Ease or Wellfare have by indirect Surmise Policies Practices Force and new Devices most Usurped upon the lawfull Prerogatives of their Kings or the Persons Lives Offices or Estates of such Nobles Great Officers and other persons of a contrary Party whom they most dreaded maligned and which have imposed new Oaths and Engagements on the Members to secure perpetuate and make irrevocable their own Acts Judgments and unrighteous proceedings have always proved most Abortive Successless Pernicious to themselves and the activest Instruments in them the Parliaments themselves being commonly totally Repealed Null'd and the Grandees in them Suppressed Impeached Condemned Destroyed as Traytors and Enemies to the Publick in the very next succeeding Parliaments or not very long after That Kings created and set up meerly by Parliaments and their own Power in them without any true Hereditary Title have seldom answered the Lords and Commons Expectations in the Preservation of their just Laws Liberties and Answers to their Petitions yea themselves at last branded for Tyrants Traitors Murderers Usurpers their Posterities Impeached of High Treason and disinherited of the Crown by succeeding Kings and Parliaments as you may read at large in the Parliaments of c. From these three last Observations we may learn that as Parliaments are the best of all Courts Councils when duly Summoned Conven'd Constituted Ordered and kept within their legal Bounds So they become the greatest Mischiefs and Grievances to the Kingdom when like the Ocean they overflow their Banks or degenerate and become through Sedition Malice Fear or Infatuation by Divine Justice Promoters of corrupt sinister Ends or Accomplishers of the private Designs and ambitious Interests of particular persons under the disguise of publick Reformation Liberty Safety and Sentlement You see Doctor here how Mr. Pryn distinguishes between legal Kings by Hereditary Title and Kings that are not legal and between Parliaments Convened and acting legally from Parliaments that are not so Conven'd and do not so Act But in your Providential Hypothesis which must damn all such distinctions as Groundless and Arbitrary it is enough that any Man Jack Cade or Oliver Cromwel be set up for King by the Estates of the Realm howsoever Conven'd and Acting Once the Estates of this Realm did most illegally call in a French King and set him up in the Throne and swear Fealty to him and if in the late designed French Invasion which if God had thought fit might have succeeded they had set up the great Oppressor of the Liberties of Europe then according to your Doctrine he must have been King and by your Principles and all the seriousness which the Subject of the Last Judgment requires you must and would have professed without any regard to the Recognitions of their Majesties right that you were his most faithful Subject and Servant To this Authority of Mr. Pryn I shall add that of Judg Jenkins who protested against the Power of the two Houses when they had made the King their Prisoner and usurped his Sovereign Authority and had power to crush his Majesty and much more any other Man in the Kingdom Shortly after Judge Jenkins printed his Protestation and a Justification of it from Law in which he declared he should hold it a great Honour to dye for the honourable and holy Laws of the Land It was for the King then and his Authority that he stood up against the Powers in being who were then in your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he asserted before them That Allegiance followed the King 's natural Person then Prisoner at Holmby And as for the times before him he declared that all Deposers of Kings were Traitors that Henry IV. was an Usurper and that Kings de facto are Vsurpers that come in by the Consent of the People This is the Doctrine of Judge Jenkins of famous Memory but yours Doctor is the scandalous Doctrine of presbyterian Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Baxter's Holy Common-wealth as has been observed by a plain honest Layman in a †Providence and Precept Book which he wrote against you and which I believe you can never answer I wonder how Dr. Grove your old Acquaintance who wrote against Jenkins takes it to have his Reasonings condemned by you as contrary to the general Sense of Mankind they were received with great Applause by all wise and considering Churchmen when they were first published and I do not hear he hath retracted them And therefore Doctor give me leave to make use of his Testimony among others to prove that the Reasonings of Some among our selves are not contrary to the general Sense of Mankind To these common Lawyers let me add the Authority of one Civilian the learned Sir John Hayward in his Answer to the First Part of a Conference concerning Succession by R. Doleman and to these single Authorities that of all the Judges in the famous Case of the Postnati which two of your learned ‖ d. p. 101. c. p. 37. Adversaries have cited against you viz. That Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King and that †Sir Francs Moorts Reports 79. it is not taken away though the King is expulsed by Force and another usurps When you were first acquainted with this Opinion of the Judges by a learned Lawyer you express'd your Satisfaction with Joy and talkt of printing the discovery but since you have taken the Oath their Authority signifies not a Straw for you are become the true Son of your Sire Leviathan who was above all Authority but his own To these Lawyers of our own Countrey I beg leave to add that of two or three foreign Lawyers whereof two are Scotish Men the learned Craigy and Sir George Mackenzy the former's Opinion is to be seen in a learned MS. of his entituled Thomae Cragii de Jure Successionis Regni Angliae Libriduo adversus Sophismata Personati Dolemani quibus non solum Jura Successionis in Regnis sed etiam ipsorum Regum Ss Auctoritatem nititur evertere The Opinion of the latter is to be read in his JVS REGVM or Defence of the Succession in Scotland and as he wrote in that Book so he lived and dyed a faithfull Subject or if you will Doctor a stupid Slave of Loyalty for he was one of these Men And it is well for you that he dyed when he did for had he survived in Health you and some other Writers would as I have been informed have soon heard from him The third is a Dutch Man of no small Authority even Hugo Grotius who was a wise and considering Man indeed and did not use to write Contradictions to the general Sense of Mankind but yet he as you have been told already by a very learned * aa p. 93. Man saith expresly in contradiction to your Doctrine †De Jar. Bell. Pac. l. 1. c. 14. that it is lawfull to kill an Vsurper if it be with the Authority of him that hath the Right to govern whether
King and by supposing in the next Paragraph That it was lawfull in a limitted Monarchy But is this the way of arguing against Resistance which not long ago was such a damnable sin especially on the 30th of January I protest to you Dr. should I hear you speak at this tender rate from the Pulpit against Adultery I should think you had a design upon some Ladies in the Congregation and that you intended they should understand by you that you thought it no sin Formerly on the 30th of January Resistance was a most damnable sin and the Doctrine of it Popish Diabolical Doctrine and the sin of the day was the Murder of a King but now it seems Dr. you will not dispute the lawfulness of resisting the King it may be lawfull for any thing you know to the contrary even on the 30th of January the sin of which day now it seems P. 19. lies in the Murder of a Good King who kept the Laws and was a Zealous Patron of the Church of England of a King of such Virtues as are rarely found in meaner Persons nay which would have adorned an Hermet's Cell But had he been a King that had broken the Laws and stretch'd his Prerogative to set up an Ecclesiastical Commission against the Church of England then the killing of him had been no Murder at least no such barbarous Murder But Dr. at this rate of Preaching on the 30th of January Kings and Queens had need take care of themselves for I do not see but they are upon their Behaviour Quam diu bene se gesserint and do not break the Laws but if they do so let them do it at their peril xxix p. 21. For every irregularity in their motions is soon felt and causes very fatal Convulsions in the State or as a much better Subject said by way of Apology for Charles I. There is no time past Judge Jenkins in his Works p. 28. present nor will there be time to come so long as Men manage the Laws but the Laws will be broken more or less So Dr. in your Temple-Sermon to exhort us to pray for Kings you tell us That it is very difficult to govern a Family xxix p. 24 25 26. and that Princes are liable to mistakes like other Men and that they are exposed to misinformations by Court-Flatterers and subject to greater Temptations than other Men But Dr. If it be lawfull to take up Arms against the King in a limitted Monarchy which you were contented to suppose before the House and others of your Brethren plainly assert then God help Kings of such Monarchies xxx p. 23. especially where the Springs and Fountains of Government are poysoned and where the Nation is already divided into Parties both in Church and State Such Kings be they by Providence only or Law and Providence together it matters not they had need look to their hits when their best pretended Friends are willing to suppose it is lawfull to take up Arms against them All your Apologies and Panegyricks upon their Majesties and Exhortations to pray for them can never make them amends for such a supposition and they must indeed stand in need of more and better Prayers than yours if they have no better a Title to the Crown than that of Possession which you have found out for them and that too no longer than they keep the Laws 4. These Dr. to use your own Language are very loose Notions of Government and Obedience and dangerous at such a time as this when so many Malecontents in both Kingdoms complain of the breach of Laws See h. If you will go to Scotland you shall hear two sort of discontented Men clamour loudly against the Government the Jacobite Episcoparians and the Presbyterians the latter are so impudent as to charge King William down right with the breach of the Original Contract and the former complain of torturing Strangers against Law and the Articles of Government of exercising illegal and unheard of Severities upon the complying Clergy worse than Dragooning of abolishing Episcopacy and thereby altering the Constitution of the Government and of the Murder and Massacre of a Laird and his Clan in cold blood after they had laid down their Arms and submitted to the Government And you cannot be ignorant of the Complaints which are made at home by restless and disaffected Spirits of pretended Illegal and Arbitrary Commitments of Men for High Treason and not to mention the Reflections which have been made in and out of Parliament upon Mr. Ashton's Trial you cannot but hear what a din this grumbling and disaffected Faction make of excessive Fines and Bail contrary as they clamour to our English Liberties and the Articles of Government And they bring one Example among others of a poor Boy about thirteen years old who was Arraign'd and Try'd at the Old-Baily and condemned to the Pillory and after he endured this Discipline and many other cruel hardships was Fined at the Court of the Old-Baily above threescore times more than he and his Parents are worth Sir These things considered you should have thundered with your old Zeal and demonstrations against Resistance as a damnable sin and taught Submission and Obedience to their Majesties upon the account of their Office and Character and not purely upon the account of their Virtues as you used to do in former Sermons And let me tell you Dr. that the most effectual way of serving their Majesties in the Pulpit and especially on the 30th of January is to Preach up the unconditional Duty of Subjects to Kings as Kings xxx p. 23. whether they be good or bad This was the Strict Loyalty and Obedience which you tell us was so earnestly pressed on the Consciences of Men before the Revolution and made the People so passive in it But by your favour Dr. not so passive for not to put you in mind of the vast numbers in the West and the North Mrs. Sherlock her self sent in a Man and Horse to the assistance of the Prince of Orange and whether it was with your Connivance or Approbation God and your own Conscience can best tell But however that was this is certain that it is most for the Interest of Princes as well as most becoming Divines to set the King as a King and not as an Hero before the People and to convince their Consciences of the inviolable Duty which results from their relation to him as Subjects independant of his moral Qualities but the other way of Preaching which you have taken up serves only to beget a precarious and doubtful sense of Duty in the People who as your Sermon before the House shews can soon be made to have the worst Opinion of the best of Kings 5. The Sandersons and Hammonds of former times who guarded the Pulpit from all suspicion of Flattery would never have Preached so much in commendation of their Royal Masters as you have Preached in the praise
up the Government p. 5. as if intermission of Government were a total giving up of Right so that he cannot claim it again if he returns and yet he grants the case of present danger and just fear This ought not to be pressed too far but that it is indecent to suppose that Kings can be subject to fear that is we must not suppose them to be Men for if they are fear is an humane Passion But he had no just cause of fear I will not dispute that but suppose he was affraid without just cause Doth not fear still make the Action involuntary and save the forfeiture of the Crown and if it doth What difference is there betwixt his first and second withdrawing For it seems he apprehends there was more just cause of fear the second time and therefore will not lay the Accusation there but upon his first going and yet it is a probable Argument that he was affraid at first because Kings do not use to forsake their Kingdoms without Fear But what need of pretending the King's going away if the subversion of his Government and Laws dissolved the Government For it seems he was no King before he went nor to be looked upon as a King but a Destroyer so that whether he had gone or staid the thing had been the same But if the King can do no wrong he can never forfeit his Crown by Male Administration at least an ipso facto forfeiture was never heard of in Kings it is more reasonable to bring him to a Trial than to Judge and Condemn and Depose him without Hearing which is thought hard usage for a Subject But the mischief is they know not how to frame the Indictment where to find Judges and his Peers to try him which is an Argument our Law knows nothing of trying Kings because it hath made no provision for it 8. Your observing Readers laugh at your Confidence in saying xxx p. 22. That the late Revolution hath made no Alterations in the Principles of Government and Obedience And to use your own words Some think your Providential Right a tottering Foundation for the Monarchy that cannot long support it and every jot as tottering as that of the Power of the People which you explode because the People if they get the Supream Power of the King they will plead Providence for it and keep it whether they have naturally a Superior Power over him or no. In page 23. you say It was a wonderful Providence that the generality of Subjects were meerly Passive at the Revolution But they say you used to bemoan the Passiveness of them as sinfull especially in the Clergy particularly you were often heard with great formality to recite some words of Dr. Patrick concerning the silence of the Clergy which you said went like Daggers to your Heart It seems once upon a time you pray'd the Dr. to consider what a dishonour the Clergy's taking the Oath would be to our Religion to which he reply'd that if that were all the Honour of our Religion was gone in the silence of the Clergy at the Prince's Invasion though some of the Clergy were not so silent as that Dr. imagined and when another asked you how you could forbear at that time to Preach up the Duty of Active Assistence as some others had done You answered with a shew of Tears in your Eyes that they were happy Men and striking your Hand upon your Breast you wished you had done so too Page 27. You say There is no appearance of illegal Vsurpations no oppression of the Subjects just Rights nor pretence of Clamour of Persecution for Conscience take and yet as some among us observe according to your own bafled Hypothesis of Right to Government their Majesties Possession of the Throne is not legal and by consequence how rightful soever you pretend to make it in the Eye of Providence it is an Usurpation in the Eye of the Law And then as for Persecution for Conscience sake these Men say That of all Men it least became you to assert That there was no pretence to complain of that who confidently said That the late Revolution was the greatest Scheme of Vilany that ever was contrived and not long since had such an high Opinion both of their Consciences and their Cause and pretended to believe that they were persecuted not only for Conscience but Righteousness sake They say they are both the same they were as when you were one of them and though you have changed the Names of them since you changed your Opinion yet they think that they still retain their old Nature and have as much to say for themselves as you could say for them then Then they say you took it ill to be told by the Writers of the Times That it was not Conscience but Shame Peevishness Stubbornness and other causes of prejudice that made the Non-Swearers stand out And to remove this scandalous Imputation from your self and your Brethren you went on purpose to the Excellent Bp. of Chichester to put him upon making his Death-Bed Declaration at which the Government was so offended but since you took the Oath it is no matter of Conscience or Difficulty and it is now dwindled into a Gnat nay into Nothing which was a Cammel before Methinks you might remember the great difficulty with which many thousands that took the Oath took it and call to mind the lower sense in which they took it only to live peaceably and quietly and how others took it in this sense only as a Temporary Oath And if so many Mens Consciences would not let them take it but in such qualified senses Why should it not be pure Conscience in these Men to take it in no sense at all You know the Secret of Dr. Scot why he refused the Bishoprick of Chester it was because his Conscience would not let him take the Oath of Homage to K. W. and Q. M. and if that Oath was an insuperable difficulty to an honest and well informed Conscience in him Why should not the new Oath of Allegiance be so to these Men who think thar at least they have a pretence to complain that they are persecuted and suffe-for Conscience sake They say farther that any Government may persecute by Law as well as against it and that there is little or no difference between being oppressed and ruined by unjust Laws or unjustly against Law Nay any Persecution is the greater they say for having Law to support it and that Conscience is Conscience whether it suffer against Law by a Tyrant or by Tyrannical Laws I remember there is something to this purpose somewhere in your Case of Resistance and then as to the Cause for which these Men suffer no Man they say had a more full Persuasion of the Justice of it than your self They say you scarce had patience to hear your best Friends argue against it in favour of the Oath that you told Mr. Maur you cold as soon
hath observed * b. p. 48. That you acknowledge St. Chrysostom to be of their Opinion and he hath cited St. Basil against you for saying expresly That the Higher Powers mention'd by the Apostle were such as attain to the Government by Humane Laws I hope Doctor you will grant that these two Fathers were sober and considering Men who understood the general sense of Mankind and according to this sense in which they understood the Apostle that Author goes on to shew that it was the constant practice of the Primitive Christians to side with that Emperor who had the Legal Title And to their practice I will add the Testimony of the Emperor Justinian in his Letters to * Procop. Caes de Bello Vandalico l. 1. c. 7 8. Gelimer King de Facto of the Kingdom of the Vandals in Affrica who deposed his Cousin Hildericus between whom and Justinian there was always great Friendship But to make you understand the Emperor's Letter to this Usurper the better I must acquaint you Doctor that Gizericus the Founder of that Monarchy who reigned Thirty Nine years settled the Succession in his Posterity upon the Male Descendents according to Seniority so that he should always come to the Crown who was the Eldest among them and accordingly the Crown had peaceably descended for four Successions to Hildericus whom Gelimer depos'd and shut up in Prison with his Brother's two Sons who were faithful to their Uncle As soon as Justinian heard of it he wrote to him to this effect Thou hast acted Gelimer against Right and Duty and contrary to the Testament of Gizericus in Imprisoning an Old Man and thy Kinsman and the King of the Vandals if the Establishment of Gizericus be valid and deposing him by force from the Government to which thou mightest have lawfully succeeded Do not persit in thy Wickedness nor prefer the Name of a Tyrant before the Title of a King which a little time would give thee but let the Old Man who cannot live long enjoy the Royal Power and Dignity and do thou Administer under him and be content to wait a little while till thou mayest take upon thee the Title of King acording to the Law of Gizericus by doing this thou wilt please God and oblige me This Letter having no effect upon the Usurper he wrote again to this purpose I wrote my former Letter to thee hoping thou wouldst not persist to act contrary to my Advice but since thou art resolved to keep Possession of the Kingdom as thou hast acquired it take what will follow thereupon only send unto us Hildericus and Hoemer whose Eyes thou hast put out with his Brother Evagees that they may receive such Consolation from us the one for the loss of his Kingdom and the other for the loss of his sight as Men in their Condition are capable of It is in your power to do this if you do it quickly otherwise the confidence they have in Us will oblige Us speedily to help them nor will it be any infraction of the Peace which our Predecessors made with Gizericus for I shall not make War with one that is his Successor but avenge the injuries thou hast done But Gelimer was too Ambitious to make restitution and therefore Justinian sent his great General Balsarius to make War upon him in behalf of Hildericus the lawfull King but the first thing that Gelimer did after the Landing of Belisarius was to Murder Hildericus but God avenged his blood upon the Usurper whom Belisarius after some years War brought Captive to Constantinople where he cried out on the way as he was led to the Emperor Vanity of Vanities all is Vanity To this Testimony of a Christian Emperor I shall add another of a famous Heathen Prince Lycurgus King of Sparta who though he came lawfully to the Possession of the Crown yet refused to keep it longer than he was allow'd by Law as appears by the following Story which you may find in his Life written by Plutarch in the following words This Confusion and Disorder continued a long time in Sparta which occasion'd the death of the King the Father of Lycurgus for as he was endeavouring to quell a Riot in which the Parties were a fighting he was stab'd with a Cook 's Knife and left the Kingdom to his Eldest Son Polydectes but he too dying soon after the Right of Succession as all Men judged rested in Lycurgus and he Reigned untill it was perceived that the Queen his Sister in Law was with Child But as soon as this appear'd he declared that the Kingdom belonged to her Issue if it proved a Male and that he would administer the Government only as his Guardian and Regent Soon after a private offer was made him by the Queen that she would make her self miscarry upon condition he would Marry her when he was sure of the Crown He hated the Woman for this wicked Proposal yet wisely smothering his resentment he did not speak astainst it but seem'd to approve and accept it but diswaded her earnestly from making her self miscarry because it might endanger her Health or her Life assuring her that himself would take care that the Child as soon as it was born should be taken out of the way Thus having drawn on the Queen to the time of her Labour as soon as he heard she was in Travail he sent some to be present and observe the Birth with order that if it were a Girl they should deliver it to the Women but if a Boy they should bring it to him whatsoever he he happened to be a doing It happened that the Queen was delivered of a Boy while he was at Supper with the principal Magistrates and his Servants brought the Boy to him as he was at Table and he taking him into his Arms said to those about him Behold my Lords of Sparta here is your King and having said this he laid him down upon the Chair of State and named him Charilaus that is The Joy of the People because they were so much transported with Joy at the Birth of the young Prince and with Admiration at the Noble Mind and Justice of Lycurgus who I fear Doctor will rise up in Judgment against you and condemn you and your unrighteous Doctrine For though he had Providence on his side as much as ever Prince had yet he did not think the Providence of the Gods could give him a Right against the Laws of Nature and Sparta And therefore he became a Subject of a Sovereign and of a King a Regent because he could not justly wear a Crown which by the Law of his Countrey became another's and ceased to be his And to pass over other Kingdoms I will proceed to shew that there have been many Wise and Brave Men of that Opinion in our own I will begin with the Reign of Stephen who as Hoveden saith Invaded the Crown of England like a Tempest so that all the Nation was forced to
and Son of Impiety and Injustice Edmund the Great Earl of Kent with some other persons began to Conspire against them Which Q. Isabel who deserves the name of Jesabel perceiving privately encouraged the Keepers of her Husband to murder him but his Son coming to Maturity of Understanding avenged his blood on Mortimer his Mother's Minion and his Accomplices whom the Lords of Parliament with his assent adjudged and condemned to be executed as Traitors for murdering the King after he was deposed The Queen her self also had like to have been questioned and in the Roll 4 Edw. III. which gives an account of this matter he is stiled by all the Lords and the young King himself their King and Leige Lord. And in the 21 R. II. N. 64 65. the Revocation of the Act for the two Spencers Restitution in the Parliament of 1 Edward III. was repealed because made at such a time by King Edw. III. as his Father being very King was Living and Imprisoned These two Acts of Parliament Doctor do not at all agree with your Reasonings for the Providential King but they agree most exactly with the Reasonings of Some Men which you say contradicts the general sense of Mankind For as Mr. Pryn well observes they shew that Edw. II. was King de jure or King in the Eye of the Law as much after his Deposition as before it and by consequence that his Deposition by the Estates who had no Authority to Depose him was a void Act and if he was very King when he was in Prison and his Regnant Son's King and Leige Lord at the time of his murder as the aforesaid Acts declare him then Doctor I fear it will follow that a pure Providential K. in Possession is no King at all 11. But from this Usurpation let us pass to that of Henry IV. who was set up by Providence and the Estates of the Realm who took upon them to depose Richard II. and place Henry in his Throne But Henry being conscious to himself that he wanted Legal Right though he had all the Right that Providence could give him yet not daring to trust to such an airy Tite nor his false pretences of being the right Heir caused Richard to be murdered but between his Deposition and Murder Thomas Merks Bishop of Carlisle a Brave and Godly Prelate preferring his Duty before his Safety took the courage to make a Speech in Parliament against the Validity of Richard's Deposition and the Justice of Henry's Election and if you please Doctor to read this Speech as it is at large in our Historians you will find in spight of all your prejudice that he was a very Wise and Considering Man and entirely of these Mens Opinion and produced those Reasons for it which you say Contradict the general sense of Mankind in all Revolutions The first part of his Speech is to prove that a King may not be deposed by his Subjects for any imputation of negligence and Tyranny and to make this out clearly he brings an ugly Arbitrary distinction betwixt Kings in a Popular or Consular State which really have not Regal Rights but are subject to a Superior Power and Kings in whom the Sovereign Majesty is as it formerly was in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea c. and now is in the Kingdoms of England Spain France and Scotland c. in which the Sovereignty or Supream Authority is in the King After this distinction which Some among us now use he asserts that in such Kingdoms where the Sovereignty is by Law in the King although the Prince for his Vices be unprofitable to his Subjects yea hurtfull yea intollerable yet they cannot lawfully harm his Person or hazard his Power by Judgment or by Force because neither one nor all the Magistrates have any Authority over him from whom all Authority is deriv'd and whose only presence doth silence and suspend all inferior Jurisdictions and Power and as for force saith he what Subject can attempt assist or counsel or conceal Violence against his Prince and not incurr the high and heinous Crime of Treason Then he proceeds to prove this as you do in your Case of Non-resistance from Examples of Saul and Ahab in the Old Testament and many Texts of Scripture Then he proceeds to answer the great Objection thus Doth the King enjoyn Actions contrary to the Law of God We must neither wholly Obey nor violently Resist but with a constant courage submit our selves to all manner of Punishment and shew our subjection by enduring and not performing Oh how shall the World be pestered with Tyrants if Subjects may Rebel upon every pretence of Tyranny How many good Princes may be suppressed by those by whom they ought to be supported If they Levy a Subsidy or other Taxation it shall be claimed Oppression if they put any to Death for Traiterous attempts against their Persons it shall be exclaimed Cruelty if they do any thing against the lust and liking of the People it shall be proclaimed Tyranny Having shew'd as his words are that King Richard was deposed without Authority Then he proceeds to shew that Henry had no Title First Not as Heir to Richard which he pretended for then he ought to stay till King Richard was dead but then if K. Richard was dead it was well known there were Descendents from Lionel Duke of Clarence whose Offspring had been declared in the High Court of Parliament next Successor to the Crown in case K. Richard should die without Issue Secondly Not by Conquest because a Subject can have no right of Conquest against a Sovereign where the War is Rebellion and the Victory High Treason Nor thirdly by K. Richard's Resignation because he made it in Prison where it was exacted of him by force and therefore it had no force or validity to bind him Nor last of all by Election for saith he we have no Custom that the People at pleasure should Elect their King but they are always bound unto him who by Right of Blood is Rightfull Successor much less can they make good or confirm that Title which is before Usurped by violence Then he saith that the deposing of Edw. II. which the Barons produced for an Example to depose Richard was no more to be urged than the Poisoning of K. John or the Murdering any other lawful Prince and that we must live according to Laws and not according to Example and that the Kingdom however then was not taken from the lawfull Successor Then after saying many other things he concludes thus I have declared my mind concerning this Question in more words than your Wisdom yet fewer than the weight of the Cause requires and boldly conclude that we have neither Power nor Policy either to depose King Richard or to Elect Duke Henry into his Place and that K. Richard still remaineth our Sovereign Prince and that it is not lawfull for us to give Judgment upon him and that the Duke whom you call King
favour of him from the Oath of Allegiance which the People had made to him from divers Acts of Parliament whose Authority was laid against his Title from the Entail of the Crown made by the Parliament upon his Father and his Heir and lastly from his Grandfather's Claim to the Crown as right Inheretor from Henry III. which Richard proved to be false And here Doctor I cannot but observe unto you that among all the Pleas which Henry and his Counsellors made use of to defeat Richard's Title they never thought of your Divine Title from Providence being so infatuated as not to attend to the General Sense of Mankind Wherefore Doctor either your Principles of Government are not the general Sense of Mankind or this Providential King with his Privy-Council and Great Council in Parliament were all bewitch'd that they could not think of them to stop the Duke of York's Mouth He advised with the greatest Divines and with the greatest Men both among the Common and Civil Lawyers and yet not one of them suggested the Title of Providence or full Providential Possession but had they hit upon it and urged it Richard would have answered them as he did to their Plea taken from their Oaths viz. that God's Commandments which prefer Right and Truth and Justice and not the Events of Providence are the Rule for them to walk by and that all Acts of the Estates against Law Truth and Justice are void and of no effect The same is as true of all Possession against Law Truth and Justice let it come by never such amazing Providences and therefore Doctor either your Notion of Providential Right is not agreeable to the general sense of Mankind or else Henry and his whole Council were out of their Wits and common Senses not to perceive it but in truth Doctor it became the general Sense of Mankind only since the Victory of the Boyn made it become yours From this Judgment of the Parliament 39 Hen. VI. I send you to the Judgment of another 1 Edward IV. which after reciting the Lineal Title of Edward Son of Richard Duke of York from Lionel Duke of Clarence and declaring how Henry Darby did rear War against Richard II. contrary to his Faith and Allegiance 2dly That he took upon him Usurpously the Crown and Name of King King Richard being in Prison and living 3dly That against God's Law Man's Legiance and Oath of Fidelity and in a most unnatural Tyranny he put him to Death They then declare That Edward rightfully amoved Henry VI. from his Occupation Intrusion and Vsurpation of the Realm and that he and no other ought to be their Lord and Sovereign by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature and that Henry Darby called K. Hen. IV. his Son called K. Hen. V. and his Son called K. Henry VI. had against all Law Conscience and Custom of the Realm usurped the Crown and exercised the Government by unrighteous Intrusion and Vsurpation and if they did so then they had no Providential Divine Right I must also observe unto you that it was in this King's Reign that the distinction between the K. de facto to signifie the Usurper and the K. de jure to signifie the true legal K. was first used in Parliament and I appeal to your own Conscience if it be not yet feared whether that be an Arbitrary distinction and to be * XXIX p. 17 20. rejected as having no solid Foundation in Reason and Nature I will maintain that it hath as much Foundation in Reason and Nature as that famous distinction in the Civil Law betwixt Malae fidei and Bonae fidei Possessor But if your Reasons about Providential Right be true then this distinction also must be Arbitrary as to Possession of Kingdoms because no Man in full Possession can be Malae fidei Possessor of a Crown To these Authorities let me add those of the generality of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy of the late Usurpations They used the same distinction of Powers which you call Arbitrary the same reasoning which you call uncertain and were of the same Opinion which you say contradicts the general Sense of Mankind Dr. Sanderson whose Authority will be venerable and much greater than yours * Praelect V. is for that unchangeable Allegiance to the Legal K. out of Possession which you most prophanely call Stupid and Slavish Allegiance and in his Censure of Ashcham as one of your learned Answerers hath observed charges your Opinion with the these immoral Consequences 1. That it evidently tends to the taking away of all Christian Fortitude and Suffering 2. To the encouraging of daring and ambitious Spirits to attempt continual Innovations with this confidence that if they can possess themselves of the Supream-Power they ought to be submitted to 3. To the obstructing unto the Oppressed Party all possible means without a Miracle of recovering his just Right of which he shall have been illegally and unjustly dispossessed And lastly to the bringing in of Atheism and the contempt of God and Religion The Bishop of St. Asaph was very sensible of this last Consequence since he took the Oath for he told the A. B. with great Gravity and Seriousness That he could not but admire the Providence of God that so many took the Oath and some among whom saith he there are great and considerable Men have refused to take it for we saith he to my Lord who have taken the Oath have preserved our Religion from Popery and you who stand out preserve it from Atheism and if they do Doctor as you also once thought then their Opinion cannot contradict the general Sense that Mankind have of Right and Wrong I am sure the old Caviliers had the very same Sense that these Men to their sorrow have now for they both called Charles II. King and thought him to be so tho' he was out of Possession and out of the Land too Nay they took Commissions from him as King of England and sought for him as their King and not to make him so as you Sophistically speak in your * p. 27. first Letter concerning the French Invasion Nay the Convention that call'd him home call'd him in as King not to make him so and dated their first Session in the Twelfth year of his Reign which according to your Principles and Reasonings was but the First Mr. Pryn was one of the Members of it and his Sense and Opinion was point blank against yours as you may find at large in his * p. 463. to 498. Plea for the Lords and his Concordia Discors and I cite him because it was his studied Opinion and the Practice of his latter years was according to it as appears also from a Paragraph or two in his Preface to Cotton's Abridgment which I here declare I produce against no Person nor no Authority but yours That all Parliaments and Ambitious Self-seekers in them who under pretence of a Publick Reformation Liberty the Peoples
that Right be in the 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 From these Men whom you did not know I proceed to some of your Acquaintance and I hope Doctor you will not take it ill to hear them speak The first shall be Dr. Stillingfleet now Bp. of Worcester who is reputed a wise and considering Man and Writer that did not use to write Contradictions to the general Sense of Mankind and yet in several places of his * Vid. p. 58 80 81 83 85. Grand Question he hath asserted that several Acts of Parliament made by Edward III. in his Father's life time and by Henry IV. were null and void because they were Usurpers or in your Language Providential but not Legal Kings And in his Sermon before the Commons Novemb. 13. 71. He tells them that Providence doth not found any Right of Dominion but onely shews that when God pleases to make use of persons as Scourges he gives them Success above their hopes but Success gives them no Right The next is Dr. Burnet who in the first Part of the History of the Refarmation speaks of Henry IV. as a Traitor and Usurper and how doubtfully he speaks of Providence in his Sermon before the Prince at St. James's you may remember as well as I. The third is Dr. Comber who as I hear confesseth that he and others went too far but however I that think the Doctor as good an Author before as since the Revolution will not balk his Authority especially since he hath retracted nothing publickly and he saith on the Collect for the King That his Friends are our Friends and his Enemies our Enemies for whoever attempts to smite the Sheepherd seeks to destroy the Sheep and he is a mortal Foe to the whole Nation I know nothing so common with Rebels and Usurpers as to pretend Love to those they would stir up against their lawfull Prince but it appears to be Ambition and Covetousness in the latter end and such Persons design to rise by the fall of many thousands Or if Religion be the ground of the Quarrel besides our late sad Experience Reason will tell us that War and Faction Injustice and Cruelty can never lodge in those Breasts where that pure and peaceable Quality doth dwell If it be a foreign Prince that opposeth our King he is a Robber and unjust to invade his Neighbour's Rights If he be a Subject who riseth against his Sovereign he hath renounced Christianity with his Allegiance and is to be esteemed a troubler of our Israel Therefore whosoever they be that are Enemies to the King or whatsoever the pretence be we wish they may never prosper in that black Impiety of unjust Invasion or unchristian Rebellion How like a Saint and an excellent Casuist doth the Doctor write here but how this agrees with his Speeches Letters and Actions since the Insurrection at York Time and Opportunity of Printing will shew The fourth is Dr. Tennison who had occasion to consider your Doctrine long before it was yours in his Book entituled the Creed of Mr. Hobbs examined In his Epistle dedicatory to that Book saith he Mr. Hobbs hath framed a Model of Government pernicious in its consequence to all Nations and injurious to the Right of his present Majesty for he taught the People soon after the Martyrdom of his Royal Father that his Title was extinguished when his Adherents were subdued and that the Parliament had the Right for this very reason because it had Possession And in Art 8. p. 156. first Edit It is not for you to pretend to Loyalty who place Right in Force and teach the People to assist the Usurper with active Compliance against a dispossessed Prince and not merely to live at all adventure in his Territories without owning the Protection by unlawfull Oaths or by running into Arms against the dethron'd Sovereign And p. 157. I say then again that you give Encouragement to Usurpers and also when Civil Disorders are on foot as it happens too frequent in all States you hereby move such People as are yet on the side of their lawfull Prince whose Affairs they see declining streightway to join themselves to the more prosperous Party and help to overturn those Thrones of Sovereignty to which a while before they prostrated themselves The People thus mis-instructed will imitate those Idolatrous Heathens who for some years worshipped a Goddess made fast unto a Tree but assoon as the Tree began by Age and Tempest to appear decaying they paid no farther devotion to their Deity neither would they come within the shadow of the Oak or Image You see Doctor how this Author wrote then against Hobbs just as some among Vs write now against you and as well as you are acquainted with him yet I believe he would swell as big at you as at the sight of any Jacobite if you should tell him that the most sober and considering Men rejected his Reasonings as contradictory to the general sense of mankind The last Authority Doctor is your Great and Dear Self who not long since was a Man of those Reasonings and that Opinion by which some among our selves have the impudence since you were of another Judgment to contradict the general sense of Mankind I shall not trouble you with a review of your Writings before the Revolution but take you as you were almost two years after it whilst you were under the stupid Dispensation of slavish Loyalty nor as yet had discover'd the Mysteries of Providence but were as zealous as any of these Men to deferd Laws and legal Rights against the Events of it but whether factiously or not factiously as you * Vindic. p. 79 80. pretend some matters of Fact will shew I shall not insist on the half Sheet you published at the sitting down of the Convention against making the P. of Orange King but onely observe that then you supposed the Throne to be full and asserted That the Estates then convened could not give him the Crown because it was not theirs to give A little after this you wrote the Answer to Dr. Burnet's Enquiry which I mentioned before in which you assert in opposition to the Doctor that King James was a King not by governing well but by Birth right and could no more cease to be King by governing ill than a Traitor or a Rebel cease to be a Subject And this you proved from the paternal Relation of a Father who never cease to be a Father how great a Tyrant soever he be You also challenged the Doctor there to shew you any Law of God or our Country which upon any Cause dissolves our Allegiance and asserted that the Descent of the Crown must be governed by the Laws of the Land I must here tell the Reader that this Answer of yours was never published lest he should lose his labour in
enquiring after it for though it was printed yet whether at Xantippe's Instance or any other Cause of Fear you suppressed all the Coppies but two which happened to get abroad and one of those fell into my Hands After this on the 8th of April following you went to a learned Gentleman to persuade him not to be present at the Coronation and though their Majesties had been recognized by the Estates and were then in full Providential Possession yet you told him you had rather take the Oath twenty times than bear a part in it But about the beginning of May after you wrote a Discourse for taking the Oaths entituled The Lawfulness of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary stated upon the strictest Principles of Church of England Loyalty and after you had finished it you sent it as I understand by a Letter from the West to Dr. Bu by which I understand Dr. Burnet but that Discourse plainly supposing the Government to be an Vsurpation and that Non-resistence was reserved as a Duty to King James from whom it could not be suspended it was not thought fit to be published This Book was seen and perused by many particularly two or three Clergymen at Tunbridge in August following said they had read it But to doe you Justice Doctor before this you did all you could to suppress it because it would not hold but it was now too late to attempt the suppression of it for Copies had got abroad into several Hands and I have one of them at your Ladies Service who I suppose was not against writing of it Upon Conviction this Paper would not hold then you grew very warm against the Oath for in the latter end of June or beginning of July you affirmed that the taking of it was not onely a recognizing but making the P. of Orange King as yet then Providence had not made him so adding that though you could actually forbear assisting King James yet you could not swear never to assist him that being not consistent with an Acknowledgment of his Right and that the more you thought of the Oath the worse you liked it and would have nothing to doe with it Remember this good Doctor and then consider if it doth not become a Man that said and did such things then to rant and swagger against some among our selves now It was now about this time that you were in the highth of your Fevour against the Government and the Oaths which discovered it self by many Symptomes upon several occasions When you first heard the News of a Fast which happened to be at your House in the Temple How a Fast said you I 'll warrant you we shall have dainty Prayers Prayers said Dr. Sharp that I am more affraid of than the Oaths And what Must we have Sermons too I 'll give them a Sermon that they shall not thank me for and accordingly you did so Your Text I remember was The Lord is a Man of War the Lord of Hosts is his Name and then you preached contrary point blank to what you have since printed and the drift of your Discourse was so plainly levelled against the Government and the Intention of the day that you gave great Offence to their Majesties good Subjects who filled the Town with Complaints against you but you valued not that but was pleased with it delighting to give some among us an account of what you had preached and how you had met with them About this time also you wrote a Discourse against taking the Oaths which you shewed to a Learned and Reverend Divine on the 29th of July I suppose it was your Letter to Dr. Williams whose Answer to it you despised as Stuff that did not deserve a Reply though one who saw it saith you stole your Argument from Jaddus and other things out of it which you have put in your Case of Allegiance In August out comes the first part of the History of Passive Obedience which you caressed into the World and were so taken with it that you went to a very learned Man who since became your Antagonist to pray him to write a Sheet of Conclusions not against some but against other men upon the Doctrines and Principles collected in it and that he might not mistake your design you left it in writing with him and he still hath the Original in the following Words The Doctrine of Nonresistance and Passive Obedience is founded on an irresible Authority consider then what are the Rights of an irresistible Authority and what the Duties of Passive Obedience 1. The Rights of Sovereign and irresistible Authority are that he cannot forfeit his Crown that he cannot be judged or deposed by his Subjects and Abdication and Desertion are but other names for this and therefore when once King he is always so till Death or voluntary or legal Resignation 2. Nonresistence does not onely signifie not to fight against the King but 1. That upon no pretence we must renounce his Right 2. We must never set his Crown upon another's Head 3. We must not transfer our Allegiance to another In this Month also dyed the Bp. of Chichester of everlasting Memory to whom as a Person of Honor can testifie you went about four or five days before he dyed to move him to make his Declaration About the same time you sent a Paper to Oxford against taking the Oath I have forgot the Title of it but I remember a passage in it to this purpose That as Usurpers seize upon the Lands and Houses and Fortifications of the King for their own use and turn them to their own Service against Law so against Law they seize upon the Laws themselves and use them against their first Intention to their own Service and the destruction of the King and his faithfull Subjects for whose defence they were made About the beginning of September you wrote an Apology for the Nonswearers which you designed for your Masterpiece and in December following a malitious Pamphlet coming out against the Bishops entituled A Letter out of the Countrey c. you began an Answer to it in defence of them but staying out too long where you wrote it Mrs. Satan and Sherlock took you to task and succeeded so well as to make you confess where you had been and about what and then it was no great Conquest to make you send for your Papers by six a Clock next morning and offer them as an Holocaust to atone her displeasure In all this time that you were so warm and zealous against the Oath you helped to disperse the few small Pamphlets that were printed against taking of it and expressed much trouble that others that were larger could not get abroad particularly you were very zealous for Printing The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession which you then thought an admirable Piece and upon all occasions you were wont to express your Affection and Duty to King James and your
as this wherein loose Principles make loose Practices so that you will find very few Men of strict or if you please Doctor of stupid and slavish Vertue In particular if you please to look about I believe you will find almost as few men of stupid and slavish Sobriety or stupid and slavish Chastity as of stupid and slavish Loyalty Nay if the general Complaints be true there are but very few of stupid and slavish Justice and Honesty For why should a Man of Honour as the Cardinal said be a Slave to his Word or to his Oath either especially of late Dr. Tillotson's Serm. of Hell-Torments since we can hardly tell how to reconcile the eternal Misery of Hell with the Justice and Goodness of God who notwithstanding all his Threatenings of it in Scripture is free to doe what he pleases But this Doctor doth not belong to you but to some of those Nine Men who you told * In a Letter to a Friend containing some Queries about the New Commission for making Alterations in the Liturgy Canons c. of the Church of England sent to the Press by Dr. Sherlock and published a little before the first Sitting of the Convocation us not long before you took the Oath had Latitude enough to conform to a Church de facto which had Power on its side and Tenderness and Moderation enough to part with any thing but their Church Preferments When you were at the Writing of that Letter †p 5. the A. Bp. and other Bishops and Clergymen under Suspension were as eminent for a prudent and well tempered Zeal as for their constant Loyalty but now their well tempered Zeal though not one degree altered from its Temper is factious and their constant Loyalty stupid and slavish Allegiance and what else you will hereafter be pleased to call it or them 13. Having now I hope vindicated the Opinions and Reasonings of some among our selves from Singularity and Novelty by shewing that they do not contradict the general Sense of Mankind but are the very Sense of the wisest and best part of it I come now to examine what you say for I cannot call what you say Arguments against them p. 15. who as you tell the World withdraw from our Communion because we pray for K. William and Q. Mary but they say and I fear are able to prove it too that it is you that have withdrawn from them and their Communion and that the Schism and the causes of it is in you and not in them But to let that pass you assert that St. Paul in your Text makes no difference of Kings but that they do but I tell you Sir that they make as little difference as St. Paul for they grant that he commands us to pray for all Kings but then they say that the Usurpers of Kingdoms as long as they remain so are not Kings nor within the Intention of your Text. But you tell us they say That St. Paul means only Lawful and Rightful Kings it is true they do say so but then they also say that there are no Kings but what are Lawful or have the Legal Right and that all others exercising the Kingly Power in any Kingdom against Law are onely called Kings as Idols are called Idols but are not true Kings You tell us again the Commandment is general to pray for Kings and they say so too but then they tell you that this doth not bind them to pray for Usurpers who call themselves Kings and are so called by those who set them up against Law but are not so But then you think you ask them a very confounding Question though they have answered it an hundred times before viz. Whether there is any such Distinction as this in Scripture that we must not pray for all Kings but onely for Legal Kings To this they answer that all Kings in the nature of the thing and in Scripture intendment are Legal Kings as all Husbands and Wives in the sense of the Scriptures are Husbands and Wives by lawful Wedlock though an Adulterer may sometimes usurp the Name of a Husband as did the pretended Husband of the Samaritan Woman whom our Saviour told her for that reason was not her Husband And as the Duty of Wives to their Husbands commanded by the Apostle is in no danger by asserting that they must not be subject to any but Rightful Husbands So neither to answer your trifling Question are Subjects in any danger of being delivered from the Duty in your Text of praying for Kings by teaching that we must pray for none but lawful Kings But then you tell us that this distinction of lawful Kings from Kings that are not lawful * p. 17. is Arbitrary and that it hath no †p. 20. solid Foundation in Reason and Nature but they have told you over and over that it is a Real and no Arbitrary distinction founded upon the common Notions of Right and Wrong Truth and Falshood and that it is a distinction not of a thing from it self which is Arbitrary but of a thing from what it is not and that it is as necessary for Subjects to make this distinction between Kings as for Children and Wives to distinguish betwixt lawful and unlawful Husbands and Fathers or Clergy-men to distinguish between Canonical and Uncanonical Bishops or to distinguish in Religion between the true God and Idols who are worshipped in the stile of Gods And therefore to come to your Latria and Dulia to which you foolishly compare this distinction p. 1◠they return it upon you and say that the Scriptures appropriate the Allegiance of Subjects of which praying is a part to lawful Kings but that you are more than a Papist in Politicks because you are for giving away not only Dulia or half Allegiance but Latria or the whole Allegiance Ibid. from True to Idol-Kings And then as for avoiding the Duty of the Fifth Commandment by the Vow Corban which you misapply to them that returns upon your self for they have shew'd you again and again in their Answers that that Commandment directs the Duty of it to true and lawful both natural and civil Parents and have made it appear that you are one of the Pharisees who have endeavoured to make that and other Commandments of none effect by giving the Name of Kings to pure Providential Usurpers though they are no more Kings by possessing the lawful Kings Throne than Idols are Gods by possessing the Temple of the true God Idols have all the Ensigns of Divinity as you say the other have of Majesty and by God's own Providence come to be invested with all the Religious Rights and Ceremonies of the true God and often happen to be worshipped and recognized for Gods by the People and Estates of Idolatrous Realms but for all that they are but abominable Idols that ought to be thrown down and broken in pieces and the more cursed and abominable by
Bishop aaa Chronology about Jaddus from him and he 'll help you out in both alike And in the mean time Doctor take this with you That your pure Providential King in Policy are no better than counterfeit Medals in Antiquity or Bristol-stones among Diamonds they shew and glister like Kings but are not Kings but Usurpers And the distinction between them and Kings by the help of the Word lawful or unlawful is as real and natural as that of the Nummists between real and forged Medals or that of the Jewellers between true and false Diamonds or that of all the World between true and counterfeit Silver and Gold It is the Appearance of Things without Reality that is the Ground of this distinction and to discover real from apparent true from false and right from wrong in the moral and natural World makes these distinctions useful that otherwise would be useless and when Authors do not use them in speaking of Things they are supposed to speak of real true and right things of every kind and not of things of another Nature that for some shew likeness or false Pretensions are called by their Names You think you speak finely when you say it is matter of Sense to know who is King because a Man may see who administers the Government by Regal Authority But if it be matter of Sense Doctor how came you to lose your Senses so long And what made you so blind that you could not see it when other Men did This shews Doctor that it is not matter of Sense but of Reason for Sense can onely perceive the supream external Force that is administred in any Kingdom but to discern the Right or Authority to exercise the supreme Force of Power which makes a King is the work of Reason because Authority is a moral Quality as hath been * c. ch 20. excellently proved to you of which Reason and Conscience is Judge O but then say you it must be a matter of Wit p. 18. or Law or Philosophy to know who is King It is so Doctor but of no more Wit Law and Philosophy than every common Understanding hath and no more than is needful to know who is Husband Entituled The Resurrection of Loyalty and Obedience out of the Grave of Rebellion by the sacred Force of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance Printed for Will. Shears in Bedford street near Covent-Garden at the blue Bible and inscribed to Gen. Monk or Master of any Family or Parson of any Parish or Mayor of any Corporation The World knows saith an excellent little Book who it is that the Law and Custome of this Nation states to be the Heir and Successor of the King even the eldest Son of the Predecessor In truth Doctor there is no difficulty in it there is not a Countrey Fellow in any Kingdom but knows by what Title the Crown is held and in an hereditary Kingdom there is no great need of Wit or Law or Philosophy to know the Royal Family and the next Heir in it But you have had enough of this in your learned Answerers and none but a Man that is desperate and past blushing would preach the same Stuff again P. 19. especially before such an Audience when he knew he could not defend what he said But you tell us you will not dispute the Matter and the Reason is plain because you cannot dispute it though you are one of the Disputers of this World your Adversaries having put the Controversie beyond all reasonable Dispute But if you will not dispute it why should you meddle any more with it Or is it because you are a great Man and a great Rabbi that ought not to dispute with such little Writers 14. Well but though you will not dispute them yet you 'l vouchsafe to chatechise them Ibid. and ask them some hard Questions about Certainty And before I answer for them I must beg leave Doctor tho' of late you do not love distinctions to distinguish about Certainty and I hope it is no arbitrary distinction that hath no Foundation in Reason and Nature Certainty then Doctor is of two sorts absolute of which no doubt can possibly be made and against which there lies no Objection or such which though it be not free from all doubts and Objections yet it is such as the nature of the Thing will bear and such as command a firm assent of the Mind without doubting of the truth of what it believes The first is a Mathematical or Metaphysical Certainty and with this absolute mathematical and metaphysical Certainty you and I and all the World are sure that two and two make four and that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time The second is moral Certainty which results from Reasons on one side in every Matter and Question that visibly preponderate the Reasons on the other and so commands the Assent of a Man's Understanding that he hath either no doubt or very weak ones of the truth of the thing which he believes This indeed is a sort of Certainty inferior to the other but yet such a one as you and I and all Men have of most of the things of which we are certain as that there was such a Man as Moses and upon this sort of Certainty and no other we make no doubt of venturing our Lives and Estates in this World and our Souls in the next I presume Doctor you will allow this for a good distinction and if you do then with submission I must ask you Which Certainty do you mean in the Questions you have put to these Men. I dare say you do not mean the former for some ill Consequences I need not mention but if the latter then Dr. for once permit one of the little Writers to shew you the Folly and Vanity of this way of arguing in Questions about Certainty from a few Questions of the same Nature Are you certain then that your Text is the Words of St. Paul or that they were written by divine Inspiration Are you certain that there are there Persons in the holy Trinity That there is such a Continent as America Or to jest and argue together are you certain that your Priests Orders are valid that your Marriage with your incomparable Lady was lawfull or that your Children are your own The answering these Questions Dr. will help to convince you to what little purpose you put so many of the same nature about Certainty however I will answer them in order To the first then they say that they are as certain that by all Powers Rom. 13.1 the Apostle only means such as have legal Right and Title to Power as they are that he expresly teaches that all Power is of God But 2. They also say that tho' they were not so certain which is not necessary yet they are so certain of it as that they make no doubt of it and venture their All here and hereafter upon the truth
of it Your second Question they say agrees not with your first nor with the design of your Sermon For when you ask them whether they are as certain that it is unlawful to pray for Kings legally invested c. as they are that the Apostle commands us to pray for Kings they say that according to your Hypothesis the questoin ought to be put of Kings illegally invested with the Royal Power and then they answer that illegal Kings cannot be legally invested and as certain that it is as unlawful to pray for illegal Kings as they are that the Apostle commands us to pray for Kings and all that are in Authority and likewise add as before to the Answer of the first Question In your third they observe that you call the lawful King 's Right a supposed Right whereas the providential King 's Right is merely so but the lawful King out of Possession hath according to your state of the Controversie a real Right to possess and to recover Possession if he can and therefore if they could wonder at you for any thing they say they should wonder why you call it a supposed Right And in order to answer the question as they are a distinguishing sort of Men so they distinguish about Estates of the Realm and they say they are of three sorts 1. Estates that are always free 2. Estates that are sometimes free And 3. Estates that are never free The first are Sovereign Estates as the Estates of Rome formerly were and those of Venice now are in whom the supreme Authority is lodged and all Persons in their Dominions are subject to them and they are subject unto none The second are the Estates of Elective Kingdoms where there is an Interregnum of Freedom to chuse a new King in as in Poland and some other Kingdoms And the third are the Estates of Hereditary Kingdoms where by Law there is no Interregnum but the last moment of one King's Reign is the first of another and where by consequence all Ranks and Orders of Men are constantly subject even as constantly as if they had but one immortal or never dying King This distinction being premised they answer in Thesi that they are certain that it is the Duty of Subjects to adhere to the legal Right and him that hath it in opposition to an unlawful King put into the Throne by subject and unfree Estates that have no Authority Right or Liberty to make Kings because the Law hath always Kings ready made for them to whom they ought to be subject I say they are certain nay as certain that it is the Duty of Subjects whatever they suffer by it to adhere to the legal Right in such a Case as they are that it is our duty to pray for Kings And then to your last Question they answer that they are as certain that the Roman Powers or Emperors were legal and rightful Powers when the Apostle wrote as that he commanded the Christians to be subject to them and pray for them For they were placed in the Throne by free Estates who had Authority to place them there but you more like a Sophister than a Preacher of Truth take no notice of this plane distinction as if the Estates of all Kingdoms were alike free and Sovereign These Men say you p. 18. will pray for no Kings unless they be legal Kings tho' they have all the Ensigns of Majesty and are invested with the legal Authority and Power with all the legal and customary Rights and Solemnities of Investiture and are acknowledged and recognized by the Estates of the Realm These are fine words Dr. but did you never hear of Realms where Kings are Kings without any Ensigns of Majesty before the Solemnitie of Coronation of Realms where the King quatenus King never dyeth and by consequence where the Estates are always subject to the King and have no Interregnum of Freedom of Realms where for the aforesaid Reason the King is said to demise when he departs this Life and where the King is crowned because he is King and not King because he is crowned Fie Dr. fie I am ashamed of your Ignorance if you have lived among Lawyers so long and not know these things or of something worse than that if you knew them and suppress them because they did not suit with you Providential Scheme I have now Dr. answered your Questions plainly and perhaps more plainly than you desired but to shew you and the Worshipful Bench how much you dare impose upon them I must ask you the same questions the same proper questions about degrees of Evidence and Certitude p. 20. Come therefore Dr. sublime seraphick irrefragable Dr. for once vouchsafe to answer a poor little Writer who humbly desires to know 1. Whether you are as certain that by all Powers Rom. 13.1 the Apostle means Powers that have no legal Right and Title as well as Powers that have legal Right and Title and prosecute that Right as you are that he expresly teaches that all Power is of God 2. Whether you are as certain that it is lawful to pray for unlawful Kings who have no legal Right to the Power which they exercise as you are that the Apostle commands us to pray for Kings and all that are in Authority 3. Whether you are as certain that it is the Subjects duty to adhere to a supposed Providential Right against the Laws of the Realm and in opposition to the lawful King and his Right as you are that it is our duty to pray for Kings 4. Are you as certain that the Roman Powers when the Apostles wrote were illegal and usurping Powers which you affirm as you are that St. Paul commanded Christians to be subject to them and to pray for them These Dr. are your own Questions and doubtless you can answer them better than any other Man but when you think fit to do so let me entreat you not to perplex the Controversie of Right and legal Right with the Word antecedent as you have done in your Sermon 4 or 5 times merely to amuze your Readers and fill them with Prejudice against these Men as if they would own no Man for King but such as comes to the Administration of the Sovereign Power with an antecedent Right But this Dr. is a great and I fear a wilful mistake of yours for provided that he that hath the actual Administration of Government hath a legal Right to it it is all one to them whether it be an antecedent concomitant or consequent Right Right or legal Right is the thing that they look after in him that hath the Sovereign Power and that alone which can lay the Obligation of Obedience upon Men's Consciences and command Subjection from them Sovereign Power how providentially soever it is attained is but Sovereign Force and Tyranny without it and to speak in logical Strictness King is a name of Law and Right and assoon as a Man hath the Right which the
Law gives to Sovereign Power he is King and King no sooner than he hath that Right I have now answered every thing in your Sermon relating to the Controversie concerning Kings and I here declare that I have onely defended the Principles and Reasonings of your Adversaries against you but if they be mistaken in Law and misapply them and this to the wrong Object let them answer themselves for their Mistake My design and business is only to rescue your Text and that in Rom. 13.1 and the Duties there commanded from the mere Providential to the Legal King but if those Men have so little Wit Law or Philosophy nay so little common Sense as of two Pretenders to the Crown at any time not to know which hath the legal Title their Mistake may prove fatal but I have nothing to doe with that I am sure Dr. you have done their Majesties much Disservice by awarding the legal Right from them and giving them instead of it an airy Title by Providence which Athaliah Absolom and Cromwel had and every prosperous Usurper can pretend to and I am confident had they been rightly informed of the nature of your Principle and of that loose and fickle and worthless Allegiance which Princes only get by it they would have had your Case of Allegiance censured as it deserves and instead of preferring you had punished you as the underminer of their Throne I am certain had you wrote and preached so in any of the former Protestant Raigns you would have been severely censured and punished by the Laws of Church and State and if as you tell us the Revolution hath made no Alteration in Government it is not yet too late to bring you to condign Punishment 15. I thought I should have made an end but finding some other Passages in your Sermon upon which the Reader may expect I should make some Reflections I cannot well pass them over First then I cannot but animadvert upon the great and undecent Liberty you take of speaking of the FRENCH KING in this and almost all your Sermons whereas in France that Antichristian Tyrant as you modestly call him will not suffer the greatest of his Clergy to bring so much as a railing Accusation against their Majesties or meddle with their Administration as you and the Bp. of St. Asaph and I know not how many more presume to do with his But who made you Judges over him He is God's Minister and God's annointed Servant and who art thou that judgest another Man's Servant To his own Master he standeth or falleth And what have you to doe to impeach him of Tyranny Persecution and Oppression Do you know the reasons of his Actions or can you tell what may be said to justifie or excuse the worst thing that he ever did You told Dr. Burrnet at Ely-house when he spoke reproachfully of King James that Crowned Heads ought not to be so treated but now Dr. you make no difficulty of treating the greatest of Crowned Heads at a much worse rate tho' he is God's ordinance on a double account both as a Legal and Providential King One would think to read in what a losty and insolent manner you speak of him that you were your self IMP. PON. MAX. or some great Prophet that had received Commission from Heaven to arraign Kings Certainly there is something very extraordinary in you something very divine or very diabolical that of late you have a Mouth given you speaking Blasphemies against Kings and against a King who has as many and great Vertues as any King in the World * f. s p. 10 11 12. Persecutor Oppressor Enslaver of Mens Bodies and Souls Tyrant and antichristian Tyrant This Dr. sounds like the Language of the Beast not of a Minister of the Church of England it runs in the Style of an Excommunication Bull and as you are as great as the Pope in your own Opinion so you have learnt to huff and hector Kings But what are you thus to take upon you You who but the other day were digging in Gravel-lane for Bread to what an height are you come from almost nothing and a Conventicle to defie Crowned Heads But we know from whence all this comes even from a most servile Spirit that cares not what it saith or doth so it humor the Times and please the People Of this no man hath been more guilty than you and I will give you and the World an instance of it Sometimes Liberty and Indulgence to Dissenters were in vogue and sometimes not and accordingly you watcht the Opportunities and wrote pro and con on it on both sides You were for it in your Preface to your Religious Assemblies and you were against it in your Answer to Whitby and your Reflexions upon the Plot but for it again in your Sermon before the Ld. Mayor a little before the Revolution and I doubt not but another Crisis would make you once more against it From this Time-serving and Self-seeking Principle it comes that the French K. is made the common place of Satyr in your and other such Clergy-mens Sermons He hath taken the part of K. James and that makes him so great a Tyrant but had he been against him and the Confederate Power for him then they had been the Tyrants and Oppressors and he that is now a Nero a Dioclesian had then been a most excellent Prince How many Declamations had Dr. Sherlock by this time made for him and against them if he had been our Allie and his victorious Legions employed in our Service Then we had heard again from the Pulpits the old Philippicks against Spain and the Inquisition the Pulpits would have rung then with Invectives against the Pope the Emperor and the Hungarian Persecutions and we should have been told again of Amboyna and all the Injuries and Insults of the Dutch But as the Case now stands nothing must be said against them the French K. is the only Antichrist and all the Tyrants in Europe a very Devil in humane shape Well Dr. you know many men have made Speeches in praise of the Plague and Famine and Tyrants and therefore for once let us defend a Paradox and try what may be said for Busiris or rather for the Hercules of France You tell us he invades the Liberties of Europe but I protest that is News to me for I never heard before that he made War with Europe Sweden Denmark Poland Switzerland Italy and Russia as I take it are all in Europe but I hear them not complain of him for usurping on their Liberties or pretend to have any Reprisals to make upon him Besides Dr. I am not able to understand what are the Liberties of Europe and desire to know where they are or in what Code or Charter one may find them If Europe have any Liberties it must be a Community but I never read of the Community of Europe tho' I have of that of Asia which was a Community of 13 Cities in
Dutch and the Dutch as our Friends and Allies And by consequence it would be false Logick and a foul Reflexion upon some to say that they invited the Dutch to conquer us Well but your meaning is that you wonder that any English Protestants should invite the French to place King James in his Throne again For my part I know no such English Protestants as invite the French upon any score but Have you not left King James the legal Right to the Throne And do not you allow him to prosecute it and recover it if he can And doth not the Law from which as you grant he hath his Right to prosecute and recover permit him also to seek Aid from the French as well as from the Dutch or Spaniards And I dare say if these would bring him in it would be all one to him and to you too Ay but the French are Papists And was not the last Pope but one a Papist And was not S privately sent to him and did not he send a Nuncio privately hither And are not the Spaniards Inquisition-Papists Or did the French ever do so base a thing as to say they were French and no Christians or have they not as much natural Humanity as any other men But they are arbitrary Masters But what have we to doe with them as Masters And do not those that have to doe with them find them as good Masters as some find their Neighbours And come Doctor tell me plainly would you not accept of Help from the French if you stood in need of it Nay Would you not onely accept of it but be very glad of it too And therefore can you blame your old Master if he seeks for Help from France since you to recover much less than Three Kingdoms would doe the same thing If he had choice of Assistance you might have some colour to blame him for accepting of French Help and be angry with those who consider the French as his Allies But here Doctor lies the Secret of your Displeasure It is not the French as French or any other thing but as King James's Friends and Allies that you and other Men hate them You are affraid of him and would hate the Dutch as well as the French if they were his Friends And the reason why you hate him is not that he is popish or arbitrary but because if he recover his Throne you will lose your Chair This Doctor is the hidden but true Resource of all the Venom you disgorge upon him and the French You know you have sinned beyond 〈…〉 like the Trumpeter in the * In Sir Roger L'Estrange's Aesop's Fables Fable which with the Reflexion upon it I recommend to your 〈…〉 could you have been secured of Pardon and more Preferment upon his Restoration I believe you would never have written your two Letters against the French Invasion nor have done the part of Shimei and Milton against him as you have lately done It is observed for your Honour that neither you nor the other Pamphietiers preach'd or published one word against him before our late Victory over the French Fleet and I am confident if they had been victorious the World had never seen your Temple Sermon nor Letters nor the Pretences of the French Invasion examined by that or any other hand On the contrary we should have had Books and Sermons of another make and to another Tune from the same Quarter and Apologies for King James and the most arbitrary of his Proceedings upon those very Topicks from which p. 23 24 25 26. you shew in three particulars how needfull it is to pray for Kings I would to God Doctor you would seriously read them over again and apply them to your old Master and if you will doe so I heartily pray God that while you read and so apply them he would pour out upon you the Spirit of Prayer and Supplication that you may look upon him whom you have pierced and mourn for him and all the Evils you have done against him as one mourneth for his onely Son The last thing I observe is a Contradiction of what you say p. 27. by what you say in p. 29. In the former place you truly tell us That No Prince can take our Religion from us if we resolve to keep it but they may disturb the Quiet and peaceable Enjoyment of it which was the state of the Church under the Heathen and persecuting Emperours This Doctor looks like something spoken by the Author of Christian Prudence or one of those Men who distinguish between Religion and the Externals of Religion to shew the Fallacies and Dis-ingenuity of others that will not distinguish between our Religion and the Peace Profit and Honours which by Law attend the Profession and Administration of it But then you forget your self again and run into this modish Fallacy in the latter place where you tell us That we owe our Religion to K. William which cannot be true if King James could not take it from us as indeed he could not let him have done the worst you can imagine if we had had the Faith and Constancy of the Church under the persecuting Emperours Had we followed their blessed Example no Persecution could have hurt our Religion but like the Persecutions in primitive Times would have made it more august and venerable and established it for ever whereas it is now evil spoken of for your sakes and seems to be drawing on to a fatal End in Theism Atheism Schisms Heresies and Enthusiasm and an utter Contempt of the Clergy of which you have as much reason to be sensible as any other Man But what need I to observe this Contradiction in you who have contradicted your self so often that it will take up a great part of your Time and Thoughts to 〈…〉 view and censure your own Writings and finally 〈…〉 what you will stand to and what you 〈…〉 and what you will have put in the collection of your Works and what you will have left out of it I know this is no acceptable Work to a great and haughty Writer but Doctor it is a Work necessary to be done and comfort gour self with the Example of the great St. Augustin and set about it presently while it is called day lest the Night come upon you when you cannot work You are bound in Honour and Conscience to do it and the World expects it from you and will censure you when you are dead if you leave it undone Consider therefore Doctor which of your contradictory Pieces is fit to stand in the Collection of your Works to declare your last Opinion of things Must the Old Case of Nonresistence or the New Case of Allegiance make part of them Will you stand by your Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ and our Vnion and Communion with him and the Defence and Continuation of that discourse or will you stand by the Discourse concerning the Nature Vnity and Communion of the Catholick Church which Dr. Clegget told you was a flat Contradiction to the two former and which you have been told again and again the Dissenters make ill use of against the Church of England Shall your Sermons before or your Sermons since you took the Oath make part of that Collection By which of your two Faces will you be represented to Posterity the Face that looks backward before your Apostacy or the Face that looks forward since you Apostatized from your Principles And will you finally stand to your Tritheistical Notion of the Trinity which hath so exposed you to the Arrians and Socinians or will you retract it These are things Doctor that will require your most mature and serious Thoughts and God grant that you may so determine about them as may be most for his Glory the Honour of the Church of England and that of your own Memory in Ages to come Amen FINIS ERRATA IN the Dedication page 1. line ult after give insert the Pope In the Contents § 7. l. 2. for is r. was § 18. l. 4. for view r. review In the Book p. 1. l. 14. after believe dele the Semi colon p. 2. l. 39. after as it was put a Comma p. 5. l. 39. l. by r. in p. 12. l. 26. r. reveal l. 29. after for r. the Prayers of p. 13. l. 40. r. persist p. 14. l. 14. r. Belisarius p. 19. l. 20. r. Moubray p. 22. l. 12. for feared r. seared l. 23. r. will ever be p. 34. l. 19. l. Idols r. Gods and for Kings r. Gods p. 36. l. 5. r. to the Discretion l 36. r. CONSTANTIAL p. 37. l. 6 f. Pomana r. Roma l. 22. r. a little of his Skill in Coins p. 38. l. 23. r. dispute with l. 31. r. commands p. 39. l. 22. r. and that they are as