GOD, THE KING, AND THE COUNTRY, United in the Justification of this Present Revolution: Containing also Animadversions on Dr. William Sherlock's Book; Entitled, The Case of Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers, stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason; and the Principles of the Church of England. By TIM. WILSON, M. A. and Rector of Great Mongeham in Kent.  Licenced, Jan. 29. 1691. 
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercer's Chapel. 1691.   

To the Sacred Majesties of King William and Queen Mary, by the Grace of God King and Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, etc.  
May it please Your Majesties,  
THE Divine Providence, that disposeth all things to the emolument and advantage of those that love God, hath sent Your Majesties to be our Saviour's and Deliverers from Popery and Slavery, to the Joy of all sound Protestants, not wholly sunk and buried in prejudice. And we see the Prophecy of Isaiah fulfilled, Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers, and Queens your Nursing Mothers. But the Government of Moses, whom God sent into Egypt to deliver his people, was not without some Murmurers, and men of a revolting spirit, who looked back towards Egypt. Victorious David had that crafty Politician, Achitophel, his Adversary; and Absolom, who stole away the hearts of this people; and Sheba, a Mover of Sedition. The Reign of Solomon had some, who complained of Grievances and Oppressions, tho' he honoured God by building a Magnificent Temple. The most excellent Deborah, tho' she had some that jeoparded their lives unto death with her, yet she had others, who for their Divisions caused great thoughts of heart. It is my affection to the Protestant Cause, and Your Majesty's Government, that moves me thus resolutely to rush into your Sacred Presence. I am very sensible that false Principles will create Practices correspondent to them: And therefore I have examined some new and strange Notions of God's Providence, and Humane Governments of late asserted by some Doctors. To say, That a Prince hath God's Authority, tho' he hath no Humane and Legal Right, and that there is another Person, who hath Legal Right, is dismal to consider in the consequences thereof. If this Poison creeps into the Church, I tremble to reflect upon the Effects of it. It is good for nothing but to produce Insincerity, and to make men swear to live peaceably, when they have War in their hearts. I am confident of Your Majesty's Protection; for I have acted in this Affair with a full satisfaction of Conscience, and the greatest Evidence of Reason. And no History can exceed, if parallel, so great valour and courage, mixed with so much grace and clemency, as hath shined in King William. This is to be like God, who is Almighty, and yet slow to wrath; whose Power is irresistible, and yet he delights in Mercy. Go on, and prosper, most victorious Prince; and may the God of Heaven bless you with success by Sea and Land against that proud and persecuting Monarch, who hath been the Ruin of so many Innocent Protestants in his own Dominions. May God give Your Majesties the Necks of your Enemies, and may they all taste of Your Forgiveness and Bounty, but never forsake Your first Friends, who ran all hazards with Your Majesty. I pray with Tertullian, who saith, We Christians pray for our Emperors; 1. That they may have a long Life; which contains Health, Joy and Prosperity. 2. A constant, safe and secure Government. 3. Faithful and Trusty Domestic Servants, free from Treachery, and secret Conspiracy. 4. A strong and valiant Army. 5. A faithful Senate, Council, or Parliament. 6. Obedient, Submissive and Loyal People. 7. A quiet and peaceable Reign. In a word, whatsoever can be the desire of Caesar.  
God inspire Your Majesties with heavenly Grace and Wisdom, and sound Knowledge, and good Understanding to go in and out before this great People; and moreover give you Victory, and Peace, and Length of Days; and at last may Angels convey Your Souls into Abraham's bosom. This is the constant prayer of  
Your Majesty's Most Humble, most Loyal, and most Devoted Subject and Servant, Tim. Wilson.   

The Apostle asserts in the 13th Chap. of the Epistle to the Romans, That all Emperors, Kings, Princes and Governors, receive their Power from God. And that the Right of the Sword is delivered to the Magistrate by God. And therefore all are obliged to be subject to the Higher Powers, and not to resist. And whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and shall receive damnation.  
FOR the right understanding whereof, I shall premise these Principles.  
1. All Dominion is Gods.  
2. God gives Dominion and Power to some persons over others.  
3. The Law of Nature (which is the Divine Law unwritten) is a Rule, by which all Nations should walk.  
4. This Law of Nature teacheth all Inferiors to honour their Superiors; and Subjects to pay Tribute, honorary Gifts, etc. to their Kings.  
5. The same Law of Nature secures every man's Propriety; so that there can be no Alienation, without consent, explicit, or implicit. There is (saith Aristotle, Rhet. b. 1. c. 13.) as all divine, by Nature a common just and unjust, though there be no mutual communication, nor compact.  
6. The holy Scriptures do not contradict the Law of Nature; but inform mankind more plainly what is duty.  
last; The sacred Historian Moses, and other holy Writers leave Positive and Political Laws to be practised according to the Usage of several Countries.  
I suppose (as the known truth is) that God Created Adam and Eve: And Adam begat Cain and Abel. Now what Land, or what substance and goods Adam gave Abel, he had Right to by the Law of Nature, as well as what he got by his own industry and labour. Neither could Adam or Cain take any of Abel's Flock without sinning against God, tho' there had been no Agreement between them. For this Law was written in Adam's heart, Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy Neighbours. There is a Natural Right, and there is a Civil Right: Natural Right is by the Law of Nature. Meum and Tuum were before there was any written Law. Civil Right is that which the Municipal Laws of every Country gives. And (if good, and consonant to Reason) they are but confirmations, or explications of the Law of Nature, or conclusions drawn from it, or securities of men's Lives, Goods and Possessions, from wicked men, who would use no conscience. We know (saith St. Paul; 1 Tim. 1.8, 9, 10.) that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, etc.  
Government as Government agreeth to Heathens, Jews, Turks and Christians, all alike. It is man as man who is the object thereof. The Nature, and Definition, and Properties are the same. The holy Scriptures intent not to teach us to be Politicians, no more than to be Philosophers; but to be Christians, and make us wise to salvation. The Law of Nature, or Right Reason, is the Rule of Political Government. And all Civil, or Municipal Laws, are to be squared by it, and so directed to the public good, as their end.  
But more particularly, for the illustration hereof, 

1. I shall consider what Government is.  
2. The several kinds thereof.  
3. I shall show the Latitude of Subjection.    
1. I shall consider what Government is. Government is Power or Authority, which some men have over others, derived from God, and exercised according to Agreement, for the good of the whole Society.  
In this Description,  

1. We have the general Nature, Power or Authority.  
2. The Author of Government; it is derived from God.  
3. The formal Reason; it is exercised according to Agreement.  
4. The End; for the good of the whole Society.   
1. We have the general Nature, Power or Authority. Government generally considered, denotes superiority of Office and Authority. Where there is no Authority, there can be no Government, nor no Obedience or Subjection due. Power or Authority (saith Camero) is that whereby a person may claim any thing to himself without the injury of any other. Thus a Father exercises his Power, when he commands his Children: A Master over his Servants: And a King over his Subjects.  
2. We have the Author of Government. It is derived from God. There is no Power but of God. All Dominion is Gods. The Kingdom is the Lords, (saith David) and he is the Governor among the Nations. And the Lord hath prepared his Throne in the Heavens, and his Kingdom ruleth over all, Psal. 22.28. and 103.19. By me King's reign, and Princes decree justice. By me Princes rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth, Prov. 8.15, 16. God is the Absolute Monarch over all.  
3. The Formal Reason, It is exercised according to Agreement. My Opinion is this; Government in general is of the Law of Nature; but in special, whether Monarchical Absolute, or Limited and Conditional; whether by Hereditary Succession, or by Election, is according to Positive, Humane Law and Compact. So that the People, or Fathers of Families were at liberty to choose, what Form of Government they thought most convenient, and Fundamentally to fix the Constitution. Which may not be altered but by the same means or power. Thus Power in general is of God, as Solomon, and St. Paul say. But the Specification, Limitation, and first Designation of the Person, or Form is by Humane Right, or Positive Law, according to the Discretion of the Assembly of the People. And this seems to me evident by Scripture and Reason. Thus the Higher Powers are the Ordinance of God, saith St. Paul. And the Emperor is the Ordinance of Man, saith St. Peter. Mankind is naturally subject to none but God, or whom God shall appoint. But otherwise the Sons of Adam are left at Liberty to choose what Person or Form of Government any free Multitude can agree upon. This Opinion seems consonant to the Doctrine and History of the Holy Scriptures; the constant Practice of the Kings of Israel, or rather the People of any Commonwealth, is consonant to the Principles of the Law of Nature; and is neither Erroneous in Divinity, nor dangerous in Policy. And experience showeth that the best and most conscientious Subjects pay Obedience, according to the several Laws and Customs of their Countries. The Epistle to the Romans was written either in the Reign of Claudius Caesar, or of Nero. As for Claudius, Historians tell us that he hide himself, and the Soldiers proclaimed him Emperor, and both the Multitude, and the Senate agreed to his Election. And as for Nero, his Quinquennium, or first five years were admired by all, and had the approbation of the best Men, while he followed the Advice of Seneca, and other grave Counsellors. And tho' afterwards he proved a cruel Tyrant and Persecutor, yet the Laws and Customs of the Roman Empire in Civil things were good and just. And in those things of which St. Paul speaks, even Nero's commands were to be obeyed Actively: As is plain, For there is no Power but of God, and Rulers are not a terror to good Works, but to the evil, and he is the Minister of God to thee for good. And therefore pay Caesar his due, Tribute, Custom, Fear, Honour, or whatever the Laws of your Country and Conscience, and the Laws of God require of you, without Resistance: For they that resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation. And this is the Judgement of all the Famous Schoolmen, either Ancient or Modern, whom I have either read, or looked into. Insomuch that I stand amazed that this Doctrine should have no more Followers in England, when in all other Disputes our English Divines are the most rational Men in the World. But to use St. Paul's words in another case, I bear them record that they have a Zeal for Monarchy, but not according to Knowledge. Yet let them know, that as far as I can find by search, it is the united Determination of all Politicians, Schoolmen, and Divines, who purposely handle the Controversies, that tho' Prince and Subject are Relatives, yet (prioritate rationis, or Ordine naturae intendentis, as Logicians speak) in nature and time Subjects were first instituted, and Princes were constituted for the Subjects sake on certain conditions, unless you follow the example of such as designed Tyranny. From whence it follows, that Subjects were not Born for Kings, but Kings or Princes, and Governors ought to promote the profit of Subjects. I have as much reason as any of your Majesty's Subjects to value your Service, Crown, Dignity, Honour, and Prosperity, and the Succession to your Heirs, yet I follow the old Maxim, Malim veris offendere quàm placere adulando. I think nothing becomes a Priest so much as Integrity. I am sure that no Man can deny, that the Apostle speaks of the Higher Powers commanding things lawful, or of the Civil Legal commands of the Higher Powers; and these must not be resisted. But they mistake, who think that this command of the Apostles was given to Christians to be obedient to Nero in his unlawful commands. Whereas the Apostles command in this place (saith a Learned Divine) reacheth to all times, and is made to all that are Christians: Tho' they did live under Nero, yet it doth not follow, that the Apostle commands them to be subject to him in Unlawfuls. If indeed Nero's commands were only unlawful, and this Direction of the Apostle was made only to Christians in those times, and that subjection commanded were only suffering subjection, than this Scripture might make much more for Nonresistance. But tho' Nero was an Enemy to the Christians, yet some of his commands were lawful; and this Direction of the Apostle was not made only to Christians in those times, but as a general rule for all good Men. And the Obedience and Subjection here commanded, was not only to be Passive, but Active. This Scripture commands Active Obedience to the Higher Powers in all things which concern the Duty of Subjects, and the Public Good.  
And as for the Instances in Scripture out of the Books of the Kings and Chronicles, it is plain that there was a Covenant between the King and People. And after the Deposing of Athaliah, all the Congregation made a Covenant with the King in the House of God, 2 Chron 23.3. And what doth a Covenant signify, if it may not be defended and justified? If such a dead Dog as I am, were worthy to admonish an English Monarch, I would advise him to make Law the Rule of his Reign, and show his Prerogative in Acts of Bounty, Mercy, and Mitigation of the Rigour of some severe Laws: And I would not tell him, that it is Rebellion for an Innocent Subject to defend himself. And yet I imagine that I am as great a Friend to Monarchy, and to the Church of England, as the greatest Passive-Obedience-Doctor is.  
4. We have the End of Government, For the good of the whole Sodiety. Power and Authority is ordained of God for the Happiness of Mankind. By this we are legally secured against wicked Men in our Houses, Possessions, Lands, and Estates; in our Liberties, and Properties, and in whatsoever belongs to us as Members of a Civil Society. Political Order is a just Disposition between King and Subject, as well as between Subject and Subject. God is the Author and Lover of Order; and an Enemy of Disorder and Confusion. And Government was constituted by the singular Wisdom and Providence of God for the good of his Creatures.  
From hence I may deduce these Inferences.  
1. Hence the Power and Authority of Kings and Governors is clearly Divine. They are constituted Rulers by God, and are his Ministers. And therefore Honour and Obedience is due to them for the Lords sake, 1 Pet. 2.13.  
2. Hence it follows evidently, That Princes and Governors ought to Rule in God's fear, and so perform their Office as God's Vicegerents, administering Justice impartially, knowing whose Authority they have. Hence Princes are called Pastors of the People, and Fathers of the Country. And should bear the Name of Gods, and Children of the most High, not only in Power, but in Goodness.  
3. Hence it necessarily follows that all Subjects ought to reverence and honour their King and Governors with most humble Service, Homage, and Obedience in all things. But of this more anon.  
2. I shall consider the several kinds. The most common Distribution is into Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy.  
The first kind or Form of Government is Monarchy. I approve of this as best, according to the saying of the most Famous Poet, The Rule of many is not good. Let there be one Ruler, one King, to whom God gives the Sceptre. He is King, who hath Supreme Power, subject to none.  
And a Monarch is either Absolute, or Conditional. And again, either Elective, or Successive. Elective, when in a Kingdom a Person of a new Family, or of the same Family is chosen. Successive, when the next Heir, Male, and in some Kingdoms the Female, is owned and proclaimed. Thus the Kingdom of England is by Inheritance and Succession: And our King never dies, as we say. But the King of England is not Absolute, but Limited: And hath Lords, and Commons, without whom he cannot make, nor repeal Laws. And we have Magna Charta unviolable: And the Subjects great Felicity, and no less the King's Honour, who Rules not over Slaves, but Freemen.  
3. I shall show the Latitude of Subjection. It is a Civil Filial Fear of the King: And excludes all things that tend to his Dishonour, and includes all things that tend to his Honour. It contains all Duties and Services required of Subjects to their Prince. There is an universal Obedience (next under, and after God) in all things Legal due to the King, who Reigns by the Ordinance and Appointment of God. Native Religion and true Christianity is the greatest Interest of Princes. A good Conscience and pious Heart abhors Obmurmurations, Factions, Seditions, Rebellions, or whatsoever can be conceived to disturb the Souls subjection to the Higher Powers. It is gross Hypocrisy to pretend to follow the Holy Jesus, and not render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's. I am sure that Christ and his Apostles taught Subjection to the Roman Emperor, as the Ornament and Honour of their Religion.  
This Subjection, first, forbids light and vain thoughts of the King's Authority and Person.  
2. Uttering Wicked and Traitorous words; speaking evil of him. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy People, Exod. 22.28. And curse not the King, no not in thy Thought, Eccles. 10.20. And the Holy Ghost brands them with the odious name of filthy Dreamers, who despise Dominion, and speak evil of Dignities, St. Judas, ver. 8. In brief, It excludes all retaining of his Deuce, Tribute, Custom, etc. all Cheating him of his Revenue; all Disobedience to his wholesome Laws; all Contempt or Violation offered to his Sacred Person.  
2. Subjection includes or comprehends all Duties of a Christian Subject to his King. For that which is in one place, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, is in another, Fear the King, and Honour the King. And in the Fifth Commandment, Honour thy Father and Mother. Here as by Father and Mother all Superiors are meant; (not only our Natural Parents, but also our Political Father, our Governors, especially the Supreme Magistrate, the King: As it is well explained in our Church-Catechism, To Honour and Obey the King, and all that are put in Authority under him: Which also is the Interpretation of all sober Divines.) So by this word Honour, all kinds of Duty and Services from all Inseriors to their Superiors respectively, are comprised. So to Honour, as to Fear, Love and Obey them, etc. This is expressed also by St. Peter, Submit yourselves unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, This is yet more fully and largely set down by St. Paul, Rom. 13. Where this Doctrine is not only declared, but pressed and confirmed by many strong and solid Reasons. We must needs be subject not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake, v. 5. If you make Conscience of your ways, give the King his Due. There is nothing more plain than this Chapter for Subjection to the King, and Submission and respect to his Officers without murmuring and repining, when according to Law they demand their Deuce. The humble Christian, and obedient Subject, who willingly submits to the King's Laws, may be assured that in that particular he pleaseth God, and he always hath the Testimony and Satisfaction of a good Conscience. But the stubborn and disobedient, who will not render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, assuredly displeaseth God, and can never quiet his Conscience; but runs the hazard of a most ignominious esteem in the World, and of Eternal Damnation in the World to come.  
And verily Resisting Governors is not less unbecoming the Reason of a man, than the Patience and Humility of a Christian: For the Officer is armed with Authority, but the contumacious Opposer hath nothing to defend or plead for him, but Arbitrary Power, wilful Perverseness, and stubborn Humour, which in cold blood or sober consideration must be acknowledged far more dangerous than the evil the Resistant pretended to remedy.  
And here if ye demand the manner of this Subjection: I answer, True Christian Subjects bear to the King, such a Submission as Children to their Parents: Not a terrifying and amazing, but a respectful and reverential Subjection. The King is the Father of his Country, and all his Loving and Loyal Subjects are as so many Children to him.  
This Subjection also doth imply, 1. A real and eminent Love of the King. God's own People Israel said of King David, Thou art worth ten thousand of us, 2 Sam. 18.3. Hence the King is called The breath of our nostrils, Lam. 4.20.  
2. This Subjection doth imply Fidelity and adhering to the King at all times, and in all conditions. The King, and his Subjects, are united in their Political capacity, as the Head and the Body: Their welfare is conjoined, and cannot be separated. And this Fidelity is most excellent, when it comes from a touch of God's finger; from the Grace of his holy Spirit. As we read there went with Saul a band of men, whose hearts God had touched, 1 Sam. 10.26. But such as clavae not to him are stigmatised for Children of Belial, who despised their King, v. 27. For Fidelity also we have the example of David's Servants; Behold thy Servants are ready to do whatsoever my Lord the King shall appoint, 2 Sam. 15. v. 15. And Ittai (that Loyal heart; that noble and constant spirit) said to the King (when David went to persuade him to go back, and to take care of his own safety) As the Lord liveth, and as my Lord the King liveth, surely in what place my Lord the King shall be, whether in death or life, even there also will thy Servant be; v. 21. Here was a faithful Servant and Loyal Subject indeed; and herein he evidenced himself no less obedient to the Law of God, by which we are bound in Conscience to help the King against his Enemies. And thus to adhere to the King (by being faithful in the Trust reposed in us; in being just in our places, and ready to help in all difficulties) is a right and sure way to make a Kingdom invincible and terrible to Enemies. Divisions, Conspiracies, and Combinations in a State, expose it to foreign Enemies. A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, saith the wise Counsellor, the Son of God. But Unity of heart and affections between Subjects and their Sovereign, renders a Kingdom prosperous at home, and formidable abroad.  
3. Prayer to God for him. Our Religion, the Law of our God, our Christianity as well as our Fidelity, Loyalty and Affection, call for this at our hands. The blessed Apostle St. Paul exhorts Timothy to this duty, 1 Tim. 2.1, etc. And I think that the Collects of our Church for the King and Queen, are both wise and Christian.  
4. Thanksgiving to God for any mercy to the King. I exhort that Thanksgivings be made, saith the Apostle. The Infinite Majesty of Heaven is the Ocean, from which flow all blessings that we mortals receive. It is he that giveth great Deliverance to his King, and sheweth mercy to his Anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore, Psal. 18.49, 50. Therefore should we give thanks unto the Lord, and sing praises to his holy Name. Especially let us praise God for the wonderful and happy Deliverance of this Church and Nation by our Joshua, who hath by the Divine favour and blessing saved us, and put a stop to the Malice and Cruelty of all the Church's Enemies. This is the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. And as great a mercy as ever this Nation and Church enjoyed: Tho' through an unnatural Principle the Prejudices of many wise and pious men have made them ungrateful to your Majesties, who are in truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Benefactors, not only to all English Protestants, but to all the Reformed Churches.  
And that these Prejudices may be removed, and that all your Subjects may give God, and your Majesty's thanks, hath been my constant desire and labour. And tho' I know that the multitude are prone to Innovations and Changes, and too apt to be seduced, yet in this Revolution they are to be justified, so far as they defended their Religion, Laws and Liberties. And I challenge any learned and conscientious Divine to dispute the Case in Print before God and the World.  
And therefore I humbly beg your Sacred Majesty's pardon, while I make Animadversions on the Reverend Dr. William sherlock's Book, entitled, The Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason, and the Principles of the Church of England.  
I cannot believe that false Principles in Government conduce to your Majesty's service. And for this reason among others I think it my duty to oppose them.  
I do believe that the Reverend Dr. acts according to the present persuasion of his Conscience, (as he speaks in the beginning of his Preface) and I do not take him either for a dishonest man, or a fool. But, as he saith, he may be mistaken, and so may any body else, tho' never so wise and honest. And he saith ingenuously, that if any man can show him, that the Principles he acts on are false, uncertain, or precarious, and such as cannot reasonably satisfy an honest and  mind, he will confess that his desire of satisfaction secretly and insensibly distorted his Judgement, though he took all possible care that it should not. I do, as I would be done by, and I believe that many have refused the Oaths upon Principles of Conscience, tho' I believe their Consciences erroneous. And I hope to make it evident, if, as the Dr's phrase is, they will deliver themselves from the Tyranny of Prepossession and Prejudice, § 2. p. 10.  

Animadversion on Section 1.  
The Dr. saith, That which hath perplexed this Controversy, is the intermixing the Dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience, or making the Legal Right of Princes to their Thrones the only Reason and Foundation of the Allegiance of Subjects.  
A. I cannot imagine that any Obedience is due, but to him only who hath Right. If he hath no Right, why should I pay him Obedience? The Scripture saith, Fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. I must know therefore to whom it is due. The Scripture supposeth all Subjects to know some other way, to whom Obedience, Fear and Honour is due. For I take it for granted, and as that which all Learned men will own, that the Scripture is not a Rule of Policy, or Political Government, any more than it is of Logic, Astronomy, or any part of Philosophy; which are Arts and Sciences of themselves. And so Policy hath Rules and Methods of its own, and depends upon the Sense and Reason of all Mankind, being not proper to Christians, but common to Jews, Turks or Heathens. And besides, the English Policy is not the same with other Christian Nations.  
Now as to our present Government and Revolution, Englishmen may be divided into these three Ranks.  
First; Such as joined with the Prince of Orange before or at his Landing, according to his Declaration, Expectation, Desire, and Invitation of them.  
Secondly; Such as did not join with the Prince of Orange, but did oppose him, either with their Prayers, or with their Strength, or with both; but since have taken the Oaths of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.  
Thirdly; Such as did neither join with the Prince of Orange, nor since have taken the Oaths.  
The Reverend Dr. is among the Moderate men of the second Rank: (And est quiddam prodire tenus: It is something to come thus far; we have the shorter way to our Journeys end, as one saith.) For he writes thus, Many things are said (for the justifying the Legality of the late Revolution) which may make men much more moderate in the point than some are, § 1. p. 2. And his endeavour is to persuade those of the third Rank to take the Oaths; (a very honest, charitable and pious endeavour) for he saith well in his Preface, There are others who are still dissatisfied about the Oaths, and are desirous to try, whether they can find that satisfaction, which he hath done. This, I confess, is a good Reason, which may in charity oblige me.  
To proceed; All Learned men know what it is to suppose or put a Case, and I will not be a quarrelsome Antagonist; but will be as civil to the Dr. as he can be to me; and therefore for his supposition, I will not charge him with reflecting upon this present Government; which he saith, and I believe he speaks his conscience and heart, he is very sure, he is far from intending to do, in the latter end of his Preface.  
The Dr. seems to make a contradistinction between Right, and Government, in these words, § 1. p. 1. Allegiance is due only to Right, not to Government, tho' it can be paid only to Government. Now I think there can be no Government, where there is no Right: For who should command, and who should obey, where there is no Right to command? Otherwise how could there be such a thing as Anarchy, or Confusion, when every man doth what is good in his own Eyes, as when there was no King or Governor in Israel? Judg. 19.1.  
And again p. 2. If then Allegiance be due, not for the sake of Legal Right, but Government. But I say there is no Allegiance due, where there is no Legal Right: (either Natural or Positive;) for I suppose all Obligatory Laws founded upon Natural Principles. Again, the Dr. asserts, That God placeth and setteth some Princes on the Throne, tho' they have no Legal or Humane Right, p. 3. Now this seems to me a Riddle. I am of Opinion, that every Prince, who hath God's Authority, hath a Legal and Humane Right; unless God immediately from Heaven by an Angel, or the like extraordinary way, giveth him Authority. But no Prince ordinarily hath God's Authority but by Legal and Humane Right; as will appear hereafter.  
As for what the Dr. saith about the Disposal of Providence, it seems to me pure Enthusiasm, and the very Dregs of Quakerism; which I shall consider in due place.   

Animadversions on § 2.  
As for what the Dr. saith in this Section, and quotes out of Bishop Overals Convocation-Book, I admit and approve sano sensu, and I reverence their Authority: And I suppose that at that time there were some Divines, perhaps Bishops, in that Convocation, who did think Defensive Arms lawful in some cases, and founded Government in Agreement; as the ever-renowned Mr. Hooker and Dr. Bilson certainly did. And when the Dr. proves the contrary, I will believe him, and before, I suppose, he doth not desire that I should.  
But let us see the Dr's. Inferences from the Doctrine of the Convocation. Men may dispute any thing, but I know not how it was possible for the Convocation to express their sense plainer; That all Usurped Powers, when throughly settled, have God's Authority, and must be obeyed. So that here are two great Points determined, whereupon this whole Controversy turns.  
1. That those Princes, who have no Legal Right to their Thrones, may yet have God's Authority. But surely the Convocation meant, that they had a Legal Right, and were no longer Usurpers, when they had God's Authority; as the King of Egypt and Babylon, and King Alexander, and the Emperors of Rome. Let him prove the contrary if he can. And I am fully of this Opinion, which, I think, is the Dr's That there is Momentum quod sic, as the Schools call it, a Time, when all Usurpers, or Invading Powers have God's Authority, and must be obeyed; and that is when they are throughly settled.  
But the Question is, When they are throughly settled?  
A. It is hard to determine and fix a time; but there is a time when Invaders and Conquerors have a Right and Title to the Crown. And I am of Opinion this is, When such a Prince and People have made a Covenant, Compact or Agreement, explicit or implicit: When having with a good Conscience defended their King, Laws, and Country, as long as they could, they yield, being taken Prisoners, or subdued. And let this consent be supposed to be overawed, yet consent it is; especially when they have made a Solemn Promise or Oath to such a Prince. And he that breaks such a Promise or Oath is wicked. David describes a Citizen of Zion thus, He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not, Psal. 15.4. This is grounded upon this Natural Principle, That what Promise I make, if lawful, however inconvenient to me, I must perform.  
By the way, I call an Explicite Covenant, when there is the Public Consent and Profession of such an Engagement made by a National Assembly.  
I call an Implicit Covenant, when the Members of a Society in their Practice do all such Acts, as are required by the Rules agreed among them, and submit themselves thereunto: Tho' they make no verbal Promise or Profession thereof. I need not illustrate this in our Case; for all Men have seen with their Eyes, and heard with their Ears what hath been done among us.  
Or, in the Drs words, § 2. p. 9 The Government is throughly settled, when the whole Administration of the Government, and the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince, when every thing is done in his Name, and by his Authority, when the Estates of the Realm, and the great Body of the Nation have submitted to him, and those who will not submit, can be crushed by him, whenever he pleaseth: If this be not a settled Government, I despair of ever knowing what it is.  
Now I say, in plain English, This is a mutual Covenant between Governors, and Governed, and gives the Formality of Relation between King and Subject. But then in this Case the King hath an Humane and Legal Right, as well as God's Authority; which the Dr. seems every where to deny. For he infers, pag 5. Therefore those Princes, who have no Legal Right, may have God's Authority. But I say, That tho' such Princes, as the Convocation speaks of, had no Legal Right before, yet when they are throughly settled, they have Legal Right. And this is the difference between the Dr. and me. And, pag. 9 The Submission of a Prince indeed may be thought necessary to transfer a Legal Right; but the Submission of the People, itself, is sufficient to settle the Government, and when it is settled, than it is the Authority of God, whatever the Humane Right be. See pag. 25, etc. He seems to assert, That no Right can be Legal and Humane, but Successive or Hereditary Right, § 4. p. 26.  
I know Great, Learned, and Pious Authors, who are of this Opinion, as I have proposed it; and the Dr. cannot appear singular in it, and to advance Paradoxes, as he speaks, § 1. p. 3. to any Man who hath throughly studied these Controversies. But then all, or most of those Divines, and Politicians assert Defensive Arms in some Case: And that the several Forms of Regiment are according to Agreement, or an Ordinance of Man: And they usually say, that the Call of the People is Essential to Magistracy in such extraordinary Case: And so the Powers that are, are ordained of God, and must not be resisted.  
Again, if the Dr. means, first, By Actual Possession of the Throne, the Power of the Sword, or Strength, or the Princes being in Whitehall, and having the Royal Forts, etc. at his Command, than this alone cannot give Right, tho' it is the Disposal of Providence. And this I take to be Hobbism, Scepticism, or Atheism. And such things I have read in some Oliverian Pamphlets to justify that Damnable Rebellion, as the Disposal of Providence. And thus to say that Conquest, Election, and Usurpation were all one to the Primitive Christians, as some of late have said, is most abominable, and to be exploded. And the Reverend Dr. verges so near this, that I wish he would explain himself better, if it be not his meaning. See § 4. p. 18. The Scripture hath given us no Direction in this Case, but to Submit and pay all Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers. It makes no Distinction, that ever I could find between a Rightful King and an Usurper, etc.  
A. The Scriptures, not being an absolute Rule of Policy, as I said before, suppose that we know, who is our King or Governor, or who are the Higher Powers, by Reason, and the several Laws and Constitutions, or Immemorial Usages of several Countries. And then instruct Subjects in their Duty. But of this Section I shall speak in its Order.  
2. If the Dr. means by Actual Possession of the Throne, such a Covenant or Settlement, as is before mentioned, than I say, whoever hath such a Settlement, hath not only God's Authority, but Humane and Legal Right; tho' he is not the next Heir, or immediate Lineal Successor. And of such a Prince I grant, the Subjects need not inquire, Quo jure, quâve injuriâ, as the Schools speak, he came to the Throne: or whether he had Reason to Invade, or Conquer, or not. He is King, and hath God's Authority, and must be obeyed. And in this case the old Maxim proves true, Vox Populi est Vox Dei, The voice of the People is the voice of God. God chooseth whom the People in this manner choose. But I do not think that any rational Politician, or judicious Divine grounds this Position upon the Disposal of Providence firstly: I am sure, most do not.  
But upon such Principles as these;  
1. No one Form of Government is Natural or Moral, but purely of Positive Agreement. And tho' it is good Manners in the Subjects of a Monarch, especially of an English Monarch, to believe Regal Government best; and to believe that Hereditary Government, or Monarchy, is most prudential and excellent: And that Lineal Succession is not to be altered but upon very sufficient grounds. And tho' no Man ought to meddle with them that are given to change; (which may possibly befall a King, as well as his Subjects) yet no Man can with a good Conscience condemn any other lawful Form of Government. As the Government of the Consuls, and Senate of Rome of old: Or the Government of the Duke of Venice, or Senate at present: Or the State's General of the United Provinces. All whose Subjects are to obey, and not resist their several Sovereigns, by St. Paul's command, Rom. 13. For they have their Power of God, and God's Authority.  
2. The Public Good is the Sovereign Law of all. And so tho' Subjects have Sworn to maintain their Sovereign, yet if he, and they are Conquered, and the Conqueror gives them their Lives, Liberties, or Estates, whereupon they Promise or Swear Allegiance to him, they must for the future own him as their Sovereign Lord. Or, if they are grievously oppressed, so that the Public Good of their Country or the Preservation of their Laws, Liberties, and Religion requires them to forsake their King, who (as I suppose) would have brought them into Slavery; or Non-assistance, as the Dr. confesseth, when a loving, valiant, and good Friend comes to save their Religion, Laws, and Properties. In this case the Subjects ought to obey him that hath Actual Possession of the Throne. For he is their Elected King, and hath Humane, Legal, and Divine Right.  
And this secures Princes from Factious, Seditious, and Rebellious Subjects. And secures Subjects from Wicked, Cruel, and Ill-designing, or Ill-advised Princes, who follow evil Counsellors, to the Subversion of the Laws, and Ruin of the Kingdom.  
And this I think may be proved from the Drs. own Assertions, scattered in this Book.  
1. He asserts, p. 14. Sometimes God not only places a single Person in the Throne, but intails it on his Family by Humane Laws, and makes the Throne a Legal Inheritance. And p. 24. Hereditary Right is either a continued Usurpation, which can give no Right, or a Right by Law, that is by the Consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family. Now all Laws are made by the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons. From whence it follows that the Dr. must own, that Hereditary Monarchy is so made by the People; and that such a Monarch receives all his Power (for he hath no Power, but Legal) from them as well as from God. And as for what follows, which, saith the Dr. I observed before, If Right be resolved into the Choice and Consent of the People, cannot be done; for what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred years ago, to choose a King for me?  
A. I am afraid the Dr. next time will say, That the Laws of former Parliaments, made some years ago, do not bind us, tho' not repealed. And none but present Parliaments can make Laws for us. We have nothing to do with our Forefathers; we must personally consent to all Laws. Fie! for shame Dr. let us hear no more of this. For I am confident you do not believe, that our Ancestors had no Right to make Laws for us, or to choose a King for us. A King is a King to Children Born of Parents, who have chosen him, or his Family, and such Children are his Subjects without a personal and verbal Engagement: And former Laws bind us without a new Act of Parliament to confirm them.  
2. The Dr. asserts, p. 36. If they (that is, Sovereign Princes) receive their Authority from Men, (which they do, as well as from God, say we) and Humane Laws, (which the Dr. confessed before) I cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust, of which they must give an account to those who have entrusted them with it, according to those Laws, by which they were entrusted to exercise that Power. For whether there be any express Provision made in the Law to call them to an Account or no, the Nature of the thing proves, that if they receive their Power from Men, they are accountable to them. For those who give Power may take an Account of the use and abuse of it. This, with the Drs. Concessions hereafter mentioned, proves the Lawfulness, Reasonableness, and Conscience of this present Revolution. And, p. 25. he saith, A Legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People. So that the Authority of the People (I mean, either the Convention of Estates, which is an extraordinary Assembly, or the Parliament, which is the ordinary Assembly) gives Humane and Legal Right. And such a Prince is set upon the Throne by God, and is by the Disposal of Providence, and is God's Minister for the good of the People. So that what the Dr. saith in the beginning of p. 25. is very weak, To say that God sets up no Prince, who ascends the Throne without Humane Right and Legal, is to say, that some Kings are removed, and others set up, but not by God; which is directly contradictory to Scripture; It is to say, That the Four Monarchies were not set up by God, because they all began by Violence and Usurpation; It is say, That God, as well as Men, is confined by Humane Laws, in making Kings; It is to say, That the Right of Government is not derived from God, without the Consent of the People. For if God cannot make Kings without the People, or against their Consent declared by their Laws, the Authority must be derived from the People, not from God; or at least, if it be God's Authority, yet God cannot give it himself without the People, nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws.  
A. If we speak of God's Absolute Power, he can send a Legion of Angels, and set the Crown upon a King's Head, or by any like extraordinary Nomination and Means. But we say (and I hope the Dr. upon consideration will not deny it) that Right Reason, Natural Conscience, Law, and Scripture are the Rule of our Duty; and by these means God cooperates, and his Divine Providence concurs with men. And when the Dr. is in his senses, and argues like himself, that is, a Divine of his Reputation and Station in the Church, he will tell you, p. 65. That the King hath not Right but by Law, and then the Law may determine how far his Right shall extend, etc. But this Revolution hath confounded the wisdom of the wise, and brought to nothing the understanding of the prudent; insomuch that a man may propound St. Paul's Question to these great Doctors of our Church; Where is the Wise? Where is the Scribe? Where is the Disputer of this World? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World? It is much easier to justify the whole Revolution. I will here add the Judgement of Tol. collected by the Author of the Synopsis on Rom. 13. Power (that is, Principality or Magistracy, yea, even of Infidels and Idolaters) is not but of God, that is, from the Divine Ordination and Disposition, that the wicked may be restrained, the just honoured, etc. from God as the first Beginning, and Cause, and Author, not indeed by himself, but mediately, by men, in whom God hath put this instinct to set over them those that should Rule them. And whoever reads the Lord Chan. Fortescue, will find this true in England.   

Animadversions on Sect. 3.  
In this Section I shall animadvert on some of his Propositions; and then propose his Concessions, scattered all over his Book.  
As for the two first Propositions, I admit them: But I think that I may justly find fault with the third, which is, There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any person: Either by Nature, or by express Nomination, or by the Disposals of Providence.  
Here I say that this Division is Illogical and naughty. Logicians say, that the parts of a Division must be opposite; but these are not. For the Power and Authority, that is given by Nature, is the disposal of Providence; and the Power and Authority, that is given by express Nomination, is the disposal of Providence also. And I must confess, that in my small Reading, I never met with any that made such a sort of division. I should have added, 3. By Covenant, or by the Election of the People. I fear that the Dr's. Enthusiastical notion of Providence here imposed upon his Learning.  
Let no man say, that I do not speak of Divine Providence with that awful regard and reverence that I ought; for surely I justify God's Providence much more clearly, than this abstruse and unaccountable notion.  
The Dr. goes on: By Nature, Parents have a Natural Superiority over their Children, and are their Lords and Governors too. This was the first Government in the World, and is the only Natural Authority: For in propriety of speaking, there is no Natural Prince but a Father, etc.  
Here observe that this destroys the Principles of Sir R. F's. Book; with which so many young Divines in the University of late have been possessed, and about which they have been so very passionate, that they would endure no modest opposition; but invidiously declaimed against any man who did but call in question this Principle, as if he could not be a Lover of Monarchy. If there is no Natural Prince but a Father, thence in propriety of speaking, there can be no Natural Prince now in the World; but every Prince must be by Institution, or Agreement, or the like. For the Relation of King and Subject are not Natural, as the Relation of Father and Child are. But yet I say, Monarchy approacheth nearest to the Government of God's Throne. And I approve of the words of the Reverend Dr. Fern, Monarchy (however we cannot say it is Jure Divino, by Divine Precept, commanding all Nations, to be so governed, or Jure Naturae, by Nature's Law enforcing it) is plainly ductu Naturae, by Nature leading men from Paternal to Legal Government, and exemplo Divino, as I may say, by Divine example and insinuation. We suppose (as the Sacred Historian tells us) that Adam, and so Noah after the Flood, by God's blessing begat Sons and Daughters. These spread over the face of the Earth; some in Asia; some in Africa; some in Europe, etc. And these God endued with Reason, and they lived (or should have lived) by the Light of Nature, Gods own Law written in their hearts. (And as face answereth to face in a glass; so the heart of man to man.) And when they increased greatly, for order's sake, or because some were lawless, and, living without the fear of God, oppressed the weak, Natural Prudence, which is the Light of God in Man, taught them to Covenant with one Ruler, and to have common society and mutual help, and some Rules, Laws and Customs to determine Controversies between Family and Family; Man or Man for the public good. To this first Constitution all were bound, both Rulers, and Ruled; and this could not be changed (ordinarily) but by the Heads of such Societies, or Families. If any man can disprove this by Reason, or Scripture, we would gladly see it.  
As for our own Country, it is manifest in the most ancient Histories and Chronicles that ever I read, that we have been governed by Kings all along. But we have had an Heptarchy, and not always Lineal Succession. And when England was one Monarchy under Egbert, in the year of Christ 818. or thereabouts, we shall find the Succession altered for the public good; as the late Author of the unreasonableness of Separation upon the account of the Oaths hath largely showed out of Mat. Westminster, and Mat. Paris, and others. But still all this supposeth an Agreement between the King and People originally. And no doubt Monarchy, and all Government will stand best upon its own Foundation. And what men agree to, all conscientious men will observe, according to the mutual Oath of King and People. And it is so far from being an inconvenience, that it is the only true and just Title of all Royal Families. And it is a prejudice to the King, to say otherwise: For the best and wisest men submit only upon Condition and Covenant. We know that Nature teacheth all men to prevent Ruin; and this is the Law of God.  
But let us come to the Dr's. great Principle, the disposal of Providence, p. 12. God governs the rest of the World, removes Kings, and sets up Kings, only by his Providence, that is, than God sets up a King, when by his Providence he advanceth him to the Throne (that is, I think, God sets up a King, when he sets up a King; a self-evident Principle) and puts the Sovereign Authority into his hands: Then he removeth a King, when by his Providence he thrusts him from his Throne, and takes the Government out of his hands, etc.  
I can make no other sense of this, but that God doth it, when he doth it. But how shall it appear to us, that it is God's Providence, either to remove, or set up a King?  
The Dr. answereth, There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any person; either by Nature, or by express Nomination, or by the Disposal of Providence, p. 11. If this be not Trifling, I know not what is. If any man should ask the Dr. Who made him Master of the Temple? and he should answer, God made him so, or it was the disposal of Providence; would he not smile, tho' this is true? But the Question asked is about the Humane Principal Efficient, subordinate to God, and his Providence. But the former never comes into question among Christians. It is confessed, it was God's Providence that exalted Joseph and all Kings. I can hardly forbear, but I have always reverenced the Dr. and therefore will say no more, but Lord have mercy upon us the sinful Sons of Adam: O the power of Prejudice!  
As for God's Providence in this Revolution, I have published my thoughts in a Discourse entitled, Conscience satisfied, in a Cordial and Loyal Submission to the present Government of King William and Queen Mary; and I must refer the inquisitive Reader to that Treatise, p. 11, etc.  
But here farther, that we may consider what the Doctor saith, we must distinguish of God's Providence: It is either, 1. Immediate and extraordinary; Or 2. Mediate and ordinary.  
1. The immediate and extraordinary Providence of God is, when God works what he will besides or against the means and order appointed by himself in Nature. And this is done in all Miracles, which are effected to this end, that we may know that the Omnipotent Creator and Governor of all things, acts most freely by means, or without means.  
And this is manifest either, 1. In punishing his Enemies: Or, 2. In preserving his Servants. Thus God immediately by a Deluge from Heaven drowned the Old World; confounded the Language of the Rebels at Babel; reigned Fire and Brimstone out of Heaven upon Sodom; drowned Pharaoh and his Host in the Red Sea, after all those former Plagues and Judgements upon him. Thus God commanded the Earth to open and swallow up those proud and hypocritical Rebels, Corah and his company. By this the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed, till the people had avenged themselves on their Enemies, Josh. 10.13. By this, to deliver good Hezekiah and his people Israel, the Angel of the Lord smote in the Camp of the Assyrians one hundred fourscore and five thousand, 2 King. 19.35. On the other side, God by his extraordinary Providence gave Abraham a Son in his old age; commanded the Ravens to feed his zealous Servant Elijah; multiplied the Widows Oil; and preserved the three Children in the Fiery Furnace, and the like. Hence the Psalmist concludes; The Lord alone doth great wonders, Psal. 136.4.  
But I suppose the Dr. doth not mean, that God makes any King or Queen thus by Miracle. He did not send an Angel to set the Crown on their Majesty's Heads on the days of their Arrival in London, or on the day of their Election by the Convention of Estates, or on the day of their Coronation.  
2. Therefore there is a mediate and ordinary Providence of God: And that is, when God by Creatures or second Causes produceth those Effects, to which those Creatures or Causes by the constant, accustomed Order of Nature are appointed and made by God. Thus by food and nourishment he sustains us; by Physic and Medicines he removes diseases, and heals the sick; by his Word Read and Preached he declares his will to sinners, and persuades them to believe and obey. Thus we read, Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord, Deut. 8.3. And Hezekiah was recovered by applying a lump of Figs, and laying it for a Plaster upon a Boyl, Isa. 38.21. Finally, thus our Saviour saith, Abraham in the Parable told the rich Glutton, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them, Luk. 16.29. Thus I acknowledge it is the disposal of Providence, that by the Convention of Estates, as Means or Instruments, the Prince and Princess of Orange should be King and Queen of England, etc.  
Now the Dr. saith well, § 3. p. 12. Providence is God's Government of the World by an Invisible Influence and Power, etc. But he might have told us, that the Acts, Manner, and Effects of Providence become visible to us.  
And the disposals of Providence are seen, either, 1. In Divine Judgements or Punishments.  
Or, 2. In Divine Probations, and Fatherly Corrections and Chastisements.  
Or, 3. In Divine Blessings, Mercies, and Deliverances: And all these are Personal, Domestical, or National.  
Now God's Providence is holy and just in all these. But sometimes the Instruments are very wicked. Thus proud and cruel men, who break in pieces God's people, and afflict his Heritage, as the Psalmist speaks; tho' they are God's Rod, or Instruments by whom the Lord chastiseth his Servants (which in God is most lawful and just) I say, ungodly men are guilty of the evil of sin: Because they propound to themselves the satisfaction of their own malicious and spiteful affections. But whoever are the Instruments of God's Providence in Blessings, Mercies, Deliverances, in such Acts do well, and deserve praise of all that are not ungrateful. Thus the late Revolution is God's just Judgement and Punishment on the Papists, and all Oppressors that joined with them. But it is an exceeding great mercy, blessing, and deliverance to the Protestant Church, and all Gods faithful Servants. But I spare the Dr's prejudice. He knows the old saying, Dolus latet in generalibus. God permits evil Instruments, but he approves good Instruments in such acts.  
It is true also as the Dr. saith, That God not only permits, but he doth these things. He permits men to do wickedly, but God is the Author of all the Good and Evil, which happens to private persons, or public Societies. Surely no Christian doubts of this.  
But then we distinguish, which the Dr. doth not, and say, 1. Evil is from God, who punisheth, corrects, or chastiseth his Church.  
2. Good is from God, who defends, delivers, blesses, or saves his Church. And this is done ordinarily by the free Ministries of men.  
And the Question between us is, of these Instruments, whether they be Evil, or Good, or whether they have done Evil or Good, deserve well or ill of the Church and Commonwealth?  
Thus to illustrate my meaning: I say, that O. C. and his Confederates were Usurpers, Traitors and Murderers; and tho' they had power or strength, yet they had not Power or Authority from God. But King William and his Confederates had not only Strength or Power, but also had Power or Authority from God to save this Church and Kingdom, when we were so near sinking under Popery and Slavery. And this I think is deducible from what the Dr. sometimes grants. As when he saith, p. 28. The Law of God and Nature must take place of all Humane Positive Laws and Oaths. And when he saith, p. 33. Tho' I have as great a Reverence for Princes as any man, I do not think the Right and Interest of Princes so considerable as the Safety and Preservation of a Nation, and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects. From whence I infer, that no Positive Laws, Oaths, or Prince, in case of such Oppressions as we groaned under, aught to stand in competition with the Preservation of our Country, Liberty, Property and Religion. And consequently King William and his Confederates deserve Immortal Honour from all Englishmen and good Protestants. And if this be not sound Divinity, I desire that the Dr. would be pleased to bestow some of his Charity upon me, and write another Book to convince those of my Persuasion. I wish he had free leave given him to try his skill. For tho' I do not pretend to his Learning and Abilities, (and I know that he can teach me many things) nor have I the Opportunity of such Libraries, and Conversation of most Judicious Men, yet I have studied this Controversy, and I never acted in any Affair with a more full and clear Approbation of my own Conscience than in this Revolution: Or, to use the Dr's words in the beginning of his Preface, This I am sure of, that I never acted with more sincerity in any Affair of my whole Life, than I have done in this matter, from the beginning to the end; and whether I have sufficient Reason for what I do, I refer to the Trial of this, and other my Discourses.  
But in short, All Power is of God, and all Power is of the People. All preservation is of God, and all Preservation is of ourselves. All Riches and Honour are of God, and all Riches and Honour are of ourselves, by our own Industry, and good Merit. For tho' we can Merit nothing at God's Hands, yet we may Merit from Man. Thus, the Hand of the diligent maketh rich, saith Solomon, and the blessing of the Lord maketh rich. And seest thou a Man that is diligent in his business? he shall stand before Kings; he shall not stand before mean Men. This is God's Cooperation and Concourse: And God (quasi ex pacto coobligat se creaturis, as a Learned Protestant Schoolman and Metaphysician speaks) by Covenant obligeth himself with the Creatures, and as it were promiseth that he will help their Acts. And I suppose the Dr. himself doth not embrace the previous efficacious motion mentioned by the strict Followers of St. Thomas, and of Calvin.  
Thus God removes Kings, and sets up Kings. And this the Dr. will acknowledge, when he recovers himself. For he saith, p. 13. Sometimes [a Prince is placed on the Throne by God, and receives his Authority] by the Election of the People; sometimes by Conquest; (which hath been the visible Original of most Governments) (True say I; but Conquest makes a Man a Prisoner, not a Subject, till after Consent and Agreement) and when any Family is thus advanced to the Throne, it is continued by Succession and Legal Entails. But all these ways, or any other that can be thought of, are governed and determined by Divine Providence, and the Prince thus advanced is as truly placed in the Throne by God, as if he had been expressly nominated, etc.  
But the Secret or Reason of the Drs. obscurity and confusion, I believe, is this, He could not condemn the Instruments of God's Providence in this Revolution, out of fear: And he could not justify them, because of his Erroneous Conscience and Prejudice. And so he runs on with a General and Confused Discourse of the Disposals of Providence. Just as a Quaker, when he knows not what to say, will tell you, It is the Light within him that tells him it is so as he saith. So these Men will tell you, that it is God's Providence: which is very true of all Acts, Means, and Events, good, or evil. But we desire that men's Consciences should be satisfied, whether the Instruments have done well, or ill. But the Dr. will not meddle with this.  
Let us go on. Propos. 4. All Kings (saith the Dr.) are equally rightful with respect to God: for those are all rightful Kings, who are placed in the Throne by God, and it is impossible there should be a wrong King, unless a Man could make himself King, whether God will or no, etc.  
A. I take this to be obscure, and Enthusiastical. Those are all rightful Kings who are placed in the Throne by God, saith the Dr. True; but how shall I know that they are placed in the Throne by God? I suppose the Dr. will answer, When they are throughly Settled in the Throne, as § 2. p. 9 But then say I, This is the Election of the People, and supposes a Covenant, Explicite, or Implicit, as before. And this gives Humane and Legal Right. If the Dr. thinks otherwise, I desire to know of him; for he is so cautious, that I cannot positively say: Sometimes he hath words to this sense; sometimes not.  
And, I think, it is an odd sentence to say, It is impossible there should be a wrong King, unless a Man could make himself King, whether God will or no, etc. For God may permit a Man to call himself King, who is not King, and his deluded Followers may flatter themselves, and him also: As the late D. of M. was called King at Lyme. But God never approved of him as King; which I suppose the Dr. will acknowledge; and yet this was the Disposal of Providence. Let the Dr. distinguish here, and then he will have an answer. And I am of Opinion, that if the P. of O. had called Himself King, when he entered Exeter, or when he marched on without much, if any opposition towards London, or when he had Possession of St. James', or Whitehall, all Englishmen had been bound in Conscience to oppose Him, as an Invader of the Liberty of their Country. But when by their Representatives they Elected Him King, than all the Duties of Subjects were to be paid to Him. And if I had ten Thousand Millions of Lives to lose, I would venture them for this Proposition, That Law is, or aught to be a Rule to all Men: And that if the King himself will go about to destroy all Laws, that the Subjects may defend themselves. And when the Dr. answers the Arguments that I have brought in this, and some other Discourses by me published, I shall think myself bound to recant. But of this when I come to Rom. 13. in the next Sect.  
At present, I will propose a few short Questions, and Answers.  
Q. How doth it appear that a Prince hath God's Authority, or that he is set upon the Throne by the Disposal of Providence?  
A. When he hath Actual Possession of the Throne.  
Q. When hath a Prince Actual Possession of the Throne?  
A. When he is throughly Settled in his Throne, p. 9  
Q. When is his Government throughly Settled?  
A. When the whole Administration of the Government, and the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince, etc. ibid.  
Now this last Answer is intelligible and plain. And thus whosoever hath God's Authority or Power, hath it mediately by the Election of the People, or by Covenant, Compact, and Consent, or Submission, which is an Implicit Covenant; and this is the Disposal of Providence.  
But to begin at the Disposal of Providence, is to speak in the Clouds, and never to give a Rational account, either of the Original, Changes, or Revolutions of Government. In all my Discourse I suppose not only that God is, but that he hath made us with true Faculties; and so we are Reasonable Creatures, and can give a Rational Account.  
I proceed to Propos. 5. The Distinction then between a King de jure, and a King de facto, relates only to Humane Laws, which bind the Subject, but are not necessary Rules and Measures of Divine Providence. In an Hereditary Kingdom, he is a rightful King, who hath by Succession a Legal Right to the Crown: And he who hath Possession of the Crown, without a Legal Right, is a King de facto, that is, is King, but not by Law, etc.  
A. I imagine that this Distinction of a King de jure, and a King de facto, was invented for another purpose; and hath nothing to do in our Controversy. When the Houses of York and Lancaster laid Claim to the Crown, both by Inheritance and Lineal Succession, the Subjects being in great Perplexity, and many in very great Doubts, Scruples, and Uncertainties, who was the Lineal Successor, it was thought fit to make this Law. He that pretended to Lineal Succession, and had it not, was called a King de facto. He that had Lineal Succession was called a King de jure, tho' out of Possession. But if I were to distinguish in Reason and Conscience, as to our Case, I would distinguish thus.  
A King de jure is Twofold; either, First, A King by Inheritance: Or, Secondly, A King by Election, tho' he is not the next immediate Heir, nor pretends to be. But in this I humbly submit to the Learned and Judicious Lawyers.  
As for the rest of this Proposition, it is of the same piece with other Prejudices of the Dr's, and must have its Answer accordingly. See my other Discourses. And most of this Section is of the same Nature. The Dr. talks many times of a King having God's Authority, without Legal Authority. Let him explain, and prove what he saith. For I know no Prince that hath God's Authority, who hath not Legal Authority. When he would clear himself of Hobbism, (of which I believe he is not guilty) he saith well, Power, and nothing else, doth not give Right to Dominion, p. 15. But presently after, he seems to write Enthusiastically, and not like a Man guided by Reason, and Principles of Nature.  
I come now to his Concessions. First, It is evident, (saith the Dr. § 4. p. 23.) there is no Natural Authority but Paternal, and Patriarchal Authority. This destroys Sir R. F's Principle; and it concerns his  Followers to consider it, as I observed before. But what the Dr. saith immediately after, is more than I can approve of, That Monarchies were erected upon the Ruins or great Diminution of it, etc. For I do not think Monarchy the Ruin or Diminution of Fatherly Authority, but rather the way to preserve it, and add Perfection to it in the Increase of the World. The Dr. might have expressed himself more warily. For this seems to reflect more upon Monarchy, than the Subjects of a King aught.  
2. Hear what he grants, § 4. p. 25. speaking of those who refuse the Oaths, If they would examine themselves for what Reason they believe that a King who hath no Right to the Throne, is not set up by God, and invested with his Authority, they will find, That it must ultimately resolve itself into the Authority of the People to make Kings, which it is unjust for God himself to overrule and alter: (pace tanti viri, by the Dr's leave, I should say, it is not God's usual Method and ordinary Providence to overrule and alter) for a Legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People: And if the People have such an  Authority in making Kings, (hold a little, the People cannot do this, when they have Covenanted, ordinarily, but in extreme necessity) I doubt they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them to. But perhaps the Dr. will say, This is Argumentum ad homines; and I would not willingly misrepresent him. As for his Answer to the Objection, which I find, p. 26. I know not what to make of it, it is pure Enthusiasm, I think: I cannot measure it by any Rules of Reason.  
3. He grants very honestly, p. 27. That when ever a People have a good King, (as surely, say I, King William and Queen Mary are a good King and Queen) it is both their Duty and Interest to defend Him: And if they be not misled by the Cunning and Artifice of ill Men, they will certainly do so. But if they have a very bad one, that notoriously violates their Rights, and breaks the Constitution upon which Himself stands, and strikes at the dearest things they have, their Religion Established by Law, and their Properties, I doubt the Case may be altered. And tho' every Body will not speak it out, yet most may say in their Hearts, Let him go, if he cannot defend Himself. It is enough in Conscience patiently to bear so bad a Prince, but a little too much to venture their Lives and Fortunes to keep him in the Throne to oppress them. This is against Reason and Nature, and I know no Law of God which requires it, etc. I wish with all my heart that this Consideration, and other Arguments of the Dr's. may prevail with the most Reverend Father in God, the late Archbishop, and the Right Reverend the Bishops, who have not taken the Oaths to their present Majesties, I believe, out of pure Conscience, tho' erroneous, and full of prejudice. And I have often wondered, that so many of the Clergy, who but a little before did so violently oppose the Prince of Orange's proceed (out of the like conscientious prejudice, as I believe) did on a sudden take the Oaths. This seems to me, to show that our Case wanted but a little consideration, and men might easily lay aside their prejudices, in so blessed and desirable a Change.  
4. The Dr. grants, p. 28. That the Laws of God and Nature must take place of all Humane Positive Laws and Oaths. Hence I infer, that the Dr. cannot deny Self-preservation.  
5. He grants, p. 29. That it is unreasonable to expound the Oath to such a sense, as no man would have taken it in had it been expressed: No, no man in his wits would take it for the best Prince that ever swayed the Sceptre. Then such an Oath, or Promise, or Declaration, could not intent to dedestroy Self-preservation, Liberty, and Property.  
6. The Dr. grants, p. 30. We are not bound to defend the King against Law, or when he subverts the Laws, und Liberties, and the Legal Established Religion of the Kingdom, by Illegal Methods: Or, as he saith presently after, by the exercise of an Illegal and Arbitrary Power.  
7. He saith, p. 32. Certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath, to fight for their King against their Country. For an Oath to fight for the King, doth not oblige us to fight against our Country, which is as unnatural, as to fight against our King.  
8. He owns the preservation of the whole Kingdom is before the Prince, p. 33. in these words; Tho' I have as great a Reverence for Princes as any man, I do not think the Right and Interest of any Prince so considerable, as the Safety and Preservation of the Nation, and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects. I am sure, we, who are for Defensive Arms, cannot say more than this.  
9 I leave the Teachers of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance to answer his Arguments, p. 36. or else I hope they will take the Oaths. I have spoken my thoughts of this matter. As for Bishop Overals Convocation-Book, I do not love many words, I have spoken my mind.  
10. This seems very hard, that when God hath actually delivered us, we must refuse our deliverance, p. 38. And I add, it seems very hard that the Clergy, who receive most benefit by this deliverance, (if in heart they love the Protestant Religion) should not honour the Deliverers.  
11. The Dr. agrees to what Bishop Sanderson tells us, That the End of Civil Government, and of that Obedience which is due to it, is the Safety and Tranquillity of Humane Societies; and therefore whatever is necessary and useful to this End, becomes our Duty: for the End prescribes the Means. Hence I infer the lawfulness of Defensive Arms in some case; because Humane Societies under a Tyrannical Prince, who Rules Arbitrarily, cannot be safe. I beseech the Dr. seriously to consider this, and examine throughly whether it doth not necessarily follow.  
And before I end this Section, I must desire the Dr. to reconcile some of his Assertions.  
He saith, p. 4. The Church of England hath been very careful to instruct her Children in their duty to Princes; to obey their Laws, and submit to their Power, and not to resist, tho' very injuriously oppressed; and those who renounce these Principles, renounce the Doctrine of the Church of England. But she hath withal taught, That all Sovereign Princes receive their Power and Authority from God; and therefore every Prince, who is settled in the Throne, is to be obeyed and reverenced as God's Minister, and not to be resisted, etc.  
And here I observe that the Dr. chargeth the Nonswearing Bishops, as well as those who joined with the Prince of Orange, as rejecting the Doctrine of the Church of England. Well; let the Dr. and his Party be the only true Church of England-men, if he can disprove what I have now and elsewhere said. He grants, That whosoever is settled in the Throne, hath God's Authority, and must not be resisted. But p. 25, 26. in answering an Objection, That this makes the Prince lose his Right by being notoriously injured, etc. he tells us, The Providence of God removes Kings, and sets up Kings, but altars no Legal Rights, nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them, to recover their Right when they can, etc. and doth not divest the dispossessed Prince of his Legal Right and Claim, nor forbidden him to endeavour to recover his Throne, nor forbidden those who are under no Obligation to the Prince in Possession, to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his Legal Right, etc. nor hinder him from Claiming it, when he finds his opportunity.  
I would here know of the Dr. who they are that are under no Obligation to the Prince in Possession, and so may assist the dispossessed Prince? Are they Domestic Subjects, or Foreign Enemies? What? may the late King with a good Conscience invade England with an Army of Frenchmen to recover that which the Dr. calls his Legal Right? I believe the Dr. to be an honest man, and that he hath no Plot or Design; but let him see the tendency of his Argument.  
I should answer the Objection thus; The dispossessed Prince is either good, or evil. If he is a good Prince, and hath not oppressed his Subjects, his case is hard, and very calamitous, and much to be pitied; but he must submit to Divine Providence, and Gods Fatherly Correction or Probation. And this is a difficulty in Providence, as the Dr's. phrase is; according to the account of all Philosphers, Cur bonis malè? But if his Subjects have stood by him with their Lives and Fortunes, and are conquered, and have settled the Government of the Conqueror, either by a General Assembly, or by Universal Submission, Promise, Oath, etc. they are excusable, and the King so forced into Banishment, in Conscience cannot require their Allegiance. If the Prince be evil, and hath oppressed his Subjects in a high measure, than he forfeiteth his Legal Right, and it is transferred on another King for the public good. But I pray God this may never befall the Royal Family again, while the Sun and Moon endureth. But surely the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy and Commons had Reason and Conscience to defend themselves against the Tyranny of Jesuits, and other evil Counsellors, who tempted the King to be ungrateful, and seek the Ruin of their Religion and Properties.  
Again, p. 14. The Dr. saith, He who hath Possession of the Crown without a Legal Right, (that is, as he means, a Successive Right) is a King de facto, that is, is King, but not by Law. And yet p. 63. he saith, The Law requires us to own him for our Sovereign. Let the Dr. reconcile this.   

Animadversions on Section 4.  
I have before answered the Dr's Observation, That the Scripture hath given us no Direction in this case, but to submit, and pay all Obedience of Subjects unto the present Powers. It makes no distinction, that ever I could find, between a Rightful King, and an Usurper, between a King whom we must; and whom we must not obey. See Animadversions on Sect. 2.  
And now I come to that famous Text of Rom. 13. And here the Reverend Dr. still owns Passive Obedience and Nonresistance. And he tells us in his Preface, That he hath renounced no Principle that ever he taught, except one in the case of Resistance, p. 128, etc. which is the only material passage he knows any reason to retract in that Book, to wit, that when St. Paul saith, All Power is of God, he meaneth only Legal Powers.  
Now I think the Dr. hath had the ill Fortune to adhere to one of the worst Principles, and renounce one of the best Principles, that ever he taught in Government.  
And that I may prove this, it must come to my Turn to suppose. And here I shall premise the Dr's Words in the end of his Preface, They who understand what belongs to Disputes of this nature, know very well that the shortest way to bring the matter to an Issue, is to put the Case at the worst that can be supposed; because this gives so much greater force and advantage to the Argument, when it is suited to those, who are most strongly prejudiced [against the Lawfulness of Defensive Arms in any Case.]  
In managing this Argument, (as the Dr. goes on) it is necessary to reason upon supposition of the most Illegal and greatest Oppressions: And it may be I may meet with some Readers, as may charge me for so doing, with unchristian Behaviour, and clownish Irreverence towards a calamitous Prince, which I am very sure, I am far from intending to do. I say, as I said at first, Sacred Majesty laid in the dust requires our Tears: Our Religion, and our Laws revived require our Joy. This premised, I offer a Supposition.  
Suppose the Late King was resolved to Rule by a Standing Army: Suppose he had Suspended all the Bishops, as well as the Bishop of London: Suppose he had turned all the Nobility out of their Freeholds, as well as the Precedent, and Fellows of Magdalen College: Suppose he had set up an Illegal High Commission Court: Suppose he had Tried all the Ministers in England for their Lives, as well as the Seven Innocent Bishops: Suppose he had Closeted all the Nobility, as well as he did many, to over-awe their Votes in Parliament: Suppose he had given Power to all the Dissenters, and Sectaries to preach in our Pulpits, as well as in private Meetings: Suppose all the Members of his Privy Council had been Jesuits, and  Papists, as well as Father Petre, Tyrconnel, etc. Suppose he had Suspended all the Clergy in England for not Reading the Illegal Declaration in Churches: Suppose he had commanded the Officers of his Standing Army to Plunder our Houses, and cut our Throats. And now I think that I have almost supposed the worst that I can suppose: And verily I tremble to suppose this. I will make but one Supposition more. Suppose that by teaching this Doctrine of Nonresistance the Late King might be tempted to bring in his Religion by these Illegal and Horrid means: And thereby not only lose his Crown and Dignity, but hazard the Damnation of his Soul, without Repentance, yet the Author's Doctrine is, Subjects must not resist. And he saith, Christ, and his Apostles, especially St. Paul in Rom. 13. taught this Doctrine, when he saith, Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation. No doubt but this is very edifying Doctrine. This was most irresistible Rhetoric to the Senate, and People of Rome (the freest People of the World) to turn Christians. For then, tho' their Philosophers taught them, that they might defend themselves against Tyrants by the Law of Nature, yet, they must not defend the Liberties of their Country: If they do, they must never be happy hereafter. This is an invincible Argument to any Jealous Roman, or Wise Grecian, to embrace Christianity. Is not this Doctrine against all God's Attributes, his Goodness, his Justice, his Mercy, as well as the Predestinarian Doctrine is said to be? What! hath God left his poor innocent Creatures, I mean Legally innocent, to be a prey to Lions? Credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. And here I may use the Dr's words, (for I confess my stile is not so Elegant) p. 40. According to these Principles Humane Societies in such Revolutions (I must say maladministrations) cannot be preserved without sin: For if all Men did their Duty, they must all be destroyed. Now, I believe it will be hard to persuade any considering Men, that that which in such a Case is necessary to preserve a Nation, is a sin: And that which will infallibly destroy it, is a Duty and Virtue: If we allow the Safety and Preservation of Humane Societies, to be the great Law of all. And I will add the Dr's words, § 1. p. 3. mutatis mutandis, The Doctrine of Resistance in some Case may startle some Men at first, before they have well considered it. But every one at first sight must acknowledge, that it is so much for the Ease and Safety of Subjects in all maladministrations and Universal Oppression, (which sometimes happen) 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. And p. 18. These Principles are so very useful, especially in all Innovations in Church, or State, that Subjects have great Reason to wish them true, and to examine over again those strict Principles of Loyalty, which if pursued to their just Consequence, must unavoidably in some Junctures, Sacrifice whole Kingdoms, at least all Subjects, who pretend to this degree and kind of Loyalty and Conscience, to the Tyranny of Evil Counsellors, or Maladministration of their Prince. And once more I will borrow the Dr's words, p. 44. (for I cannot use so good) Since then such maladministrations will happen, such Principles as must dissolve Humane Society, when such Maladministration happens, or expose the most innocent and conscientious Men to the greatest Sufferings, without serving any good end by them, cannot be true: For the End of Government is the Preservation of Humane Societies, and therefore that can be no good Principle of Government, which in the greatest Maladministration, if pursued, must Ruin the most excellent, true, and harmless Subjects, who desire nothing but to live according to Law, and save their Liberties, conveyed to them by their Ancestors. Passive Obedience in such Case is to make all Mankind the Slaves and Properties of Princes: As if all Men were made for Princes, not Princes for the Government of Men, p. 45.  
I know not but that a Barbarous and Savage Prince, as Tiberius, of whom it is said, That there passed no day, no not so much as any Festival and Religious Holiday, without the Execution and Punishment of some. Or as Caligula, who being highly displeased upon a time with the multitude, Would to God (quoth he) that the People of Rome had but one Neck, meaning to chop them off at one blow: And said, Let them hate me, so they fear me. Or as Nero, who is reported to say, Let the whole Earth be on Fire, while I live. I say such cruel Tyrants may possibly be well pleased with the Doctrine of Nonresistance. But surely no good and wise Prince, who would have the Affections of his Subjects, doth desire that such Doctrine should be taught. The Great and Noble Spirit of Augustus Caesar, or the Courage and Valour, together with the Clemency and Mercy of a Vespasian, or the Impartial Administration of Justice in a Trajan, would detest and loathe such a sottish, brutish, and unnatural Principle. And nothing can make a Prince encourage it, but a Design upon his People, or to reduce them to Popery and Slavery, or to Rule Tyrannically, that is, both Wickedly, and Uneasily. St. Paul himself stood upon his Privilege against the Magistrate, Acts 16.37. Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into Prison, and now do they thrust us out privily? Nay verily, but let them come themselves, and fetch us out. It is a most excellent and prevailing Motive for the Saviour of Mankind, and his chosen Apostles, to use, to tell them, that if they will be his Disciples, in some Case they must become Slaves. If they save their Country, and defend themselves against Violence and Oppression, (which they cannot but do, as Sensible and Reasonable Creatures) they are certainly Damned. This verily is to become Fools that they may be wise to Salvation, in another Sense than St. Paul meant it.  
And now let us hear what the Dr. saith to us about Rom. 13. To say the Apostle here speaketh of Lawful Powers, is gratis dictum, for there is no Evidence of it.  
A. There is Evidence of it; and the Evidence or Reason of it, is this; Neither God, nor Man gives Authority to any man to oppress the Innocent. Therefore the Innocent in resisting Illegal proceed, resist no Authority; Nor do no evil, forbidden by God, or Man. See my Answer to the History of Passive Obedience, in the beginning.  
But, saith the Dr. The Criticism between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not do; for they both signify the same thing in Scripture, either Force and Power, or Authority.  
A. Some Passive-Obedience men think this unanswerable: But surely the Dr. cannot think the Divines of our Persuasion so weak, as to lay the strength of the Argument upon a Word or Criticism. But first they give a Reason, as before, and then to illustrate their Argument, use the words, as Modern Critics say, they are most commonly used in our days. The Apostle doth not say, All Power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Strength is of God; but All Power, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Authority, or Lawful Power, is of God; implying, that it is not he that is the strongest man, hath God's Authority, as Mr. Hobbs saith; neither hath any Oppressor in the Act of Oppression; neither are we required not to resist such Acts of Oppression. But I observe however, that he saith not a word to those Critics, who say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Powers that be, that is, the True (or Lawful) Powers. But I would not have the Dr. think, that our Divines lay the stiess of so great a cause upon Criticisms; but they may be plain Illustrations.  
The Dr. goes on, p. 19 Why should we think the Apostle here intends a distinction unknown to Scripture? Had there been any such Rule before given, To submit to Lawful Powers, but not to submit to Usurpers, there had been some pretence for understanding St. Paul's All Powers, of all Legal Power; but there being nothing like this any where else in Scripture, if he had intended any such distinction, he ought to have said it in express words, or else no body could reasonably have understood him to intent this Precept of subjection to the Higher Powers, only of the Powers that had Legal Right.  
A. St. Paul was not bound, neither was he sent to teach the Romans Political Government, but he supposeth them to know this by the Customs of their Country, and he tells them, They must submit, and not resist; for all Power is of God. Christians, as well as Heathens, or Jews, must obey Authority. But he doth not say, that Usurped Power or Strength is of God, and to be submitted to. And though the Dr. saith, There is nothing like this any where else in Scripture, which is gratis dictum, yet other Learned Divines say, that the Apostle means this, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. When he saith, Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether to the King as Supreme. Hence they collect, and I think truly, That the Donation of the Power is of God, and the Designation of the Person, or Limitation and Qualification of the Power is of Man, tho' it is also the disposal of Providence. I have said in another Discourse, God and Man in these Acts are not opposite, but subordinate. God is the first Cause; Man is the second Cause. The Prince that receives Authority from Man, receives it from God also, tho' mediately by Man; and is God's Minister and a Ruler, v. 3, 4.  
The Dr. proceeds; Then in order to the fulfilling of this precept, it would be necessary for Subjects to exarmine the Titles of Princes, and to that end to be well skilled in History, and the Laws of a Nation, and to be able to judge between a pretended and real Right, etc.  
A. And surely it is not so difficult a thing to know who is our Prince, as the Dr. would make it. It is so easy, that every Subject in England, as far as ever I heard, never doubted that the late King James was the lawful King of England, etc. And there needs no great skill in History and Law to know this. And as for the Revolution, when we are bound in Conscience to obey another King, there needs no History to tell us, what we have seen and heard. And the Reverend Dr. will tell us, when the Government is settled, p. 9 Suppose the greatest uncertainty that you can suppose, the Consciences of men would not be more perplexed, than you have perplexed them at this day: And therefore you need not have said, Let any man judge in what perplexities this sense of the Apostles Precept would involve the Consciences of men.  
The Dr. hath a great deal more to the same purpose, and descants at large. To which I answer in general, That if St. Paul had taught us Politics in Rom. 13. I should have thought it very strange. Men must learn Politics from the Laws of Reason, and the common Prudence and Experience of Mankind.  
Suppose the Great Turk in a Passion, or upon a small Provocation, should draw his Scymeter or Sword, to kill some Eminent Nobleman of his Court, and the Nobleman should defend his Life by force of Arms, and by Skill or Strength should disarm his great Lord and Master, and escape for his Life. In this case I say, Natural Religion and Conscience will justify the Innocent Nobleman, and will tell the Great Turk, that he ought to give God thanks in such like words as David did, when Abigail by her wisdom pacified his wrath, 1 Sam. 25.32. Blessed be the Lord God, who sent thee this day to meet me; And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, who hast kept me this day from shedding blood. I should never read the Scriptures, nor any History or Law-book, to tell me, who is my King, no more than I would to tell me, who is my Father and Mother. I like a Fool have all my days presumed without Book, with my Fellow-subjects, and with my Brethren and Sisters, who is my King, and who is my Father and Mother; and have honoured and obeyed them according to the fifth Commandment. Such reasoning is unworthy of the profound Judgement of Dr. Sherlock. If the Dr. pleaseth, I would desire him to write a Book to teach Children what are their Names, and who are their Godfathers and Godmothers, before we Catechise them any more. For, is it not a very hard thing to know all these things? See how prejudice blinds the Eyes of pious and wise men.  
I confess, that when there is a competition for the Crown, or when Imposture may be reasonably suspected, or in the like extraordinary case, than the Subjects may become Sceptics. But then we have a Privy Council, and a Parliament, to examine, judge, and determine. But otherwise, I am persaded that there was not one of ten thousand, that ever doubted, whether King Charles the Second was the true Heir, and rightful King, or King James the Second.  
But let us hear the Dr's. Objection, p. 24. If the choice and consent of the People makes a Prince, than no man is a Subject, but he who consents to be so; For the major Vote cannot include my consent, unless I please: That is the Effect of Law and Compact, or Force, not of Nature. If Subjects give their Prince Authority, they may take it away again, if they please. There can be no Irresistible Authority derived from the People: For if Authority be wholly derived from them, who shall hinder them from taking it away when they see fit? Upon these Principles, there can be no Hereditary Monarchy: One Generation can only choose for themselves; their Posterity have as much right to choose as they had.  
A. The Dr. owns, That if the Lineal Succession should fail, than the People must choose a Prince; and this hinders not Hereditary Monarchy. No more doth it in such an extraordinary case as our present case is. And the Dr. himself saith, p. 25. A Legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People; tho' here he saith, Upon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy. Let him reconcile these. The Parliament hath settled the Succession.  
But, saith the Dr. Every Subject must consent.  
This is thought a mighty Goliath, but I think it a poor, weak Argument. I have elsewhere showed, that the meek, wise, and ever-renowned Hooker, foundeth all Government in Covenant, so that I am not singular in the Church of England. And surely it is not required in our Constitution, that every individual person consent explicitly to Acts of Parliament, but the major Vote includes all. And there is nothing more common in the World, either in Political, or Sacred Affairs, than for a Father, or Guardian, or Godfather, or Friend, or Relation, to engage for a Child. See Deut. 29, 10, 11. If it were any other person, I should be afraid, would turn Anabaptist, or at least a Puritan, and write a Book against Godfathers. In these Cases an Implicit Covenant is fully sufficient. If the whole Kingdom consists of such who were Children to their Parents, that Elected the Prince, and agreed that the Kingdom should be Hereditary, this in Conscience binds them: Tho' they make no Personal and Vocal Expression of their Consent and Agreement, as the Fathers did. I imagine that upon second Thoughts the Dr. will have no mind to oppose this, and therefore I say no more.  
But the Dr. saith, That if Subjects give their Prince Authority, than they may take it away again, if they please.  
A. All Subjects are bound in Conscience to stand to their Covenant, Agreement, Promise, and Oath. And here whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation. This is Rebellion, supposing a Kingdom not universally oppressed. And this secures the Prince, as well as the Providence of God, in the Dr's unintelligible Notion.  
But this is to say, God, as well as Man, is confined to Humane Laws in making Kings, p. 25.  
A. I suppose the Dr. living among such an Honourable Society of Lawyers, hath heard of being tried by God and the Country: And so the King and Queen may be made by God and the Country. God feeds us, but we must put Meat in our Mouths. God Clothes us, but we must put on our Clothes. God doth what we do, when we use the Means appointed by God. And when the Dr. is in a reasoning Humour, he will tell us, that there is no doubt but several Governments have been begun by, and Originally derived from the Choice and Consent of the People, p. 23. but still it is God, who by his Providence advanceth Men to the Throne. But of this before.  
As for those who advance Conquest, I have spoken my Mind formerly. And I add, that when the whole Community, be it by the Sword, is subdued, (as the Jews were by Caesar) and have promised Subjection, and own the Authority of the Conqueror, and he promiseth them Protection, I grant this gives the Conqueror Humane Right and Title, as well as God's Authority. For he holds his Crown (as some speak) jure Gentium & concessu Gentium. But if the P. of O. did Conquer England, against which he declared, and acted nothing like a Conqueror in any part of the Nation, where his Army Marched, but every where like a Saviour and Deliverer. I say, if the P. of O. did Conquer the Nation, the Princess of Orange did not. And Queen Mary's Title can be no other way (God save Her Majesty, for I am Her most Loyal Subject and Servant) but by the Election of the People in Convention, and now confirmed by Act of Parliament: Which I desire all Conscientious Men to consider.  
Finally, As for Submission, that is an Implicit Covenant, as I have showed, and must be kept. So that (tho' the Dr. cannot, yet with all, or the most Judicious Philosophers, Schoolmen, and Reformed Divines) I can see where to fix the Foundation of Government, and that is in the Agreement of the People: And this is the ordinary Disposal of Providence. But let it be by the Election and Consent of the People: Or by Conquest, and so by After-Covenant: Or by Submission, which is an Implicit After-Covenant: Or by continued Usurpation, as the Dr. speaks, which still is founded upon After-Covenant and Promise, all these are the Disposals of Providence. So that the Dr. very weakly (for I do not believe he doth it craftily) gives only the General Cause, which no Man denies. But we desire to know, what is (causa secunda, proxima, & particularis) the second, next, and particular Cause (as the Schools speak) of this Revolution and Government.  
And the Reason is, either we have done very well, or very ill in joining with the P. of O. And we would gladly convince the Dr. or any Man else, that we have hazarded all that is dear to Man, Virtuously and Honourably, to preserve Gods true Religion and Worship as by Law Established, to save the English Monarchy from the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome; and to continue the Liberties of our Native Country.  
The Providence of God is no Rule, or Reason, or Measure of our Duty: But the Law of God and Nature, and the Laws of the Land, when they contradict not these. And the Dr. will tell us so, when he thinks of it, p. 32. The Divine Providence hath Ways and Methods of removing Kings and Setting up Kings, which we are not ware of, nor concerned to know, because it is no part of our Duty.  
To sum up all this, In this Revolution some talk of Desertion and Abdication: Some of Conquest: Some of God's Providence, as the Dr. and some of the Election of the People.  
1. As to Desertion and Abdication, whether the Late King did in a proper and strict sense Abdicate the Kingdom is a matter that I need not dispute, but surely the Convention did well to take this into Consideration, that the Kingdom was left without any Order or Government, in a very troublesome time. But supposing that it was a proper and strict Abdication, this doth not make the Prince and Princess of Orange, King and Queen of England. This must be some other way.  
2. As to Conquest. And, 3. As to God's Providence, I have said enough to satisfy any Conscientious, and wise Man, who will lay aside Prejudice and Prepossession.  
And therefore, 4. I am fully satisfied in my own Conscience, and will dispute the Case with any Learned and Conscientious Divine, that it can be justified no other way, but by the Election of the People in Convention.  
As for the Examples of Jehoiada, and Joash, and Athaliah, and of Jeroboam, and Jehu, I think there may be a better Account given, than the Dr. gives: But this is nothing to the main Controversy between him, and us. That concerns the Non-Swearers.  
I shall only give you a familiar Simile or Example out of Scripture of the Election of a King, tho' it doth not quadrare in omnibus; it is not (nor needs be) fitted in all Circumstances to the Kingdom of England.  
In the first Book of Sam. chap. 8. The People of Israel desire a King. (Then it follows, they had none before.) Whereupon Samuel told them his Message from God, and at last yielded to the importunity of the People. And he called all the People, Chap. 10. that is, All the Heads, Elders, and Princes of the People; a great Convention, Parliament, or Assembly of the Nation. And they chose Saul. And all the People shouted, and said, God save the King. And those whose Hearts God had touched went with him. And they that despised him, were called Children of Belial. And I shall only add Samuel's Admonition and Counsel, Chap. 12. ver. 24, 25. Only fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great things he hath done for you. But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your King.  
I know that there are two Prejudices (as the Dr. speaks in like case) rather than Objections against this Truth.  

1. This will not please the King, and Royal Family.  
2. This occasions Subjects to Rebel, when they think fit.   
1. This will not please the King, and Royal Family.  
A. We are confident that this is an Insinuation of weak Spirits, and directly contrary to the Great and Heroic Designs of their Sacred Majesties, and their Impartial Administrations of Justice; and God forbidden we should do any thing justly meriting the loss of Their Majesty's Favour, and their Hearts confiding in us. I am sure that the pleading for our Liberties, is no Prejudice to the King's Crown, or Prerogatives. Why should not our Sovereign look upon us with Respect, when we pay him all Legal Obedience out of Conscience, and venture our Lives and Fortunes in defence of his Crown and Dignity, as well as of our Laws, and Properties? Why may not we hope for Preferment, Honour, and Commendation, as well as those who never practise what they teach? When I have lived to see their Senses too much for their singular Divinity. But however we far in this World, I am of Opinion, that a King should do Justice, a Priest should teach Truth, and a Soldier should Fight for a good Cause, and leave the Success to God. The Happiness of a Kingdom is in a Princes Ruling as a Father, and Subjects obeying out of Love, rather than mere necessity.  
Obj. 2. This occasions Subjects to Rebel, when they think fit.  
To this I say, besides what I have formerly written, that the Doctrine of Non-Assistance, which is now become common, is as bad, if not worse than our Doctrine of Resistance in some Case. Now the Dr. owns the former, p. 50. saying, Thus far I think the Subjects may be very guiltless, who do not drive the King away, but only suffer him quietly (to be driven away, or) to escape out of his Kingdom: for this is no Rebellion, no Resistance, but only Non-assistance, which may be very innocent: For there are some Cases, wherein Subjects are not bound to assist their Prince, and if ever there were such a Case this is it.  
I grant Non-Assistance and Resistance are not the same in all cases: I grant we are not bound to assist our King in Illegal Commands: But I should think, that if we may not resist him in his Illegal and Arbitrary Commands, we ought in Conscience to assist him in his Legal Commands, especially in the preservation of his Person, Crown and Dignity. And I am sure that the late King would have called this a Seditious and Rebellious Doctrine, as well as ours. But thus the poor King was cheated. And the Dr. may say, as well as think in his heart, p. 27. Let him go, if he cannot defend himself. Well; I commend the Dr. in this case, for Teaching Subjects to sleep in a whole skin. But in troth I think, it is more plain dealing, and the King had better be told, that in the same case they will not assist him, they will resist, that is, in case of Universal Oppression.  
I will suppose for once, that David was against Defensive Arms and Resistance in any case; and upon this supposition, let us hear his Judgement and Resolution, 1 Sam. 26.15, 16. David said unto Abner, Art not thou a valiant man? and who is like unto thee in Israel? Wherefore then hast thou not kept thy Lord the King? for there came one of the people in to destroy the King thy Lord. This thing is not good that thou hast done: As the Lord liveth, ye are worthy to die, because ye have not kept your Master the Lords Anointed.  
Abner might have replied to David, (if he had been taught by the Dr.) Sir, the King is in pursuit of you, when you are innocent; and that illegally, cruelly, causelessly, maliciously; and therefore tho' I must not resist, I may not assist, nor see your innocent blood shed. Take my Master, Lord, and King, and do what you will with him. Here I must desire the Dr. to reflect upon his Conscience in the fear of God. And I dare appeal to the Judgement of any moderate, conscientious, and learned Papist, or to the Judgement of any indifferent man in the World, if our Doctrine be not as honest as this. In this case Non-Assistance is as bad as Resistance; for the Prince must certainly, infallibly, and inevitably fall into the hands of his Adversaries, with this aggravation, That those he trusted deceived him.  
To this purpose we may consider that distinction of the Efficient Cause mentioned by the Schoolmen. It is either, 1. Physical Or, 2. Moral. The Physical Cause is that which hath a real influx towards the Effect, or that which truly, and of itself contributes to the Being of the Effect. The Moral Cause is that, which tho' it doth not really operate in producing the Effect, yet it is such (in ordine Moris) in order to Manners, as they say, as if it really conferred Being to the Effect; and that because the Effect that follows is no less imputable to it, than if it had produced the Effect by a real influx; such are causes consulting, commanding, and not hindering, when they ought to hinder. But I have sufficiently lashed this Doctrine elsewhere.  
As for the rest of the Book, it is either what we grant, or what hath been already answered, or contains the Dr's. Arguments to persuade the Clergy, that have not taken the Oaths. And I see no reason why the Arguments should not prevail with them, if they will lay aside prejudice. But I believe the Dr. may Preach Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance upon Rom. 13. long enough, before he will gain one rational and considering man. For the Maladministration of the late unhappy King, and the Tyranny, Pride, and Insolence of the Jesuits, instead of frighting them out of their senses, have frighted the Commons of England into their senses, that they will rather believe they merit Salvation (if the Protestant Faith allowed it) than that they are guilty of that Resistance, which, the Apostle saith, shall receive Damnation, for joining with the Prince of Orange, and his Confederates, in this Revolution.  
Wherefore I shall conclude with these three Propositions.  
1. In our Case Defensive Arms were lawful.  
2. King William and Queen Mary, with their true Friends, can be justified no other way.  
3. This Doctrine, as I have explained it, is neither contrary to the Church of England, nor more prejudicial or dangerous to Monarchy, than any other Principle; as will appear, I hope, to any, who will impartially consider what I have written in a Treatise called Conscience Satisfied in a Cordial and Loyal Submitting to the present Government of King William and Queen Mary; and in another small Discourse, in Answer to the History of Passive Obedience; and in a Fast Sermon on Josh. 5.13. Art thou for us, or for our Adversaries? And I think that the Thanksgiving-days, and the Fasting-days, and the Collects, and Prayers read, and the saying Amen by all the Members of every Congregation, is a Justification of what hath been done in this Revolution, unless men are gross Hypocrites, and honour God with their mouths, without their hearts.  
And whatever some late Bishops, and Governors of the Church have done, I am sure the first Blessed Reformers honoured all Protestant Churches as Sisters, and their Divines and Ministers as Brethren. I know not why Luther, and Calvin, and Arminius (tho' they differ in some Opinions) should not all still be honoured as faithful Servants of Christ. And here I shall produce a few of our Divines, most famous, who speak honourably of them; as all men, that hate Faction in the Church ought to do.  
The Reverend Bishop Jewel (Reply to Hard. A. Art. 2. Divis. 6.) justifies Luther as a godly man, and accuseth Harding of Slander. And (Divis. 7) he calls Melancthon and Bucer, godly learned men. And he calls Peter Martyr, a most worthy and learned Father. (A. to Hardings Preface.) And Harding commends his Modesty. And surely if Passive Obedience had been the Doctrine of those days, and esteemed (as it hath been of late) Rebellion to oppose it, the ever Renowned Hooker (Preface to Eccl. Pol.) would not have honoured Calvin with this Elogium; For my own part, I think him (that is, Calvin) incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy, since the hour it enjoyed him. The Divines of the Church of England are not wont thus to commend Authors guilty of Heresy, or Schism, or Sedition, or Rebellion. And Dr. Bilson (True difference between Christian Subjection, and unchristian Rebellion, p. 3. pag. 264.) saith, Calvin is so well known to those that be Learned or Wise, for his great pains and labours in the Church of God, that a few snarling Friars cannot impeach his Name. And Dr. Whitgift against the Puritan T. C. every where honours Bullinger, Castius, and more especially Zuinglius: And yet all these justified Defensive Arms in some case. Now who are the Innovators? they that follow the first Doctors of our Church, or they that have embraced other new and unheard of Principles in Government? I leave the works of our Forefathers to be Judges.  
But here it is objected by some weak and factious spirits, that our Convention (or Parliament) have done as bad to the late King, as the Rump Parliament, so called, O. C. and the Army of Sectaries did to King Charles the First: And therefore if we are justifiable, they are justifiable, and consequently Jan. 30. ought not to be kept as a day of Humiliation and Fasting.  
For this, let the Reader consider what the Dr. saith, p. 46, 47, etc. Or let him take this Answer. Our Cause and theirs differ as far as Heaven and Hell, or Good and Bad, Murder and Self-defence. I will not say that there were no Corruptions in Government, nor no Innovations brought into the Church: Neither will I dispute the Reasonableness of the War between the King, and Parliament in the beginning. But supposing that the Parliament had sufficient Cause to defend themselves: Yet,  
1. King Charles the First had given full satisfaction to the Two Houses of Parliament, and the Bishops, and the Common Prayer were Established by Law: And all know that it was the National Worship, as it is now, and cannot be abrogated, or altered, but by King, Lords, and Commons: But O. C. destroyed the House of Lords, and the Book of Common Prayer by force, and by the Sword.  
2. King Charles the First was a professed Protestant, and all his Officers and Ministers in Church and State were such as the Law allowed: But the Late King was a professed Papist, and put Papists in Places of Trust against Law, and turned out all the best Protestants for no reason, but only because they opposed the Jesuits and Arbitrary Power.  
3. King Charles the First, and the Parliament had concluded upon a Settlement to the satisfaction of all sober and wise Men in the Kingdom; but O. C. and his Army of Sectaries with force turned about a hundred Members out of Parliament, and kept them Prisoners against Law and Justice.  
4. O. C. and the Sectaries Ruled the Nation by the Sword in time of Peace, contrary to all Law, and Executed many of the most Zealous Protestants: But King William defends all Protestants according to Law.  
5. They, like Cruel Tyrants and Usurpers, destroyed the whole Frame of Government, Murdered the King, and Banished all the Royal Family. As there are some at this day, who are so vain and sottish as to desire a Commonwealth, and to Root out the Bishops, and Common Prayer, and so bring confusion into Church and State. As if there were no difference between the Reformation of Abuses, and destroying that which is good and excellent. We say that this Faction in a Nation is to be opposed as well as the Tyranny and Illegal Proceed of the Papists: For both are destructive of our Laws, and Established Religion. It is true our present Business is against the Abominations of the Church of Rome, and the Usurpations of Popish Priests and Jesuits: But we also abhor all those who would Murder a Protestant King, and destroy our Liberties, and the Religion by Law Established, and force us contrary to our Consciences: But King William opposeth none but Papists, who would have destroyed us, and he continues our Parliament and our Laws, Liberties, and Religion, with all the Encouragements thereof.  
6. King William was invited over by divers of the Nobility, and Gentry, to save us from Popery and Slavery, and was received with the universal Joy of Protestants: But O.C. and his Sectaries, who Barbarously and Impudently Murdered King Charles the First, were cried out against by all sound Protestants, who adhered to the Laws of the Nation. So that that Rebellion and King William's Actions, and those that joined with him, differ as much, as Destroying a Nation, and Saving a Nation; as the greatest Sin, and the greatest Good.  
Lastly, Our Royal Martyr, King Charles the First died in the Defence of the Laws, and Established Religion: But the Late King Abdicated, or Deserted, or at least went out of the Kingdom, rather than he would Rule according to Law: And when he was gone to France the Chief of the Nobility and Gentry desired the P. of O. to take the Government upon him, and to Summon a Convention; which Convention Elected him King, and the Princess Queen. The Late King fled, and Banished himself, rather than he would do the Nation Justice, and when he was gone, the Convention (or Parliament) resolved to keep him out. The P. of O. tho' a Sovereign Prince, and no way Subject to the Late King, did not Murder him, when he had him in his Power: But O.C. and the Sectaries of the Army Beheaded King Charles the First, tho' he was Innocent, and a Prince of most Excellent Virtues, and of Ever Blessed Memory.  
Ob. Solomon saith, Prov. 24.21, 22. My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change. For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both?  
A. This Text doth not forbid the Change of Government in Absolute necessity, when the Safety of the whole Kingdom requires it, and it is done Regularly, and for the Public Good. But commands Obedience and Fear to the present Lawful King, and never to join with Changelings, who are restless under Government, and Lightly, Wantonly, Factiously, or Seditiously oppose what is present. It is not to be understood Morally, as if it were Absolutely evil, and a Sin to change, when the whole Frame of Government is corrupt: But you must take it prudentially, that a wise Man, who fears God, ought not to Change that Form of Government under which he lives, unless in urgent necessity. But what if the King be given to Change? Then meddle not with Him. Keep the Fundamental Laws and Customs of your Country, and the true Religion by Law Established. We say (saith a Learned Author) that if Power be given to the King by Law, yea, or to other Magistrates, tho' it be against Religion, we have no help but suffering, or flying, till we can be helped by Legal ways. But if when we have Laws for our Religion and Liberties, the King out of his own will, or seduced by others, shall in an Illegal way seek to deprive us of them, now we may defend ourselves, and in this we resist no Kingly Authority, but the Will of such a Man.  
Obj. Exod. 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy People.  
A. This Text commands Obedience to the King, with all reverence in Heart, Tongue, and Action. But what is this to innocent and lawful Defence: Which St. Thomas, and other Schoolmen call cum moderamine inculpatae tutela.  
Obj. Psal. 51.4. Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.  
A. The Confession of David (saith a great Divine) is to be taken comparatively. He sinned against God alone by way of Excellence; because he could be punished, condemned, and absolved by God alone. But David sinned also against those, who were mere Subjects, as Bathsheba, Vriah, Joab, and Nathan, but not as a Tyrant, violating the whole State of the Commonwealth; but as a Sinner, left to his Lust. Furthermore, no Man could judge of the Personal Fact of David, except God alone, which pertained not to the Subversion of the Commonwealth. I say, the sin of David was particular, which was not destructive to the whole Commonwealth. Besides, David speedily recanted, and repent of the evil. The sense is, (saith Calvin, cited by the Author of the Synopsis) as if he should say, I do not regard what Men think or speak; if either they spare me, or extenuate the wickedness by flattery, or mitigate my grief with gentle Speeches; yet it is more than enough to me, that I perceive thee my Judge, that Conscience draws me to thy Tribunal, etc. Other Expositors say, I have sinned against thee only as a Judge and Avenger, because I can fear punishment from thee only. For Kings are free from the bonds of their offences, saith St. Ambrose. R. R. saith, No Creature judgeth the King, but the blessed God; otherwise he would be King in Name, not in Deed. (G) The King's sin is not punishable. Which is all true of the Personal Crimes of Princes, or of such Oppressions as are speedily repent of.  
Obj. Psal. 82.6. I have said ye are Gods.  
A. This is true (saith one) of Inferior Magistrates as well as Superiors, and yet none will say, but the Inferior may be resisted. King's should imitate God in Wisdom, in Justice, in Mercy, &c, and defend, not oppress the Innocent. To tell a King thus becomes a Priest, much better than to delude him with an unaccountable and irresistible Power.  
Obj. Prov. 8.15, 16. By me Kings Reign, and Princes Decree Justice. By me Prince's Rule, and Nobles, even all the Judges of the Earth.  
A. By, here, denotes the Principal cause, it doth not exclude the less Principal, or Instrumental, the Election of the People. As, Psal. 18.29. By thee (that is, God) I have run through a Troop; or by thy help (saith Synop. out of G.) By me as King of King's Kingdoms are constituted; and Persons set over Kingdoms, either are given, or are deposed according to Dan. 2.21. & 4.25, 31, 32. and by me they are preserved, etc. Neither doth this forbidden the People to defend themselves against a Tyrant, or to Depose a Tyrant, but rather acknowledgeth them Instruments. This hinders not what St. Thomas saith, (2.2 q. 10, art. 10.) Dominion and Prelacy were introduced by Humane Right. Because God and Man both concur to Government: God is the first Cause, Man the second. Whatsoever the second Cause doth (saith Fortescue out of an ancient Author, c. 3.) the same doth the first Cause by an higher and more excellent way or mean.  
Obj. Prov. 30.31. A King against whom there is no rising up. And, Eccles. 8.4. Where the word of a King is, there is Power; and who may say unto him, What dost thou?  
A. These Texts speak of a King Ruling according to the Customs and Laws of his Country, or not of Tyrants and Oppressors: Or, at least, they forbidden not self-defence in case of Extremity. I may honour the King, and yet not suffer him to kill me, when I am innocent, and have served Him faithfully and when he ought by the Laws of God and Man to protect me. Solomon, Prov. 30.31. speaks of the glory and happiness of a potent and invincible Prince: not of any Moral evil or unlawfulness in defending ourselves against Illegal Courses, Oppression, and Tyranny of wicked Princes. Again, these Texts give a General Rule, being wholly silent in casual exceptions; as in case of extreme Maladministration. The sacred Writers exclude not certain Pacts, (saith a grave Divine) or Laws of Humane Creation (or Constitution) by which the King is put into that Super-eminency. And the saying of Optatus Milevitanus, is either to be taken of Emperors or Absolute Monarches: or verily of Him, who restrains his Supereminence within the Laws of Divine as well as Humane Constitution; for then in truth, There is none above the Emperor, but God alone, who made the Emperor. Solomon saith what may be done, not what may always be rightly done by a Prince. For afterwards, v. 9 he teacheth us that many abuse their Power to Tyranny. There is a time wherein one Man ruleth over another to his own hurt. Therefore he doth not give the Magistrate leave to do what he will. For the Power of Man is limited by the Word of God, and honest Laws. Because it is written, We must obey God rather than Man: and give to Caesar the things that are Caesar 's, and to God the things that are Gods. The second verse is not to be understood otherwise, I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment, and that in regard of the Oath of God. As if he should say, So obey the King, as rather to obey God, to whom we are all bound with greater Religion.  
Obj. Eccl. 10.20. Curse not the King, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber; for a Bird of the Air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.  
A. Solomon prohibits reviling, or slighting the King's person, or speaking evil of the King, either for natural, or moral, personal defects, and vices. And he cautions us against wrath for a little Oppression; because a King may easily be revenged on us, and ruin us: But he forbids not self-defence in case of Universal Oppression. If thou art wise and skilful, despise not a young or a foolish King, by mocking his Majesty; by proud slandering his Government; by contemning and reproaching his Statutes and Deeds; but (as much as the matter and truth will bear) speak thou honourably of him, and think the best, and interpret well actions that are doubtful (saith some Author.) For it is wisdom as well as duty to reverence the King's Person and Office, and conceal small miscarriages.  
Obj. St. Matth. 22.21. Read the Context, v. 15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their Disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men: Tell us therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give Tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye Hypocrites? Show me the Tribute money; and they brought unto him a penny. And he said unto them, Whose is this Image and Superscription? They say unto him, Caesars. Then saith he unto them, Bender therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are Gods. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.  
A. It is most certain that Tribute is to be paid to our Governors. The Herodians were sent to entangle him in his talk: And they propounded this Question concerning Caesar, the Roman Emperor's Tribute. To which our Saviour answers, that they ought to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. So that by Christ's command all Subjects must willingly and cheerfully, and for Conscience sake render honour, tribute, custom, subjection, and obedience to the Higher Powers, which are ordained of God. But what is this to the Desensive Arms against Tyranny and Oppression? The Jews had promised Obedience to the Romans, and to Caesar. Now what we promise, (Synop. out of G.) tho' forced by necessity of War, binds us fast; for unless it were so, the whole sanction of a Covenant would perish. Besides Possession of a long time, which to endeavour to move (or change) is always unjust in public Affairs. Christ, and his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians harkened to no Innovations under what specious pretences soever, but performed Faith, Allegiance, and Obedience to the Emperor. But let any man prove that these Emperors did not rule the Jews according to their Promise and Covenant, and known Laws and Customs; or that our Saviour forbids defending our Lives, Liberties, or Properties, if invaded contrary to Law, Custom, or Covenant. Again, it follows not, that if Christ doth not here dispute Caesar's Title, that he never did, nor that his Disciples never satisfied themselves. I am sure the Scribes and Pharisees, and the multitude cried out, when our Saviour was accused, We have no King but Caesar; a plain acknowledgement of Caesar's Title, Power and Authority.  
Obj. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3. I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for Kings, and for all that are in Authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty; for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.  
A. This is also spoken of Governors indefinitely, and of such who would rule according to the Customs and Laws of their Countries: Not of Tyrants who would Subvert National Laws and Customs without cause. And tho' there was great Confusions in the Roman Empire about the Throne, sometimes yet still the Emperor promised to Rule according to Laws and Customs received. And surely no Man can prove that Passive Obedience was owned in those days, if the Emperor commanded Illegally: Nor was their Hereditary Succession in the Empire. The wickedness of Man, cannot destroy the Institution of God. But Magistrates Kings, Emperors are constituted of God. And Christian Religion doth not overthrow the Political Government of Infidels and Heathens. Therefore we must pray for all, Persecutors, and Idolaters.  
Obj. Tit. 3.1. Put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Poweers, to obey Magistrates.  
A. All these Texts command what no rational Man, much less Christian denieth, aught to be given to our Governors: But they prohibit not Defensive Arms in case of Universal Oppression.  
Obj. 1 St. Pet. 13, 14, 17. Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supreme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Fear God. Honour the King.  
A. The Apostle speaks indefinitely of Governors, and of Obedience to them; but he states no particular Case. When this Epistle was written, (Synop out of G.) I think that Claudius, or Nero, was Emperor. Therefore we must obey Infidels, and evil Princes. But this prohibits not Self-defence, when Laws are violated. Tho' the Ordinance or Government in the manner of its Constitution be from Man, (saith a Learned Author) yet because of the necessity of its Institution, it is from God. Submit to it, tho' of Man, for the Lords sake. For God is the primary Author. Observe Kings and Precedents are an Humane Constitution or Ordinance, made by Men with common Consent, by certain Laws, yet by the Command and Authority of God. So that I conclude with a great Statesman, As it was the Oppression and Slavery under which we had been brought, that rendered His Majesties undertaking in coming into these Kingdoms with armed Force, in order to redeem them, both Honourable and Just: So it was the Hope of being delivered by Him from Misery and Bondage, that encouraged us first to invite, and then to cooperate with Him in the Prosecution and Accomplishment of His Glorious Design. It was the Invasion upon our Laws that we complained of, and from which we desired and endeavoured to be relieved, etc.  
Thus I have omitted no appearance of an Objection, and have given satisfaction to all, that will examine things impartially and conscientiously, in order to their ready and hearty Obedience to Their Majesties, and the Preservation of the Religion, Laws, and Liberties of this Kingdom.  
I shall conclude all with a plain Exhortation both in respect of the King, and Subjects.  
First, For the King. Seeing His Majesty hath received Power and Authority from God, it concerns him to Administer Justice and Judgement. For God's Eye is Allseeing, and he is Omnipresent. God standeth in the Congregation of the Mighty: he judgeth among the Gods, Psal. 82.1. It is a poor, weak, inferior thing, beneath the Spirit and Dignity of a Prince, to wrong the Innocent: But it is indeed Great and Godlike, to seek Judgement, and relieve the Oppressed. God hath Honoured Kings with his own Name and Titles, and they should imitate Him in Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, and Mercy. And as this tends to the Honour of God, and Happiness of his Church, and the Prosperity of the Kingdom, so it gains the Love and Affection of Subjects, which is the only Ambition of Valiant, Wise, and Just Monarches.  
Secondly, For the Subject. Seeing Kings are by God's Designation, Ordination, or Constitution, let every Subject humbly submit. They derive their Right from the Highest Majesty of Heaven and Earth. They are set over us by God's approbation. And the God of Israel, who led his People by the hands of Moses and Aaron, in all Ages hath subjected Mankind to some of his Viceroys on Earth. And they who are Enemies to them, are Enemies to God, and cast off that sweet and easy Yoke of Obedience, to which God would have all his submit. This condemns all wilful Offenders, who disobey Governors. They are in God's stead, and to despise them, is to despise God himself. And as Subjects ought to yield Obedience to their Sovereigns (which I have Illustrated elsewhere) so they ought to be grateful for their Favour, Mercy, Clemency, and good Government. And in particular, they ought to be thankful to God, and the King, for the Mercies of this present time, even the Reviving of our Religion, Laws and Liberties.   
FINIS.