and Divine Right And this secures Princes from Factious Seditious and Rebellious Subjects And secures Subjects from Wicked Cruel and Ill-designing or Ill-advised Princes who follow evil Counsellors to the Subversion of the Laws and Ruine of the Kingdom And this I think may be proved from the Drs. own Assertions scattered in this Book 1. He asserts p. 14. Sometimes God not only places a single Person in the Throne but intails it on his Family by Humane Laws and makes the Throne a Legal Inheritance And p. 24. Hereditary Right is either a continued Vsurpation which can give no Right or a Right by Law that is by the Consent of the People to intail the Crown on such a Family Now all Laws are made by the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons From whence it follows that the Dr. must own that Hereditary Monarchy is so made by the People and that such a Monarch receives all his Power for he hath no Power but Legal from them as well as from God And as for what follows which saith the Dr. I observed before If Right be resolved into the Choice and Consent of the People cannot be done for what Right had my Ancestors three or four
hundred years ago to chuse a King for me A. I am afraid the Dr. next time will say That the Laws of former Parliaments made some years ago do not bind us tho' not repealed And none but present Parliaments can make Laws for us We have nothing to do with our Forefathers we must personally consent to all Laws Phy for shame Dr. let us hear no more of this For I am confident you do not believe that our Ancestors had no Right to make Laws for us or to chuse a King for us A King is a King to Children Born of Parents who have chosen him or his Family and such Children are his Subjects without a personal and verbal Ingagement And former Laws bind us without a new Act of Parliament to confirm them 2. The Dr. asserts p. 36. If they that is Sovereign Princes receive their Authority from Men which they do as well as from God say we and Humane Laws which the Dr. confessed before I cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust of which they must give an account to those who have intrusted them with it according to those Laws by which they were intrusted to exercise that Power For whether there be any express Provision made in the Law to call them to an Account or no the Nature of the thing proves that if they receive their Power from Men they are accountable to them For those who give Power may take an Account of the use and abuse of it This with the Drs. Concessions hereafter mentioned proves the Lawfulness Reasonableness and Conscience of this present Revolution And p. 25. he saith A Legal Intail is nothing more than the Authority of the People So that the Authority of the People I mean either the Convention of Estates which is an extraordinary Assembly or the Parliament which is the ordinary Assembly gives Humane and Legal Right And such a Prince is set upon the Throne by God and is by the Disposal of Providence and is Gods Minister for the good of the People So that what the Dr. saith in the beginning of p. 25. is very weak To say that God sets up no Prince who ascends the Throne without Humane Right and Legal is to say that some Kings are removed and others set up but not by God which is directly contradictory to Scripture It is to say That the Four Monarchies were not set up by God because they all began by Violence and Usurpation It is say That God as well as Men is confined by Humane Laws in making Kings It is to say That the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People For if God cannot make Kings without the People or against their Consent declared by their Laws the Authority must be derived from the People not from God or at least if it be Gods Authority yet God cannot give it himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws A. If we speak of Gods Absolute Power he can send a Legion of Angels and set the Crown upon a Kings Head or by any like extraordinary Nomination and Means But we say and I hope the Dr. upon consideration will not deny it that Right Reason Natural Conscience Law and Scripture are the Rule of our Duty and by these means God cooperates and his Divine Providence concurs with men And when the Dr. is in his senses and argues like himself that is a Divine of his Reputation and Station in the Church he will tell you p. 65. That the King hath no Right but by Law and then the Law may determine how far his Right shall extend c. But this Revolution hath confounded the wisdom of the wise and brought to nothing the understanding of the prudent insomuch that a man may propound St. Pauls Question to these great Doctors of our Church Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World It is much easier to justifie the whole Revolution I will here add the Judgment of Tol. collected by the Author of the Synopsis on Rom. 13. Power that is Principality or Magistracy yea even of Infidels and Idolaters is not but of God that is from the Divine Ordination and Disposition that the wicked may be restrained the just honoured c. from God as the first Beginning and Cause and Author not indeed by himself but mediately by men in whom God hath put this instinct to set over them those that should Rule them And whoever reads the Lord Chan. Fortescue will find this true in England Animadversions on Sect. 3. In this Section I shall animadvert on some of his Propositions and then propose his Concessions scattered all over his Book As for the two first Propositions I admit them But I think that I may justly find fault with the third which is There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any person Either by Nature or by express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence Here I say that this Division is Illogical and naughty Logicians say that the parts of a Division must be opposite but these are not For the Power and Authority that is given by Nature is the disposal of Providence and the Power and Authority that is given by express Nomination is the disposal of Providence also And I must confess that in my small Reading I never met with any that made such a sort of division I should have added 3. By Covenant or by the Election of the People I fear that the Dr's Enthusiastical notion of Providence here imposed upon his Learning Let no man say that I do not speak of Divine Providence with that awful regard and reverence that I ought for surely I justifie Gods Providence much more clearly than this abstruse and unaccountable notion The Dr. goes on By Nature Parents have a Natural Superiority over their Children and are their Lords and Governours too This was the first Government in the World and is the only Natural Authority For in propriety of speaking there is no Natural Prince but a Father c. Here observe that this destroys the Principles of Sir R. F's Book with which so many young Divines in the University of late have been possessed and about which they have been so very passionate that they would endure no modest opposition but invidiously declaimed against any man who did but call in question this Principle as if he could not be a Lover of Monarchy If there is no Natural Prince but a Father thens in propriety of speaking there can be no Natural Prince now in the World but every Prince must be by Institution or Agreement or the like For the Relation of King and Subject are not Natural as the Relation of Father and Child are But yet I say Monarchy approacheth nearest to the Government of Gods Throne And I approve of the
Light within him that tells him it is so as he saith So these Men will tell you that it is Gods Providence which is very true of all Acts Means and Events good or evil But we desire that Mens Consciences should be satisfied whether the Instruments have done well or ill But the Dr. will not meddle with this Let us go on Propos 4. All Kings saith the Dr. are equally rightful with respect to God for those are all rightful Kings who are placed in the Throne by God and it is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no c. A. I take this to be obscure and Enthusiastical Those are all rightful Kings who are placed in the Throne by God saith the Dr. True but how shall I know that they are placed in the Throne by God I suppose the Dr. will answer When they are throughly Settled in the Throne as § 2. p. 9. But then say I This is the Election of the People and supposes a Covenant Explicite or Implicite as before And this gives Humane and Legal Right If the Dr. thinks otherwise I desire to know of him for he is so cautious that I cannot positively say Sometimes he hath words to this sense sometimes not And I think it is an odd sentence to say It is impossible there should be a wrong King unless a Man could make himself King whether God will or no c. For God may permit a Man to call himself King who is not King and his deluded Followers may flatter themselves and him also As the late D. of M. was called King at Lyme But God never approved of him as King which I suppose the Dr. will acknowledge and yet this was the Disposal of Providence Let the Dr. distinguish here and then he will have an answer And I am of Opinion that if the P. of O. had called Himself King when he entered Exeter or when he marched on without much if any opposition towards London or when he had Possession of St. James's or Whitehall all Englishmen had been bound in Conscience to oppose Him as an Invader of the Liberty of their Countrey But when by their Representatives they Elected Him King then all the Duties of Subjects were to be paid to Him And if I had ten Thousand Millions of Lives to lose I would venture them for this Proposition That Law is or ought to be a Rule to all Men And that if the King himself will go about to destroy all Laws that the Subjects may defend themselves And when the Dr. answers the Arguments that I have brought in this and some other Discourses by me published I shall think my self bound to recant But of this when I come to Rom. 13. in the next Sect. At present I will propose a few short Questions and Answers Q. How doth it appear that a Prince hath Gods Authority or that he is set upon the Throne by the Disposal of Providence A. When he hath Actual Possession of the Throne Q. When hath a Prince Actual Possession of the Throne A. When he is throughly Settled in his Throne p. 9. Q. When is his Government throughly Setled A. When the whole Administration of the Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince c. ibid. Now this last Answer is intelligible and plain And thus whosoever hath Gods Authority or Power hath it mediately by the Election of the People or by Covenant Compact and Consent or Submission which is an Implicite Covenant and this is the Disposal of Providence But to begin at the Disposal of Providence is to speak in the Clouds and never to give a Rational account either of the Original Changes or Revolutions of Government In all my Discourse I suppose not only that God is but that he hath made us with true Faculties and so we are Reasonable Creatures and can give a Rational Account I proceed to Propos 5. The Distinction then between a King de jure and a King de facto relates only to Humane Laws which bind the Subject but are not necessary Rules and Measures of Divine Providence In an Hereditary Kingdom he is a rightful King who hath by Succession a Legal Right to the Crown And he who hath Possession of the Crown without a Legal Right is a King de facto that is is King but not by Law c. A. I imagine that this Distinction of a King de jure and a King de facto was invented for another purpose and hath nothing to do in our Controversie When the Houses of York and Lancaster laid Claim to the Crown both by Inheritance and Lineal Succession the Subjects being in great Perplexity and many in very great Doubts Scruples and Uncertainties who was the Lineal Successor it was thought fit to make this Law He that pretended to Lineal Succession and had it not was called a King de facto He that had Lineal Succession was called a King de jure tho' out of Possession But if I were to distinguish in Reason and Conscience as to our Case I would distinguish thus A King de jure is Twofold either First A King by Inheritance Or Secondly A King by Election tho' he is not the next immediate Heir nor pretends to be But in this I humbly submit to the Learned and Judicious Lawyers As for the rest of this Proposition it is of the same piece with other Prejudices of the Dr's and must have its Answer accordingly See my other Discourses And most of this Section is of the same Nature The Dr. talks many times of a King having Gods Authority without Legal Authority Let him explain and prove what he saith For I know no Prince that hath Gods Authority who hath not Legal Authority When he would clear himself of Hobbism of which I believe he is not guilty he saith well Power and nothing else doth not give Right to Dominion p. 15. But presently after he seems to write Enthusiastically and not like a Man guided by Reason and Principles of Nature I come now to his Concessions First It is evident saith the Dr. § 4. p. 23. there is no Natural Authority but Paternal and Patriarchal Authority This destroys Sir R. F's Principle and it concerns his hot-headed Followers to consider it as I observed before But what the Dr. saith immediately after is more than I can approve of That Monarchies were erected upon the Ruins or great Diminution of it c. For I do not think Monarchy the Ruin or Diminution of Fatherly Authority but rather the way to preserve it and add Perfection to it in the Increase of the World The Dr. might have expressed himself more warily For this seems to reflect more upon Monarchy than the Subjects of a King ought 2. Hear what he grants § 4. p. 25. speaking of those who refuse the Oaths If they would examine themselves for what Reason
they believe that a King who hath no Right to the Throne is not set up by God and invested with his Authority they will find That it must ultimately resolve it self into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter pace tanti viri by the Dr's leave I should say it is not Gods usual Method and ordinary Providence to over-rule and alter for a Legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People And if the People have such an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings hold a little the People cannot do this when they have Covenanted ordinarily but in extream necessity I doubt they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them to But perhaps the Dr. will say This is Argumentum ad homines and I would not willingly misrepresent him As for his Answer to the Objection which I find p. 26. I know not what to make of it it is pure Enthusiasm I think I cannot measure it by any Rules of Reason 3. He grants very honestly p. 27. That when ever a People have a good King as surely say I King William and Queen Mary are a good King and Queen it is both their Duty and Interest to defend Him And if they be not misled by the Cunning and Artifice of ill Men they will certainly do so But if they have a very bad one that notoriously violates their Rights and breaks the Constitution upon which Himself stands and strikes at the dearest things they have their Religion Established by Law and their Properties I doubt the Case may be altered And tho' every Body will not speak it out yet most may say in their Hearts Let him go if he cannot defend Himself It is enough in Conscience patiently to bear so bad a Prince but a little too much to venture their Lives and Fortunes to keep him in the Throne to oppress them This is against Reason and Nature and I know no Law of God which requires it c. I wish with all my heart that this Consideration and other Arguments of the Dr's may prevail with the most Reverend Father in God the late Arch-Bishop and the Right Reverend the Bishops who have not taken the Oaths to their present Majesties I believe out of pure Conscience tho' erroneous and full of prejudice And I have often wondered that so many of the Clergy who but a little before did so violently oppose the Prince of Orange's proceedings out of the like conscientious prejudice as I believe did on a sudden take the Oaths This seems to me to shew that our Case wanted but a little consideration and men might easily lay aside their prejudices in so blessed and desirable a Change 4. The Dr. grants p. 28. That the Laws of God and Nature must take place of all Humane Positive Laws and Oaths Hence I infer that the Dr. cannot deny Self-preservation 5. He grants p. 29. That it is unreasonable to expound the Oath to such a sense as no man would have taken it in had it been expressed No no man in his wits would take it for the best Prince that ever swayed the Scepter Then such an Oath or Promise or Declaration could not intend to dedestroy Self-preservation Liberty and Property 6. The Dr. grants p. 30. We are not bound to defend the King against Law or when he subverts the Laws und Liberties and the Legal Established Religion of the Kingdom by Illegal Methods Or as he saith presently after by the exercise of an Illegal and Arbitrary Power 7. He saith p. 32. Certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath to fight for their King against their Countrey For an Oath to fight for the King doth not oblige us to fight against our Countrey which is as unnatural as to fight against our King 8. He owns the preservation of the whole Kingdom is before the Prince p. 33. in these words Tho' I have as great a Reverence for Princes as any man I do not think the Right and Interest of any Prince so considerable as the Safety and Preservation of the Nation and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects I am sure we who are for Defensive Arms cannot say more than this 9. I leave the Teachers of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance to answer his Arguments p. 36. or else I hope they will take the Oaths I have spoken my thoughts of this matter As for Bishop Overals Convocation-Book I do not love many words I have spoken my mind 10. This seems very hard that when God hath actually delivered us we must refuse our deliverance p. 38. And I add it seems very hard that the Clergy who receive most benefit by this deliverance if in heart they love the Protestant Religion should not honour the Deliverers 11. The Dr. agrees to what Bishop Sanderson tells us That the End of Civil Government and of that Obedience which is due to it is the Safety and Tranquillity of Humane Societies and therefore whatever is necessary and useful to this End becomes our Duty for the End prescribes the Means Hence I infer the lawfulness of Defensive Arms in some case because Humane Societies under a Tyrannical Prince who Rules Arbitrarily cannot be safe I beseech the Dr. seriously to consider this and examine throughly whether it doth not necessarily follow And before I end this Section I must desire the Dr. to reconcile some of his Assertions He saith p. 4. The Church of England hath been very careful to instruct her Children in their duty to Princes to obey their Laws and submit to their Power and not to resist tho' very injuriously oppressed and those who renounce these Principles renounce the Doctrine of the Church of England But she hath withal taught That all Sovereign Princes receive their Power and Authority from God and therefore every Prince who is setled in the Throne is to be obeyed and reverenced as Gods Minister and not to be resisted c. And here I observe that the Dr. chargeth the Non-swearing Bishops as well as those who joyned with the Prince of Orange as rejecting the Doctrine of the Church of England Well let the Dr. and his Party be the only true Church of England-men if he can disprove what I have now and elsewhere said He grants That whosoever is setled in the Throne hath Gods Authority and must not be resisted But p. 25 26. in answering an Objection That this makes the Prince lose his Right by being notoriously injured c. he tells us The Providence of God removes Kings and sets up Kings but alters no Legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them to recover their Right when they can c. and doth not divest the dispossessed 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