A REVIEW OF Dr. Sherlock's CASE of ALLEGIANCE due to Sovereign Powers, &c.  
WITH AN ANSWER TO HIS VINDICATION of that CASE.  
IN WHICH Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book, is Arraigned; the Doctor's Self-Contradiction, and Fallacy of Argument Detected; And from the whole proved, That neither the Church of England, nor the Present Government, are beholden to him.  
LONDON: Printed in the Year, 1691.   

A REVIEW OF Dr SHERLOCK'S Case of Allegiance: WITH AN ANSWER TO HIS VINDICATION.   

To the REVEREND THE MASTER of the TEMPLE.  
SIR,  
IT was my Fortune, as I past St. Paul's Church-Yard, the Third of November last, to meet a Book( then wet from the Press) entitled, The Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, &c. and, as casually returning the same Afternoon, to find( at least the Title-Page) reprinted, as a Second Edition, 1691. And when I saw there was neither Picture nor rhyme before it, that might thus occasion a Second Impression, within the compass of Three Hours, I began to think, there was something more than ordinary in it, and so took it with me: But when I came to examine it, the Name of Dr. Sherlock had so possessed me, that I began to inquire, whether there were Two Dr. Sherlocks? And was thus answered, That whether there were or not, there was a Gentleman( meaning yourself) whose whole Course of Life, Studies, Interest, were so interwoven with the Doctor's, that he would readily salue any Thought of mine concerning it, or at least, represent it to him. And this( Sir) is the single Reason why I thus address to you; as willing to be satisfied, whether you believe the Doctor's writing this Book was all pure Conscience? Or, whether there were not more of the Loaves, than the Doctrine in it? Because, near the very beginning of his Preface, he speaks of the Forfeiture of all his Preferments, by refusing the Oath, which he had lost for ever, had not the Government been more mildred and gentle to him in it: Which seems to me mere Interest; in that, had he taken the Oath, and not retaken his Preferments with it, I must have confessed it, to have been pure Conscience: And yet, to make it as easy as I can, I think he wanted not some Precedents in the Case; those( I mean) that swallowed the Covenant in the Rump-Parliament's Time, and a bishopric after it, upon the King's Restauration.  
The next thing your Friend says, is, That while he refused to take the Oaths, he never made it his business to dissuade Men from it: When his Opinion was asked, he delivered his own thoughts, but never sought to make Proselytes; As deeming the taking them to be against his Conscience. But how then did he satisfy the Obligation of a Pastor, when he suffered his Flock to do that, which in Conscience he thought to be an ill thing, and not fit to do himself? With this further( as to the delivering his Thoughts) whether in the Company of some Divines or others, his Opinion, touching the present Matter, being demanded, and Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book urged in defence of it, that he did not answer it, came not up to the Case, or Words to that purpose; because if he did, the ston which he then refused is now become the Head of his Corner; and if he did not, I must do him this Justice, to say, he is shrewdly belied.  
However, whether he did or not, he prayed for King William and Queen Mary by Name, according to the apostles Direction, to pray for all that are in Authority, which they visibly were; with this Caution nevertheless( which I find in his Book, 
page. 17.  though not in the Apostle) That he took care to do it in such terms as not to pray against the dispossessed Prince: And choose rather, highly to offend some, than separate from others. And truly( Sir) during all this time, your Friend may be said to have been consulting with his Staff: On the one hand, lay Conscience; on the other, Preferments, not without hopes of better; the Staff fell to the surer Side, and Conscience wisely acquiesced in Providence.  
Nor do I think I am much out in it; how far I may be, even himself be Judge, when he says, He did not refuse the Oaths out of any Fondness for the Government of King James, nor Zeal for his Return, which the present Prospect of Affairs gives no Man any reason to wish; because, 
page. 18.  as he says in his Book, his Power is broken, and there is no visible Prospect of his recovering his Throne again: But out of pure Principles of Conscience, to comply with the Obligations of his former Oaths, and that Duty which Subjects owe to their Prince, which he then apprehended irreconcilable with the new Oath. But now that the Doctor's Conscience is at rest, or if it should wake again, the World is too noisy to have it heard, be pleased( Sir) to ask him, why he gives no other Reason of his so long dissatisfaction, than, If Reason were never so plentiful with him( i.e. as cheap as Blackberries) he thinks it not worth the while to gratify a Curiosity: When yet Mr. Chillingworth, upon his going off to the Church of Rome, left the Reasons of his dissatisfaction on his Study Table, and when he came back to the Church of England, answered them himself; but never ( that I heard) took any Preferment after it, that he might not be thought to have done it for Interest. But alas! alas! the World is altered, Sine Cerere& Baccho friget, &c. and therefore, let the Doctor say what he will, That what he has thus written, was for our sakes, for my part, I should have thought it had been for his own; had he not brought in Religion as a Party, in saying, We live in an Age of great profaneness and Infidelity, which is ready to take all Occasions to reproach Religion, and expose it as a Cheat and Imposture; and to neglect no opportunity to blacken the Clergy, as Men of no Faith nor Religion themselves, though they make a great noise about it, to serve their own Interests, &c. But pray( Sir) what does your Friend mean by this Anticipation? Has any Man trod on his Corns? Or is he afraid they may, that he crys( oh!) before he is touched? That it is a profane Age, who doubts it? But can he show me the Age that was not so? All of them had a kind of rotten Cough, more or less; and if we may believe Boccaline, were born with it.— Mores, Caeciliane, tui, has been an old Disease; yet if every Man would but mend one, I think the Cure might be easily effected: as also( perhaps) that other of Infidelity; if while Men stand damning one another with as much Uncharity as Ignorance, they would but soberly sit down, and agree the Credenda. And being so, what wonder if Religion has been so often exposed to Reproach; especially, when it fares with us, 
Jer. 5.31.  as with the Jews of Old, The Prophets had prophesied a lie( before) the People loved to have it so. And truly, we come near after a time, when Religion was made the common stale to every thing: The Rebellion of 1642 was founded in that Name; and O. cronwell was seeking God at St. James's, while his Journeymen were murdering their Sovereign at Whitehall. And since it has been foretold us, Offences will come, how ought every Man to have a Care that they come not by him? More especially, that they come not from the Clergy, in that it blackens too much, without any additional Scandal: Or otherwise, I shall hold those lying Prophets among the Jews, and those others of our late Times excusable. And what have we to do with them( if yet any such are to be had now) that put on Religion as a Cloak, not a Garment; and for their Faith believe in God, but dare not trust in him: Believe God can spread a Table in the Wilderness, but for fear he should not, timely provide for themselves: Some, I must confess, would call it Interest, whereas others, and those the wiser in their Generation, incline to that of the Apostle, He that provides not for his own, has denied the Faith, and is worse than an Infidel.  
But still( Sir) your Friend seems uneasy to himself, as doubting, whether what he had offered in Justification now may serve turn, unless he give a good Reason, why he did not comply before: and yet salves it so loosely and shufflingly, in saying, No Man is forbidden to grow wiser; nor that he is ashamed to own, that he is still a Learner; and hopes he shall be so as long as he lives; that even yourself would hardly believe he truly meant what he said: Young, brisk Men may improve by Study and Conversation, but a hopeful grey Beard, or dry Brain, I never yet heard of; with this only, that a better prospect of Affairs, may make them the apt to unlearn all again.  
In a word( Sir) I have laid before you my Thoughts, of your Friend's Preface, saving, that I have wholly omitted Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book; because I have spoken to it, page. 3, 4. and in the Answer to the Doctor's Vindication, page. 45. have further enlarged on it, to which I refer you: With this further, That you'll please to take notice, that my intent in answering this Vindication was not to mix in the Dispute, to which the Doctor replies, but to the end, that where your Friend had brought new Matter I might examine it, and where he had not, that I might direct my Reader to the page. where I had before answered it; and for his new Matter, answer it in its proper place, which I have at least endeavoured; and am,  
SIR, Your Humble Servant.   

A REVIEW OF Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, &c.  
SIC calco fastum Platonis, was the Cynick's Demonstration, when( leaping with his dirty shoes on Plato's Persian Carpets) he bluntly refuted him, then reading against Motion; and may be any Man's answer to the present Case( how plainly soever, the Doctor says, he has stated it) that shall but consider, how he has perplexed it himself, with false Principles, worse Deductions, and from one Hypothesis to another, given that for granted, that should have been first proved: a kind of easiness of the Pen( I must confess) and best agreeable with the Multitude, who, as they swallow every thing without chewing, cry up nothing, but what they least understand.  
But because no Man is bound to believe me, more than I believe the Doctor, it is but reasonable on my part, that I make out my assertion, and leave it to the indifferent World to judge between us. In order to which, I shall take him as I find him, from Section to Section, and begin with his first, which( in a manner) is the substance of the whole: And here the Doctor new primes his Cloth, that having washed out, what he had formerly painted on it, he may render it the more capable of any new Impression, still keeping his Integrity, i.e. his Spiritual Promotions. To this purpose, he endeavours to efface that old Principle,  
That Allegiance is due, only to a Legal Right; and which( saith he) if it be false, there's an end of the dispute; and instead thereof, lays down these others, viz.  
If Allegiance be due, not for the sake of Legal Right but Government.  
If it be due not to bare Legal Right, but to the Authority of God.  
If God when he sees fit, and can better serve the ends of his Providence by it, sets up Kings, without any regard to Legal Right, or human Laws.  
If Kings thus set up by God, are invested with God's Authority, which must be obeied, not only for Wrath, but Conscience sake.  
If these Principles( which ( if) yet implies an uncertainty) be true, &c. Then, when God transfers Kingdoms, and requires our Obedience, and Allegiance to a new King, he necessary transfers our Allegiance too: With this further, That it is what the generality of Mankind, from an inward Principle of Self-preservation, have always done, and will always do; That they have reason to wish it to be true; and to be glad to see it well proved.—  
— However till he comes to do it, I take leave to say, his first Proposition is false: His second, I grant him, with a distinction, and this Proviso, That we have a certain knowledge that God interposes his Authority,( as in the case of David, against the Sons of Saul) if we have no such knowledge, our Allegiance is due to the Legal Right, because a Legal Right is the only reason, and foundation of our Allegiance: But our Allegiance is not due to God's Authority if usurped; where God's Will is only permissive, not positive, his concourse, being only to the materiality, not formality of the Act: the third is true the fourth, is answered as the second.  
And this( says the Doctor) he'll endeavour to do, from the Authority of Scripture, Reason, and the Doctrine and Principles of the Church of England.  
In the examining of all which, as the Doctor( page. 2) thought it not fit to justify the Legality of the late Revolution, I also( to use some other of his own words) without disputing the Right of Princes, a thing which no Government can permit to be a question among their Subjects, shall endeavour to prove, that these the Doctor's new Principles, are contrary to Scripture, Reason, the Doctrine and Principles of the Church of England, his own former Doctrine, and manifestly destructive to the present Government.  

The Doctor's second Section. The Doctrine of the Church of England in this point, as it is taught in Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book.  
THE Church of England( saith he) has been very careful to instruct her Children in their Duty to Princes: But she hath withal taught, That all Sovereign Princes( whatever their Legal Right be, whether by bringing any Country into their Subjection, or disloyal Subjects by their rebellious rising against their natural Sovereigns) when they have established any other degenerate form of Government among their People, the Authority either so unjustly gotten, or wrung by force, from the true and lawful Possessor, is always God's Authority, and( when any such alterations are thoroughly settled) to be reverenced and obeied, and the People of all sorts are to be subject to it, not only for Wrath, but Conscience sake. And this the Doctor professes to have taken from the venerable Authority of a Convocation-Book, the Title of which runs thus: Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book, 1606. concerning the Government of God's catholic Church, and the Kingdoms of the whole World. Ay! the whole World! it has taken compass enough; and yet this unlucky corner of the World, England, never took the least notice of it, for near fourscore years after; and why? but that it was of no Authority: for besides that what the Doctor here urges, is no part of the Canon, but a kind of preliminary discourse to a Canon, which was never owned by the Church of England, it was never ratified by the King's Letters Patents, as by Law it ought to have been; and consequently, of no more Authority, than a Bill that might have passed Lords, and Commons, but wanted the Royal Assent, to give it Life: and therefore, it is a shrewd sign the Doctor was hard put to't, when he caught hold of a Twig: yet nothing will serve him, but it must be the judgement of the Church of England, how contrary soever it be to their Writings, printed Sermons, the Address of the University of Cambridge, 1681. the judgement and Decree of the University of Oxford, 1683, by which, several of the Doctors new Propositions, as taking one for many, viz. That Possession, and Strength, give a right to govern, and success, in a Cause, or Enterprise, proclaims it to be lawful and just: to pursue it, is to comply with the Will of God, because it is to follow the conduct of his Providence; are adjudged and decreed, to be false, seditious, and impious, and infamous to Christian Religion, and destructive of all Government in Church and State: and lastly, the Canons of 1640, agreed upon by the Bishops and Clergy of both Provinces, and ratified by the King: where, Can. 1. they declare, That the most high and sacred Order of Kings, is of divine right, being the Ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime Laws of Nature, and clearly established, by express Texts, both of the Old and New Testament. And if this be true, then certainly( let the Doctor's Convocation-Book say what it will) when disloyal Subjects, by their rebellious rising against their natural Sovereigns, have established, any degenerate form of Government among their People, the Authority so unjustly gotten, or wrung by force, from the true and lawful possessor, cannot be the Ordinance of God; unless he also prove, that God always condemns the oppressed, and lets the oppressor go free.  
Nor will the following indefinite words ( when thoroughly settled) make any thing in the Case; for that, even Prescription, cannot justify a Wrong; and it is a Rule in our Law, ( Quod initio temporis non valet, tractu temporis non convalescit) length of time makes nothing lawful, that was not so from the beginning: However the Doctor will make somewhat of it, when( page. 9) he tells us what the Convocation means, by the Government's being thoroughly settled; and as the Doctor was formerly indebted to the Book, he brings the Book now indebted to him, in determining the bounds of it, viz. When the whole administration of Government and the whole power of the Nation is in the hands of such a Prince; when every thing is done in his Name, and by his Authority; when the States of the Realm and the great body of the Nation has submitted to him, and those who will not, can be crushed by him whenever he pleases. Very well! and yet with the Doctor's leave l'd ask him what he thinks of the Case of Absalom and David? Absalom, laid the foundation of his Rebellion, in the Religious Pretext of a Vow at Hebron,( 2 Sam. 15.9.) He was proclaimed King,( ver. ●0.) The People increased continually with him,( ver. 12.) Their hearts were after him,( ver. 13.) David himself gives him the title of King,( Ver. 19.) Bids Hushai do the same,( ver. 30) God, and the People, are said to have chosen him,( cap. 16. ver. 8.) He was in possession of Jerusalem,( ver. 15.) All the Elders of Israel were with him,( cap. 17. ver. 4.) And to secure all this, a potent Army, whose number may be judged,( cap. 18. ver. 7.) where 'tis said, twenty thousand of them were slain; and the Wood, devoured more than the Sword devoured,( ver. 8.) And had every thing the Doctor requires, for the Translation of a Kingdom, and a full settlement: for the possession( according to the Doctor) invested him with God's Authority, and the submission of the People, and his protecting them, made it a through settlement, as having held it for about two Years, as may be probably conjectured from Archbishop Usher's Annals.— And now, 
An. yet. Test. p. 54. 55.  without asking the Doctor, how he can excuse David, from being a Rebel( for he plainly saw the Kingdom was translated to another, and that he could be no more than a Subject, and consequently, should have obeied Absalom, for Conscience sake) I would fain know of him, whether God's Power is not( in this case) made use of, contrary to God's positive Will, of having( as he says) entailed the Crown to David, because it is made use of unjustly, to which God cannot concur.— And the like also may be said of Athaliah's six years Usurpation, and full possession of the Throne, of which, hereafter.  
But to come nearer home. The Lady Jane Grey had whatsoever condition the Doctor requires for the possession of the Throne, and a through settlement: She had the colour of King Edward the Sixth's Letters Patents; the concurrence of all the Judges, but one; was proclaimed Queen; the premier Officers of the Kingdom swore Allegiance to her; all the Land, and Naval Forces were in her hand; and assumed the name, title, and state of a Queen: And yet, I think the Doctor will not call this the Ordinance of God, without confessing at the same time, that the Duke of Northumberland, who lost his Head for acting against Queen Mary, the rightful Queen, though he had the Great Seal, and Warrant of the Privy-Council for his Authority, was illegally, and unjustly murdered.  
In like manner, the Regicides of 1648, by the name of the Keepers of the Liberty of England by Authority of Parliament had all this, and( if 'twere possible) more: they had( to use the words of the Doctors Convocation-Book) rebelliously risen against their natural Sovereign,( and murdered him) established a degenerate form of Government among the People, and brought the Country in Subjection to their ungodly desires.— The same had Oliver cromwell( who turned them out) by the name of Oliver Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, &c. The same, had his Son Richard.— The same had those Regicides again, when they had laid by Richard.— The same had the Committee of Safety, under that first name of the Keeppers, &c.— And the same, had the old Rump again; and all this, by the same Principles of Rebellion and Usurpation, which he here mentions.— Pray answer me, was it of Heaven, or Men? Were they in their respective turns, and alterations of Government, the Ordinance of God, albeit they had every thing in their hands, that himself determines requisite, to a through Settlement? And the reason why I ask it, is this; because if they received their Power from God, those Loyal Subjects that opposed this Power, were Rebels and Traitors, and those others, how justly soever condemned by Law, Martyrs.— For my part, I had been at a loss to salue it, had not the Doctor done it for me, 
The Doctor's Case of Resistance of the supreme Powers, stated and resolved. pag. 128.  viz. The most prosperous Rebel, is not the Higher Powers: and therefore, though such Men may get the Power into their hands, by God's Permission, it is not by God's Ordinance; and he who resists them, does not resist the Ordinance of God, bat the usurpations of Men: but how does the Doctor know this to be true, when his general Proposition asserts the contrary, or how will he reconcile it, with what he says in this Section, That the submission of the People, of itself, is sufficient to settle a Government, and when it is settled, then it is the Authority of God, whatever the human Right be? and so I think I may score up the Doctor One, for this manifest contradicting himself; he shall have more of it presently, as it comes in my way: yet in the mean time, I cannot but wonder, when we have Laws and Constitutions of our own, and plain Texts enough, that teach us our Duty, to God and Man, what makes the Doctor run to the Text, for something done amongst the Jews, which nothing concerns England, beyond the Morality of it? When also it will not be so easily effected, to make any indifferent Man believe, that those peculiar Laws of the Jews, necessary oblige any other Nation, to whom that Law was not given, to comform to their Policies, till the Doctor first persuade him, that every Nation, hath the peculiar Privilege of the Jews, and its Government, a Theocracy like theirs.   

The Doctor's third Section. The Testimony of Scripture, and Reason.  
SCripture he says, that Sacred Word, too often abused, 
Matth. 4.6.  and suffered by God, to be wrested by the Devil, at his need: Adeo nihil est quod SS. Scripturae extorqueri non posset, modo torqueatur. And that he may the better foist it on the heedless crowd, he falls a branching it into Propositions; sets up his Jack-a-Lent, and throws his Kibbets at' em. The first of these will be readily acknowledged, saving that he palms upon us the words, Sovereign Princes, and when the drift of his Argument is to prove, that Authority gotten by Rebellion, or wrung by force, is always God's Authority; and covers the Cloven-Foot, with the more inviting rob, of civil Power, and Authority: nor yet without reason; for to have drawn the Devil as the Painters make him, had been enough to startle an Atheist, but when he appears as an Angel of Light, who would suffer him to shake off the dust of his Feet on' em?  
But( says he) This Civil Power and Authority is no otherwise from God, than as he gives it to some particular Person, or Persons, 
Pag. 10.  to govern others. Very good! But does not this make against himself? for when God has given it to such or such a particular Person,( the present Government for instance) I think he will not say, that all Rebellion in this case is not a Rebellion against God; and if he allows it, he not only interferes with his former Proposition, but makes God, the Author of Contradictions( as he does of evil, and even Sin too, as it lies in his way) in giving that Personal Authority to this or that particular Person, and again, justifying that force, that takes it from him.  
Nor is his third other, than of the same Batch: he says God gives this Power and Authority, 
Pag. 11.  either by Nature, express Nomination, or by the disposals of Providence.— By Nature; as Parents: the Father, being the only natural Authority: but how this Patriarchal Authority was limited( he) cannot tell; or how new Governments began( deems it) as vain, to inquire now. And why not? 
Gen. 10.32  This supreme Power, was once in Noah; and after him, in the families of his Sons in their Generations, after their Nations, and by them, were the Nations divided in the Earth, after the Flood. And to the same purpose the Son of mirach; In the division of the Nations of the Earth, 
Eccl. 17.17  he appointed a Ruler over every People. Which shows, that sovereignty, was originally by the immediate appointment of God, in a legal Succession, after their Generations; and if the Doctor knew not how it came to be limited, or how new Governments began, he had done well not to have thrown that Bone, till he had picked it better.  
By a particular Nomination: God( saith he) made Kings, only in Jewry: entailed Judah upon David, and his Posterity: and set Jeroboam and Jehu, over Israel: yet( with the Doctor's leave) God made David King, not of Judah only, but Israel also: For( if my Bible be true) he gave the Kingdom over Israel, 
2 Chron. 13.5.  to David for ever, even to him, and to his Sons, by a Covenant of Salt. But what the Doctor means by the word entailed, I cannot readily conjecture, unless, that as Master of the Temple he resolved to show his Learning, by telling his Auditory, Entails were a brace of Thousand Years ancienter, than they yet dreamed of.  
But to come to that of Jereboam, and his Sugar-plumb word, the division of the ten Tribes; which yet the Scripture calls, downright Rebellion: and truly the Text begins well towards it: 
1 Kings 11 27. 2 Chr. 13.6  This was the cause that Jeroboam lift up his hand against the King,( or rebelled against his Lord, saith another place) as thus:  
Solomon had turned off, to his Wife's Gods, at what time, Jeroboam,( a mighty Man of Valour, and industrious, but the height of his Preferment, was the Overseership of the building of milo, a thing either out of his way, or beneath his Character) was Servant to him: on this, God threatens Solomon to rend the Kingdom from him, and by his Prophet Ahijah, appoints Jeroboam to it, who flies into Egypt for fear of Solomon, but after his death, is sent for by the People, and heads them in a Petition of Grievances, to Rehoboam, the Son of Solomon, which, being unadvisedly answered, 
1 Kings 12.3.19 20.  Israel rebelled against the house of David, and made Jeroboam their King. Now this appointment, being only private between the Prophet, and himself, without Proclamation, or Unction, as in the case of other Kings; what, more can be made of it, than that God permitted it; to the end, he might punish one Sin, by another? God saw, Solomon had forsaken him, and punishes it in his Son, by rending the Kingdom from him: He foresaw, that the ten Tribes would revolt, and make Jeroboam their King, and that Jeroboam would draw them to Idolatry( as the Jews never threw off their King, but they threw off their Religion with it) and so punishes Solomon's apostasy, with the Peoples Rebellion against his Son; their Rebellion, with Jeroboam's drawing them to Idolatry; and himself at last( which was his positive Will) in the total subversion of his Family: whereas, had it been other, why does the Text say, that both of them rebelled, the one, against his Lord, the other against the house of David: As in the case of Pharaoh, it is said, God hardened his heart: and again, 
Exo. 9.12. Rom. 9.17.  For this have I raised thee( Pharaoh) up, that I might show my Power in thee, &c. i.e. make thee an Example of my Justice: In both which, God can only be said, to have concurred permissively, by leaving them to themselves, and withdrawing his Grace: but because I shall have occasion to speak further to it in the Doctor's next Paragraph, I'll leave it for the present, and go on, with his other Instances.  
And here, with the Doctor's leave, the case of Jehu, will differ much, from that of Jeroboam, for Jehu's was extraordinary, and by the particular Command of God, to a particular end, as appears by the words of the young Prophet, when he poured the Oil on his head, 2 Kings 9.6, 7. and may be called the Ordinance of God, in respect of the revealed Will of God concerning it, and yet, makes no Argument to prove his Assertion, That by what means soever any Prince ascends the Throne, he is placed there by God, and receives his Authority from him, till the Doctor shows, the like Prophet, and the like Revelation. Unum tantum Jehu contra dominum suum armavit Deus, 
Loc. come. class. 4. c. 20.  quod ut peculiar fuit, ita non est in exemplum trabendum, saith Pet. Martyr. God armed one only Jehu against his Lord and Master, which, as it was peculiar and extraordinary, is not to be drawn into example. Jehu slay his Master and had Peace, because of his Commission: but had Zimri Peace that slay his Master? and yet this was the means, by which he ascended the Throne. And truly when I consider it more narrowly, God seems not to be so altogether pleased, even with Jehu, in this matter; for the Text saith, he conspired against Joram, and slay him; and the Prophet brings in God thus speaking of it, 
Hosea 1.4.  Yet a little while, and I will avenge the Blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu: no great signs to the contrary, but there was more of God's permission, than approbation in it. But to proceed.  
The next thing the Doctor goes upon is that of Daniel, chap. 4. ver. 17. and chap. 2. ver. 21. and 37. The most high ruleth in the Kingdom of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.— God gave it to nabuchadnezzar, and it is he that removeth Kings, and setteth up Kings,— and gives a demonstration of it, in the four Monarchies.  
But how does this of Daniel make up to the Doctor's Universal Proposition, touching illegal, usurped Powers; the Regicides, Oliver cronwell, or the like, and whom, all honest Men took for what the Statute calls them, 
12 Car. 2. c. 14.  The most traitorous Conspiracies, and armed Power, of usurping Tyrants, and execrable, perfidious Traitors? Or why does he bring the Interpretation of one Dream, to credit another of his own, unless also, it carried the same Confirmation, Viz. There fell a Voice from Heaven, O King nabuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; 
Dan 4.31.  the Kingdom is departed from thee. Especially considering, that those times were times of Prophets, and Revelations; and several things are spoken in the Old Testament, pro hac 'vice, and according to the economy of that time. Nor will his instance of the four Monarchies better clear it, or prove, that God concurred more than permissively, to those Magna Latrocinia. Nimrod, the first of that kind, the Scripture( 'tis true) calls him a Mighty Hunter, which Bodin renders, a great Robber; nor( perhaps) without reason, for he first invaded the Dominion of others, to enlarge his own: Man at that time, was in a kind of state of Nature, and thought he had a Right to every thing he could lay his hand on; a great Beast on his hin' Legs; that( like him in Virgil) knew no God but his Right Hand, and his Javelin, or other measures of Justice than what were writ on his Sword. And how well God approved of that Monarchy, may be seen in Isaiah; O Assyrian, the Rod of mine Anger, 
Isa. 10.5.  and the Staff of mine Indignation! And why so? but that, ver. 7. it is said, His Heart is to destroy, and cut off Nations not a few.  
The next was Cyrus, and true it is, 
Isa. 45.1.  God calls him his Shepherd and his Anointed, as having particularly appointed him, to be avenged of the Babylonians, for their destroying the first Temple: God positively willed this, and only permitted the rest of his Rapines; for he fell at last, and was slain by a Woman; by whom, his Head was cut off, and thrown into a bowl of Blood, with this reproach,— Satia te Sanguine, cry: Drink thy fill, O Cyrus, of what thou hast so thirsted after.  
Next the Persian, came the Macedonian under Alexander, who, had he boggled at any thing, had never wept the scarcity of Worlds; yet lived not many Years to enjoy, what he had ravished from others.  
And last of all the Roman. That Rome, that was founded in Fratricide; her Walls cemented with the Blood of Alba; her first Consulship, suckled with it; the Sons of Brutus sacrificed to the Rebellion of their Father, and her whole Progress, suitable to so hopeful a beginning. And now let the Doctor( without painting his God, by such a Light, as may best serve his own purpose) tell me, if God's permitting these fortunate Mischiefs to prosper, be any demonstration, that he either ordained, or approved them.  
O but( says the Doctor) now God governs the rest of the World, removeth Kings and setteth up Kings, 
page. 12.  only by his Providence, i.e. by an invisible Influence and Power, whereby he directs, determines, over-rules all Events, to the accomplishment of his own Will and Counsels, in distinction from his more visible Government, by his Oracles and Prophets, or the express significations of his Will, as he in former Ages governed Israel. And what's all this? I am loth to call it Canting, though it had been never the worse if he had explained it a little better. Is not every thing we see, God? Is he not the same yesterday, to day, and the same for ever? And shall we doubt, whether he did not from all Eternity do, as he doth now? Can a Sparrow, or an Hair fall to the ground, without God's Providence; and shall I believe this dark walk fingers to me any thing, his revealed Will has forbidden? for my part, I was in the mire, and there might have stuck, but that the Doctor helped me out again; when speaking of the Case between Saul and David, he says thus— We know what use some Men have made of this Argument of Providence, 
His Case of Resist. 29.  to justify all the Villainies they had a mind to act.— No Man can do any Wickedness, which he has no opportunity of doing; and therefore, if the Providence of God, which puts opportunities into Mens hands, justifies the Wickedness they commit, no Man can be chargeable with any guilt, whatever he does.— And thence concludes, That we are to learn our Duty from the Law of God, not from his Providence; at least, this must be a settled Principle, That the Providence of God will never justify any Action, which his Law forbids.— And( without bringing Daniel to explain the Ten Commandments) I make this use of it, That whatever the methods of Providence may be in this World, I am not to judge of them, by my private Spirit or Interest, but by God's revealed Will, the Law and the Testimony: And this the rather, for( as says a Reverend Bishop of this Kingdom) even Christ himself, 
Vindication of the Church of Eng. p. 35.  whatever he knew of the secret Will of God, was to follow his revealed Will in his Actions.  
From this, the Doctor further runs it on in his way: Nor does it( saith he) make any difference in this Case, 
Pag. 12.  to distinguish between what God permits, and what he does; for this distinction does not relate to the Event of Things, but to the Wickedness of Men; which is the only Reason of this distinction: The Events of all Things are in his Hands, and are ordered by his Will and Counsel, as they must be, if he governs the World. And because he particularly instances in the advancement of Kings, as the principal Act of Providence, I give it this Answer— There have been Kings made, but not by the positive Will of God, or otherwise, what means that of the Prophet? They have set up Kings, 
Hos. 8.4.  but not by me: they have made Princes, and I knew it not. Now, Kings set up, is the Event of a Thing: Therefore, all Events are not always God's positive Will; unless the Doctor will say, God willed without knowledge: when to act after that manner, is in a Man absolute Folly; and who is he shall attribute it to an Infinite, Intellectual Being, and charge the Holy One with Folly?  
And yet, to rivet the Nail before he has half driven it, he urges that of Amos; Shall there be any evil in a City, 
Amos 3.6.  and the Lord hath not done it? which makes against himself: For, as God is to the Cause, so he is to the Effect, which is a necessary Consequence of the Cause: But the Doctor owns God has no positive Will in the Cause; therefore, neither has he in the Event, which is the effect of that Cause: And therefore, there may be some evil in a City which God permitted, and not decreed by his positive Will; and a Prince set up, which God knew not of.  
The Doctor further in the same page., as boldly as dangerously, says, The Scripture never speaks of God's bare permission of any Events, but makes Him the Author of all the Good or Evil which happens, either to private Persons, or public Societies; and either disappoints wicked designs, or gives them success, when he can serve the ends of his Providence by their Wickedness. Now if this be true, then God was the Author of the Rebellion of 1641. and not only permitted, but was the Author of the Murder of King Charles the First.— Put the Case a Man is inclined to commit Murder; if God gives him success, he must be a Co-operator: the effect of this Murder may be Despair; then God gives him Despair: the effect of Despair, may be Self-murder, and there the Scene Ends. Of this Self-murder, God must be the Cause, because he gave the Success: Now this being a Sin, God is the Author of Sin; for( as the Doctor a few Lines after says) all the Events which are for the evil of private Men, are ordered by him.  
And now, because the whole stress of the Doctor's Book lies in God's Will, I cannot take a better opportunity, than speaking to it once for all, in this Place; 
Ps. 110.2. St. Hierom's Translation.  And ( Hic latet anguis) here he falsifies, not distinguishing with David( omnes voluntates ejus) and with all Divines, his Will, into Positive and Permissive; and his Positive, into Signi,& Beneplaciti, &c. By the first distinction, God is cleared from being the Author of all Wickedness, which the Doctor too manifestly seems to attribute to him, when he says, He gives them Success in their Wickedness. By the second, the Doctor's main Prop sinks; for by God's Will, a Man is sometimes obliged to oppose God's Will: As put the Case my Father should commit Murder; it is God's Will, that he should die for it: and yet it is God's Will, that I being his Son, should oppose it, and seek to save him.— So, it might be God's Will for the accomplishment of his Will and Counsels, to Exalt cronwell; yet it was at the same time God's Will, that Men should oppose it, because God exalted him, that he might have the greater Fall, as a Punishment for precedent Offences, or the Sins of this Nation; 
St. Hierom's Translation.  and so Job 34.30. ( Regnare facit hominem hypocritam, propter peccata populi) For the Sins of a Nation he maketh an Hypocrite to reign; Or for the trial of good Men, and punishment of the bad: which, and the like, may be the Ends of his Counsels and Will.  
And now that I am upon it, it may not be amiss, to speak somewhat more particularly touching God's permissive Will, and his positive Will, the not distinguishing between which, has been not the least cause of the many misconceptions of the Divine Majesty.— God is the positive Author of all real Beings, but the defect of that Being proceeds from the irregularity of Man's Will, to which God contributes nothing, only suffers it: God is the Author of the Thing, but not of the Immorality, or Deformity of the Thing: God gives the Power, but the misapplication of that Power, is the depravity of the Creature. As in Cain's Murder; David's Adultery; Ahab's coveting Nabal's Vineyard, &c. And the Scripture doth sometimes express things, as done, or commanded by God, when they are only permitted by him: as in the Case of Pharaoh, of which before: And so, 1 Sam. 24.1. it is said, The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, to number Israel: When 1 Chron. 21.1. it is said, Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.— So, 2 Chron. 18.21. God is said to have put a lying Spirit in the mouth of the Prophets; when 'tis clear from the Text, that Satan offered himself; and yet, that is attributed to God, which he only permitted the Devil to perform.— And lastly( because I may sooner tyre my Reader, than want Instances) take that of Shimei— Shimei cursed David, and David said, Let him alone, for the Lord hath bidden him: And therefore, according to the Doctor's Principles, Shimei was obliged in Conscience to curse him, as being obliged to obey the Command of God.— Nor could the Doctor himself, be justly offended, with any one that should injure him; for the Power by which he did it, was from God, and God moved him to do it: In him we move, &c.— But to go on with the Doctor, and( if I am not mistaken) but a single Doctor's Opinion, 
Pag. 13.  That by what means soever any Prince ascends the Throne, he is as truly placed there by God, as if he had been expressly nominated, and anointed by a Prophet at God's command, as were Saul and David. But is this conformable to the Canons of the Church of England? This the Doctrine they have so often gloried in? I think not: Be the venerable Bishop of Sarum, judge between us; when( besides what he says in his Royal Martyr) having sufficiently exploded the like Doctrine; in his other Sermon, of Submission for Conscience sake, his Lordship( page. 4.) says thus, This levels the Prince with the Subject, and gives the Usurper as good a Title as the lawful Sovereign can claim. And again( showing how our Saviour condemned all practise against the Government, upon pretext of Religion) We must either set up for a new Gospel or utterly reject what is so formally condemned by the Author of this we profess to believe.( Pag. 26.) Whereas, had not what the Doctor says been contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, his Lordship( it may be presumed) had never taxed those, who value themselves upon their abhorring the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, yet vouch the Cause and Work of God when they are destroying that Authority( viz. King Charles II.) he hath set up: But blessed be God, our Church hates and condemns this Doctrine, from what Hand soever it comes, and requires an absolute Submission to that Supreme Power God hath put in our Sovereigns Hands; nay, though the Conduct of Affairs, do not svit our Wishes, or Desires.( Pag. 36, 38.) A Doctrine( says his Lordship) we justly glory in!( Pag. 39.) And how suitable this is to that other Doctrine, let every Man judge; when( according to the Doctor) the success of 1641. is made the Power of God; the Regicides, just Judges; That Rump of a Parliament, God's Ordinance; And Oliver cronwell, his Minister; and as truly placed in the Throne by God, as if he had been expressly nominated, as were Saul and David: for such must be the consequences, deduced from the Doctor's ill-understood Premises, occasioned by his overswaying Reason.( Unfortunate Adam!) I leave the Application to the Reader, but not the Doctor, till I ask him a Question: The Ministry of the Gospel, is the Ordinance of God; And, were the fanatics, in those Times of Usurpation, as truly placed in the Loyal Clergies Pulpits by God, as is the Doctor himself, or his Diocesan? If he says they were, then there is no more to be said: And if he says they were not, then see the result of false Principles.  
However, we'll try if the next may be truer, which if it be ( cavete vobis Principes) Princes, look about ye, and be sure if your People fail ye, ye be able to secure yourselves without' em. An Oath of Allegiance( saith he) made to any King can oblige no longer than he continues to be King: 
Pag. 16.  for if it did, it would oblige us against our Duty, and so become an unlawful Oath. And here, methinks, the Doctor might have given us some plain definition of the Word Allegiance, before he had so rashly determined concerning that Oath: The People( 'tis true) hear the sound thereof, but how few of them are there that know whence it cometh, or whither it goeth? but since he has not, I shall( as necessary to the ensuing Discourse) do it for him.  
Allegiance is a perpetual, indispensible Duty, that every Subject, whatever the Form of Government be, by the Law of Nature oweth to the Supreme Power thereof: And this the Statute calls, 
24. H. 8. cap. 12.  A natural and humble Obedience, which, both Spiritualty and Temporalty, are bound, and ought to bear to the King. And hence it is, that this Kingdom is called, The King's Ligeance; the King, Liege-Lord; the People, Liege-Men: And this, so essential to the relation of a Subject, as that the very name of Subject imports it, and thence gained in common Speech, the name of Natural Allegiance: And this also, due to the natural Body of the King, by the Law of Nature, 
7. Cook. Calvin's Case.  the Law of God, and the Law of the Land, and cannot be forfeited, or renounced by him; as was adjudged by all the Judges of England, in the Exchequer Chamber. And the contrary opinion of the Spencers in Edw. the seconds time, That Ligeance was more by reason of the King's politic Capacity, than of his Person, was condemned for High-Treason, by two Parliaments, the one called Exilium Hugonis, in Edw. the seconds time, the other, 1 Edw. 3. cap. 1.  
This Allegiance which the Doctor has in such general terms spoken of, and I endeavoured to explain, he hath given to King William and Queen Mary, and further bound it, with the sacred tie of an Oath: and now let me ask him, what he, or they thought, when he so entred into that Oath?— As to himself, did he give it as a bare promise of Fidelity, to remain true to them, so long as they are in Power, and not to attempt any thing to their Destruction?— All Prisoners of War do the same.— Or as such a Fidelity as relates to the safety of the Nation, and imports no more, than to live peaceably under the Power, and yield Obedience to it, in all things absolutely necessary for the support of Civil Society?— And that's no more than what all Men ever did, and ever will, for their own convenience.— Or lastly did he give it ( ad mentem imponentis) according to the meaning of them, to whom it was given? which is the common, received understanding, of all promises and assurances, wherein Faith is given: because Faith so given, is intended, to the behoof, and for the interest of him, or them, that require it: viz. to the end, that they may have the better assurance from him, that giveth the Faith, that what is promised, shall be accordingly performed; which assurance they cannot have, if after his meaning, declared by words, it should yet be at the liberty of the Promiser, to reserve some other remote meaning to himself; as that he might disentangle himself of it, as he saw a better occasion, or the like.— And as to the King and Queen, which of the three Senses, does the Doctor conceive they intended, when he gave them his Faith, and Allegiance? It could not be the first or second, for that gave them no such assurance of him, but that he might forsake them, when they had most need of him. And therefore it must be the last: They thought( no doubt) but the end of Oaths was to keep a Man steady to his Prince in times of trial, and that the Doctor took his, according to the plain intent and meaning of the words, but whether he has not managed this matter, as the Devil when he set his Damm's Leg, broken it quiter in two, I come to examine.  
We swear( saith he) to maintain, and defend the King's Right, and the Right of his Heirs; but yet, we swear not to keep them in the Throne, when, though the Man is still in being, the King is gone.— Most profoundly distinguished!— And so the Allegiance the Doctor gave King William and Queen Mary, is no more but this, viz. That as long as they were able to defend themselves, he also( according to the Language of Addresses) will stand by them with his Life and Fortune; but if the Kingdom should happen to be Invaded, he would sit down, and according to his Duty, pray for 'em,( taking care nevertheless to do it in such terms, as not to pray against the dispossessed Prince, p. 17.) till he see, who hath the longest Sword, which is always God's Power, and which, whosoever resists, procures to himself Damnation.— And for his Non-Resistance, which is of the same thread,( saving that he has turned it into a Non-Assistance) let 'em quietly go out of the Kingdom, when they can hold it no longer, without stoping them. pag. 27. and 50.  

P. 31.  And that this is his meaning, be witness himself, I am sure( saith he) there is no Law that requires all Subjects to receive Commissions from the King, though he be in possession, of the Government; nor to list themselves Soldiers in his Army; and therefore, this is no part of the Legal Defence we swear. with this further, in the following page., That a general Revolt, excuses those, 
P. 32.  that had no hand in it, from their sworn defence of the King's Person, and his Crown; and making their compliance with it, is innocent, and necessary.  
How's this! no Law! What thinks the Doctor of the Common Law of England, which says, The King hath an Interest in the Persons of his Subjects, and may dispose of their Bodies, for the defence of the Kingdom: and the reason is, because they are bound by their Allegiance to serve him; as may be seen by the several Writs issued on such occasions, to array all the Lords, (& omnes homines defenfibiles) and all that are able to bear Arms; not exempting even the Clergy ( manus adjutrices apponere) to put their helping hands to it.— And with this, agrees the Statute Law, 9 Hen. 3. cap. 20. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 24.— 11 Hen. 7. cap. 1. and cap. 18.— 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12.— 3 Edw. 6. cap. 2.— How much stronger then is it, when there's an Oath in the case? And 'tis a Rule in the same Common-Law ( Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet,) He that hath it in his Power to hinder any thing, and doth not, commands it. And truly, if the Doctor has any new way, for the Subject to defend his Prince, when his Person and his Crown are in danger, but by bearing Arms for him, and not leave him to the Divine Providence, he would do well to show it: Nay the very word Ligeance, carries a defence, in that he that gives it, binds himself( as with a Band) to his Lord, to defend him against all Men; which if it did not, what other were he to him, than a Knife without an Edge, or a strong Garrison without Ammunition? And therefore, till the Doctor shall have taught us that new way, I cannot but think the present Government as little beholding to him, as the Church of England have been hitherto, for bolting such Divinity, among the common People, and telling them, they may defend it if they please, if not, 
Pag. 31.  It is no part of that Legal Defence we swear. The People( I say) that carry their Brains in other Mens Heads, and may( perhaps) be all as forward to trim, as even the Doctor himself.  
And if the Doctor has not don't, what means this lowing of the Oxen? What mean those words of his, That he did not refuse the Oaths out of any fondness to the Government of King James, nor Zeal for his return, 
Second page. of his Preface.  which the present prospect of affairs gives no Man who loves the Church of England, and the liberties of his Country, any reason to wish. And yet, as the late Revolution falls in his way, he more than once, 
Last line of his Preface and page. 2.  avoids the justifying the legality of it, when yet too, it is the only Verb in his Case.— Or what that other, That it is our duty to pray for the King in Possession, 
page. 17.  while we take care to do it in such terms, as not to pray against the dispossessed Prince: nor without reason, for who knows but God Almighty might understand him, especially when he complies with the public Service, for Humiliation and Thanksgiving days.— Or that( saith he) we swear, to defend the King's, 
page. 16,  and his Heir's Right, but not to keep them in the Throne, which may be impossible for us to do, against a prosperous Rebellion. But does this discharge the Doctor of his Part, in not trying whether it be possible, or not? And what's all this but more Banter? Where his single Business was to have justified the Legality of the late Revolution, that having first swept the house, he might have made it the fitter for a new Tenant: instead of which, he has only perplexed us with a tale of a Tub, and neither beaten down one side, nor defended the other; other, than by such Arguments, as( turning the Tables) may indifferently serve for either side: A perfect Samaritan shuffle, who when the Gentiles prevailed, were of the race of Ishmael, and when the Jews got the upper hand, had Abraham to their Father: And were it possible to bring the Doctor to see in his own case, he must not but aclowledge, that when he took the Oaths to the present Government, he had some secret reserve to himself, and no other design, in writing so many Leaves, to so little purpose, than to raise a dust, and slip himself off in it: nor shall his whole discourse ever persuade me, that it was, all, dry, downright, Conscience, without some little Bye-purse of his own Interest: Like a young Vintner, when he first sets up; you may bring your what you please to his house, and your Worship's welcome; but he has no sooner got an Estate by your Folly, than he grows conscientious, and will not draw ye a a Bottle of Wine on a Sunday.— And truly, taking all the Doctors matter, as he has laid it, I am so far from being able to make other of it, that I rather believe, he more consulted his friend Hudibras, than his so often( but groundlessly) vouched, the Church of England; for thus says the former, 
He that exacts the Oath, he makes it,  
Not he, that for Convenience takes it:  
And then, how can a Man be said  
To break the Oath, he never made?   
And therefore, for as much as concerns this Section, if this be the way of playing fast and loose with Oaths, let them hereafter, even tangle Flies, and be the same to Mankind, as Rattles to Children, or his Fetters to samson.   

The Doctor's fourth Section. Some Reasons and Arguments, for the further confirmation of his Doctrine.  
AND here, that he may the more impartially examine the matter, he observes,  
1. That the Scripture has given us no directions in this case, 
page.. 18.  nor made any distinction between rightful Kings, and Usurpers; between Kings whom we must, and whom we must not obey; but the general is, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers. Rom. 13.1, 2.  
And what need God Almighty have done it, when he has left us the Law and the Prophets? And therefore, imagining the case were doubtful, what hurt is it if we follow that side of the doubt, that is freest from hazard? Especially, when the Scripture, speaking of Usurpers, never leaves them without some Brand of Infamy.— Thus, Absalom's Vow at Hebron, is called a Conspiracy, 2 Sam. 15.12.— That of Baasha, the same, 1 Kings 15.20.— That of Jeroboam, Rebellion, 2 Chron. 13.6.— That of Zimri, Treason, chap. 16.20. And even Jehu confesses himself a Traitor, 2 Kings 10.9. And which is further observable, few, or none of them, died the death of the Righteous, or could it be said of their Posterity, that their latter end was like his: No; God only suffered them as a Rod to whip others, and when they had done, threw the Rod in the Fire: nor does the Scripture( that I remember) call them the Ordinance of God, or in any wise, require their Subjects to obey them; and therefore, such, or the like examples, seem to be left us, more, for our Caution, than Imitation.  
And whereas the Doctor further says, Nor the least notice of any kind of Duty owing, or to be paid to a Prince out of Authority, whatever his Right may be. I answer, Had that Particular ever happened, either among the Jews, or in our Saviour's time, it is not to be doubted, but there had been some Rule made in the case of Kings, as well, as taught us, what to do one to another, viz. Whatsoever ye would, that Man should do unto you, do ye even so, to them; for this is the Law, and the Prophets.  
And yet this, Rom. 13. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, for all Power is of God, &c. and they that resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation, must do the business: a Text, the Doctor has been very well acquainted with, and more than once thumb'd, though not the same way: which truly, I should have wondered at in any thing, past its Lamb-skin hood, much more, from one of Scarlet, had I not recollected, Cucullus non facit Monachum, or found himself, thus explaining himself, pag. 23. When speaking, that all Power is of God; This has been( saith he) a very perplexed and intricate Dispute, both in Religion and politics, and Men have zealously espoused different Hypotheses, as they have had different ends to serve. As( perhaps) himself for one( the only ingenuous thing of his whole Book); for speaking of Athaliah's Usurpation,( who yet, had a six years Possession of the Crown, and all those conditions, himself requires, for the Translation of a Kingdom, and the whole power of Government in her hands) Yet this( saith he) did not make her a Sovereign irresistible Prince, 
His case of Resistance, p. 132.  because Joash, the Son of Ahaziah, the right Heir of the Crown, was yet alive: with this further, Such Usurpers, though they have the possession of the supreme Power, yet they have no right to it: and though God, for wise Reasons, may sometimes permit such Usurpations, yet while his Providence secures the Persons, of such deposed, and banished Princes from Violence, he secures their Title too. And now let any indifferent Man judge, how well this Doctrine agrees with his present Doctrine; or rather, whether they are not diametrically opposite.— It is so, it is not so.— It is so, it is so. Just like a Juggler's Crinkum Crankum: now 'tis an Horse, now a Man on Horse-back; now 'tis a lantern, and now 'tis a Boar, and when all's done, a blind piece of Paper at last.  
However, since the Doctor has been at the pains to unlearn himself, what he so long taught others, it can't be much time lost to see what he makes of this, Rom. 13.1, 2. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, &c. Where( saith he) to say the Apostle here speaks of lawful Powers, is Gratis dictum, 
Pag. 19  for there is no Evidence of it: And instead of remembering what he had said before, tells us, The Criticism between {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, will not do; for they both signify the same thing in Scripture.( A Mill-horse, and a Horse-mill: some small transposition, and what's that among Friends?) Yet, with the Doctor's leave, Custom of Speech has so gained upon the World, that Men generally receive the former( and which is the Word in that place) for a legal Authority; and the other, for the Power of the Sword; in both which Senses himself once took them, as I have shown before: Or if there were a Criticism in it, it is no new thing to meet several words, that are restrained from their original sense, and appropriated to a particular sense, as the words Sacrament and Blasphemy: And on the other hand, the words, Bishop and Presbyter, are promiscuously used in Scripture, yet( I think) the Doctor will not say, that a Bishop is no more than a great Presbyter, though during the time of his being Bishop, he is above a Presbyter: As the President of the college of Physicians is above the rest, yet himself is no more than a Doctor of physic. But to pass Criticisms( which, like Proverbs, it may be no hurt to know, yet the less a Man threads 'em, so much the better) I go on with his Matter, the Introduction to which is no more than what he has more than twice said before, and begin with his Case of the Roman Empire.  
This Epistle( says the Doctor) was written to the Subjects of that Empire, 
page. 26.  the Titles of whose Emperors were either all of them stark nought, or the very best of them very doubtful, to direct them in the point of Subjection and Obedience: And which( saith he) I take for little less than a demonstration, that this Precept of Saint Paul, cannot be understood only of Subjection to Powers that had a Legal Right. And after an abundance of confused Notions, that rather make new knots, than any-wise untie the old, instances in our Saviour's Discourses with the Pharisees, about paying the Tribute Money to Caesar. However, for answer to it, if I shall prove, that the Roman Emperors from the first Caesar to Tiberius, at what time this Question about the Tribute Money was made, and from thence to Nero, under whom this Epistle was written( however they might be Tyranni in Exercitio, were not Tyranni in Titulo, but) had a legal undoubted Title to the Empire, I think the Doctor's Argument will have lost its edge.  
Pompey had reduced the Jews, and made them Tributaries to the Romans, about Threescore Years before the Birth of our Saviour; and Julius Caesar, who had wrested the Government out of the Senate's Hands, so found them, and was thus far no better than an Usurper: But when the Senate, whose the Right was, had submitted to his Government, and given him those solemn Titles of ( Pater Patriae, Consul in decennium, dictatory in Perpetuum, Sacrosanctus& Imperator) Father of his Country, Consul for Ten Years, Perpetual dictatory, Inviolable and Emperour,( which also the Doctor calls, a kind of Consent of the Senate) that Consent of the Senate wrought upon his Possession, and he, from thenceforth, became their undoubted and lawful Emperour: However, Brutus and Cassius killed him, and were themselves cut off by Octavius, his Heir and successor, to whom the Augmentation of Augustus was added by the Senate; it having been first debated by them ( An quia condidisset Imperium Romulus vocaretur, 
Flor. Lib. 4 cap. 12.  said sanctius& reverentius visum est nomen Augusti) Whether, for that he founded the Empire, he should be called Romulus, but the Name of Augustus seemed the more Holy and Reverend. So that before the Time of Tiberius, when this Discourse was, the business was so accorded between the Emperours and the Senate, that the Emperour now reigned unquestioned, without any Competition of the Senate: In him was the Power quietly seated; the Money superscribed with his Image; Edicts set out in his Name; and he looked upon by all( without any Rival) as inferior to God only: In which Case of his acknowledged Power, 
Dr. Hammond's Pract. Cat. lib. 2.§. 11.  Christ being born in his Dominions, thinks not fit to make a question of his Right, where there was none made by the Romans; or to dispute Caesar's Title( however acquired by violence at first) when they, from whom it was taken, did acquiese, and disputed it not. And therefore, when the Pharisees( a proud, subtle, scrupulous sort of People, who openly Practised against Kings, and presumed to raise War against them, as such is the Character Josephus gives of them) under the colour of Religion and Conscience, 
Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 3. Luke 20.20.  but with a real Design of ensnaring him by his Answer, and so bring him within the Compass of the Law, ask him the Question, Master, is it lawful to give Tribute to Caesar, or no? Our Saviour determines for the Image and the Superscription, not relying wholly on the possession of Power, as the Doctor will have it now, but the legal Right, as well as the possession of that Power. And therefore when our Saviour had yielded his Obedience to such a legal Right, how can it rationally be presumed, that St Paul, who wrote this Epistle, while the Julian Family were yet in being, intended any other than lawful Powers?  
Then for what he says, The Prophet Jeremy's Argument is prophesy, or an express Command from God to submit to the King of Babylon, because himself having entailed the Kingdom upon the Posterity of David, they could not, without an express Command from God, subject themselves to any other Prince, while any of that Family were living; which is the Reason that Jehoiada gives, for deposing Athaliah, &c.— Good God! what's the meaning of all this? when the Scripture says, 
2 Kings 23.20. Ezek. 17.15, 19. Jer. 52.3.  Zedekiah had rebelled against the King of Babylon; and the Prophet Ezekiel denounces God's judgement against him, for breaking the Oath made to the King of Babylon: And the same does the Prophet Jeremiah; which may remember the Doctor, that an Oath made to a lawful Thing, cannot lawfully be broken.— Then for the Matter of Athaliah, the Doctor has answered it for me, Two or Three Pages before: However, when he says, 
Pag. 35.  That Joash was first Anointed, and Proclaimed King, before any one stirred a Finger against Athaliah; It makes nothing in the Case, for she was slain in a Hurry without any judicial Proceeding against her. Or were it otherwise, what's that to England, where Coronation is only a Ceremony, 
Case of Post nati. 73. Sir Edw. cook 3. Inst. 7. His Case of Resist. 128.  and not of the Essence of Kingship? And the Doctor gives the Law-Reason of it, for that, The King never dies, but the same Minute that the natural Person of one King dies, the Crown descends upon the next of Blood; and therefore, he who rebelleth against the Father, and murders him, continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son, which commences with his Father's Death.— And whereas the Doctor further says, That Antichrist is to appear under the Fourth Monarchy; Now, that appearance, and his Kingdom, must be some where; we'll suppose it for once, England, and that he set up here, where the Spiritual and the Temporal Power are united; and being so( according to the Doctor's now-Principles) he is invested with God's Power, and we ought to obey him; and he also by consequence, being invested with the Spiritual Power, the Doctor ought to obey him: But how agreeable this is to God's Care of the Church, of which himself is Head, and of which St Paul says, What Communication is there between Christ and Antichrist, let any reasonable Man judge.— But what need I run so far; the Devil fought with our First Parents, and obtained the Principality of this World ( Princeps hujus Mundi); and if the Doctor speaks Truth, those that lived before Christ cast him out, ought to have obeyed him.  
And truly, while the Doctor thus wildly Expounds those Higher Powers, I wonder he spoken not more plainly to those other Words, Every Soul, especially when the Magdeburgians, Junius Brutus, and some few French Writers have lead him the way; unless perhaps( like the Country person that red Five hundred for Five thousand) he would have us believe that first, though o' my Conscience yet, one's as good Divinity as t'other: For thus say they, That this of Paul concerns only inferior Subjects, not any one in Office, as a Judge, a Justice, or the like; and that such as they, might take Arms against their misgoverning Sovereigns, and when they did, inferior Subjects were not to resist such Powers, but join with them against such Sovereigns: Though truly, when I further red the Doctor( whose Matter lies so scattered, that 'tis impossible to take him all at once) he comes not much short of it, when, Pag. 30. he says, We are not bound to defend the King, when he takes illegal Methods, but not a word, of who shall be judge of that Illegality; least considering what Mischief such Notions make among the Common People; who, persuade them once they are not bound to defend their Prince, have seldom made it a question, whether they might not Arm themselves; first, defensively, and, if that prospers, offensively: If not, what has so often armed Subjects against their lawful Princes? Put that distinction in their Mouths, That, not their lawful, but unlawful Authority is opposed by them, and they Fight not against the Magistrate, but the Man? Or what more encourages the attempt, than that if it prosper, God gave it Success, and in that, made it his own Ordinance? In a word, do but allow this Doctrine, and let a Prince Reign never so justly, and have the ill luck, not to please the People, it is but giving him the Name of a Tyrant, and the Work's done. 
Paterculus.  ( Expediebat facto Parricidio Caesarem Tyrannum appellari) It was the least they could do, to call Caesar a Tyrant, that they might have somewhat to say, in excuse of the Patricide. But withal, 
Thuanus.  judge the miserable Condition of Princes ( quibus nisi occisis, de Conjuratione non creditur) when no Man will believe a Conspiracy, unless the Prince be killed.  
2. The Doctor in the next place observes, 
Pag. 23.  That this gives the easiest and most intelligible account of the Original of human Government, That all Power is from God, who is the Sovereign Lord of the World. And for matter of Fact, comes again to the Four Monarchies, which he has already worn Thread-bare, and I have once for all spoken to; but withal says, The Original of Particular Monarchies is very obscure, for want of History, which also I have not pntermitted; and throws it from himself to others, in that some think all Power was Originally derived from the Choice and Consent of the People; but never tells us of what Credit those some are: Or if he had, what signifies Thought, when even himself has so often declared against it; with this nevertheless, that he still kept some little Hole to creep out at, as the Prospect of Affairs might be altered by Providence: However, as obscure soever as he makes it, the word particular tacitly acknowledges, that Monarchy in general was Originally from God; and therefore, might as well have demanded, which was first, the Hen or the Egg? God made all Things in Perfection, And in the Division of the Nations of the Earth, 
Ecclus. 17.17.  appointed a Ruler over every People, as I have shown before: And himself also confesses, 
His Case of Resist. 19.  That God left the Administration of the Government to the Will and Pleasure of Kings; which confirms me, that this Original Power, never came from the Choice and Consent of the People; or if it had elsewhere, what had the Doctor to do to start Republican Principles in an Hereditary Kingdom, unless he could make it Hereditary and Elective at the same time? Yet since h'as don't, it can be no hurt to bestow a little Ink upon't, that it spread no further.— This we know, 
Deut. 17.15.  that God charges the Jews to set him over them, whom himself should choose; which is absolutely exclusive of all Choice of their own: And therefore, when the Doctor talks of the Choice and Consent of the People, he would have done well to have considered, that the Proof lies on his part, to show how they came by it; whether God gave it them, or they took it themselves: If God gave it them, but so long ago, that they cannot make it out, when and where the first Grant was made, let him yet produce some Evidence for them, to justify the Claim; or, at least, some pregnant presumption to render it probable, that there was some such Thing done, though the Record be lost: If none of this be done, then it remains, that they took it; and if so, it was unjust in its first Foundation, and consequently they could have no Power to choose: And truly, I have the rather insisted on this matter, because the Doctor so often insinuates, That where the Authority is derived from the People, who shall hinder them from taking it away again, when they see fit? and an abundance of the like, which makes nothing to his Argument; when yet, if it were so, what Prince can be secure when the People once come to say, By us Kings Reign? Or how will he avoid the running foul on several of our Statutes, which have declared the contrary: As amongst the rest, The 16 Rich. 2. cap. 5. Whereby it is declared, That the Crown of England hath been ever so free, that it is in no earthly Subjection, but subject to God, in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown, and to none other.— And to the same purpose, the 24. Hen. 8. c. 12.— And the 12. Car. 2. cap. 30. That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom, neither the Peers of this Realm, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament, nor the People collectively or representatively, nor any other Persons whatsoever, ever had, have, hath, or ought to have any coercive power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. And withal the Doctor might have considered his own Doctrine, That when the Government is thoroughly settled, it is the Ordinance of God: And if so, what have the People to do with it?  

Pag. 9.  Others again( says the Doctor) ascribe this Original to Conquest, and think it gives no Right, but the Submission of the conquered People does; 
page. 24.  yet in another Place, says, Submission is only a forced after-consent, not to make a King, but to own him who has made himself King, and whom, very often, we would disown and reject were it safe so to do.— But what does the Doctor mean by this; unless, as having comprehended himself in the word We, he hints to the World, that he is not a Person of such an obstinate Allegiance, but he can submit to any new Ordinance of God, as the Dispensations of Providence may alter his Prospect?— Or what was his Business to talk of Conquest in England; when Conquest cuts off the Laws of the old Constitution; and every Man's Life and Fortune lies at the Mercy of the Conqueror, which makes his Sovereignty absolute, and his Will a Law; and then, what will become of his Afterconsent, when a conquered People are all Slaves, and consequently( being not sui juris) cannot consent, at least so as to bind their Posterity, 
Ead. p. 24.  more than his Ancestor could him Three hundred Years ago? But why this to England( I say) where in all Contrastoes for the Crown, not above One of our Kings ever touched that String, as well knowing 'twould make but harsh-Musick? William the First( 'tis true) got the Crown by his Sword, and was thence called the Conqueror, and like a Conqueror brought in his Norman tenors, disposed of several Estates to his Followers, set forth his public Edicts in the Norman Tongue, and caused our Laws to be written in the same, and all Pleadings and Entries to be in that Tongue, till the 36. Ed. 3. at what time it was altered by Statute. But Hen. 4. the First of the Lancastrian Kings, and who wrested the Crown with an armed Hand from Richard II. never yet pretended Conquest; but that he entred, and took upon him the Crown, as right Inheritor to King Henry III. and not as a Conqueror: And what that Title was, we may see in Sir J. Hayward's History of the First Year of his Reign.— So Henry VII. with his Three Titles, never set up that of Conquest.— And Edward IV. who restored the Line of York, and recovered the Crown by Conquest( or a victorious Regress, 
17 Edw. 4. cap. 7.  as the Statute calls it) yet never owned it as such, but made Title from Philippa, Daughter and Heir of Lionel Duke of Clarence, Third Son of King Edward III.— And therefore, why the Doctor should broach this Doctrine to the People, I cannot tell, unless it be to gain a new Reputation with the Mob, who( like those in the Acts) are ever itching after some new Thing; least considering in the mean time, they rather want a Pendulum than a Fly, somewhat to moderate, not multiply their Motion: Or unless also, if neither Choice nor Conquest can fix a Foundation for Government, he may the better bring in Providence to help him out with't; Which( says he) requires all Obedience and Submission to a Prince, so set on the Throne, as long as God is pleased to continue him, or his Family in it.  
However, when the Doctor talks so often of God's Providence, Will, Counsel and Decrees, and the People believe, God Almighty's Ambassadors, know more of his Mind, than other Men, what hurt had it been, if he had  told a Stranger, how he might judge of that pleasure of God, and not put it into every Shop-boy's hand, to weigh the matter, and with his peremptory Balance, pronounce a mean Tekel on his Sovereign.  
And now, when one would think he had fixed his foundation of Government, he shakes it all to pieces again, and ultimately resolves it into the Authority of the People, 
page. 25.  to make Kings, which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule, and alter: And if they have such an uncontrollable Authority, I doubt not( saith he) they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them too.— But what needed that( if) when he had ultimately resolved it into the People, as before: And yet by what means soever the Throne is gotten it is the same thing, the Prince is God's King and Minister, and must be obeied, if all power be of God.  
I have already shown the difference between God's positive Will and his permissive Will, and therefore need not speak the same thing over again: yet this I may say, if what the Doctor says be true, the consequence of it must be thus, That there was never yet so horrid a Rapine, or Rebellion in the World, but what might justify itself upon these Principles: I'll abandon all History; Alexander shall be no longer called a ( Foelix praedo) fortunate Robber, but ( utile Exemplum) a profitable Example: And Seneca's ( Prosperum Scelus) successful Villainy, a good practical Moral: Cade, tiler, Straw, shall be no longer Rebels; and John of Leiden, Knipperdoling, Massinello, shall stand Candidates for the calendar.— O but may some say, they were poor Rogues, and received ( Sceleris pretium) the reward of their Villainy; but then cronwell was more fortunate (— Tulit hic Diadema) and got the Crown: and truly now I think on't, Success is very much in the matter, and therefore were I worthy to advice the Doctor, I'd persuade him to translate his Book, and sand it beyond Sea, for certainly such comfortable Doctrine cannot but do well, for Belgrade this Year, and( if he times it right) for Hungary the next.  
And now I had as good as done with the Doctor, and was just quitting his desultory way of Argument, and coming to his matter of Law, but that his Rump Parliament, &c. brought me back again; whose power yet, if what he says be true, was God's Power, though they were advanced to it by no honester means, than Thieves take a Purse, 
page. 34.  or break open a House: because, when any Prince, by what unjust means soever, with respect to Men, is placed in the Throne, and settled there, he is advanced by God, is the Ordinance of God, &c. 
page. 46.  And yet under that Usurpation, saith the Doctor, the Loyal Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy thought themselves bound in Conscience, to oppose that Usurpation, at their utmost peril; and shall we arraign them all, as resisting God's Ordinance, by their opposition to those Usurp'd Powers, &c. But what does he mean by the word( all) as if some might be arraigned, others not? Or rather, why has he not answered his own Interrogation, in determining whether they ought to be arraigned or not? which is a shuffle to the People, though the Interrogation being in the Affirmative, concludes in the Negative, i.e. we ought not to arraign them: and I the rather took notice of it, because his next Paragraph will allow those Nobility, &c. their not complying with those usurped Powers, to be only a great prejudice, but no Argument, or confutation of his Principles.— Be what it will, it stands as an Example to good Men, and a Caution to wicked Men, how they run into the like Crimes, lest also they fall under the like Punishment. And for the Doctor's Principles, I conceive, the venerable Authority, and the judgement of two Universities, of which before, might be confutation enough, without being burnt here, as they were at Oxford.  
And yet to give the Doctor his due, and that he may not be absolutely thought, to have intended that Usurpation, for the Ordinance of God, he thinks fit to call it, an open bare-faced Rebellion; yet that, so tenderly, as if his greatest quarrel to them, were their turning out the Bishops, Deans, 
page. 47. 7.  and Prebends; sequestering their Livings, if they were of any value, and selling their Lands. Nor this, without reason, when from Magna Charta, 
9 Hen. 3.  to the first of Hen. 8. the advancement of Holy Church, was ever remembered, before the amendment of the Realm.  
Moreover( says the Doctor) Their Government was never settled, but frequently changed, and new modeled, which is no Argument of a settlement; and which is more than that, they had not a National Consent and Submission.— Yet they had among them, a full twelve years Possession, the whole administration of the Government, and all affairs relating to it; the general Addresses of the Nation; their Parliaments too( such as they were) and whatever conditions the Doctor requires, 
page. 9. page. 48.  to a through settlement. And this Case of theirs( saith he) seems to be much like the case of Antiochus; who had kept the Jews in subjection for some Years, yet when Mattathias took Arms in defence of their Religion, they justify this Action by saying, That the Government of Antiochus was not settled among them, either by submission or continuance. i. e. Tho' the People were forced to submit to Power, his Government was not owned by any public National Submission. Now suppose, neither Mattathias, nor any of those with him, said what the Doctor has said for 'em in justifying their taking Arms, as before, I hope, either himself, or some other for him, will confess, that he has dealt dis-ingenuously.— The Story is in the Maccabees, 
1 Mac 1. v. 21. 30, 31, 38.  and let the Book determine between us.— That Antiochus had by force kept the Jews in subjection for several Years, rifled the Sanctuary, burnt the City, and destroyed such as would not comply with him, or forced them to flight, is true: But it is also as true, that when he had rebuilt the City, and fortified it, he set up an Idol-Altar in Jerusalem, 
Ver. 47.54.  and the like through the Cities of Judah, and sent his Officers to compel the People to revolt, and sacrifice to Idols: during this Persecution, Mattathias, and his five Sons, 
1 Mac. 2. v. 1. 15. 18.  had left Jerusalem, and dwelled in Modin, whither also the King's Officers came, and with large Promises invite him to fulfil the King's Commandment, as the Men of Judah, and Jerusalem had done: to whom Mattathias, thus boldly answered, 
Ver. 19, 20.  Though all the Nations that are under the King's Dominions obey him, and fall every one from the Religion of their Fathers, and give consent to his Commandments, yet will I, and my Sons, and my Brethren, walk in the Covenant of our Fathers: 
Ver. 24, 25  and as he had done speaking, there came a Jew, to sacrifice on the Altar, according to the King's Commandment, whom Mattathias slay upon the Altar, and the King's Officer with him, 
Ver. 27, 28.  and pulled down the Altar; and cried through the City, Whosoever is zealous of the Law, and maintaineth the Covenant, let him follow me: and so he and his Sons, 
Ver. 42 43.  fled into the Mountains, and such as were voluntarily devoted to the Law, and they that fled for Persecution, joined them. Nor is there more in the Story, which is not long, for the second Chapter ends, with the death of Mattathias. And now, what is the most that can be rationally made of it, but this, That Mattathias did not take Arms in defence of the Religion of his Country, because the Government of Antiochus was not settled among them, by a National Submission; but because, if he had submitted to him, 
1 Mac. 1. v. 20.  he had violated the Laws of his Nation, and the Covenant of his Fathers: which, I am sure, is so little to the Doctor's present purpose, that in kindness to himself, he might have better tried, whether it would not have kept could, for another time.  
And now the Doctor comes to conclude the whole, with answering an Objection, viz. That the Laws of the Land, 
page. 51. ( it is said) are the measure of our Duty, and the Rule of Conscience; and therefore, to act contrary to them, is contrary to our Duty to God, because contrary to the Laws of the Land. And this he answers with a distinctio●, 
page. 52.  ●●at the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience, when they do not contradict the Laws of God, but when they do, they are no Rule to us, but their Obligation must give place to a Divine Authority: and for so much of it, as that they are the Rule of Conscience, I hold with him; for Conscience being but the judgement of Reason, applied to some particular act, whereby, upon the joining one knowledge to another, a Man discerns what he ought, for ought not to do, by what possible means can he know whether his Conscience be erroneous, or not, but by bringing it to the Law, the Touchstone, even St. Paul used, when he said he had not known what Sin was, but for the Law? Nor were the Gentiles, when yet, there was no written Law without a Law,( i.e. the Law of Nature, which is the Law of God) imprinted in their Hearts; or otherwise, the same Apostle had never said of them, 
Rom. 2.14.  When the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by Nature, the things contained in the Law, these having not the Law, are a Law to themselves, their Conscience bearing witness, and accusing, or excusing one another: But for that other part of it; When they contradict the Laws of God, they are no Rule to us. The Doctor must give me leave to say, That his wild Supposition, is not of force enough to unhinge any positive Law; because, as Scripture is not of private Interpretation, so neither is the Law, which pronounceth nothing, but in the Mouth of a Judge; and therefore, before the Doctor had thus beaten down one Rule, he ought( by some more competent Judge than himself) to have given us another, by which, we also might come to discern, when the Laws of the Land, contradict the Law of God; because( for my part) I do not know any Law of England that does so, or what may not very well subsist with it; in as much as our Law is grounded upon the Laws of God, 
Lord khan. Ellesmere's Post-Nat. pag. 32.  and extends itself to the Original Law of Nature, and the Universal Law of Nations.  
But( perhaps) I find where the shoe pinches, and this of the Doctor's, is but the little Wimble to let in the greater Augre: There is a Statute of ours, whereby it is provided, That no Canons, 
25 Hen. 8. ●, 15.  Constitution, or Ordinance, should be made, or put in Execution within this Realm by Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy, which were contrariant or repugnant to the King's Prerogative Royal, or the Customs, Laws, and Statutes of this Realm. And the matter lies here, There are many things in Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book, that( to say nothing of the King's Prerogative) are contrary to the Laws, and Statutes of this Realm, which also holds no such Custom, That the Rebellious rising of disloyal Subjects against their natural Sovereigns; 
Cap. 28. Can. 28.  and Authority wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor, being always God's Authority, ought therefore, when they are thoroughly settled, to be obeyed, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake: And that Book is the foundation of the Doctor's Book, and if that be( as I have shown) contrary to the Laws of our Land, what becomes of the Doctor's Book? No doubt but he foresaw that blot in his Tables, and therefore to prevent the having it said of both, In their self-will they digged down a Wall, 
Gen. 49.6.  he cunningly distinguishes, or rather, boldly determines, That where the Laws of the Land contradict the Laws of God, they are no Rule to us; but withal, begs the question, That our Laws do so; and therefore ought to be no longer the Rule of Conscience, than as that Book, or himself( the learned Commentator) shall be pleased to allow them, not to contradict the Laws of God. And if this be not his meaning, what makes( the cobbler beyond his Last) a Clergy-man dabbling in new Hypotheses of Government, contrary to all Mens Sense but his own, and even theretoo, so often inconsistent to himself? Or, when the Bishops( in Convocation) have more than once been inhibited, and commanded, 
Sir E. Coke's Inst. 4. 322.  That as they loved their Baronies( which they hold of the King)" that they in no wise presume, to meddle with any thing that concerned the King's Laws of the Land, his Crown and Dignity, his Person, or his State, or the State of his Council, or Kingdom( Scituri pro certo, &c.) to be sure, if they did, the King would seize their Baronies; what made him, thus unsent for, thrust his hand among the Heads of so many wise Men, in a matter too, which few of them have yet determined? To tell us one while, Our Oath to the dispossessed Prince ceases, cessant Materia; 
page. 16.  for though the Man is still in being, the King is gone: And then again, That dispossession does not divest a Prince of his Legal Right, 
page. 26.  because a Legal successive Right, bars all other human claims; and if so, how can the Obligation of an Oath cease, while( as the Doctor says) the Man is still in being? And what's the meaning of all this? Is it the mark or privilege of Pedants, that they alone engross nonsense? Can they with Dulman( in Ignoramus) say, Confiscabitur ad nostrum usum? If not, let them on their better thoughts, yet tell us, just how far, and no farther, we may take the Devil's Road, in our way to Heaven; let them, if they will not enter themselves, not shut it against others, or at least, if they cannot show us the way, not put us out of it; as certainly, all those do, that vent their Malice, and Interest, under the Cloak of Religion, and thus presumptuously dash the first Table, against the second.  
Nor is this the only place where I have shown him, how the Church of England are beholding to him; whatever that may be, the present Government owes him no thanks for his King de facto: An expression, never yet given any of our Kings, during their having the Crown, nor after their death, or session, without Obloquy: However the Doctor says, 
page. 53.  It is the declared Opinion of some of the best Lawyers of former days, and the most common, prevailing Opinion still, That our Laws require Allegiance to a King de facto, without a Legal Right; and for the proof of it, vouches the Lord Chief Justice cook; the Judges in Bagget's Case; the Lord Chief Justice Hales; and the Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman, in the trial of the Regicides, in answer to Coke's Plea; who allowed the Law, but would not allow his Case to be within the purview of it: And if they, or any of them, said any such thing, they had not it seems, the same consideration, as had the King's Justices, 39 Hen. 6. who being required, by the Lords in Parliament, to give their advice and Counsel, touching the claim and title of Richard Duke of York, to the Crown of England, then lying before them, gave this answer, That the matter was so high, and touched the King's high Estate, and Regality, which is above the Law, and passed their Learning, wherefore they durst not enter into any Communication thereof; and therefore humbly besought all the Lords, to have them utterly excused. And who knows, whether the Gentlemen before vouched, were of that Opinion, the Doctor says they are?  

page. 55.  I'll begin with Sir Edward cook,( for the Lord Chief Justice wrote another style) where the Doctor says, Is is the design of a late Learned Author, to prove that the Lord Chief Justice cook was mistaken in his Opinion, 
25 Ed. 3. c. 2. 3 Inst. 7.  That the Statute of Treason is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom; for if there be a King regnant in Possession, though he be Rex de facto, and not de jure, he is signior le Roy within the purview of this Statute, &c. To which I answer, 1. That it is not clear, whether in the Paragraph where those words are, he intends not the Statute 11 Hen. 7. c. 1. to which he refers in the Margin with a Vide. And this the rather, for that speaking of the words ( le Roy) in the former Paragraph, he says it is to be understood of a King regnant, and not of one that hath but the name of a King, or a Nominative King; and( by way of Antithesis) instances in King Philip, who married Queen Mary, and was but a Nominative King;— for the Office and Dignity of a King, was in Queen Mary; and he having the name, but not the Office and Dignity of a King, was not within the Act of 25 Edward 3. And therefore an Act was made, 
1st. and ●d. Ph. and Mar. c. 10.  That to compass, or imagine the Death of King Philip, during his Marriage with the Queen, was Treason. Secondly, The Lord Chief Justice cook saith, Allegiance and Faith is due to the King by the Law of Nature, 
7 cook 12  which is part of the Law of England, and Immutable: and consequently, must be meant of a King de jure; for, neither doth the Law of Nature countenance Injustice, nor did the Constitutions of this Realm, at the time of making of that Statute, know any other, but a rightful King. 3dly, Sir Edw. cook, from the time he had been removed from the chief Justiceship, and made Sheriff of Buckinghamshire, was a known discontent, and lay at catch upon the Court, as may be seen by his Motto, Prudens qui patience, and his transactions in the Parliament of 3 Car. 1. And what weight such a single Authority carries with it, I leave to every Man.  
The Doctor's next vouchees, are the Judges in Bagget's Case, which is the very, and only Authority( besides that of his vide 11 Hen. 7.) that Sir Edw. cook quotes in his Margin, to confirm his Opinion. And here the Doctor trips in the very Porch, when he says it was concerning the validity of Bagget's Patent of naturalisation( because the King can no more naturalise, 
page. 61.  than restore in Blood but by Act of Parliament) granted by Hen. VI. who was only King de facto, though it were not confirmed by the Statute, 1 Ed. 4. And which he seems to urge, as the words of the Gentleman, mentioned in the former Paragraph, whose Book I never saw, but believe them mis-recited, because if the Patent were good, though not confirmed, there's an end of the dispute, and the Doctor might have spared that answer to the matter, which yet he has given but lamely; however, the Case itself will clear it better.  
It was in an Assize brought by Bagget for the Office of one of the Clerks in Chancery; to this the Defendant Pleads, that the Demandant Bagget was an Alien born;( to wit) at Pontoise in France, out of the Ligeance of the King of England, &c. To which Bagget by protestation, that his Father and his Mother were English born, for Plea saith, that Hen. VI. An. Reg. 30. did grant him Letters of Legitimation( or Denization), and that he was born at Dangu in the duchy of Normandy, within the Ligeance of the King of England, &c. And in favour of the Patent it was argued, 
9 Edw. 4. fol. 1, 2.  That though Henry VI. was an Uurper, yet his Letters Patents, being an Act which toucheth the Jurisdiction Royal, shall be good, and bind the King de Droit; and that Henry VI. was not merely as an Usurper, because he claimed the Crown as entailed to him by Act of Parliament, 
7 Hen. 4.  on the other side: Then shall the King be in a worse condition than a common Person; a Disscisee re-enters, he shall avoid all mean acts of the Disscisor: so the King, as being in, by ancient Right, from King Richard II. And in the Act of 1 Edw. 4. Provision is made for grants of Wards, of Licenses, of Amertisment, Charters of Pardon, and Acts judicial, but of this, no Provision, and therefore voided: and which is very remarkable, it is entred at the end of the Case, with a mark on the Margin, That this day the Justices did not argue, or give any opinion in the case but only, less Serjeants& Apprentices de lay. After which it was argued again, and there also the Justices spoken not a word to the Letters Patents, or of a King de facto: neither also the Term following, 
9 Edw. 4. fol. 5.  which was the last day, and where the whole Record is at large; and therefore Sir Edw. cook has overshot his Mark, in giving out that, which is not in the Book; nor were he to be so easily excused, but for what he says in the Title-page, Haec ego grandaevus posui.— To which if it be said, that judgement was given for Bagget; I grant it, with this; that the Case was a new Case, never heard of till then, and therefore, if judgement had been given upon the Letters Patents, it is not to be doubted, but we should have found it in the Book; whereas on the contrary, the Justices did not so much as speak to it: nor was there any need of their so doing; for Bagget having set forth, that his Father and his Mother were born in England, and himself, though born in France, yet within the King's Ligeance, 
25 Edw. 1. ●. 1.  he was within the Statute, De natis ultra mere, and thereby enabled, to have and enjoy any Inheritance within the King's Ligeance, as other Inheritors: and if an Inheritance, much more an Office; and therefore, it may be presumed, the Judges gave judgement for Bagget, merely upon his Title, without any regard to his Patent.  
And now that the Doctor relies so much upon what the Judges in this Case did not say, he must give me leave to tell him what the Parliament Roll, recited in that Case,( fol. 6.) doth say, viz. That upon the Decease of King Richard II. 
Rot. Par. 1 Ed. 4. n. 8.  the Crown by Law, Custom and Conscience, descended and belonged to Edmond Earl of march, under whom King Edward IV. claimed: And that Henry IV. against Law, Conscience, and Custom of the Realm of England, usurped upon the Crown and Lordship thereof; And Henry V. and Henry VI. occupied the said Realm, by unrighteous Intrusion, and Usurpation, and no otherwise. And in the Printed Statute of the same Year( cap. 1.) they are declared Usurpers; and called, Kings in dead, and not in Right; and their Reigns pretensed Reigns, and themselves pretensed Kings; such as did not reign lawfully, nor possess the Crown by a just Title. And when in the 9th. Edw. 4th. Hen. VI. had again gotten the Crown, and called a Parliament the same Year, wherein many things were wrought to the disherison and destruction of Edw. IV. yet upon Edw. IV.'s beating him out again, the Parliament of that Year calls that Parliament, so called by Hen. VI. A pretensed Parliament, unlawfully, and by usurped Power, 
17 Ed. 4. cap. 7.  summoned by the Rebel and Enemy to our Sovereign Lord the King, Henry VI. late in dead, and not of Right, King of England; and the said pretensed Parliament, and all Acts, Statutes, &c. had, or Enacted by the Authority of the same, are reversed, canceled, and declared voided, &c. So that the Doctor may see what those Parliaments thought of a King de facto, when the continuation of the Injury, by three descents, altered not the Nature of it: And if he shall show me, that this distinction of a King de facto and a King de jure was ever heard of, till this first of Edw. IV.( at which time it was first invented in Parliament, not as a salvo for the Kings of the House of Lancaster, but in contradistinction to a King de jure:) Or that the Expression was ever used concerning any of our Kings, during their having the Crown, or after their Death, or session without Obloquy, I give him the Cause; and being so, I think he had little to do, to trump it up now.  
His next vouchee is the Lord Chief Justice Hales, concerning whom I shall only say this, 
pag. 53.  that I cannot believe he ever said, That our Laws allow and require Allegiance to a King de facto without a legal Title, until the Doctor( whose part it is to show it) name the Book where he said it; it being his way, as well here, as in most other of his Authorities, to throw it out boldly, without showing where one may find the Matter for which he vouches; not unlike a Gentleman I once knew in this Town, who( in spite of his Stars) had set up for a Scholar, with Titles of Books, and the Names of Authors: Yet now I think on't, there is an excellent piece of Pleas of the Crown,( printed at first without any Name to it, but since taken to be that Chief Justice's) in which yet he gives no Opinion of his own, but makes it a kind of Summary of all that can be found in the Books touching that Matter: And in his Chapter of Treason( speaking of the Statute 25. Edw. 3.) says thus; A King de facto, and not de jure, is within this Act: And a Treason against him is punishable, though the right Heir get the Crown; but quotes no other Authority for it, but Sir Edward cook; 
3 Inst. 7.  and with him instances in the Case of King Philip( of which before) so that still the Authority depends singly upon Sir Edward cook; and Sir. Edward cook stands singly upon Bagget's Case; and if that fail( as I have already shown how it does) what more can be made of it, than that it is but Gratis dictum, by both? And for that other part of it, That Treason against a King de facto, is punishable, though the right Heir get the Crown; who denies it? Because it was an offence against the convenience of the Government, and against the King de jure also; who( as the Doctor has well observed) never dies: but the Chief Justice does not say, that Treason against cronwell( as the Law th●●● went) was punishable by King Charles the Second, upon his Restauration, though the murder of his Royal Father was.  
And lastly, the Lord Chief Justice. Bridgeman, whom, in the trial of the Regicides, in Answer to Coke's Plea, the Doctor will have, to have allowed the Law( i.e. the Law for which he vouches him) but not his Case, to be within it. And here the Doctor must give me leave to tell him, he begins with another mistake; for Sir Orlando Bridgeman, who managed that trial, was not Lord Chief Justice at that time, but Lord Chief Baron; but I will not quarrel about Words, let the Matter speak for itself: and that it may the better do it, it is but requisite, that I set forth so much of the Case as may render it the more intelligible to the Reader. In short, cook was indicted for High-Treason, for compassing and imagining the death of King Charles the first; in that he, with others, did assemble at Westminster-Hall, and propounded, consulted, contrived, and imagined the said Death; and for the bringing about that horrid Conspiracy, assumed a Power, then to kill and murder him, Contra formam Statuti, &c. To which,( upon his arraignment) he pleaded, Not guilty: And after the King's Evidence upon his trial, had given in what they had to say against him, he humbly propounded( which is not the Language of a Plea, as the Doctor is pleased to call it) that if it had not been made appear to their Lordships, that he did ever propound, consult, &c. 
V. the trial in Quarto. page. 146.  the death of his Majesty, then he hoped he could not be found guilty, within the 25 Edw. 3. for he was appointed( by the then Powers) to give his Advice concerning a charge, and ordered, to be of Counsel, for the drawing it up, which the Court admitted: And then( said he) I humbly conceive, that cannot be said to be done maliciously, or advisedly, or with any wicked Intent, which I was required and commanded to do, acting only within my Sphere, and Element, as a counselor, and for my Fee, 
Ibid 152.  which may be called Avaritia, but not Malitia. Then( speaking of those high Courts of Justice) there hath been( saith he) an Act, that calls them Tyrannical, and Unlawful Courts, but a tyrannical, unlawful Court, is a Court de facto, though not de jure: 
Ibid 154.  This( meaning the Regicides) was a Court, had Officers attending them; some say, they had Authority; and the order of the Commons, 
Ibid 155.  may be said to bear him out, for acting according to it, because there was no other Authority de facto: which is the full substance of his defence, as far as it any wise relates to the Doctor's matter, and offered by him, by way of extenuation, not Plea.  

Ibid. 156.  To this Mr. solicitor( upon summing the Evidence) answered, That what he had said, was like a Lawyer, the best his case will bear; but withal, a great aggravation of his Crime, that he, that knew the Law so well, should so much transgress it. And lastly, the Lord Chief Baron to the same purpose: 
Ibid. 170.  Other Men( saith he) may be impudent and ignorant, but you that were a learned Lawyer, your being of Counsel, doth aggravate the thing: And when he comes to the Doctor's words, 
Ibid. 176.  De facto, you( saith he) Mr. cook, say there was an Authority de facto, which you urge upon the Statute 11 Hen 7.( which by the way, cook never mentioned in his Defence) those Persons had gotten the supreme Power, and therefore, for what you did under them, you desire the equity of that Act; saying withal, it was denied to some( meaning the Royalists that served King Charles I.) God forbid it should be denied you. If a Man serve the King in the War, he shall not be punished, let the Fact be what it will. King Henry VII. took care for him that was King de facto, that his Subjects might be encouraged to follow him; to preserve them, whatever the event of the King was: but for that, the intent, and meaning of the Act was clear against him; it was to preserve the King de facto, how much more then, the King de jure; and further shows him, how that de facto he had urged, was not such: And as to that other part of his defence( in the preceding page., which I had forgotten) That an unlawful Court, is a Court de facto, and there being no other then, but an Authority de facto, it might be said to bear him out, &c. His Lordship adds this, That it rather aggravated the Fact, to him, and his Profession, in that they took upon them figuram judicii; and takes the distinction between a standing Court, and a Nominal Court, set up by a part of the Commons: 
Ibid. 211.  And upon Coke's moving in arrest of judgement, closes with this, That the Profession of a Lawyer, will not excuse any Man from Treason. From all which it appears, that neither the Lord Chief Baron, or Court, did( as the Doctor says) allow what cook urged in his defence to be Law; because if they had, they must also have allowed that Authority de facto, under which he acted, and at what time, there was no other in being, to have been a justifiable Authority, and consequently, directed his Jury, to have acquitted him.  
And now, when the Doctor has  told us, what the Lord Chief Baron did not say, touching a King de facto, it may not be amiss, to see what he did say, touching a King de jure, as there's no one but acknowledges, King Charles I. to have been. 
His charge to the Grand Jury. p. 11. — And this( saith the Chief Baron) I deliver to ye for plain and true Law: No Authority, no single Person, no community of Persons, nor the People collectively, or representatively, have any coercive Power over the King of England.— It was the Treason of the Spencers, in Edward the seconds time, That all Homage and Allegiance was due to the King, by reason of the Crown, as they called it; and thence drew this execrable Inference( among others) That if the King did not demean himself according to Right, because he could not be reformed by Law, he might, per aspertee, i.e. by harsh Imprisonment.— The Book, 1 Hen. 7. calls the King the Lieutenant of God; immediate from God; and saith, 
page. 12.  he hath no superior; is head of the People, of the Commonwealth, and the Three Estates.— The same do our Statutes, 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12— 25 H. 8. c. 21. 
The same do all our Statutes.  The 25 Edw. 3. calls the King, our Sovereign Lord the King.— When the Lords and Commons in Parliament, apply themselves to him, they use this Expression, 
page. 14.  Your Lords and Commons, your faithful Subjects, humbly beseech.— The 1 Jac. 1. recognizes, that the Crown of England was lawfully descended on the King, and his Progeny.— The 1 Eliz. the same, as to her.— And in the Oath of Supremacy, we swear the King supreme, and the only supreme; and being so, there is neither mayor, nor superior. But not a word all this while, of an Authority de facto, further than this, 
page. 17.  That if any Man shall shrowded himself under such a pretended Authority, it is so far from an Excuse, that it is an height of Aggravation. And now in such a case, what shall an ignorant Man do? Shall he believe the Doctor, or the Vouchee himself?— And therefore, since the single Authority of Sir Edw. cook has so much to be said against it; since the Judges in Bagget's Case, give no Opinion in it; since the Parliament-Roll, recited in that Case, stands directly against it: Since the Printed Statutes of that time, speak so irreverently of it; since the Lord Chief Justice Hales, and Sir Edw. cook stand, and fall upon the same bottom; and lastly, that the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman, has said nothing in favour of the Doctor's Assertion, and on the contrary, so much against it; I say this for all, That as neither the Church of England has been beholding to him for fathering that on them they make no pretence to, so neither is the present Government, in bringing no better an Argument in defence of it, than that of a King de facto; of which, the Statutes so lately mentioned, have said so much, that I need say no more.— This only,( with all reverence to the Doctor) that when he puts it to the World, whether it is not possible but he may be an honest Man still, though he may be thought mistaken: I also close with this, that it is not mine to judge him; he stands and falls to his own Master.— Let his Book praise him in the Gate.   

An Answer to the VINDICATION.  
AND now, just laying by my Pen, what should I hear, but a Second Part to the same Tune, viz. The Doctor's Vindication of his Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, &c. and finding it to be much the same matter, which in this present discourse, I have already spoken to, I resolved to put it in the same Case, and answer both together.  
For here also, he lays his Foundation on the same bottom that he laid his Book( to wit) those remarkable words( as he calls them) of Bishop Overal's Convocation-Book, 
Cap. 28. Can. 28.  That when ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection, or disloyal Subjects by their rebellious rising against their natural Sovereign, have established any degenerate form of Government among their People; the Ahthority either so unjustly gotten, or wrung by force from the true and lawful Possessor, being always God's Authority, is ever( when such alterations are thoroughly settled) to be reverenced and obeyed, &c. In answer to which, I still stick to the reasons I have before offered, against the Authority of that Convocation-Book, pag. 3, 4. 
Vol. 3. Num. 18.  A Book( saith the new Observator) which had never been much taken notice of, except for the Doctor: nor with out reason, for it seems to trim with every Party, and becomes all things to all, that it may gain some: For the Hollanders are obliquely vindicated; Republican Principles are not altogether condemned; and the most desperate Rebel not bid to despair, for his Authority is God's Authority, if he prevail. But then how does this agree with that maxim in Morality, That, Bonum oritur ex integris; and in Christianity, That we must not do evil, that good may come of it? O but says the Doctor, when it is thoroughly settled, 'tis quiter another thing: 
1 Inst. 35.  But says the Law of England( Non confirmatur tractu temporis, quod de jure non subsistit), Length of time makes nothing Lawful, that was not so at first. In short, the Advertisement of that Convocation-Book to the Reader, that calls them Acts and Canons, would have done well to have shown who made them so; or where they were ever allowed, or published, as the Canons of the Church, which a bare Placet carries not Authority sufficient to do: Besides, it is further said in the said Advertisement, that it has been supplied in some casual defects, from another M. S. but says not by what Authority it was so supplied, or which was the right Manuscript: In a word, the Placet eis, goes no farther than the last Chapter of the first Book, which only past both Convocation-Houses: The second Book, has the words Chapter and Canon, but not one Placet eis to it; and wants the attestation, the first Book has: The third Book has no Canon, but only so many Chapters, and Placet eis to every one of them, and Signed John overall; and thus attested at the end, Haec omnia suprascripta ter Lecta sunt in domo inferiori Convocationis in frequenti Synodo Cleri,& unanimi consensu comprobata.  
Ita testor, Johannes overall, Prolocutor.  
Which haec omnia, can only relate to the lower House, because it wants the attestation of the upper House. So that the Book itself seems perplexed without that, that the King did not ratify it; which he could not well have done, without allowing a Plea for all Usurpers, and( in a manner) signing a Warrant to pains-taking himself. However, the Doctor still shelters himself under the Church of England, 
Vind. p. 3.  in saying, If he errs in following the Convocation, he errs with the Church of England, if we may learn the sense of the Church, from a Convocation: How contrary yet soever it be to their Doctrine and Principles, as I have shown before, page. 4. 15. but shows not a word of any other public Act of the Church, or the Opinion, or practise of any one that owned their Principles, in favour of the Doctrine he now fathers on them: and therefore, how far they are beholding to him for it, I leave to themselves.  
However, say what any Man will, the Doctor has his Subterfuge, and has so earthed himself under that Convocation-Book, that 'tis almost impossible so to unkennel him, but that he's still earthing again: Or else, what makes him thus telling us what the Convocation means? And, let other Men distinguish how they will, 
Vind. p. 4.  he distinguishes as the Convocation does; owns the Means to be Wicked, but the Power and Authority is God's, which is all the distinction the Convocation makes: But I am of Opinion, the Pirate spoken it better( when having rifled a Temple, and had a good Gale to carry him off) See( said he) how the God's favour Sacrilege! which certainly must be one, or both their meanings too, when, without distinguishing between God's permissive Will and his posisitive Will, they make God concur to the Wickedness of Man: as I have shown before, page. 9, 12, 13, 14, 21. And once allow this Doctrine among Christians, the Tuck will not want wherein to glory; the Alcoran may pass for Gospel, and Mahomet shall be no longer an Impostor. It is not many Leaves past, that I advised the Doctor to translate his Book, and sand it to Hungary; but now I'd propose him a shorter Expedient: The Conversion of Souls is incumbent upon all Men, in Christian Charity, more especially on the Doctor, as a Minister of the Gospel; let him take an ignorant Infidel, or Heathen, that knows no more of God, than what the Light of Nature prompts him, and( in some Language that he understands) red to him, what he so often urges, from his Convocation-Book; tell him( if he thinks fit) what a Convocation is; that himself believes as the Convocation believes, and the Convocation believes as he believes; and why, but because it is the Doctrine of the Church of England( as the Doctor so often asserts it to be) and then ask him, if he'll become a Christian? For my part, I dare thus far answer for him, that he'll take time to consider it; and( perhaps) at last, keep where he was. But to proceed:  
Who would not break his Spleen, to see the Doctor thus labouring his Oar, and all to prove, That the Convocation, by successful Rebellion, meant no other than Government Illegally acquired? They were both grave and wise, says the Doctor, the same say I; and as an Argument of it, what need a Man go further than that Parenthesis( when thoroughly settled) to which, besides what I have already said, page. 4, 5, 6. I add this to the Doctor, who relies so much upon it, whether if a lay-man had said it, it had not been a shuffle to bring him off again; at least, a kind of back-door to slip out at, as he shall see Occasion? He that set the End of the World, to have fallen Ninety-two Years from the time he wrote it, took care not to be disproved in his own time: And he that had red, A Raven would out-live a Century, and bought one to try the Truth of it, never lived to make the Experiment. But what's this to the Doctor, when— Ea cura Nepotes, will serve his turn, as well as that thoroughly settled? Unless himself also is on his Voyage to Anticyra, 
Vind. p. 5.  in saying, This meaning can never disturb any Government, till a Nation is fitter for Bedlam, than to be directed by a Convocation: King James, it seems, thought it might disturb his Government, and therefore never ratified those Speculations; which if he had, I will not say he had been fit for Bedlam, but in a fair way for it.  
But the Doctor thinks he has not sufficiently explained himself, 
Vind. p. 5.  neither( in truth) do I: And therefore( says he) a full and stable Possession, without Right, must be confessed to be a Settlement, though not a rightful Settlement. The Government was settled in fact in the Three Henries, &c. As to which last I have already spoken, and I hope fully, page. 39. But as for the rest, I must deny, that Possession without Right, was ever said to be full and stable; because it is defeasible at the will of him that hath the Right; and consequently, can neither be full, stable, nor settled: full it cannot be for want of Title; because, a Title by wrong is no Title; nay, the very word imports as much; for what in common acceptation do Men take the Word full for, but such as requires nothing to perfect it: 
9. cook 9.  And the same does the Law, ( Id est perfectum, quod omnibus partibus constat;& nihil est perfectum, dum aliquid restat agendum.) That is perfect, that has all its Parts; and nothing is perfect, while there yet remains any thing to be done. Then again, stable it cannot be, because it is liable to be overthrown, for want of a solid Foundation: whereas the word Stable( whether we take it from the Latin, a stando; or from the Saxon word Staple) imports somewhat that is fixed and permanent, and of which a Man may be said to have a stay or hold. And if it be neither full nor stable, I need not make it a Question, whether such a Possession be a Settlement, or not?  
But I dwell too long upon this Convocation, especially when the Authority of their Decisions sticks so much with me; and therefore I shall seek for some of the Doctor's new Ma●ter, with this only( as I said in the Epistle) that where he urges any thing that I have answered before, I shall refer my Reader to the page.. The matter of Jehu I have spoken to, page. 9. And where he saith, Legal Powers signify such Powers as have the rightful Authority of Government, 
Vind. p. 11.  according to the Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom they govern; I agree it with him: But that this is the reason of the distinction, between a King de facto and de jure; I must deny it him: For the Three Henries had the Possession of the Crown for Three descents, yet were never said to be settled, because of the rightful pretences of the House of York; nor were they ever called Kings de facto in their own time; and Kings de jure, I think the Doctor will not say they were: But afterwards, when Henry IV. and Henry V. were dead, and Henry VI. had lost that Possession to Edward IV. the rightful Heir, then, and not before, came up that distinction of a King de facto, and de jure; an Expression invented in Parliament, 
1 Edw. 4 cap. 1.  to denote an unlawful, pretended, or pretensed King or Kings( which they declare Henry IV. V. and VI. to have been, in contradistinction to the hereditary Right of the House of York, which they also declare to be in Edward IV.) as I have at large spoken to it, page. 39.  
And for what the Doctor says, 
Vind. p. 17.  If Submission of the King gives a legal Right, what became of the Right of the House of York, when the Duke of York swore Allegiance to Henry IV.? I answer, as to the House of York, it was where it was; that Duke of York, whoever he was, being not King; and as to the Doctor, that he deals disingenuously in not telling his Reader, where he may find what he urges, whereby he might examine the truth of it; which, more especially might be required in this Case, in as much as it relates to the then, not yet determined Right of the two Houses of York and Lancaster: We'll suppose it for once to have been edmond Langley, Fifth Son of Edward III. and Duke of York, Contemporary of the said Henry IV. But say it were, what makes that in the Case? when Edward IV. made no Title from edmond Langley, but from Philippa, Daughter and Heir of Lionel Duke of Clarence, Third Son of the said Edward III. Or if he had been King, by what Law of England can any King of England divest himself? much less any collateral Ancestor, bar the right Heir? This I am sure, if it could have been done, we want not precedents to have opened a way to it: 
Dan. Hist. of Eng. p. 120, 138. 4. Inst. 13. Idem. Dan. 177.  Richard I. resigned his Crown to the Emperor: King John surrendered it to the Pope( and this too, cum communi consilio Baronum:) Henry III. granted to Monfort and his Complices, all his Regal Power, and absolved his Subjects of their Obedience, ( acsi in nullo nobis tenerentur) if he infringed the Charter then made them: Richard II. gave it up( and this too by consent of Parliament) to Henry IV. Edward VI. did what he could to have turned it out of the right channel; But what became of all? just nothing: 
42 Edw. 3.  And what is very remarkable to this matter, the Lords and Commons in full Parliament declared, That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament, 
4. Inst. 14.  that tended to the disherison of the King or his Crown, to which they were Sworn. Which being true, I do not see, if the Prince that has the right to govern, had a mind to submit to him that has the Possession, not the Right, how he could legally do it, at least so, as to bind his Heirs.  

Vind. p. 24.  And for what the Doctor further says, That Joash was first anointed and proclaimed, before any one stirred a finger against Athaliah, I have also spoken to that, page. 22, 25. And shall only take notice of what the Doctor urges in the same page.; That no Priests in the old Testament did ever depose from their Crowns any of their Kings, how wicked soever, or had any Authority so to do: And if they had no Authority to do it, much less had those of 1648. of whom before: Nor is what the Doctor further says, 
Vind. p. 34.  to be past without remark, viz. When God nominated any King( among the Jews) and gave command to his Prophets to anoint him, it was always for life; and though during his Life, he might nominate another to succeed him after his Death, as he did David to succeed Saul; yet he never nominated another to take his Life and Crown from him. 
Vind. p. 35.  David was anointed, but never pretended to the Crown while Saul lived, because there was then an anointed King on the Throne.  

Vind. p. 46.  And for what the Doctor says of Jeroboam, &c. I have also answered that matter, page. 8, 9. And, says he, the fundamental mistake which runs through all these kind of Arguments i● this, That Men make the Events of Providence in private Injuries, Thefts, Robberies, Encroachments, &c. to be the same with God's disposal of Kingdoms, and to have the same Effects; whereas, God has erected human Judicatures to judge of the first, and reserved the second to himself: And brings in Horace to teach us the difference. 
Regum timendorum in proprios Greges,  
Reges in ipsos Imperium est Jovis.  Subjects are under the Government and Correction of Princes; Princes under the Government of God. Which I must aclowledge to be the first time that I ever met the latter verse taken in that sense, but always on the contrary, i.e. Kings are only accountable to God, not to their Subjects; because every Sentence being to be given by a Superior upon his Inferior, how can a King, who has neither Equal nor Superior in his Realm, be judged by his Subjects, who are all his Inferiors? And how dissonant is it to common Understanding, to conceive so meanly of the Divine Providence, as that a Sparrow falls not to the Ground without it, yet that it regards not human Right in the disposal of Kingdoms, 
Case of Alleg. p. 12.  which is the principal act of Providence. Does God command us to do justly, and shall we believe the Almighty will pervert judgement? Has God imprinted in every Man the Law of Nature, and confirmed it with a written Law, and yet by some secret Reserve, bound him to another which he has no possibility of discovering? Far be the thought; especially, when God permits many things to come to pass, in which his positive Will in no wise concurs; as I have shown before, page. 9, 12, 13, 14, 21. and I hopefully. Which being so, of what dangerous consequence must it be to scatter such Notions of God among the common People, whose Souls are sense, and with whom a handsome Gloss was ever as good as the Text. Does God, may they say, not regard human Right in the disposal of Kingdoms, then certainly he cannot be angry with one of us, for dispossessing a Neighbour of his Farm; especially when, if it succeeds, God seems to approve it. Nor is it a new Doctrine;( Magis intuetur quid fecerit Jupiter, &c.) Men more regard what Jupiter did, than what Plato wrote, or Aristotle taught. The young Fellow in Terence justified his Rape, from that of Jupiter's ravishing Danae; At ego homuncio non facerem! imo feci& lubentius.  
For what follows, That the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience, when they do not contradict the Laws of God; but when they do, they are no Rule to us, &c. I have also spoken to that, page. 33, 34. As also to that of Daniel 4.17. page. 10. And to his Rom. 13.1, 2. page. 21, 22, 23, 24. And that of cronwell, page. 6. And so finding the Doctor gotten into his Convocation-Book again, I was once thinking to have left him in it; till remembering I had not yet spoken any thing to the story of Jaddus's Submission to Alexander, while Darius was yet living( and that only, for that the Authority of that Convocation-Book stuck so with me) and finding the Doctor urging it again, 
Vind. p. 18.  I resolved at last to close with it, as I find it in Josephus, from whom it is taken.  

Josep. lib. Antiq. 11. cap. 8.  Jaddus was High Priest of the Jews, at what time Alexander had razed Gaza, and was preparing to fall suddenly on Jerusalem: On this Jaddus was afraid, not knowing how to gain the Favour of Alexander, whom, on the other side, he knew to be displeased with him, as having formerly disobeyed him; and therefore, commanded the People to make their Prayers to God; and himself in person offered Sacrifice, beseeching him, that he would be pleased to Defend and Succour the Nation from that imminent danger.  
The next Night God( it is said) appeared to him in his Sleep, and bad him be of Courage; and that clothing the People in white, and accompanied with them, he and his Priests in their Priestly Garments, should go forth to meet him, which they accordingly did, at Sapha, and gave him a most Royal Entertainment, far different from that of other Nations.  
The Army expected the plunder of the City; when, on the contrary, upon the sight of Jaddus in his High-Priest Robes, with his Plate of Gold, whereon the name of God was written, Alexander advanced before the rest, and sell prostrate on his Face before that name, saluting first the High-Priest: And at the same Instant, all the Jews saluted him with one Voice. On which, Parmenio( for no one else durst come up to him) asking him what he meant, to adore the Priest, when all the World adored him? I adore not( said Alexander) him, but that God whom the Priest worshippeth; for in such a Habit as I see him now, I saw him in my Sleep, at Dio in Macedon, while I was consulting how I might conquer Asia, and he counseled me to make no delay, but go on boldly, and he would be my Guide, and deliver the Persians into my Hands; and now beholding this Man, and recollecting the Vision, I hope my designs shall have a happy Issue. And being come to the City, he offered Sacrifice, according to Jaddas's direction; and the day following, granted their Request, That they might be permitted to live, according to the Laws of their Forefathers: and caused it to be Proclaimed; That if any of them would bear Arms under him( and live according to the custom of their Nation) he should be received; on which, divers listed themselves under him. All which I have faithfully related according to Josephus, and have been purposely the larger in it, because so much is to be said concerning it.  
If that of God's appearing to Jaddus in his sleep, be true, it makes clear against the Doctor, in that his Submission was not voluntary, as out of some Duty incumbent on him, to a successful Invader, but the express Command of God for his so doing: and if it be not true, then it was but the Political Act of a Person in his Station, to save himself and his Nation, by meeting his Enemy in the way: The worst that could befall both was but Death, and who knew, but a Submission might prevent the Blow: and so amounting to no more than what might have been indifferently done, or not done, had both been equally safe, cannot be truly drawn in Precedent to any other Nation.  
But say, it were not a Political Interest; he knew he had sworn one Allegiance to Darius, who tho' he had lost a Battle, and was fled himself, had not yet received his last overthrow, and who knew but he might return again, and then, what would become of him, if he swore another to Alexander: On the other hand, there was ( Hannibal ad portas) Alexander, and his Fortune within a small March of him, and to have refused him Allegiance a second time, he had been certainly lost; so that it seems more probable, than otherwise, that he did it out of Fear: That Fear, that makes every thing look bigger than it is, 
17 Wisd. 12.  and betrays the Succours that Reason offereth: And if he did it out of Fear, of what example is that unto others? but that he did it so, appears from the Story, which says, he was afraid, not knowing how to gain the Favour of Alexander, who was displeased with him, as having heretofore disobeyed him: And herein I agree with the Doctor, 
Vind. p. 20.  That his care was how he might at one for his former Contumacy, by an early Submission to a provoked Conqueror. Which he might have as well said in other Words, He saw which way the Wind went, and set his Sails to it. Add to this, a kind of overdoing in the case, for he gave him a most Royal Entertainment, directed him( an Idolater) to offer Sacrifice, &c. After which, it is not to be wondered why Alexander indulged to them their Liberty of Conscience( in not forcing his Rites upon them, but permitting them to live according to the Laws of their Forefathers) or that the People so readily complied to make him Recruits. In short, be it what it will, it was but the particular Act of a particular Man, in his own Nation; and if every Act of the High-Priests of the Jews, should be drawn into Precedent, we should have fine work of it. The Israelites were no sooner inclined to Idolatry, than Aaron fashioned them a Golden Calf; 
Exod. 32.4, 5.  nor had the People sooner said, These be thy Gods O Israel! than he built an Altar before it, and proclaimed a Feast to the Lord. And Abiathar, contrary to the Oath of David, that Solomon should reign after him, 
1 Kings 1.7.30.  joined with Joah, and set up Adonijah. And yet, I think the Doctor will not say, either of these Acts were imputed to them for Righteousness; much less then are they of example to others; especially, in those Nations, where Men judge by Laws, not Examples.  
Lastly, the credit of this particular Act, depends singly on Josephus, 
Vind. p 18.  whom also the Doctor confesses to be the only Relater of it. That Josephus was a noble, learned Jew, is not opposed; but that there are many things in him, Legenda cum venia, will( as I shall show presently) be hardly denied. He had the advantage of writing his own Story, of a superstitious, fabulous People, apt to swallow every thing themselves, and as forward to foist it on others, insomuch, that at the time when Josephus wrote his History, they were become ridiculous for both:— Credat udaeus Apella! saith Juvenal: And again, Qualiacunque voles Judaei somnia vendent.  
And therefore, who knows but Josephus might use some such little Art here, whereby( in the Example of Alexander) to incline Titus( his Patron) to be favourable to the small remains of his Nation? or who knows but he might have taken it by Tradition, himself? Especially, when speaking of the Israelites passing the read Sea, he says, he declares it as he found it in Holy Scripture; but says not a word where he had this Act of Jaddus: and whether he is not( in some things) to be red with favour; witness this very passage of the Israelites, where, in endeavouring to make it probable, he loses the Miracle: ( Neither( says he) ought any Man to marvel, whether it were done by the Will of God, 
Antiq. l. 2. c. 7.  or by chance; since not long time ago, God so thinking it good, the Sea of Pamphylia divided itself, to give way to Alexander, King of Macedon's Army, having no other way to destroy the Persians.) As also speaking of the Sun's standing still in the time of Joshua: This day, saith he, 
Antiq. l. 5. c. 1. ( the like of which was never heard before) was lengthened, lest by the speedy approach of Night, the Enemy might escape: Whereas the Text says, 
Jos. 10.13  The Sun stood still in the midst of Heaven, and hasted not to go down( spatio unius diei) by the space of one day: But because a whole day might seem too much, he put it by the word Lengthened, which he left to every Man to interpret for himself, as perhaps, an hour, or so. I might add further, but that I think this sufficient, to prove that this Story of Jaddus( having but the credit of such a single Relater) may be mistaken.  
I'll close all, with a good fancy of an old platonic: That the Gods, which are above Men, had something whereof Man did partake( Intellect and Knowledge) and the Gods kept on their Course quietly: The Beasts, which are below Man, had something whereof Man did partake( sense and Growth) and the Beasts lived quietly in their way: But Man had something in him, whereof neither Gods nor Beasts did partake, which gave him all the Trouble, and made all the Confusion in the World, and that is Opinion. And therefore till Men shall truly apply their Learning;( that is) instead of making clear things doubtful, make doubtful things clear, there may be an end of the World, but till then, no end of Opinion.   
FINIS.