HAVING lately Peruſed Dr. Sherlock's Reaſons (as the Books is commonly called) I cannot forbear imparting to you ſome very few Obſervations upon them, not to Pref. p. 3. ſhew my Skill, but to perform my Promiſe.

I obſerve in the Firſt place, That the Doctor thinks it neceſſary to convince all ſober Chriſtians, That men may pref. p. 4. ſwear Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, without renouncing any Principles of the Church of England. But I hope we were not in ſuch a condition, as that All Sober Chriſtians ſtood in need of ſuch a Conviction. And God forbid the Principles of the Church of England ſhould be ſuch, as not only to create in all ſober Chriſtians, a doubt whether they might ſwear Allegiance to the Preſent King and Queen; but ſhould be ſo obſcure in the matter, as that ſo Learned a Man the Doctor is reputed, and ſo Wiſe a Man as he would be thought, (for he never gave any juſt occaſion to the world to mark him out for a fool), ſhould be at almoſt Two Years Pains to make a Reconciliation betwixt Them, and the Duty of Swearing Allegiance Pref. p. 1. to this preſent Government; upon the continuance of which the Doctor does more than once or twice acknowledge the Liberties and Religion of the Nation to depend.

He confeſſes he ſtuck, and ſhould have ſtuck to this day, had he not been relieved by Biſhop Overal's Convocation-Book; and had the Venerable Authority Pref. p. 5. of a Convocation given him greater Freedom and Liberty of Thinking, which the apprehenſions of Novelty and Singularity had cramp'd before: How mean are we Laymen in the eyes of theſe Gentlemen! Nothing that was done, ſaid, or writ, at and after the Revolution, to juſtifie the Lawfulneſs thereof by the Laws of God and of this Realm, had any influence upon this Clergy man's Judgment or Conſcience, till he met with a new upſtart Convocation-Book. Nay, his very Thoughts were in Chains, till the Veneable Authority of a Convocation gave him Liberty to Think. What the Lords and Commons did, the Conſent of a Nation, the Approbation of all Proteſtants abroad, the Intereſt of Religion and the Publick Weal, were not conſiderable enough to give this man a liberty to think; his liberty of Thinking was cramp'd, till the Venerable Authority of a Convocation came and ſet him at liberty. I wonder the leſs to find him in his Book, enſlaving his Life and Liberty, to what, in a miſtaken Notion, he calls God's Authority; ſince I perceive his very Thoughts are ſlaves to an Aſſembly of Eccleſiaſtiks.

He waves the matter of Right, is not concerned in the Legality of the late Revolution, But I hope all Subjects that believe it, may and ought to aſſert it. And upon occaſion would, if they did believe it; elſe they lye on the lurch. to diſpute ſhe Right of Princes, is a thing which no Government can permit to be a queſtion amongſt their Subjects; ſuch Diſputes are needleſs in this Cauſe, and ſerve only to confound it, by carrying men into ſuch dark Labyrinths of Law and Hiſtory, &c. as very few know how to find their way out again. To judge truly of the legality of the late Revolution, requires ſuch a perfect skill in Law and Hiſtory, and the Conſtitution of the Engliſh Government, that few men are capable of making ſo plain and certain a judgment of it, as to be a clear and ſafe Rule of Conſcience.

Laymen think Laws and Conſtitutions of Governments to be ſafe Rules of Conſcience in theſe Caſes; and no ſuch dark Labyrinths as the Myſteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation, the Satisfaction of our Saviour, the Judge of Controverſies, &c. which yet are all as plain to the Doctor, as a Pikeſtaff; the Scripture and Reaſon are admirably clear in all theſe things; but the Laws of a Nation, and the Conſtitution of its Government, are a dark Labyrinth. None are ſo blind as they that will not ſee. Till ſome Proud, Ambitious Clergy-men, and Flattering Courtiers, either really or pretendedly ignorant of our Laws and Conſtitutions, ſet their own and other Mercenary Heads and Pens at work, to repreſent our Government in quite other than its own native Colours, out of a baſe Compliance with a Court that left no ſtone unturn'd, to overthrow it; till then, I ſay, the Conſtitution of our Government was ſo well underſtood by our Fore-fathers, that they ſupported and aſſerted it from time to time, at a vaſt Expence of Blood and Treaſure, and tranſmitted it down to their Poſterity, as they had received it from their Anceſtors, confirmed with all the Sanctions that the nature of the thing was capable of; nor were ever beholden to a Foreign Prince to preſerve it, till now; nor needed to have had recourſe to the Prince of Orange to aſſert their Liberties, if the overflowing of ſuch Bigottry as this Gentleman is infected with, had not almoſt unmann'd the Nation, and prepar'd them for Slavery: And two ways were taken to effect it, the one, by perſwading us, That we are Slaves by the Law of God; and the other, by repreſenting our Government as being abſolute in its Original Conſtitution; and that whatever Liberties the People claim a Right to, are either Conceſſions from the Crown, or Uſurpations upon it. And becauſe ſome ignorant People have been impoſed upon by the miſapplication of Scripture by the Clergy, and by miſ-underſtanding and miſ-applying our Ancient Hiſtories and Records, and not thoroughly ſearching them neither, our Conſtitution and Fundamental Laws muſt now be repreſented as not clear, nor a ſafe Rule for Conſcience; and therefore another muſt be ſet up in ſtead of them, invented by a Clergy-man in his Study, directed in his Enquiry by a few of his own Profeſsion, either ignorant of our Conſtitution, or proſeſſed Enemies to it, or both; and this Rule of Conſcience, not ſo clear neither, but that our Spiritual Guides are together by the ears about it, and the Learned Dr. Sherlock has been all this while finding it out: But found it he has: The Mountains have been in Labour, and behold the Mouſe.

God, when he ſees fit, and can better ſerve the Ends of his Providence by pag. 2. 3. it, ſets up Kings, without any regard to Legal Right, or Human Laws.

Kings thus ſet up▪ by God, are inveſted with God's Authority.

Subjects are bound to Obey, and to Pay and Swear Allegiance (if it be required) to thoſe Princes whom God hath placed and ſettled in the Throne, when they are inveſted with God: Authority.

This is no new Invention of the Doctor's, nor does he pretend to it; he had it (it ſeems) from Biſhop Overal's Convocation-Book. But Sir Robert Filmer broached it before that Book came out, in his Patriarcha; and that it will ſerve the turn of every Uſurper is evident, nor does the Doctor deny it.

But that the Poſſeſſion of the Throne, and the actual Adminiſtration of a Government, creates a Right, the Doctor is poſitive in; not ſuch a Right as ſhall Entitle a King to be what we poor Lay-men call a King de Jure; but to be a Rightful King with reſpect to God: And why ſo? Why, becauſe the Moſt High Ruleth in the Kingdom of Men, and giveth it to whomſoever he will, and ſetteth over it the baſeſt of Men. It is he that removeth Kings, and ſetteth up Kings. Shall there be evil in the City; and the Lord hath not done it? They are the Miniſters of God. All Power is of God; the Powers that be, are ordained of God. I exalted thee out of the duſt, and made thee Prince over my people Iſrael.

Now I cannot underſtand the Doctor's Inference from ſuch Expreſſions as theſe. That God governs the World, and that all things come to paſs by his Providence, I hope is paſt diſpute. And that ſuch expreſſions as theſe, are to be underſtood only of God's Ordinary Providence in the guidance of Humane Affairs, will perhaps appear by the common ſtyle of Scripture, in aſcribing all things of what kind or nature ſoever, natural or moral, good bad, immediately (in words) to the firſt Cauſe. God is ſaid to inſtruct the Plowman in diſcretion, and to teach him: And that his skill cometh from Iſa 28. 26, 29. Exod. 35. 31. the Lord of Hoſts, which is wonderful in counſel, and excellent in working. So God filled Bezaleel with the Spirit of God, in wiſdom, in underſtanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanſhip. Thunder is ſaid to be the Voice of God. God hardned Pharaoh's heart. Is there evil in the City, and Job 40. 9. the Lord hath not done it? So God ſets up Princes, and removes them by the Events of Providence: But that their Authority is derived immediatly from God, or that they have, when ſetled in the Throne, any other Authority than what the Conſtitution of the Government allows, much leſs that they can have an Authority from God, in oppoſition to a Legal Right, I ſhall believe, when I ſee a Prince work greater Miracles, than Curing the King's Evil, to Juſtify the delegation of ſuch Authority.

The Doctor, throughout this Diſcourſe, runs upon a notion of Mens Duty to Princes only, as if the Perſons of Princes were the ſole Objects of our Duty and Obedience; That is his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and proceeds from his Ignorance of the Nature of Humane Laws in Political Governments. It is a notion that ſuits only with a Deſpotical Government, which is down-right Tyranny; nor has the Doctor an Idea of any other: And if he had not been invincibly prejudiced againſt the Truth, by the ignorance of his Education in things of this nature, that excellent Diſcourſe of Mr, Johnſon's, in anſwer to his Book of Non-Reſiſtance, would have had another effect upon him than a ſcornful Reprinting of his own Book in anſwer to it.

His ſecond Section is taken up with proving from Biſhop Overal's Book, That though the Church of England has 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, though very injuriouſly oppreſſed; and that thoſe who renounce theſe Principles, renounce the Doctrine of the Church of England that ſhe takes care to condemn all thoſe wicked means whereby changes of Government are made; yet ſhe teaches, that when ſuch changes are made, the Authority is God's, and muſt be obeyed.

Here we learn, that if this be the Doctrine of the Church of England; then by the Laws of God, as the Church of England underſtands them, and teaches them to her Children, all the People of England are Slaves. For to be injuriouſly oppreſsed, is to be oppreſſed contrary to Law; Executio Juris non habet injuriam; No Man can pretend that he or any body elſe is injured, when the Laws have their Courſe. But from very injurious oppreſſions, the true Sons of the Church of England have no redreſs, becauſe they muſt not reſiſt the Authority of God, which the Prince Regnant is inveſted with. Whatever the Conſtitution of the Government be, whatever Laws your Forefathers have provided for the continuance and preſervation of it; whatever Legal Right you may fancy you have to your Lives, Liberties, Religion, Properties; if you aſſert and defend this Legal Right in oppoſition to the very injurious oppreſsions of your Princes, who in a Limited Government (as yours is acknowledged to be) have but a limited Power by Law; yet in ſo doing you oppoſe the Authority of God: And ſo your Laws are but Cobwebs; your Legal Right, an Imaginary Notion: Your Princes have an Authority from God to cancel your Laws, and diſpoſe of you and your Rights as they ſee Cauſe. Thus by the Doctrine of your Church (as this Gentleman Repreſents it) you are in no better a condition, than if you were Subjects to the Grand Seignior.

Your Forefathers, (who fought for your Liberties, in oppoſition to the Tyranny of K, John, K, Henry the 3d, K. Edw. the 2d, &c. and who, if they had acknowledged ſuch an irreſiſtible Authority of their Princes, as the Doctor contends for, and had not vindicated the Government by force of Arms, you their Poſterity had long before now been in the ſame, or a worſe condition than the Peaſants of France) were all Traytors and Rebels, tho warranted by the Laws of the Land to make oppoſition, nay, and ſworn ſo to do by the King's own Commiſſion, as particularly in the Reign of King John. and King Henry the third. This Notion of an Irreſiſtible Authority in your Princes, becauſe they have Gods Authority, was not then hatch'd: nor did it appear in the World till the degeneracy of the Reformation brought it forth: For Queen Elizabeth's Parliaments and Convocations were of another Opinion: as has been proved by many Inſtances of their giving her Subſidies to relieve diſtreſſed Subjects againſt their own Princes: and when Sibthorp and Manwaring broached thoſe Traiterous Poſitions in King Charles the firſt his time, they were impeached in Parliament, and ſeverely cenſured for it. Yet notwithſtanding all, this Clergy-man will have it to be the Doctrine of the Church; which if it were purſued, does unavoidably deſtroy the State; and therefore by his own Argument (pag. 44) can be no good Doctrine; becauſe, if purſued, it would ſubject all Human Societies to be deſtroyed; whereas he acknowledges the End of Government to be the preſervation of Human Societies. And he has the aſſurance to publiſh his Conceits of this kind, under a Government, that has been happily ſetled amongſt us in oppoſition to, and in ſpight of theſe ſlaviſh Conceits of ſome of our Clergy. A Government, which thoſe who contributed to erect, this Doctor brands with the loudeſt Calumnies: and yet under which he now ſeeks protection, and which he acknowledges now at laſt, being convinc'd thereof by the Events of Providence, to have the Authority of God, though introduced by the Devil.

But how does it follow, that this Doctrine of his muſt therefore be received as the Doctrine of the Church of England? becauſe he finds it in Biſhop Overal's Book. Do the Canons of a Convocation, neither aſſented to by Act of Parliament, nor ſo much as by the King's Letters-Patents, make, or authoritatively declare the Doctrine of the Church of England? Is the Convocation the Repreſentative Body of the Church of England; (I know they tell us ſo in the Canons of 1603. But I never found that any but ſome few of the Clergy believed them) Has what he calls the Church, a power to determine matters of Civil Right? Are we to go to School to Clergy-men to learn the Terms and Meaſures of our Duty and Allegiance to Magiſtrates; which all Mankind, but a few of that profeſſion in our own Nation, acknowledge to depend upon Human Laws, and the ſeveral Conſtitutions of Government, and which the body of our Clergy are ſo ignorant of, that they are a dark Labyrinth to them. When the blind lead the blind, both ſhall fall into the ditch. And yet his Argument Page 9, 10, drawn from the pretended Canons of that Convocation, are as good Authority as can be urged to the Members of the Church of England; for if a Convocation cannot declare the Judgement of the Church of England, he knows not where we ſhall learn it. So that the Members of the Church of England are to be guided in matters relating to their Temporal Rights, by an Aſſembly of their Clergy: Though even our Popiſh Anceſtors proteſted from time to time againſt the Authority of the See of Rome in Temporalibus. But I can tell him whence, and whence only he may learn the Doctrine and Judgment of the Church of England authoritatively; viz. in the Articles and the Liturgy, which have the publick Sanction of the Legiſlative Authority; not in his Spurious Canons of 1610, nor in thoſe of 1640, nor yet in the Homilies, though appointed by Act of Parliment to be read in Churches; for ſo is the Apocrypha; and yet we do not ſubmit to thoſe Books as Authoritative. All other writings are but the Opinions of private Men,

The reſt of that Section conſiſts of ſome Stories of Jehu, Ahab and Jezebel; The Moabites and Aramites, Ehud and Eglon, the Kings of Egypt and Babylon, the Four Monarchs, Alexander, Darius, Jaddus, and Caeſar. All which are no more to us, than if he had told us a tale of Tom Thumb, or Guy of Warwick.

But it is no new thing for the Clergy to top Foreign Laws and Governments upon us; One of their Canons in 1603. is, Quicunque in poſterum aſſirmabit Poteſtatem Regiam non habere eandem Authoritatem in Cauſis Eccleſiaſticis, quam Pii Principes apud Judeos & Chriſtiani Imperatores in Primitiva Eccleſiâ obtinuerunt, &c. Excommunicetur ipſo facto, &c. Our King's Juriſdiction in matters Eccleſiaſtical, is ſetled and bounded by Laws of this Realm; and thoſe Laws we look upon as the meaſure of their Authority. But Clergy men make nothing of Human Laws, at leaſt not of the Laws of England; But ſend us to the Jews and to the Romans, to enquire what Authority their Princes had, and very boldly determine, under the penalty of Excommunication, That Our Kings have eandem poteſtatem: And yet they neither know what power our Laws allow to our Kings, nor what their Laws allow'd to theirs.

He grants, that Kings ſet up by God, have God's Authority; and that all Kings who are in the actual poſſeſsion of the Government, are ſet up by God: And therefore having God's Authority, Allegiance is due to them. So that he reſolves the Duty of Allegiance into the Authority committed by God to the Prince; the committing of which Authority appears by the Events of Providence. For Providence is God's Government of the World by an inviſible Influence and Power; the Ends of which he ſerves by overruling mens wicked Deſigns to accompliſh his own Counſels and decrees, and either diſappoints what they intended, or gives ſucceſs to them, when he can ſerve the Ends of his Providence by their wickedneſs. But how ſhall Subjects judge when God ſerves the ends of his Providence by man's wickedneſs, and conſequently when their obedience becomes due to a new Prince? why, obedience is due to God's authority, when we can reaſonably conclude that God has made him King: p. 16. That is, when the providence of God has ſettled him in the Throne. But there are different degrees of ſettlement, which require different degrees of ſubmiſsion. The Doctor has gone hand in hand with providence ever ſince the Revolution: p. 17. The generality of the Nation ſubmitted to the preſent King and Queen and placed them on the Throne, and put the whole power of the Kingdom into their hands, though it may be the Doctor could not think them ſettled by Provedence, whileſt the late King had ſuch a formidable power as made the Event p. 17. doubtful, yet becauſe he thought fit to continue in the Kingdom, he could live quietly and peaceably, pay taxes, give them the title of King and Queen, and pray for them as ſuch, becauſe we are bound to pray for all that are in authority, and that their Majeſties had, becauſe they had power to do a great deal of good or a great deal of hurt. Here power to do good or harm is authority: And Thieves and Robbers have that. But it may be the King and Queen had Gods authority all this while, before the Doctor thought fit to own it by ſwearing Allegiance to them; becauſe he did not know they had it, till the power of the dipoſſeſſed Prince was broken, and no viſible proſpect of his recovering his Throne again. So that men of the Doctor's opinion muſt watch till God has play'd his game out; before they can be aſcertain'd what his will and pleaſure is in theſe matters of obedience and ſwearing Allegiance to Princes: For the will of God, when known, is the rule of Conſcience. But the will of God in theſe caſes is no otherwiſe to be known but by the Events of Providence. So that men of ſuch Principles as this Gentleman repreſents to us for Church of England Principles, muſt ſtay till the Storm be over, and then they'l tell us 'tis fair weather. I cannot ſufficiently expreſs my indignation againſt men that can have the confidence to repreſent the Church of England, which is the body of the People of England, and who have a right to their Properties, and Religion as far as theſe words, Right to Properties and Religion can be extended, as a ſort of men who muſt not ſtir their finger in oppoſition to a Prince that invades this Right all at once, upon a ſuppoſition that the Prince is inveſted with God's Authority; as if a man could act by God's Authority in oppoſition to the Laws of the Realm, and his own Oath to obſerve them, and cauſe them to be duly executed; as if Princes had any other Authority from God, then to govern according to Law; as if reſiſting a Lawleſs Authority, which is no Authority, were reſiſting the Authority of God; as a ſort of men to whom the Laws and Religion of the Nation, upon which all that can be dean to us depends, muſt never owe any thing for their preſervation, tho' in the greateſt extremities, ſo long as they are guided by the ſpirit of their Church • (tho' thanks be to Heavens a late Divine has furniſhed us with a diſtinction betwixt that and the ſpirit of God;) No, they muſt be quiet and ſuffer all to be trampled underſoot by God's Authority, unleſs wicked-men form deſigns againſt God's Dr. Hickman. Authority to preſerve the Authority of the Laws and the Profeſſion of God's true Religion: So that the beſt things that can be done in the World muſt be done by wicked men, and in oppoſition to God's Authority, or not be done at all. And all this while that the Church maſt ſit ſtill, the Providence of God is at work by means of the Devil and his Agents, wicked men, againſt his own Authority, which a King that has a legal title, but exerciſes an illegal power, is inveſted with; and herein conſiſts the unſearchable Wiſdom of Providence that God ſerves his own Ends by their Wickedneſs. It ſeems he can never ſerve his Ends by the Godlineſs of the Church; but muſt carry on Ends for their good, by the free Miniſteries of wicked men. All you Patriots, that with the hazard of your Lives and Eſtates ſtept into the gap to prevent Popery and Slavery coming in like a torrent upon Church and State, and who in ſo doing thought you did God good Service, becauſe your End was the preſervation of your own and your Countries Liberties, Properties and Religion under a legal adminiſtration of the ancient Engliſh Government, were all that while ſighting againſt God, you were reſiſting the power ordain'd by God, and ſo doing you receiv'd to your ſelves damnation; and tho' God has wrought a deliverance through your wickedneſs, no thanks to you; tho' the Nation has conſented to what you have done by as univerſal a conſent as perhaps was ever heard of, this National conſent is but an indication that God has given the King and Queen his Authority, but does not inveſt them with any legal Right, that remains in the diſpoſſeſſed King yet: So that you and the Nation have but been endeavouring to transfer what it is not in your power to transfer, viz. a legal Right: And you have transferred what you never intended to transfer nor ever acknowledged; viz. an irreſiſtible Authority from God: Dr. Sherlock has found out now what you were then doing, and ſees the conſequence of your Actions, to your ſelves and all men elſe unknown. You aided the Prince and promoted the Ends of his Declaration, which were to deliver the Nation from Popery and Slavery, ſo as it might never be in the power of any Prince hereafter to introduce either: but Dr. Sherlock tells ye, that can never be done, for it never will be Lawful nor indeed poſſible to exclude Slavery: Becauſe every Prince has God's authority, which is irreſiſtible, and I'm ſure he that is your Prince, and is by the Law of God irreſiſtible, to him you are ſlaves by the Law of God. So that you have but changed Maſters according to his principle, one of a rough temper, for a more mild one: And all your ſecurity depends upon the good nature of your Prince for the time being.

I neither have leaſure, nor if I had that, can I have patience, nor, if I had both, can I think it worth my while to run through the Book, and animadvert upon it Paragraph by Paragraph: For if it were much better written then it is, yet the writing of him, who ſlights and deſpiſes to that degree, that he does upon all occaſions every man's reaſon but his own, and in this Diſcourſe ſets up an Hypotheſis of his own for a Rule to men's Conſciences in matters of Government, without any regard to the Laws of the Nation can hardly deſerve ſo much regard as a ſerious anſwer would require.

He tells us that an Oath to a diſpoſſeſſed Prince ceaſes Geſſante materiâ; for though the man be ſtill in being; the King is gone. So that the Kingly authority p. 16. may be transferr'd from one perſon to another, But then they that aſſiſt and defend the new Prince in oppoſition to the title of him that is diſpoſſeſſed, muſt (I hope) not for the future abhor that treaſonable Doctrine and Poſition of levying War by the King's authority againſt his perſon. &c.

He tells us the Scripture makes no diſtinction between Rightful Kings and pag. 17. Uſurpers: The Rule is general; Let every Soul be Subject to the higher powers, &c. Nor does the Scripture define to us, who theſe higher Powers are: And I'm ſure they are not the ſame every where; In what perſon or perſons the Powers lodge, which here are ſaid to be ordain'd of God, and with what degree of Power they are inveſted, depends upon the ſeveral Conſtitutions of Governments; for if it be equally reſiſting God's Ordinance to Reſiſt all Princes without diſtinction; then I know no difference betwixt an abſolute and a limited Monarchy: then Princes have ſome dormant Authority or other, which the Laws does not give 'em: Which are Principles of ſlavery peculiar to this laſt Age, and to ſome of the Engliſh Clergy.

He will not have St. Paul to be underſtood of lawful powers only, for then it would be neceſſary for Subjects to examine the titles of Princes, which would involve the Conſciences of men in perplexitie; for theſe are diſputes amongſt learned men, and he cannot think that the reſolution of Conſcience in matters that all mankind are concerned in, ſhould depend upon ſuch niceiies as learned men themſelves cannot agree in. He will hardly allow this Poſition, with reference to matters of Religion, which yet I think all mankind are or ſhould be concerned in. Nor ought a rule to be rejected upon a ſuppoſition that it is not clear, becauſe learned Men differ about it; unleſs at the ſame time a New One be ſet up, which all learned Men doe agree in But the diſputes about Government are various, and that amongſt very learned men; and yet to the beſt of my Obſervation, all Men hitherto learned and unlearned have agreed that the Laws of a Nation, and the Conſtitution of it's Government are at leaſt a ſafe, a true rule for Conſcience: which if we ſhall leave and follow ſome Ignis fatuus of a Schollar's Invention, I know not whether it may lead us at laſt.

The Laws of a Nation may be trampled under foot, and it's Conſtitution broken by an inundation of Foreigners; this is a force, and a force gives no right, let the Doctor tell us to the world's end of All things being equally rightful with reſpect to God: men that are under a force, have a Right from Self-preſervation, which is a Law of Nature and conſequently of God, to rid themſelves of that force it they can. Conqueſts end, when the Conquerors and Conquered come to mutual Pacts and Agreements, which are the Laws by which they agree to rule and be ruled for the future. Till ſuch ſubſequent Pacts intervene, the Conquered People ſhift for themſelves as well as they can: But where there is no pretence nor appearance of any Conqueſt, where the Laws of a Nation, which are the publick Agreement of all the nation for their mutual defence and ſecurity retain their force; they cannot be good ſubjects, who ſet up any other rule of conſcience in matters of civil Right, Property or power: for that other rule is either agreeable with the Law, and then we need it not; or it is contrary to it, and then they that advance it, are enemies to the Conſtitution. I know little difference betwixt aſſuming an authority to govern the State, and ſetting up other rules then that of the Law to guide men's Conſciences by in matters of Allegiance and Obedience to the civil Magiſtrates.

Our Saviour's argument relies wholly on poſſeſsion of power? whoſe Image pag. 21. and ſuperſcription hath it? If ſuch a poſſeſſion as having the Coynage of Mony requires Allegiance, the Doctor ought to have taken the Oaths when the new money came out. If not, then our Saviour's argument does not juſtifie him now.

We have no directions in Scripture about reſtoring a diſpoſſeſsed Prince to his Throne again But if the diſpoſſeſſed Prince retain a Legal right, then we are pag. 22. directed to reſtore him, Rom cap. 13. v. 7. Render unto all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, cuſtom to whom cuſtom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. If the late King have a legal right to the Crown, he has a legal right to the Exciſe, the Cuſtoms, and Hearth money, &c. And if he has a legal right to them, they are due to him. And if they are due to him, we are commanded to render them to him. And that the late King may yet have a legal right to the Crown, the Doctor agrees. The Providence of God removes Kings and ſets up Kings, but alters no legal Rights. We are commanded to do as we would be done by; and none of us would be deprived our ſelves of our own legal Rights.

If the late Kings have a legal Right yet, then no Engliſh ſubjects can have a legal Right to oppoſe him; unleſs a man can have a legal Right to an Eſtate, and at the ſame time another have a legal Right to with-hold it from him; which is to make the Law a contradiction to it ſelf; and yet theſe are neceſſary conſequences of the Doctors Poſitions.

That one Prince is at preſent placed in the Throne, and the other removed out of it, does not diveſt the diſpoſſeſſed Prince of his legal right and claim, nor pag. 26. forbid him to endeavour to recover his Throne, nor ſobid thoſe, who are under no obligation to the Prince in poſſeſsion, to aſsiſt the diſpoſſeſſed Prince to recover his legal Right: A Legal and ſucceſsive Right bars all other Humane Claims; ſo that the diſpoſſeſſed Prince has a juſt cauſe of War againſt the Prince in poſſeſsion for the recovery of his Legal Right. And they that are under no obligation to the Prince in poſſeſsion, are not forbid to aſſiſt him: Who theſe are that are ſuppoſed to be under no obligation; &c. I know not. I hope if the Prince in poſſeſſion be throughly ſettled, he has God's Authority, and then all that are his Subjects are under ſome obligation to him, or elſe God's Authority ſtands for nothing. But if foreign Princes are meant by thoſe who are under no obligation, then at leaſt the King of France has a juſt cauſe of War upon us to reſtore King James: And then at whoſe Doors muſt the Blood lie that is ſpilt in the War? If the late King have a legal Right, he has a Right by our Laws; and then in oppoſing his Title, we fight againſt our own Laws and Government. If the late King have a Legal Right to the Crown, then a man muſt be very learned indeed to be of opinion that the obligation of our Oaths of Allegiance to him, ceaſes. It is not enough for the Doctor to ſay, That it was neceſſary for him to reaſon upon the ſuſpicion of unjuſt Uſurpations, and illegal Revolutions, &c. and that he was far from intending to reflect upon the preſent Government. With Reverence be it ſpoken, is a common laying with ſome, when they are going to ſpeak blaſphemy. His ſtanding out ſo long, the grounds of his preſent compliance, his avowed Principles in his Book of Non-Reſiſtance, which he here juſtifies excepting in one punctilio, ſhew undenyably that the Doctor acknowledges no other Right in Their Preſent Majeſties, but an Authority from God of his own inventing; and that their only firm ſecurity, becauſe only ſatisfactory to the Conſciences of their Subjects, that of a Legal Right, which indeed is God's Authority, (and we acknowledge no other in theſe matters,) is by this Writer, as far as in him lyes, quite blown up.

The duty of Subjects is to obey their Prince whilſt in poſsesſion; but Kings pag. 27. muſt take care to preſerve their Crowns by good Government: For if they notoriouſly violate their Subjects Rights, &c. it is too much to venture their lives and Fortunes, to keep them in the Throne to oppreſs them. But why ſhould not Subjects be obliged in Conſcience to defend ſuch an injurious Prince? He has a Legal Title, Poſſesſsion, a Settlement, he has God's Authority, he is irreſiſtible, and has the Soveraign Power. And is it no part of Soveraign Power to command the ſervice of his Subjects? No, he is entituled only to a legal defence, the Militia, and the Poſse Com. Thus when men are at pag. 30. a pinch, they ſeek refuge where they can. When their Doctrine of Non-reſiſtance, and a thouſand other aſcriptions to the power of the Prince turns upon them, they ſhelter themſelves under the Law of the Realm; Which when things go as they would have them go, they ſubject to the Prince's pleaſure: And to excuſe their taking ſhelter under what they have ſo baſely betrayed, they tell us tho' they taught Non-Reſiſtance; they may practice Non-Asſiſtance without forgoing that Doctrine. So they may ſuffer the Lord's Anointed, the light of their Eyes, and the breath of their Noſtrils to be taken in the pits of wicked Men, when he does not ſerve their turn, and be good Loyaliſts, good Church of England men, good King's men for all that. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo?

This Doctrine of Obedience and Allegiance to the preſent powers is founded on the ſame principle with the Doctrine of Non-reſiſtance and Paſſive Obe-obedience. pag. 36. How the Doctor new moulds the Doctrine of Non-Reſiſtance, &c. to ſquare with his Hypotheſis, I am not concerned to trouble my ſelf about. I cannot but wonder that any good ſtream ſhould iſſue from ſo corrupt a Fountain, as that Doctrine (ſo as it was lately preached up and inculcated) proceeded from. But as that Doctrine was taught of late, the Argument muſt run thus, Becauſe the late King Charles and King James had received a Soveraign Authority from God, which muſt be obeyed and not reſiſted, tho' the latter be now de facto deprived of the exreciſe of that Authority by Rebellious Subjects, aided by a Foreign Prince, to accompliſh their wicked enterpriſe, which does not diveſt the ſaid late King James of a Legal Right to recover it again; Therefore I do ſwear Faith and true Allegiance to their Majeſties King William and Queen Mary, &c.

I paſs over many things that are ſo obvious, as not to deſerve a particular Obſervation; as the contradiction he is guilty of, in telling us, that he could never find the Scriptures made any difference between Lawful and Uſurped Powers, and yet that he ſtuck, and had ſtuck to this day, had he not been relieved by Biſhop Overal's Book; though all the help that Book could give him, was by helping him over that diſtinction. Oportet Mendacem eſſe memorem.

Another thing is the New-coyn'd account he gives of a limited Monarchy, viz. that in a limited Monarchy we are bound not to reſiſt, only we are not bound to aſsiſt. The ſaucy introducing of private men's whimſies into Schemes of Government in oppoſition to Laws of Nations, and the common ſenſe of mankind, has been obſerved before. But let the Doctor here take notice of an Expreſſion of a far greater Man than himſelf, which comprehends the true notion of a limited Government: Ubi Rex ſummam poteſtatem non habet, ſed partem alteram populus aut Senatus, Regi in partem non ſuam involanti vis juſta opponi poterit, quia eatenùs non eſt ſuperior. Grot. de jure Belli & Pacis.

He takes a great deal of pains to diſtinguiſh betwixt the preſent Caſe, and that of the late times under the Long Parliament, Oliver Cromwel, &c and it is very obſervable how he gets over it upon his Principle. Why, the Government of the Nation was then quite overwhelmed; we had no King, nor Lords, and but a part of the Houſe of Commons, who carried all by force. And what then, I hope there were Powers in Being; and if ſo, they were of God, tho uſurped But there was not a Settlement, I know not what he calls a Settlement; the High-landers in Scotland were ſubdued, Ireland quite reduced, the Government then in being, ſuch as it was, acknowledged by all the Princes and Governments of Chriſtendom, nor was there then a Powerful Prince that waged War againſt the then Powers in behalf of the then diſpoſſeſſed Prince. But the truth of the difference is this, the then Powers were no freinds to the Biſhops.

When men are once out of the right way, they wander in various by paths, and ſo the Doctor, Hobbs, Filmer, &c. leaving the Law of the Land, which is an agreement betwixt all Subjects, and flying to other notions of Power, and God's Authority, and the Law of Nature, and no body knows what, may pleaſe themſelves with the Wit and Novelty of their own Speculations, but I am perſwaded will never find the Body of the People influenced by what ſuch Learned muſt be at ſo much pains to find out, and dreſs up with any tolerable appearance of ſenſe

The Doctor is much concerned to free God from any confinement to Human Laws: But ſince he would not have men violate them, he ought (I ſhould think) to ſhew that in taking the preſent Oaths he has not done it himſelf: Tho God is not confined to Human Laws, I do not know how the Events of his Providence can juſtifie men's breaking them, and their own former Oaths both at once. They that come into the intereſt of this preſent Government, upon the true Legal Foundation, upon which it ſtands, have broken neither. But how to entertain the Doctor's imaginary Hypotheſis of a Divine Authority, in oppoſition to a Legal Right: which is to make the Government of Divine Inſtitution, and yet contrary to Law: How to make it ſafe for King and People upon his Bottom, I know not, nor ſhall enquire any Father.