A vindication of some among our selves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock in a letter to the doctor, occasioned by the sermon which he preached at the Temple-Church on the 29th of May, 1692 : in which letter are also contained reflexions on some other of the doctor's sermons, published since he took the oath.

A VINDICATION OF Some among Our Selves AGAINST THE False Principles OF Dr. SHERLOCK.

SIR,

1. TO justifie the Publication of your late Sermon at the Tem∣ple, you tell us in the first Period of the Dedication, that the Reader will perceive it was not intended for the Press; but if you had told us, that the Reader will perceive it was not fit for the Press, you had told us a more sensible Truth, which every ordinary Reader may perceive; but it is not so plain and perceivable a thing that you did not intend it for the Press; for you know, Sir, that in∣tentions are very secret things, and the many wretched pieces you have Printed since you took the Oath, and pitiful Sermons among the rest, make us call your Non-intentions to print this, as well as your Judgment for printing it, into question; for the World knows that you have a great share of Love for your self, and a good Opinion of your own Productions; and whether you only did not intend, or which is more, did intend not to print it, we cannot believe; but your own good Opinion of it, as well as that of the Bench, was a great motive to the Publication, or else the refu∣sal of the Middle-Temple Bench to concur with the desire of that of the Inner-Temple, would in prudence have obliged you to a modest Non-com∣pliance. I assure you, some who bear you no ill will, think they were

much more your Friends in not desiring you to Publish it; for how well soever it might be lik'd in Preaching, it appears so ill in Print, that many Men think the Bench of the Inner-Temple, or at least the first makers of the motion among them, desired you to print it to expose both it and you. I have very good reason also to believe that some of the Honourable House had that design in desiring you to print the Sermon which you Preached before them on the 30th of January last; for one who was at the making of the Order, despised you for your Flatteries in it, and said, he could not when he heard it, but think of Mammon in Ben. Johnson's Alchymist, who said, My Flatterers shall be the pure and gravest of Divines, that I can get for Money: Another said, he concurred with the Order, because he knew the Sermon would expose you; and to mention no more, a third said to a Friend, that he was going with the Order of the House to com∣plement Dr. Sherlock against his own Judgment. Sir, It is a sad Dilemma that some Men, to speak in your figure, bring the Honourable House to, by their wretched Sermons, when Order or no Order will expose the Preacher; and which of the two would have most exposed you, no desire to Print, or to Print at their desire, any Man that has less fondness for your performances, than your self, may easily determine.

* 1.12. All the World knows you wrote a Book to prove, that the full Pos∣session of a Crown gives the Possessor a Divine Right to it by Providence; and that this Right of Providential Possession ought to take place of Legal Right, and carry the Subjects Allegiance from the Legal to the Providential King; and it is well known you chose this Hypothesis, because you did not approve of that of Abdication, and Vacancy, upon which the Convention proceeded; and yet in this Sermon to the House, you servilely justifie the Revolution upon the Principles of Abdication and Vacancy,* 1.2 which supersedes your Provi∣dencial Right by Possession, as much as that in your account supersedes a Right by Law. Thus, Sir, we have you in your Sermon before the House Preaching against your self, and your Reasons in the Case of Allegiance: for in this you set their Majesties Right to the Crown on the Basis of pure Providential Possession; but in that it stands upon the Legal foot of Ab∣dication, and Vacancy; for whether the Throne was vacant, or not vacant, fell under the Cognizance of the Estates; they were the sole and proper Judges of it; and private Subjects, whatever their private Opinions were, were bound to acquiesce in the decision of the Case, which ought to determine the Consciences of private Subjects; and yet, as I shall shew anon, you were far from acquiescing in their decision, or having your Conscience determined by it, for almost two years after it was, as it was determined by them: For so long time you had not discovered the Fundamental Reasons of Government, which oblige private Subjects to acquiesce in their decision; nor did the fear of falling into Anarchy and Confusion yet affect you; nor do I believe you would have thought on those two Arguments to this day, had you not been to Preach before the House of Commons, which never did, nor ever will like your Doctrine of Provdience: But you were to say some∣thing which you thought would please them, and many of them smiled

to hear you contradict your self to flatter them, and despised you for it; and it since came to be a dispute among your Readers, whether in that Sermon you flattered the Honourable House, or their Majesties most.

3. Another Reason why you chose the Hypothesis of Providential Right, was for the sake of Passive Obedience, which upon that Hypothesis is so cle∣verly convey'd, without any contradiction to your Case of Non-Resistance, from the Legal to the Providential King. This secret I had from one to whom you spoke freely on that Subject, about the time you were writing your Case of Allegiance; but in this Sermon, because a great part of the House love not the Doctrine of Non-resistance, you have betraid that also, in saying,* 1.3 That you would not dispute the lawfulness of Resisting the King's Au∣thority, whether it were lawfull for the Parliament to take Arms against the King; and by supposing in the next Paragraph, That it was lawfull in a limitted Monarchy: But is this the way of arguing against Resistance, which not long ago was such a damnable sin, especially on the 30th of January? I protest to you, Dr. should I hear you speak at this tender rate from the Pulpit against Adultery, I should think you had a design upon some Ladies in the Congregation, and that you intended they should understand by you that you thought it no sin. Formerly on the 30th of January, Resistance was a most damnable sin, and the Doctrine of it Popish, Diabolical Do∣ctrine, and the sin of the day was the Murder of a King; but now it seems, Dr. you will not dispute the lawfulness of resisting the King, it may be lawfull for any thing you know to the contrary, even on the 30th of Ja∣nuary; the sin of which day now it seems,* 1.4 lies in the Murder of a Good King, who kept the Laws, and was a Zealous Patron of the Church of Eng∣land; of a King of such Virtues, as are rarely found in meaner Persons; nay, which would have adorned an Hermet's Cell: But had he been a King that had broken the Laws, and stretch'd his Prerogative to set up an Ecclesia∣stical Commission against the Church of England, then the killing of him had been no Murder, at least no such barbarous Murder: But, Dr. at this rate of Preaching on the 30th of January, Kings and Queens had need take care of themselves; for I do not see but they are upon their Behavi∣our, Quam diu bene se gesserint, and do not break the Laws; but if they do so, let them do it at their peril:* 1.5 For every irregularity in their motions is soon felt, and causes very fatal Convulsions in the State; or as a much better Subject said by way of Apology for Charles I. There is no time past,* 1.6 pre∣sent, nor will there be time to come, so long as Men manage the Laws, but the Laws will be broken more or less.— So, Dr. in your Temple-Sermon to exhort us to pray for Kings, you tell us, That it is very difficult to govern a Family,* 1.7 and that Princes are liable to mistakes like other Men, and that they are ex∣posed to misinformations by Court-Flatterers, and subject to greater Temptations than other Men: But, Dr. If it be lawfull to take up Arms against the King in a limitted Monarchy, which you were contented to suppose be∣fore the House, and others of your Brethren plainly assert; then God help Kings of such Monarchies,* 1.8 especially where the Springs and Fountains of Government are poysoned, and where the Nation is already divided into

Parties, both in Church and State: Such Kings, be they by Providence only, or Law and Providence together, it matters not, they had need look to their hits, when their best pretended Friends are willing to suppose it is lawfull to take up Arms against them. All your Apologies and Panegyricks upon their Majesties, and Exhortations to pray for them, can never make them amends for such a supposition; and they must indeed stand in need of more, and better Prayers than yours, if they have no better a Title to the Crown than that of Possession, which you have found out for them; and that too no longer than they keep the Laws.

4. These, Dr. to use your own Language, are very loose Notions of Go∣vernment and Obedience, and dangerous at such a time as this, when so ma∣ny Malecontents in both Kingdoms complain of the breach of Laws.* 1.9 If you will go to Scotland, you shall hear two sort of discontented Men cla∣mour loudly against the Government, the Jacobite Episcoparians, and the Presbyterians; the latter are so impudent, as to charge King William down right with the breach of the Original Contract; and the former complain of torturing Strangers against Law and the Articles of Government; of exercising illegal and unheard of Severities upon the complying Clergy, worse than Dragooning; of abolishing Episcopacy, and thereby altering the Constitution of the Government; and of the Murder and Massacre of a Laird and his Clan in cold blood, after they had laid down their Arms, and submitted to the Government. And you cannot be ignorant of the Complaints which are made at home, by restless and disaffected Spirits, of pretended, Illegal, and Arbitrary Commitments of Men for High Treason; and, not to mention the Reflections which have been made in and out of Parliament upon Mr. Ashton's Trial, you cannot but hear what a din this grumbling and disaffected Faction make of excessive Fines, and Bail; con∣trary, as they clamour, to our English Liberties, and the Articles of Go∣vernment: And they bring one Example, among others, of a poor Boy, about thirteen years old, who was Arraign'd and Try'd at the Old-Baily, and condemned to the Pillory, and after he endured this Discipline and many other cruel hardships, was Fined at the Court of the Old-Baily above threescore times more than he and his Parents are worth. Sir, These things considered, you should have thundered with your old Zeal, and demonstrations against Resistance, as a damnable sin, and taught Submission and Obedience to their Majesties upon the account of their Of∣fice and Character, and not purely upon the account of their Virtues, as you used to do in former Sermons: And let me tell you, Dr. that the most effectual way of serving their Majesties in the Pulpit, and especially on the 30th of January, is to Preach up the unconditional Duty of Subjects to Kings as Kings,* 1.10 whether they be good or bad. This was the Strict Loyalty and Obedience, which you tell us was so earnestly pressed on the Con∣sciences of Men before the Revolution, and made the People so passive in it: But by your favour Dr. not so passive; for, not to put you in mind of the vast numbers in the West and the North, Mrs. Sherlock her self, sent in a Man and Horse to the assistance of the Prince of Orange, and whether it

was with your Connivance or Approbation, God and your own Consci∣ence can best tell.

But however that was, this is certain, that it is most for the Interest of Princes, as well as most becoming Divines, to set the King as a King and not as an Hero before the People; and to convince their Consciences of the in∣violable Duty which results from their relation to him as Subjects, inde∣pendant of his moral Qualities; but the other way of Preaching which you have taken up, serves only to beget a precarious and doubtful sense of Duty in the People, who, as your Sermon before the House shews, can soon be made to have the worst Opinion of the best of Kings.

5. The Sandersons and Hammonds of former times, who guarded the Pulpit from all suspicion of Flattery, would never have Preached so much in commendation of their Royal Masters, as you have Preached in the praise of their Majesties before their Faces, without any regard to their Modesty, which is undoubtedly as great as any of their other Virtues. But since you took the Oath, it hath been a great part of your Study and Employment to write Panegyricks on them, and Satyrs against their Father, whereof the true reason was long since observed upon another occasion by Aeneus Sylvius, which is this; That the Providential King in Possession hath Bishopricks and Deanries at his disposal, but the Legal King out of Possession hath nothing to bestow.

6. There is yet another passage in your Sermon before the House, which I beg you to reflect upon, it is in the tenth page, where you say, that it is an amazing Providence, that God should expose the greatest Example of Piety and Virtue that had sat upon the English Throne, to such Indignities and Sufferings. Indeed, Sir, according to your new Doctrine, which de∣nies the distinction betwixt God's permission and appointment; a Man may be overwhelmed with amazement to think that God should so expose him; but it is no such matter of amazement to a Master in Israel to think he should suffer, or permit them to be so exposed, according to that ex∣cellent Doctrine which you formerly taught in a Sermon entitled, Some seasonable Reflections on the late Plot. There you tell us in the 11. page, That although God doth many times permit things to be done, (or else no Man could ever be guilty of any sin) yet his forbidding it, is an argument he doth not approve of it, and no Man can reasonably expect success in Plotting against his Prince, but he who certainly knows, that God for some wise ends, and hidden reasons will suffer such a villany to take effect, which no Man can know without a Revelation. You Printed this Sermon since you published your Case of Non-resistance, by which you truly proved by this distinction, that Athaliah and Nuncle Cromwel were not the Ordinance of God; and unless you fly to this distinction again, you will never get out of your amazement; but if you retreat to the Sanctuary of this old distinction, you will be able to unfold the Mystery of Providence, and solve the difficulties of it in such hard cases as that of the Royal Martyr, where God for wise Reasons of his own, doth only suffer Rebels and Regicides to succeed in their wicked designs, but he doth not approve of what they

do, nor declare by the events of his Providence, that he orders, appoints, or authorizes whot is done by them. Were that so indeed, as you teach in your Case of Allegiance, and suppose to be true in your Temple Sermon, a Man might well be amazed, and perplexed into a Labyrinth of difficul∣ties and absurdities, and, to rid his mind of them, be tempted rather to think there was no God: But this distinction removes all perplexities, and sets the mind at ease and freedom: And, Dr. I appeal to your own Con∣science, if it doth not often obtrude it self upon your thoughts, since you disclaimed it; and whether your Understanding, so perplexed with amazing Providences, is not often ready to embrace it whether you will or no? Indeed it overthrows the whole Fabrick of your Allegiance to their Majesties upon the Providential Hypothesis; but your learned Adver∣saries have made it good against you,* 1.11 and before you Preach up the Di∣vine Right of Providence again, read the places in them cited in the Mar∣gent, and when you have read them, lay your Hand on your Heart, if it be not hardened, and repent for having revived an old repudiated Doctrine, which will prove Antichrist to reign by God's Authority, and that he is the Auhor of all Successful Wickednesses in the World.

7. When I first began to put Pen to Paper, I did not intend to dwell so long upon your Sermon before the House, but there are so many loose passages in it, and so obnoxious to some among our selves, that I cannot but take notice of them, and shew you how they expose you for them. In the justification of the Prince of Orange's Undertaking, you tell us, That he was no Subject of England:* 1.12 To which they reply, that you knew this before you took the Oath, and used to say, that the Prince, though he was not the King's Subject, yet ye was his Enemy, and that we ought to have aided the King against him as such: And whereas you tell us, that he was an Independent Prince, they observe, that according to your Principle of Possession he was no Prince at all, but that the French King had been long Prince of Orange by a Providential Right. As for what you say of his Relation to the Crown, and securing the Succession; they tell you, to expose your weak way of arguing, that Absolom was related to the Crown of David, that the Crown hath suffered much by its Relations, and that the Law is the best security for the Succession. And then as for the Re∣flection you make upon the Greatest Sufferers, who you tell us were well sa∣tisfied with the Prince's undertaking, and could not be persuaded to declare their Abhorrence of it. They say, if that were true, it did not become you to expose them for it, who were greatly offended at the Bishop of London for the Speech which he made to his Highness at St. James's, and who told a great Sufferer, to whom you complained of his Lordship, that you re∣pented of every pleasing thought you had of the Prince's coming, and beg'd God's pardon that you among the rest of the Clergy had not ex∣horted the people to assist the King against him. You also went so far in opposing the Prince, as to print an Answer to Dr. Burnet's Enquiry into the present State of Affairs, which he wrote to facilitate the Prince's Access to the Crown. You also wrote an Apology for the Non-Swearers, which

you could not new answer, if it were in print; and yet without considering that you were one of them, and what Decorum you ought, above all others, to keep in speaking of them, you bring this malicious Reflection over again in your first Letter concerning the French Invasion: But there will be an Answer to it, which will sufficiently vindicate them, and shew what a Sy∣cophant you are; and therefore I shall pass it over here. In the 20th page you endeavour to excuse those who were more active in the Revolution, un∣doubtedly to flatter some of the most active Members, who, you say, At that time while the King continued with us, thought no more than to obtain a free Parliament; and then you tell us, That the King would not stand Trial, but disbanded his Army, withdrew his Person, and lest no Authority behind him. To all which, Dr. I must beg leave to confront what I find in your Answer to Dr. Burnet's Enquiry. Sometimes his withdrawing his Person and Seals is a giving up the Government, p. 5. (as if intermission of Government were a total giving up of Right,) so that he cannot claim it again if he returns; and yet he grants the case of present danger, and just fear: This ought not to be pressed too far; but that it is indecent to suppose that Kings can be subject to fear; that is, we must not suppose them to be Men, for if they are, fear is an humane Passion. But he had no just cause of fear: I will not dispute that; but suppose he was affraid without just cause, Doth not fear still make the Action involun∣tary, and save the forfeiture of the Crown? and if it doth, What difference is there betwixt his first and second withdrawing? For it seems he apprehends there was more just cause of fear the second time, and therefore will not lay the Ac∣cusation there, but upon his first going; and yet it is a probable Argument, that he was affraid at first, because Kings do not use to forsake their Kingdoms without Fear. But what need of pretending the King's going away, if the subversion of his Government and Laws dissolved the Government? For it seems he was no King before he went, nor to be looked upon as a King, but a Destroyer; so that whether he had gone or staid, the thing had been the same: But if the King can do no wrong, he can never forfeit his Crown by Male Administration, at least an ipso facto forfeiture was never heard of in Kings; it is more reasonable to bring him to a Trial, than to Judge, and Condemn, and Depose him without Hearing, which is thought hard usage for a Subject: But the mischief is, they know not how to frame the Indictment, where to find Judges, and his Peers to try him; which is an Argument our Law knows nothing of trying Kings, because it hath made no provision for it.

8. Your observing Readers laugh at your Confidence, in saying,* 1.13 That the late Revolution hath made no Alterations in the Principles of Government and Obedience: And to use your own words, Some think your Providen∣tial Right a tottering Foundation for the Monarchy that cannot long support it, and every jot as tottering as that of the Power of the People, which you explode; because the People, if they get the Supream Power of the King, they will plead Providence for it, and keep it, whether they have natu∣rally a Superior Power over him or no. In page 23. you say, It was a won∣derful Providence, that the generality of Subjects were meerly Passive at the Revolution: But they say, you used to bemoan the Passiveness of them as

sinfull, especially in the Clergy; particularly, you were often heard with great formality, to recite some words of Dr. Patrick concerning the si∣lence of the Clergy, which you said, went like Daggers to your Heart. It seems, once upon a time, you pray'd the Dr. to consider what a dishonour the Clergy's taking the Oath would be to our Religion; to which he reply'd, that if that were all, the Honour of our Religion was gone in the silence of the Clergy at the Prince's Invasion, though some of the Cler∣gy were not so silent as that Dr. imagined; and when another asked you, how you could forbear at that time to Preach up the Duty of Active As∣sistence, as some others had done? You answered with a shew of Tears in your Eyes, that they were happy Men, and striking your Hand upon your Breast, you wished you had done so too. Page 27. You say, There is no appearance of illegal Ʋsurpations, no oppression of the Subjects just Rights, nor pretence of Clamour of Persecution for Conscience take; and yet as some among us observe, according to your own bafled Hypothesis of Right to Govern∣ment, their Majesties Possession of the Throne is not legal, and by conse∣quence, how rightful soever you pretend to make it in the Eye of Provi∣dence, it is an Usurpation in the Eye of the Law: And then as for Per∣secution for Conscience sake, these Men say, That of all Men it least became you to assert, That there was no pretence to complain of that, who confidently said, That the late Revolution was the greatest Scheme of Vi∣lany that ever was contrived, and not long since had such an high Opinion both of their Consciences and their Cause, and pretended to believe that they were persecuted not only for Conscience, but Righteousness sake. They say, they are both the same they were as when you were one of them, and though you have changed the Names of them; since you chan∣ged your Opinion, yet they think that they still retain their old Nature, and have as much to say for themselves, as you could say for them then. Then they say, you took it ill to be told by the Writers of the Times, That it was not Conscience, but Shame, Peevishness, Stubbornness, and other causes of prejudice, that made the Non-Swearers stand out: And to remove this scandalous Imputation from your self and your Brethren, you went on purpose to the Excellent Bp. of Chichester, to put him upon making his Death-Bed Declaration, at which the Government was so offen∣ded; but since you took the Oath, it is no matter of Conscience, or Dif∣ficulty, and it is now dwindled into a Gnat, nay into Nothing, which was a Cammel before. Methinks you might remember the great difficulty with which many thousands that took the Oath took it, and call to mind the lower sense in which they took it, only to live peaceably, and quietly; and how others took it in this sense, only as a Temporary Oath: And if so ma∣ny Mens Consciences would not let them take it, but in such qualified senses, Why should it not be pure Conscience in these Men to take it in no sense at all? You know the Secret of Dr. Scot, why he refused the Bishop∣rick of Chester, it was because his Conscience would not let him take the Oath of Homage to K. W. and Q. M. and if that Oath was an insupera∣ble difficulty to an honest and well informed Conscience in him, Why

should not the new Oath of Allegiance be so to these Men, who think thar at least they have a pretence to complain, that they are persecuted and suffe-for Conscience sake? They say farther, that any Government may perse∣cute by Law, as well as against it, and that there is little or no diffe¦rence between being oppressed and ruined by unjust Laws, or unjustly against Law. Nay, any Persecution is the greater they say, for having Law to support it; and that Conscience is Conscience, whether it suffer against Law by a Tyrant, or by Tyrannical Laws. I remember there is something to this purpose somewhere in your Case of Resistance; and then as to the Cause for which these Men suffer, no Man, they say, had a more full Persuasion of the Justice of it, than your self. They say, you scarce had patience to hear your best Friends argue against it in favour of the Oath; that you told Mr. Maur, you cold as soon turn Arian, as take it; and another Gentleman, That you had considered all that had been writ∣ten, or could be said for taking of it; and that you were sure if you should take it, you should never rest till you had gone to the same place where you took it, and vomit it up again. You told another, you thought if you should take it, you should be tempted to destroy your self after you took it; and wondered that the Government should impose an Oath upon Men's Consciences which would make them hate it for imposing of it; nay, so confident were you then that you suffered for Righteousness, that you took the Courage to tell your Murmuring Wife, That she would lose her Reward for Suffering, but you should have yours; and to another you said with an Accent that im∣pressed the words upon his Memory, Our Sufferings, if any thing can, will save the Church, and stand upon Record for it against the Papists in times to come, and help to attone the displeasure of God. Nay, you then thought the Justice of your Cause so plain, and the other so indefensible, that laying one of your Hands upon the other, you said unto a Person of Quality, These Hands should restore King James, but that my Wife hath tied them up from Writing. And another of your common sayings was, We have a very good Cause, but lose it for want of a Press. A Man famous for such sayings concerning the Cause, when you were a Sufferer for it, should have more Discretion, if not more Respect for his old Brethren, than to go about to rob them of the Glory of their Sufferings: The Testimony of a good Conscience is all they have left to support them under their Ca∣lamity; and it is very hard to make the World believe they have no pre∣tence to that; and that there are no Grievances,* 1.14 unless Monarchy and the Church of England are remaining Grievances. This was bravely said by Ecebolius for Fifteen Hundred Pounds a Year; but whether there are Grie∣vances or no Grievances, Suffering for Conscience or no such Sufferings, these Men are persuaded that it is not only for the Church, but for the Monarchy and Royal Family that they suffer; and that neither that nor these can long subsist, nor any lasting Peace or true Loyalty be established among us, but upon the Moral and Political Principles, for which they are persuaded they witness a good Confession before God and Men. As for your Principles, they think them, of all other, the most vile and

selfish, and to be detested of all Sovereign States and Princes, that have any better Title than Possession: For your Principles allow Subjects, though tied with never so many Oaths, to turn to an Usurper as fast as he gains Power, before he is settled in the Throne; and after he is settled in it, by pure force they oblige them to transfer their whole Allegiance to him; and therefore you deceived her Majesty, when in the Dedication of your Book of the Last Judgment, you professed to her with all the since∣rity which the Subject requires, That you were her most faithful Subject and Servant: For a faithful Subject will adhere to his Sovereign in times of Adversity as well as Prosperity, and serve him when he is out, as well as when he is in the Throne, with Life, Limb, and Terrene Honour: But your Allegiance by your Principles, is a Flattering, Shifting, and Time-serving Allegiance, which you would carry with your Prayers from her Majesty to her greatest Enemies, and begin to Flatter, and Serve them from the first moment you came under their Power. Such Faithful, and Obedient Subjects as you, are like to Summer Flies; you'll make a great shew and buz for your King in fair Weather, when the Sun shines, but in Storms and Tempests you will hide your Heads; in the long Night-time, or Winter of Adversity you will say, If he cannot defend himself, let him go; and if he go, as many brave Kings have been forced to do, why then, Doctor, you are not Men of stupid and slavish Loyalty to your old Master; but like the Gnat in the Fable, you'll fly to Court in Swarms, to caress your new dear Providen∣tial Master, and transfer your Allegiance to him for fear of being Crush'd.

9. From your Sermon before the House I beg leave, good Doctor, to make some Reflections upon your Temple-Church Sermon, in which, as in your Fast-Sermon before the Queen, you speak the Truth, but not the whole Truth on the Subject of Prayer, especially of publick Prayer, * 1.15 by the Bishop and Ministers, and whole Congregation. You tell us, That † 1.16 Prayers are the most Noble Exercise of Charity, and that they are most accep∣table to God, because they are offered up in the Spirit of Charity. And in your Fast Sermon you tell us, That ‡ 1.17 Faith and Prayer are more powerful than Arms, and that fervent and importunate Prayers are the most sure way to Conquer our Enemies, and to prevail with God for a Blessing upon our Arms. Now, Doctor, all this, as Some observe, was said a thousand times in the great Rebellion, when the Preachers of the Times made God a Party to their Wickedness, and ascribed all their Success to Prayer. They cited Gideon, and Barach, and Samson, and Hezekiah, as you ‖ 1.18 do: But then after the Restauration, our Church Divines used to observe, that Justice, as well as Charity, was necessary to make Prayers acceptable to God, and that the Fanatick Preachers, though they talked so much of Prayer, and of Faith, and Charity, and Fervency in Prayer, and produced the Worthies of Scripture for Examples to shew the power of Prayer; yet they never said one word of Justice, without which Faith in Prayer is but a false Enthusiastical Persuasion, Fervency Enthusiastical Heat, all pretences to Charity Hypocrisie: And Prayers themselves, tho' never so frequent, or long, but an Abomination to the Lord. Dr. Patrick

is very large on this Subject in his Jewish Hypocrisie, which I commend to all Men's reading for his sake. In that Discourse he shews at large how the Spirit of Pharisaisme was long regnant in the Jewish Church, before the time of the Pharisees, and that it consisted in a Great, but Hypocritical Zeal for Fasting and Praying, and all Religious Duties; and under that Cloak to commit Injustice, Rapine, and Oppression, as our Lord observed of the Pharisees, That they devoured Widows Houses, and for a pretence made long Prayers. To this purpose our Clergy used generally to preach on Publick Fasts and Thanksgivings; and truly there is so much Hypocrisie regnant in the World, that they did well in doing so; but now of late, as if Astraea were returned from Heaven, and the Golden Age restored, we have either nothing, or very little said of Justice upon Publick Fasts and Thanksgivings; of Justice, the most Difficult as well as Divine Virtue, without which there is no Charity, nor no acceptance of Prayers, and In∣tercession for Kings and Kingdoms at the Throne of Grace. You tell us in your Fast Sermon, That God never delivered the Jews into the Hands of their Enemies, but when they were guilty of Idolatry: But if you read the Jewish Hypocrisie, you will find that Injustice, as well as Idolatry, was a social cause of God's Judgments, and that their Prophets thundered against that, as much as against this. I am very sensible, Doctor, that there is not so much Idolatry among us, as there was among the Jews; but as for Injustice in all its kinds and degrees, it is a reigning sin among us, and calls for plain and home Reproofs from the Pulpit, as much as any other sin. Cry aloud and spare not, is now as much as ever the incumbent Duty of the Clergy. They ought in their Solemn Meetings more especially to tell the People of their Sin, and Israel of their Transgressions, because they have filled the Land with Violence, as the Prophet speaks, their Masters House with Violence and Deceit. Our Fasts and Thanksgivings, Doctor, will stand us in no stead, 'till we begin our Reformation here. You know what is written, Isaiah Chap. 1. better than I do: O, Doctor, let the Prophet there become your Example on the Solemn Assemblies! You used to value your self for your singular boldness in rebuking Vice, and now is the time to exercise that Talent, now is the needful time to preach up Justice, Judgment, and Righteousness, without respect of persons; to set your Face like Flint against our Jewish Christians, and tell them plain∣ly on our Fasts and Thanksgivings, that the best way of Praying, is to loose the bands of Wickedness, and to let the Oppressed go free. Oh that you had the Spirit and Tongue of St. John Chrysostom, or the Spirit of Hugh Latimer, though without John's Eloquence, to tell them plainly what is Right and Wrong; to tell them as plainly as Tongue is able to ex∣press it; as plainly as John the Baptist told Herod, and in the hearing of the Herodians, That it was not lawfull for him to have his Brother Philip's Wife. Oh, Doctor, when I can hear you preach with this freedom, against the Hypocrisie of the Times, as John did against Herod, or our Saviour a∣gainst the Pharisees, among whom there were so many Herodians; then I will have as high an Opinion of the Prayers of Bishops and Priests, as

you can desire, and think that they will prevail for a Blessing upon our Arms; but till I can hear them preach at this rate, or something near it, I shall be apt to fear that the God of Righteousness will have no delight in their Prayers, because his Eyes are over the Righteous, and his Ears are open to their Prayers, Lyars and Robbers, and Thieves, and Oppressors, how Great and Sanctimonious soever, may pray unto God, and the most cunning of them, like the Pharisees, may be more Zealous for Solem∣nities, and make a better Figure than their Neighbours in the House of Prayer; but their most splendid Sacrifices are but Dogs flesh: The Righ∣teous God, though he has the patience to hear them, he abhors them, and returns their most fervent Prayers changed into Curses upon their own Heads. Nay, Sir, the most righteous persons, in your Language, the Patron Saints and Tutelar Angels of the World, though they pray with never so much Faith and Fervency, and in never so large and extensive Cha∣rity; yet they pray to no purpose, when by mistake they pray for the success of an unjust Cause or Undertaking, believing of it to be just. In such a Case the Righteous God, though he may accept their good inten∣tions, and reward their Faith and Charity; yet he will not hear their mi∣staken Prayers. It is against his Essential Justice which is one of his Moral Attributes, to hear Unrighteous and Immoral Prayers. He may indeed order Events according to good Men's Unrighteous Desires, but that is for Wise Reasons of his own, and not upon the account of their Desires, as now in Flanders he hath, giving the French King such amazing Successes; but if he be such a Tyrant as you describe him to be, then his Successes are not to be ascribed to his good Subjects Prayers, but to the secret Reasons of Divine Wisdom, which time will Repeal. So the Herodians, as Sca∣liger saith, Pray'd for the Prosperity of Herod, and kept his Birth-Day: But, Doctor, neither you nor I believe, that the Tyrant throve ever the better for a pack of sneaking Court-Rabbies: And so Some alive, in great Places, pray'd for the Prosperity of Cromwel; but it is not reasonable to believe, that God placed that Villain in the Throne, or kept him five years in it, at the instance of their unrighteous Prayers, but to make him a scourge to the Nation for our Sins.

10. I now pass with you from your general Discourse of Prayer to your particular Directions of praying for Kings, where, to your cost, you have fallen upon Some among our Selves, for asserting, that by Kings the Apo∣stle meant only lawfull and rightfull Kings; and directs only to pray for Kings that have the Legal Right. In your Fast Sermon, you call them * 1.19 Deluded Protestants; and it is a favour you will allow them to be Pro∣testants: For one of the irregular Bishops lately told his Clergy, That they were acted by the Jesuits; but in this you point at them by the gentle Innuendo of Some, and these Men. Some such indeed there are among us, whom in your first Letter concerning the French Invasion, you tax of Stupid and Sla∣vish Loyalty, and Some of these Men have baffled you, as much as ever Man was baffled, and made your Friends blush for you; and wish (as I believe you your self have often done) that you had never medled with the Contro∣versie:

But, Sir, Though you are pleased to call them Men, (yet in effect) you make them Monsters, and Mad-Men, whose * 1.20 Reasonings contradict the general Sense, and Practice of Mankind in all Revolutions; and boldly assert with an Air of Confidence peculiar to Dr. Sherlock, † 1.21 That the Generality of Mankind, and even the most Sober and Considering Men reject them, as ha∣ving no solid Foundation in Reason and Nature. Whether that be so or no, we shall see anon; but at present let us enquire whether their Opinion con∣tradicts the general sense and practice of Mankind, and even of the most sober and considering Men; if it do, the general consent of Mankind, or of the most sober and considering Men, is a great presumption against them; but if it do not, then give me leave to tell you, that you are not a Man of Stupid and Slavish, Modesty, but that your Impudence is a Scandal to the Pulpit, and that you have justly provoked the Templers to say of you, as a Gentleman said to one of your Sworn Brethren, that they will never again believe a Parson for your sake. One of your learned Antagonists hath observed, * 1.22 That you acknowledge St. Chrysostom to be of their Opinion, and he hath cited St. Basil against you for saying ex∣presly, That the Higher Powers mention'd by the Apostle, were such as attain to the Government by Humane Laws. I hope, Doctor, you will grant, that these two Fathers were sober, and considering Men, who understood the general sense of Mankind; and according to this sense, in which they understood the Apostle, that Author goes on to shew that it was the con∣stant practice of the Primitive Christians to side with that Emperor who had the Legal Title: And to their practice I will add the Testimony of the Emperor Justinian, in his Letters to * 1.23 Gelimer, King de Facto of the Kingdom of the Vandals in Affrica, who deposed his Cousin Hildericus, between whom and Justinian there was always great Friendship: But to make you understand the Emperor's Letter to this Usurper the better, I must acquaint you, Doctor, that Gizericus, the Founder of that Monarchy, who reigned Thirty Nine years, settled the Succession in his Posterity upon the Male Descendents according to Seniority; so that he should always come to the Crown, who was the Eldest among them; and accordingly the Crown had peaceably descended for four Successions to Hildericus, whom Ge∣limer depos'd, and shut up in Prison with his Brother's two Sons, who were faithful to their Uncle. As soon as Justinian heard of it, he wrote to him to this effect;

Thou hast acted, Gelimer, against Right and Duty, and contrary to the Testament of Gizericus, in Imprisoning an Old Man, and thy Kinsman, and the King of the Vandals, if the Establishment of Gizericus be valid, and deposing him by force from the Government, to which thou mightest have lawfully succeeded. Do not persit in thy Wickedness, nor prefer the Name of a Tyrant before the Title of a King, which a little time would give thee; but let the Old Man, who cannot live long, enjoy the Royal Power and Dignity, and do thou Ad∣minister under him, and be content to wait a little while, till thou mayest take upon thee the Title of King, acording to the Law of Gize∣ricus, by doing this thou wilt please God, and oblige me.

This Letter

having no effect upon the Usurper, he wrote again to this purpose.

I wrote my former Letter to thee, hoping thou wouldst not persist to act contrary to my Advice; but since thou art resolved to keep Possession of the Kingdom, as thou hast acquired it, take what will follow there∣upon; only send unto us Hildericus, and Hoemer, whose Eyes thou hast put out, with his Brother Evagees, that they may receive such Consolation from us, the one for the loss of his Kingdom, and the other for the loss of his sight, as Men in their Condition are capable of. It is in your power to do this, if you do it quickly; otherwise the confidence they have in Us, will oblige Us speedily to help them; nor will it be any in∣fraction of the Peace which our Predecessors made with Gizericus, for I shall not make War with one that is his Successor, but avenge the in∣juries thou hast done.

But Gelimer was too Ambitious to make resti∣tution, and therefore Justinian sent his great General Balsarius to make War upon him in behalf of Hildericus, the lawfull King; but the first thing that Gelimer did after the Landing of Belisarius, was to Murder Hilderi∣cus; but God avenged his blood upon the Usurper, whom Belisarius after some years War brought Captive to Constantinople, where he cried out on the way as he was led to the Emperor, Vanity of Vanities, all is Vanity.

To this Testimony of a Christian Emperor, I shall add another of a famous Heathen Prince, Lycurgus King of Sparta, who though he came lawfully to the Possession of the Crown, yet refused to keep it longer than he was allow'd by Law, as appears by the following Story, which you may find in his Life written by Plutarch in the following words.

This Confusion and Disorder continued a long time in Sparta, which occasion'd the death of the King the Father of Lycurgus, for as he was endeavou∣ring to quell a Riot, in which the Parties were a fighting, he was stab'd with a Cook's Knife, and left the Kingdom to his Eldest Son Polydectes; but he too dying soon after, the Right of Succession, as all Men judged, rested in Lycurgus, and he Reigned untill it was perceived, that the Queen his Sister in Law was with Child: But as soon as this appear'd, he declared, that the Kingdom belonged to her Issue, if it proved a Male, and that he would administer the Government only as his Guardian and Regent. Soon after a private offer was made him by the Queen, that she would make her self miscarry, upon condition he would Marry her, when he was sure of the Crown. He hated the Woman for this wicked Proposal, yet wisely smothering his resentment, he did not speak astainst it, but seem'd to approve and accept it; but diswaded her ear∣nestly from making her self miscarry, because it might endanger her Health, or her Life; assuring her, that himself would take care that the Child, as soon as it was born, should be taken out of the way. Thus having drawn on the Queen to the time of her Labour, as soon as he heard she was in Travail, he sent some to be present and observe the Birth, with order that if it were a Girl, they should deliver it to the Women, but if a Boy, they should bring it to him, whatsoever he he happened to be a doing. It happened that the Queen was delivered

of a Boy while he was at Supper with the principal Magistrates, and his Servants brought the Boy to him as he was at Table; and he taking him into his Arms, said to those about him, Behold, my Lords of Sparta, here is your King; and having said this, he laid him down upon the Chair of State, and named him Charilaus; that is, The Joy of the People, because they were so much transported with Joy at the Birth of the young Prince, and with Admiration at the Noble Mind and Justice of Lycurgus; who I fear, Doctor, will rise up in Judgment against you, and condemn you and your unrighteous Doctrine:

For though he had Providence on his side, as much as ever Prince had; yet he did not think the Providence of the Gods could give him a Right against the Laws of Nature and Sparta: And therefore he became a Subject of a Sovereign, and of a King a Re∣gent; because he could not justly wear a Crown, which by the Law of his Countrey became another's, and ceased to be his. And to pass over other Kingdoms, I will proceed to shew that there have been many Wise and Brave Men of that Opinion in our own: I will begin with the Reign of Stephen, who as Hoveden saith, Invaded the Crown of England like a Tempest, so that all the Nation was forced to submit to him, as it were in the twinkling of an Eye. He was, Doctor, as you speak, Recogniz'd for King by the States of the Realm, and the great Body of the Nation submitted to him, and took the Oath of Allegiance to him, who himself had taken that Oath to Queen Maud, and Henry her Son; and yet though he had all the Ensigns of Majesty by Coronation, and was in full Possession of the Throne, which you call a thorough Settlement; there were many Gallant Men, who would not acquiess in the Publick Judgment of the Nation, because it was in∣competent, and erroneous, but after some time opposed him to their ut∣most as an Usurper, although he had Providence on his side. Among these was * 1.24 Robert, Earl of Glocester, half Brother to Queen Maud, who (as Malmsbury saith) was the most Learned, Pious, and Valiant Man of his Age. Indeed Robert with a relucting Conscience, had done Homage con∣ditionally to Stephen, but though he did it up∣on condition, he soon recovered himself, and repented of it and took care * 1.25 to act nothing contrary to his Allegiance to Maud; and with the first safe opportunity † 1.26 sent Messengers to Stephen to tell him, That he renounced his un∣rigteous Oath of Homage to him, and that he had acted contrary to Law, in that he was not ashamed to Swear Homage to any Mortal while his Sister was alive. And afterwards, as I shall shew, he could never be brought to turn Subject to Ste∣phen in the greatest extremity, when they threatned to take away his Life if he would not. The Historians, who I believe were sober Men, re∣present Stephen as a ‡ 1.27 Perjured Usurper, and complain of the Perjury of

the Times, and say, that it brought down the Judgment of God upon the Land, ‖ 1.28 Nu∣brigensis saith, that he was but a Nominal King till the Pacification or Agreement made with Henry, and that it was that which made him a Real, Lawfull, and Rightful King. Nay, the Historians observe in what a signal manner the Judgment of God fell upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Salisbury, who were the two first that swore Allegiance to him, the former not surviving a year to an end, and the latter being made a Priso∣ner by him, was miserably vexed by him till he died of Grief. Malmsbu∣ry tells us, That God made him an example to Men, not to trust in uncertain Riches, which, saith he, Some Men coveting after, concerning Faith have made Shipwreck.* 1.29 He also tells us, that Robert Earl of Glocester consulted many Religious Men, to know their Opinion, if he might quit his Allegiance to his Sister: And that they answered, He could neither live in this World with Honour, nor in Everlasting Happiness in the World to come, if he acted con∣trary to the Oath which he had taken to her. I suppose, Doctor, the Religi∣ous Men, whom that Learned and Wise Prince consulted, as the Guides of his Conscience, were as good Men and Casuists as that Age afforded; and they being dead, yet speak, and give Evidence against you, for as∣serting that the Opinion and Reasonings of Some among our selves, is against the general sense of Mankind. If Mr. Fuller in his Church History repre∣sents the mater right, all the Arguments which you and your Brethren used for taking the new Oath of Allegiance, were then used to justifie Swearing Allegiance to Stephen, but Earl Robert, to use your words, felt not the force of them, he had nothing left him but a Stupid and Slavish Allegiance to Maud; for when he was promised to be made as great as Ste∣phen, the Throne only excepted, if he would become his Subject; he made this Answer, which (* 1.30 saith the Historian) I desire Posterity may know and admire; I am not at my own disposal, but under the Right of another; but when I shall have power over my self, I shall do what the reason of the Case shall direct. After this Answer, Doctor, which he made in defence of his Allegiance to a Queen that never was Crown'd; the Lords, who brought the Message from Stephen to him, began to threaten him with Imprisonment and Death: And what reply do you think he made to that? Why, Slave of Allegiance as he was to Maud, he told them with a serene Countenance, That he feared nothing less. After this, again Stephen with the Great Lords came in Person to him, but he * 1.31 stood like a Rock against the Waves, pro∣testing to them, that he had espoused his Sisters Cause, neither out of the prospect of any Worldly advantage, nor out of hatred to the King, but purely out of Conscience, in consideration of his Duty and Oath, which the Pope had assured him did tie him to her Obedience. Thus, Doctor, we see, that God in the most corrupt times, reserves some to bear witness to Truth, as the Prophet saith, Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and like unto Gomorrah.

The unnatural Usurpation of Edward III. was so short before his Fa∣ther's death, that there was not time enough for those who abhorred it to signalize their detestation of it. But however, Doctor, there were * 1.32 Some who lamented the injuries that Edward II. had suffered, and were not affraid openly to reproach his Queen and Son of Impiety and Injustice. Edmund the Great Earl of Kent, with some other persons, began to Conspire against them: Which Q. Isabel, (who deserves the name of Jesabel) perceiving, privately encouraged the Keepers of her Husband to murder him, but his Son coming to Maturity of Understanding, avenged his blood on Mortimer, his Mother's Minion, and his Accomplices, whom the Lords of Parliament, with his assent, adjudged and condemned to be executed as Traitors, for murdering the King after he was deposed. The Queen her self also had like to have been questioned, and in the Roll 4 Edw. III. which gives an account of this matter, he is stiled by all the Lords, and the young King himself, their King and Leige Lord. And in the 21 R. II. N. 64, 65. the Revocation of the Act for the two Spencers Restitution in the Parliament of 1 Edward III. was repealed, because made at such a time by King Edw. III. as his Father, being very King, was Living and Imprisoned. These two Acts of Parliament, Doctor, do not at all agree with your Rea∣sonings for the Providential King; but they agree most exactly with the Reasonings of Some Men, which you say, contradicts the general sense of Mankind. For as Mr. Pryn well observes, they shew that Edw. II. was King de jure, or King in the Eye of the Law, as much after his Deposition as before it; and by consequence that his Deposition by the Estates, who had no Authority to Depose him, was a void Act; and if he was very King when he was in Prison, and his Regnant Son's King, and Leige Lord at the time of his murder, as the aforesaid Acts declare him; then, Doctor, I fear it will follow that a pure Providential K. in Possession, is no King at all.

11. But from this Usurpation let us pass to that of Henry IV. who was set up by Providence, and the Estates of the Realm, who took upon them to depose Richard II. and place Henry in his Throne. But Henry being conscious to himself that he wanted Legal Right, though he had all the Right that Providence could give him; yet not daring to trust to such an airy Tite, nor his false pretences of being the right Heir, caused Richard to be murdered; but between his Deposition and Murder, Thomas Merks Bishop of Carlisle, a Brave and Godly Prelate, preferring his Duty before his Safety, took the courage to make a Speech in Parliament, against the Validity of Richard's Deposition, and the Justice of Henry's Election; and if you please, Doctor, to read this Speech as it is at large in our Histo∣rians, you will find, in spight of all your prejudice, that he was a very Wise and Considering Man, and entirely of these Mens Opinion, and pro∣duced those Reasons for it which you say, Contradict the general sense of Mankind in all Revolutions. The first part of his Speech is to prove, that

a King may not be deposed by his Subjects for any imputation of negli∣gence and Tyranny; and to make this out clearly, he brings an ugly Ar∣bitrary distinction betwixt Kings in a Popular or Consular State, which really have not Regal Rights, but are subject to a Superior Power; and Kings in whom the Sovereign Majesty is, as it formerly was in the Kingdoms of Israel, and Judea, &c. and now is in the Kingdoms of England, Spain, France, and Scotland, &c. in which the Sovereignty, or Supream Authority is in the King. After this distinction (which Some among us now use) he asserts, that in such Kingdoms where the Sovereign∣ty is by Law in the King, although the Prince for his Vices be unprofitable to his Subjects, yea hurtfull, yea intollerable; yet they cannot law∣fully harm his Person, or hazard his Power by Judgment, or by Force; because neither one, nor all the Magistrates have any Authority over him from whom all Authority is deriv'd, and whose only presence doth silence and suspend all inferior Jurisdictions and Power; and as for force, saith he, what Subject can attempt, assist, or counsel, or conceal Violence against his Prince, and not incurr the high and heinous Crime of Treason? Then he proceeds to prove this as you do in your Case of Non-resistance, from Examples of Saul and Ahab, in the Old Testament, and many Texts of Scripture. Then he proceeds to answer the great Objection thus: Doth the King enjoyn Actions contrary to the Law of God? We must neither wholly Obey, nor violently Resist, but with a constant courage submit our selves to all manner of Punishment, and shew our subjection by enduring, and not perform∣ing.— Oh how shall the World be pestered with Tyrants, if Subjects may Re∣bel upon every pretence of Tyranny? How many good Princes may be suppressed by those by whom they ought to be supported? If they Levy a Subsidy or other Taxation, it shall be claimed Oppression; if they put any to Death for Traite∣rous attempts against their Persons, it shall be exclaimed Cruelty; if they do any thing against the lust and liking of the People, it shall be proclaimed Tyranny. Having shew'd, as his words are, that King Richard was deposed without Authority: Then he proceeds to shew that Henry had no Title. First, Not as Heir to Richard, which he pretended; for then he ought to stay till King Richard was dead; but then if K. Richard was dead, it was well known there were Descendents from Lionel Duke of Clarence, whose Offspring had been declared in the High Court of Parliament, next Successor to the Crown, in case K. Richard should die without Issue. Secondly, Not by Conquest, because a Subject can have no right of Conquest against a Sove∣reign, where the War is Rebellion, and the Victory High Treason. Nor thirdly, by K. Richard's Resignation, because he made it in Prison where it was exacted of him by force; and therefore it had no force or validity to bind him. Nor last of all, by Election, for (saith he) we have no Custom that the People at pleasure should Elect their King, but they are always bound unto him, who by Right of Blood is Rightfull Successor; much less can they make good or confirm that Title which is before Usurped by vio∣lence. Then he saith, that the deposing of Edw. II. (which the Barons produced for an Example to depose Richard) was no more to be urged,

than the Poisoning of K. John, or the Murdering any other lawful Prince, and that we must live according to Laws, and not according to Example, and that the Kingdom however then was not taken from the lawfull Successor. Then after saying many other things, he concludes thus; I have declared my mind concerning this Question in more words than your Wisdom, yet fewer than the weight of the Cause requires; and boldly conclude, that we have neither Power nor Policy either to depose King Richard, or to Elect Duke Henry into his Place; and that K. Richard still remaineth our Sovereign Prince, and that it is not lawfull for us to give Judgment upon him; and that the Duke, whom you call King, hath more offended against the King and the Realm, than the King hath done against him or us. Thus, Sir, spoke that Heroick Prelate in the Court of Parliament, and his practice was answerable to what he spoke: For he chose not the safer, but the juster side, as all good Men ought to do. He knew while he spoke, that Bonds and Persecutions would at∣tend him; nevertheless he spoke freely, and after speaking, was commit∣ted to Prison, and after that was crushed with many other brave Men, by the Usurper against whom they rose up. Afterwards about the sixth year of his Reign, Rich. Scroop A. B. of York, with the L. Maubray Marshal of England, H. Piercy E. of Northumberland, L. Bardolf, and * 1.33 many others, published an Excommunication and † 1.34 Remon∣strance, consisting of several Articles, against Hen∣ry, which they fixed upon the doors of Churches and Monasteries to be read of all. It begins thus:

IN THE NAME OF GOD, Amen. Before the Lord Jesus Christ, Judge of the quick and the dead; We not long since became bound by Oath upon the Sacred Evangelical Book unto our Sovereign Lord Richard, late King of England, that we as long as we lived should bear true Allegiance, and Fidelity towards him, and his Heirs succeeding him in the Kingdom by just Title, Right, and Line according to the Statutes and custom of this Realm; have here taken unto us certain Articles subscribed in form following, to be proponed, heard, and tried before the just Judge, Christ Jesus, and the whole World; but if (which God forbid) by Force, Fear, or Violence of wicked Persons, we shall be cast in Prison, or by violent death be prevented, so as in this World we shall not be able to prove the said Articles as we wish, then we do appeal to the High Coelestial Judge, that he may judge and discern the same in the day of his Supream Judgment. First, We depose, say, and except, and intend to prove against Lord Henry Darby, commonly called King of England, (himself pretending the same, but without all Right and Title thereunto) and against his Adherents, Fautors, Complices, that they have ever been, are, and will be Traitors, Invaders, and destroyers of God's Church, and of our Sovereign Lord Richard, late King of England, his Heirs, his Kingdom, and Commonwealth, as shall hereafter manifestly appear.— In the second Arti∣cle they declare him forsworn, perjured, and excommunicate, for that he conspired against his Sovereign Lord King Richard. In the fourth they

recite by what wrong, illegal, and false means he exalted himself into the Throne of the Kingdom; and then describing the miserable State of the Nation, which followed after his Usurpation, they again pronounce him Perjured and Excommunicate. In the fifth Article they set forth in what a barbarous and inhumane manner Henry and his Accomplices impri∣soned and murdered K. Richard, and then cry out, Wherefore O England arise, stand up, and avenge the Cause, the Death and Injury of thy King and Prince; if thou do not, take this for certain, that the Righteous God will destroy thee by strange Invasions, and Forreign Power, and avenge himself on thee for this so horrible an Act. In the seventh they depose a∣gainst him for putting to death not only Lords Spiritual, and other Re∣ligious Men, but also divers of the Lords Temporal there Named; for which they pronounce him Excommunicate. In the ninth they say, and depose, that the Realm of England never flourished nor prospered after he Tyrannically took upon him the Government of it. And in the last they depose and protest for themselves, and K. Richard and his Heirs, the Clergy, Commonwealth of the whole Realm, that they intended neither in Word nor Deed, to offend any State of Men in the Realm, but to prevent the approaching Destruction of it, and beseeching all Men to favour them and their Designs, whereof the first was, to exalt to the Kingdom the true and lawfull Heir, and him to Crown in Kingly Throne with the Diadem of England. Upon publishing these Articles, much people resorted to the Archbishop, but he being circumvented by the Earl of Westmoreland, who pretended to join with him, dismissed his Forces at his persuasion, upon which he was immediately made Prisoner, and beheaded at York, with the Earl Marshal, and divers York shire Gentlemen and Citizens of York, who had joined with him. The Earl of Northumberland, and Lord Bardolph escaped, and held out two years longer before they were crushed by the Usurper; but at last they were both slain Fighting in the Field against him. You see, Doctor, in this Remonstrance how the Archbishop, and Lords that joined with him, contrary to the general sense of Mankind, unking'd this Providential King for want of a Legal Title, and Remonstrated against him as a Perjured Traytor and Ʋsurper; and when he lay upon his Death-bed, he himself also began to be of their Opinion, contrary to the general sense of Mankind, when his guilty Conscience forced him to tell his Son, That he had no good Title to the Crown; but he, not inferior to his Father in Ambition, snatched it from his Pillow, and plainly told him, That as he had got it by the Sword, so by the Sword he would keep it. And in truth, Doctor, your Title by Providence against Law, is Sword Title, and your Providential Kings, Sword-Kings; for in all Kingdoms the Sword is King, where their lawfull Prince is not; the Sword or Supream Force Rules all, and that Supream Crushing Force, which by God's permission gets and keeps possession, makes your Provi∣dential Kings.

12. I have hitherto shewed you what Opinion many Wise and Conside∣ring Men had of Henry IV. and his Reign for want of Legal Right and Ti∣tle. And I now proceed to shew the sense that a whole Parliament had

of him, and of his Son, and Grand-Son's Succession, the latter sitting in the Throne. This appears from Roll. Parl. 39 Henry VI. as it is in Cot∣ton's Abridgement, or rather from the Record at large, as it is to be seen, as it was lately printed in an Answer, by a skillful and faithful hand, to The unreasonableness of the new Separation upon account of the Oaths. This Roll gives an account, how Richard Duke of York, Father of Edward IV. brought to the Parliament Chamber in writing not a Petition but a Claim to the Crown, of which Henry had been long fully and quietly possessed; and his Title, which was only Succession by Birth-right, being fully made appear, it was the Opinion of all the Lords, that it could not be defeated. That single Title by Proximity of Blood was thought sufficient to super∣sede all the patch'd Titles of Henry, and all that could be said in favour of him from the Oath of Allegiance which the People had made to him, from divers Acts of Parliament, whose Authority was laid against his Title; from the Entail of the Crown made by the Parliament upon his Father and his Heir; and lastly from his Grandfather's Claim to the Crown, as right Inheretor from Henry III. which Richard proved to be false. And here, Doctor, I cannot but observe unto you, that among all the Pleas which Henry and his Counsellors made use of to defeat Richard's Title, they never thought of your Divine Title from Providence, being so infatuated as not to attend to the General Sense of Mankind. Wherefore, Doctor, either your Principles of Government are not the general Sense of Mankind, or this Providential King, with his Privy-Council, and Great Council in Parliament, were all bewitch'd, that they could not think of them to stop the Duke of York's Mouth. He advised with the greatest Divines, and with the greatest Men both among the Common and Civil Lawyers, and yet not one of them suggested the Title of Providence, or full Providential Possession; but had they hit upon it, and urged it, Ri∣chard would have answered them as he did to their Plea taken from their Oaths, (viz.) that God's Commandments, which prefer Right, and Truth, and Justice, and not the Events of Providence, are the Rule for them to walk by, and that all Acts of the Estates against Law, Truth and Justice, are void and of no effect. The same is as true of all Possession against Law, Truth and Justice, let it come by never such amazing Providences; and therefore, Doctor, either your Notion of Providential Right, is not agreeable to the general sense of Mankind, or else Henry and his whole Council were out of their Wits and common Senses not to perceive it; but, in truth, Doctor, it became the general Sense of Mankind only since the Victory of the Boyn made it become yours. From this Judgment of the Parliament 39 Hen. VI. I send you to the Judgment of another, 1 Ed∣ward IV. which after reciting the Lineal Title of Edward Son of Richard Duke of York, from Lionel Duke of Clarence, and declaring how Henry Darby did rear War against Richard II. contrary to his Faith and Alle∣giance. 2dly. That he took upon him Usurpously the Crown, and Name of King, King Richard being in Prison and living. 3dly. That against God's Law, Man's Legiance and Oath of Fidelity, and in a most

unnatural Tyranny he put him to Death: They then declare, That Ed∣ward rightfully amoved Henry VI. from his Occupation, Intrusion and Ʋsurpa∣tion of the Realm; and that he, and no other ought to be their Lord and Sove∣reign by God's Law, Man's Law, and the Law of Nature; and that Henry Darby called K. Hen. IV. his Son called K. Hen. V. and his Son called K. Hen∣ry VI. had against all Law, Conscience, and Custom of the Realm, usurped the Crown, and exercised the Government by unrighteous Intrusion and Ʋsurpation; and if they did so, then they had no Providential Divine Right. I must also observe unto you, that it was in this King's Reign that the distinction between the K. de facto to signifie the Usurper, and the K. de jure to signifie the true legal K. was first used in Parliament; and I appeal to your own Conscience, if it be not yet feared, whether that be an Arbitrary distinction, and to be * 1.35 rejected as having no solid Foundation in Reason and Nature. I will maintain, that it hath as much Foundation in Reason and Nature, as that famous distinction in the Civil Law, betwixt Malae fidei, and Bonae fi∣dei Possessor: But if your Reasons about Providential Right be true, then this distinction also must be Arbitrary as to Possession of Kingdoms, because no Man in full Possession, can be Malae fidei Possessor of a Crown. To these Authorities, let me add those of the generality of the Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy of the late Usurpations: They used the same di∣stinction of Powers which you call Arbitrary, the same reasoning which you call uncertain, and were of the same Opinion, which you say contra∣dicts the general Sense of Mankind. Dr. Sanderson, whose Authority will be venerable, and much greater than yours, * 1.36 is for that unchangea∣ble Allegiance to the Legal K. out of Possession, which you most prophane∣ly call Stupid and Slavish Allegiance, and in his Censure of Ashcham, as one of your learned Answerers hath observed, charges your Opinion with the these immoral Consequences. 1.

That it evidently tends to the taking away of all Christian Fortitude and Suffering. 2. To the encouraging of daring and ambitious Spirits to attempt continual Innovations, with this confidence, that if they can possess themselves of the Supream-Power, they ought to be submitted to. 3. To the obstructing unto the Oppressed Party all possible means, without a Miracle, of recovering his just Right, of which he shall have been illegally and unjustly dispos∣sessed. And lastly, to the bringing in of Atheism, and the contempt of God and Religion.

The Bishop of St. Asaph was very sensible of this last Consequence since he took the Oath, for he told the A.— B.— with great Gravity and Seriousness, That he could not but admire the Provi∣dence of God that so many took the Oath, and some, among whom (saith he) there are great and considerable Men have refused to take it; for we (saith he to my Lord) who have taken the Oath, have preserved our Religion from Popery, and you who stand out, preserve it from Atheism: and if they do, Doctor, as you also once thought, then their Opinion cannot contradict the gene∣ral Sense that Mankind have of Right and Wrong. I am sure the old Caviliers had the very same Sense that these Men to their sorrow have now; for they both called Charles II. King, and thought him to be so, tho' he

was out of Possession, and out of the Land too. Nay, they took Com∣missions from him as King of England, and sought for him as their King; and not to make him so, as you Sophistically speak in your * 1.37 first Letter concerning the French Invasion. Nay, the Convention that call'd him home, call'd him in as King, not to make him so; and dated their first Session in the Twelfth year of his Reign, which, according to your Principles and Reasonings, was but the First. Mr. Pryn was one of the Members of it, and his Sense and Opinion was point blank against yours, as you may find at large in his * 1.38 Plea for the Lords, and his Concordia Discors; and I cite him because it was his studied Opinion, and the Practice of his latter years was according to it, as appears also from a Paragraph or two in his Pre∣face to Cotton's Abridgment, which I here declare, I produce against no Person nor no Authority but yours.

That all Parliaments and Ambitious Self-seekers in them, who under pretence of a Publick Reformation, Liberty, the Peoples Ease or Wellfare, have by indirect Surmise, Po∣licies, Practices, Force, and new Devices, most Usurped upon the lawfull Prerogatives of their Kings, or the Persons, Lives, Offices, or Estates of such Nobles, Great Officers, and other persons of a contrary Party, whom they most dreaded, maligned, and which have imposed new Oaths and Engagements on the Members to secure, perpetuate, and make irrevocable their own Acts, Judgments, and unrighteous procee∣dings, have always proved most Abortive, Successless, Pernicious to themselves, and the activest Instruments in them; the Parliaments them∣selves being commonly totally Repealed, Null'd, and the Grandees in them Suppressed, Impeached, Condemned, Destroyed as Traytors and Enemies to the Publick, in the very next succeeding Parliaments, or not very long after. That Kings created, and set up meerly by Parlia∣ments, and their own Power in them, without any true Hereditary Title, have seldom answered the Lords and Commons Expectations in the Pre∣servation of their just Laws, Liberties, and Answers to their Petitions; yea, themselves at last branded for Tyrants, Traitors, Murderers, Usur∣pers; their Posterities Impeached of High Treason, and disinherited of the Crown by succeeding Kings and Parliaments, as you may read at large in the Parliaments of, &c. From these three last Observations, we may learn, that as Parliaments are the best of all Courts, Councils, when duly Summoned, Conven'd, Constituted, Ordered, and kept within their legal Bounds: So they become the greatest Mischiefs and Grievances to the Kingdom, when like the Ocean they overflow their Banks, or degenerate and become, through Sedition, Malice, Fear, or Infatuation by Divine Justice, Promoters of corrupt sinister Ends, or Accomplishers of the private Designs and ambitious Interests of particu∣lar persons, under the disguise of publick Reformation, Liberty, Safety, and Sentlement.

You see, Doctor, here, how Mr. Pryn distinguishes between legal Kings by Hereditary Title, and Kings that are not legal; and between Parliaments Convened and acting legally, from Parliaments that are not so

Conven'd, and do not so Act: But in your Providential Hypothesis, which must damn all such distinctions as Groundless and Arbitrary, it is enough that any Man, Jack Cade, or Oliver Cromwel, be set up for King by the Estates of the Realm, howsoever Conven'd and Acting. Once the E∣states of this Realm did most illegally call in a French King, and set him up in the Throne, and swear Fealty to him; and if in the late designed French Invasion, which if God had thought fit might have succeeded, they had set up the great Oppressor of the Liberties of Europe; then, according to your Doctrine, he must have been King, and by your Principles, and all the seriousness which the Subject of the Last Judgment requires, you must and would have professed, without any regard to the Recognitions of their Majesties right, that you were his most faithful Subject and Servant.

To this Authority of Mr. Pryn I shall add that of Judg Jenkins, who pro∣tested against the Power of the two Houses, when they had made the King their Prisoner, and usurped his Sovereign Authority, and had power to crush his Majesty, and much more any other Man in the Kingdom. Shortly after Judge Jenkins printed his Protestation, and a Justification of it from Law, in which he declared he should hold it a great Honour to dye for the honourable and holy Laws of the Land. It was for the King then and his Authority, that he stood up against the Powers in being, who were then in your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he asserted before them, That Allegiance follow∣ed the King's natural Person, then Prisoner at Holmby. And as for the times before him he declared, that all Deposers of Kings were Traitors, that Hen∣ry IV. was an Usurper, and that Kings de facto are Ʋsurpers, that come in by the Consent of the People. This is the Doctrine of Judge Jenkins, of famous Memory; but yours, Doctor, is the scandalous Doctrine of pres∣byterian Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Baxter's Holy Common-wealth, as has been observed by a plain honest Layman, in a † 1.39 Book which he wrote against you, and which I believe you can never answer. I wonder how Dr. Grove, your old Acquaintance, who wrote against Jenkins, takes it, to have his Reasonings condemned by you, as contrary to the general Sense of Man∣kind; they were received with great Applause by all wise and considering Churchmen, when they were first published, and I do not hear he hath retracted them: And therefore, Doctor, give me leave to make use of his Testimony, among others, to prove that the Reasonings of Some a∣mong our selves are not contrary to the general Sense of Mankind. To these common Lawyers let me add the Authority of one Civilian, the lear∣ned Sir John Hayward, in his Answer to the First Part of a Conference con∣cerning Succession, by R. Doleman; and to these single Authorities that of all the Judges in the famous Case of the Postnati, which two of your lear∣ned ‖ 1.40 Adversaries have cited against you, (viz.) That Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King, and that † 1.41 it is not taken away, though the King is expulsed by Force, and another usurps. When you were first acquainted with this Opinion of the Judges by a learned Lawyer, you express'd your Satisfaction with Joy, and talkt of printing the discovery; but since you have taken the Oath their Authority signifies not a Straw; for you are

become the true Son of your Sire Leviathan, who was above all Authority but his own. To these Lawyers of our own Countrey I beg leave to add that of two or three foreign Lawyers, whereof two are Scotish Men, the learned Craigy, and Sir. George Mackenzy; the former's Opinion is to be seen in a learned MS. of his, entituled Thomae Cragii de Jure Successionis Reg∣ni Angliae Libriduo, adversus Sophismata Personati Dolemani, quibus non solum Jura Successionis in Regnis, sed etiam ipsorum Regum Ss. Auctoritatem nititur evertere. The Opinion of the latter is to be read in his JƲS REGƲM, or Defence of the Succession in Scotland,— and as he wrote in that Book, so he lived and dyed a faithfull Subject, or if you will, Doctor, a stupid Slave of Loyalty; for he was one of these Men: And it is well for you that he dyed when he did; for had he survived in Health, you, and some o∣ther Writers would, as I have been informed, have soon heard from him. The third is a Dutch Man of no small Authority, even Hugo Grotius, who was a wise and considering Man indeed, and did not use to write Contra∣dictions to the general Sense of Mankind; but yet he, as you have been told already by a very learned * 1.42 Man, saith expresly in contradiction to your Doctrine, † 1.43 that it is lawfull to kill an Ʋsurper, if it be with the Autho∣rity of him that hath the Right to govern, whether that Right be in the King, Se∣nate, or the People. And to these (saith he) we are to reckon the Tutors and Guardians of young Princes, as Jehoiada was to Joash when he deposed Athaliah. From these Men, whom you did not know, I proceed to some of your Ac∣quaintance, and I hope, Doctor, you will not take it ill to hear them speak. The first shall be Dr. Stillingfleet, now Bp. of Worcester, who is reputed a wise and considering Man, and Writer, that did not use to write Contra∣dictions to the general Sense of Mankind; and yet in several places of his * 1.44 Grand Question he hath asserted, that several Acts of Parliament made by Edward III. in his Father's life time, and by Henry IV. were null and void, because they were Usurpers, or in your Language Providential, but not Legal Kings. And in his Sermon before the Commons, Novemb. 13.—71. He tells them that Providence doth not found any Right of Dominion, but onely shews, that when God pleases to make use of persons as Scourges, he gives them Success above their hopes; but Success gives them no Right. The next is Dr. Burnet, who in the first Part of the History of the Refarmation speaks of Hen∣ry IV. as a Traitor and Usurper, and how doubtfully he speaks of Provi∣dence in his Sermon before the Prince at St. James's, you may remember as well as I. The third is Dr. Comber, who, as I hear, confesseth that he and others went too far; but however I that think the Doctor as good an Author before as since the Revolution, will not balk his Authority, espe∣cially since he hath retracted nothing publickly; and he saith on the Col∣lect for the King,

That his Friends are our Friends, and his Enemies our Enemies; for whoever attempts to smite the Sheepherd, seeks to destroy the Sheep, and he is a mortal Foe to the whole Nation. I know nothing so common with Rebels and Usurpers, as to pretend Love to those they would stir up against their lawfull Prince; but it appears to be Ambi∣tion and Covetousness in the latter end; and such Persons design to rise

by the fall of many thousands. Or if Religion be the ground of the Quar∣rel, besides our late sad Experience, Reason will tell us, that War and Fac∣tion, Injustice and Cruelty, can never lodge in those Breasts where that pure and peaceable Quality doth dwell. If it be a foreign Prince that op∣poseth our King, he is a Robber, and unjust, to invade his Neighbour's Rights: If he be a Subject who riseth against his Sovereign, he hath re∣nounced Christianity with his Allegiance, and is to be esteemed a troubler of our Israel: Therefore whosoever they be that are Enemies to the King, or whatsoever the pretence be, we wish they may never prosper in that black Impiety of unjust Invasion, or unchristian Rebellion.

How like a Saint, and an excellent Casuist, doth the Doctor write here; but how this agrees with his Speeches, Letters, and Actions, since the Insurrection at York, Time, and Opportunity of Printing will shew. The fourth is Dr. Tenni∣son, who had occasion to consider your Doctrine, long before it was yours, in his Book entituled the Creed of Mr. Hobbs examined.

In his Epistle de∣dicatory to that Book, saith he, Mr. Hobbs hath framed a Model of Go∣vernment pernicious in its consequence to all Nations, and injurious to the Right of his present Majesty; for he taught the People soon after the Martyrdom of his Royal Father, that his Title was extinguished when his Adherents were subdued; and that the Parliament had the Right for this very reason, because it had Possession. And in Art. 8. p. 156. first Edit. It is not for you to pretend to Loyalty who place Right in Force, and teach the People to assist the Usurper with active Compliance against a dispossessed Prince, and not merely to live at all adventure in his Ter∣ritories, without owning the Protection by unlawfull Oaths, or by run∣ning into Arms against the dethron'd Sovereign. And p. 157. I say then again, that you give Encouragement to Usurpers, and also when Civil Disorders are on foot, as it happens too frequent in all States, you hereby move such People as are yet on the side of their lawfull Prince, whose Affairs they see declining, streightway to join themselves to the more prosperous Party, and help to overturn those Thrones of Sove∣reignty to which a while before they prostrated themselves.—The Peo∣ple thus mis-instructed will imitate those Idolatrous Heathens, who for some years worshipped a Goddess made fast unto a Tree; but assoon as the Tree began by Age and Tempest to appear decaying, they paid no farther devotion to their Deity, neither would they come within the shadow of the Oak or Image.

You see, Doctor, how this Author wrote then against Hobbs, just as some among Ʋs write now against you; and as well as you are acquainted with him, yet I believe he would swell as big at you, as at the sight of any Jacobite, if you should tell him, that the most sober and considering Men rejected his Reasonings as contradictory to the general sense of mankind. The last Authority, Doctor, is your Great and Dear Self, who not long since was a Man of those Reasonings, and that Opinion by which some among our selves have the impudence, since you were of ano∣ther Judgment, to contradict the general sense of Mankind. I shall not trouble you with a review of your Writings before the Revolution, but

take you as you were almost two years after it, whilst you were under the stupid Dispensation of slavish Loyalty, nor as yet had discover'd the My∣steries of Providence, but were as zealous as any of these Men to deferd Laws and legal Rights against the Events of it; but whether factiously or not factiously, as you * 1.45 pretend, some matters of Fact will shew. I shall not insist on the half Sheet you published at the sitting down of the Con∣vention, against making the P. of Orange King; but onely observe, that then you supposed the Throne to be full; and asserted, That the Estates then convened could not give him the Crown, because it was not theirs to give. A little after this you wrote the Answer to Dr. Burnet's Enquiry, which I mentioned before, in which you assert, in opposition to the Doctor, that King James was a King not by governing well, but by Birth right, and could no more cease to be King by governing ill, than a Traitor or a Rebel cease to be a Subject: And this you proved from the paternal Relation of a Fa∣ther, who never cease to be a Father, how great a Tyrant soever he be. You also challenged the Doctor there, to shew you any Law of God, or our Country, which upon any Cause dissolves our Allegiance, and asserted, that the Descent of the Crown must be governed by the Laws of the Land. I must here tell the Reader, that this Answer of yours was never published, lest he should lose his labour in enquiring after it; for though it was printed, yet whether at Xantippe's Instance, or any other Cause of Fear, you sup∣pressed all the Coppies but two, which happened to get abroad, and one of those fell into my Hands. After this, on the 8th of April following, you went to a learned Gentleman, to persuade him not to be present at the Coronation; and though their Majesties had been recognized by the Estates, and were then in full Providential Possession, yet you told him, you had rather take the Oath twenty times than bear a part in it: But about the beginning of May after you wrote a Discourse for taking the Oaths, enti∣tuled, The Lawfulness of taking the New Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, stated upon the strictest Principles of Church of England Loy∣alty; and after you had finished it you sent it, as I understand by a Letter from the West, to Dr. Bu— (by which I understand Dr. Burnet;) but that Discourse plainly supposing the Government to be an Ʋsurpation, and that Non-resistence was reserved as a Duty to King James, from whom it could not be suspended, it was not thought fit to be published. This Book was seen and perused by many, particularly two or three Clergymen at Tunbridge in August following said they had read it: But to doe you Justice, Doctor, be∣fore this you did all you could to suppress it, because it would not hold; but it was now too late to attempt the suppression of it, for Copies had got abroad into several Hands, and I have one of them at your Ladies Ser∣vice, who I suppose was not against writing of it. Upon Conviction this Paper would not hold, then you grew very warm against the Oath; for in the latter end of June, or beginning of July, you affirmed, that the taking of it was not onely a recognizing, but making the P. of Orange King; (as yet then Providence had not made him so:) adding, that though you could actu∣ally forbear assisting King James, yet you could not swear never to assist him, that

being not consistent with an Acknowledgment of his Right; and that the more you thought of the Oath the worse you liked it, and would have nothing to doe with it; Remember this, good Doctor, and then consider if it doth not become a Man that said and did such things then to rant and swagger against some among our selves now. It was now about this time that you were in the highth of your Fevour against the Government and the Oaths, which dis∣covered it self by many Symptomes, upon several occasions: When you first heard the News of a Fast, which happened to be at your House in the Temple, How! a Fast! said you; I'll warrant you we shall have dainty Prayers: Prayers, said Dr. Sharp, that I am more affraid of than the Oaths. And what! Must we have Sermons too? I'll give them a Sermon that they shall not thank me for; and accordingly you did so: Your Text I remember was, The Lord is a Man of War, the Lord of Hosts is his Name; and then you preach∣ed contrary point blank to what you have since printed; and the drift of your Discourse was so plainly levelled against the Government, and the Intention of the day, that you gave great Offence to their Majesties good Subjects, who filled the Town with Complaints against you; but you va∣lued not that, but was pleased with it, delighting to give some among us an account of what you had preached, and how you had met with them. A∣bout this time also you wrote a Discourse against taking the Oaths, which you shewed to a Learned and Reverend Divine on the 29th of July. I sup∣pose it was your Letter to Dr. Williams, whose Answer to it you despised, as Stuff that did not deserve a Reply; though one, who saw it, saith you stole your Argument from Jaddus, and other things out of it, which you have put in your Case of Allegiance. In August out comes the first part of the History of Passive Obedience, which you caressed into the World, and were so taken with it, that you went to a very learned Man, who since became your Antagonist, to pray him to write a Sheet of Conclusions, not against some, but against other men, upon the Doctrines and Principles col∣lected in it; and that he might not mistake your design, you left it in wri∣ting with him, and he still hath the Original in the following Words, The Doctrine of Nonresistance and Passive Obedience is founded on an irresible Autho∣rity; consider then what are the Rights of an irresistible Authority, and what the Duties of Passive Obedience. 1. The Rights of Sovereign and irresistible Authority are that he cannot forfeit his Crown, that he cannot be judged or deposed by his Sub∣jects; (and Abdication and Desertion are but other names for this;) and therefore when once King, he is always so till Death, or voluntary or legal Resignation. 2. Nonresistence does not onely signifie not to fight against the King, but, 1. That upon no pretence we must renounce his Right. 2. We must never set his Crown upon another's Head. 3. We must not transfer our Allegiance to another. In this Month also dyed the Bp. of Chichester, of everlasting Memory, to whom, as a Person of Honor can testifie, you went about four or five days before he dyed, to move him to make his Declaration. About the same time you sent a Paper to Oxford against taking the Oath; I have forgot the Title of it, but I remember a passage in it to this purpose, That as Usur∣pers seize upon the Lands, and Houses, and Fortifications of the King for

their own use, and turn them to their own Service against Law; so against Law they seize upon the Laws themselves, and use them against their first Intention to their own Service, and the destruction of the King and his faithfull Subjects, for whose defence they were made, About the begin∣ning of September you wrote an Apology for the Nonswearers, which you designed for your Masterpiece; and in December following a malitious Pamphlet coming out against the Bishops, entituled A Letter out of the Coun∣trey, &c. you began an Answer to it in defence of them; but staying out too long where you wrote it, Mrs. Satan and Sherlock took you to task, and succeeded so well, as to make you confess where you had been, and a∣bout what, and then it was no great Conquest to make you send for your Papers by six a Clock next morning, and offer them as an Holocaust to a∣tone her displeasure. In all this time that you were so warm and zealous against the Oath, you helped to disperse the few small Pamphlets that were printed against taking of it, and expressed much trouble, that others that were larger could not get abroad; particularly you were very zea∣lous for Printing The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession, which you then thought an admirable Piece, and upon all occasions you were wont to express your Affection and Duty to King James, and your desire for his Return; as by drinking to his Health and happy Restauration, and at o∣ther times by sending up devout Ejaculations for it, and saying Amen if others did so: And, Sir, your own Memory and your Conscience can in∣form you that these are Truths, and no Inventions; and how they agree with your Preface to your Case of Allegiance, and the Conclusion of your Vindication of it, let the Readers, and especially the Lawyers, judge. In that Preface you tell us, that you had stuck in your former Opinion to this day, had you not been relieved by Bp. Overall's Convocation-Book: But how did that relieve you? Or when did the pretended Doctrine in it begin to operate on your Understanding, and remove your former difficulty? I am sure that it was sent you Sheet by Sheet from the Press, and had no Operation upon you at the first reading; but happening to lie in the Book∣seller's Shop some time before it was Published, for want of the Preface; the News of it brought abundance of Clergy-Men, and others, to read it there, and some that had taken the Oaths thinking these Passages made for them, they discovered them, and formed Arguments from them to justfy their own Complyance, but you dispised them for wresting the Words of the Convocation, and used to observe upon that occasion, how Men would be glad of any pretences, and catch at any Twiggs to bear up themselves against their own Consciences. This was in December before you took the Oaths, and no Body that I ever met with perceived you to be of any other Opinion 'till after the Victory of the Boyne: For in that interim you behaved your self among your Brethren, as you had done formerly, particularly you shewed Complacency enough at the Victory which the French had over us by Sea, in hopes it would hasten another Revolution; and accordingly taking Horse at a Gentleman's Door, who then thought you deserved a better; you told him, that you now hoped by Michaelmas to have a better

Horse. This was but a little while before the News of the Boyne Victory came to Town, and then Doctor it was that Bp. Overall's Book gave you greater Freedom and Liberty of Thinking, then you first discovered your New Notions, and Inclinations to your Brethren, then you thought it high time to emancipate your self from your stupid Church of England Loyalty, and the slavish Principles of it, the Rights of irresistible Authority, and the Duties of Passive Obedience: All vanished then upon New Light; for Egeria appear'd to you upon the Banks of the Boyne, and inspired you with New and Freer Notions, and shewed you in that glorious Scene, how your former Rea∣sonings contradicted the General Sense of Mankind, and had no foundation in Reason or Nature, and revealed unto you a Divine and safer Principle upon which you might Swear Allegiance, without the Imputation of Apostacy or renouncing the Doctrine of the Church of England, to WILHELMƲS NASS. ANG. SCOT. HIBER. ADEODATƲS AƲGƲSTƲS, and also swear it back again to King James, if ever he should recover the Throne in a recuperative War. But to make out your Hypothesis of a Thorough Settlement the better, you were willing also to have Limerick taken before you took the Oath; and therefore you wrote to a Friend then at Dublin, to send you word assoon as that Town was taken, because, as he knew, it concerned you much to know it. But, Doctor, as you say of the Nature of things that Town was pretty stubborn, and you were in haste, and could not stay for the Surrender of it; but the new Settlement was sufficient for your purpose without it, or perhaps the R.R. Welch Prophet assured you it would be taken, and that was enough to a willing and well disposed Mind. And now, Doctor, upon an impartial Review of your former Principles and Practice, will you seriously tell me, did you not think your self as wise and considering a Man before you took the Oaths as since? And could you well have born it, if any Man had then dogmatically told you, that your Reasonings were uncertain, and that your Opinion was contrary to the General Sense of Mankind, or that it was rejected by the most sober and considering Men? Alas! What shall we inferiour Mortals and little Writers do, thus to have Sherlock against Sherlock? Which of the two shall we believe? Sherlock saying, or Sherlock unsaying what he said, and for what he suffered? Sher∣lock confessing, or Sherlock retracting his Confession? Sherlock deprived, or Sherlock restored, and higher preferred? Sherlock baffling others, or Sher∣lock by others miserably baffled? Sherlock with the Generality of Writers, or Sherlock against the Generality of them? Sherlock with the learned and venerable Writers of Authority, or Sherlock with a few little fanatical Writers of no Authority? Sherlock saying and proving, or Sherlock barely saying and appealing, but not proving what he saith? But as the learned Author of the Reply to your Vindication * 1.46 hath observed, methinks you should have but little Stomach to appeal to the general Sense of Mankind, to which your fundamental Doctrine, and the Arguments that support it, are contrary, except John Goodwin and his Fellows be the Sense of Man∣kind. And in another † 1.47 place he observes, that when he had urged you in his first Book to shew any one approved Author of your side the Contro∣versy,

you only produced two, Calvin and Grotius, against the first of which he tells you there is just Exception, and that the other is directly against you. And it is now a year since his Answer came out, and any Man of tolerable Modesty would have produced more and better Authors on his side, be∣fore he had asserted from the Pulpit and the Press, that his Adversary's Rea∣sonings were rejected by the most sober and considering Men, and contradicted the general Sense of Mankind. For God's sake, Doctor, what privilege have you above other Men thus to impose upon the World, and treat your Adver∣saries at this rate? Have your new Principles set you free from the slavish Doctrine of Modesty as well as that of Loyalty? Or have you acquired the Authority of an Oracle that Mankind is bound to receive Maxims from you, and to believe without examining what you say? Perhaps you may be prolocutor the next sitting of the Convocation; or if you have not the Chair, you will have the next Seat to it; and notwithstanding this Ad∣vantage, and so many London Livings in your Disposal, I desire and chal∣lenge you to propose your Doctrine, and the Reasonings that support it, to the two Houses, to try whether they will approve or condemn it. Their Authority you will needs allow to be great and venerable, and I dare appeal to them as Judges of the Controversy, not doubting but that they will be of the same Mind with the Convocation at Oxford, where the Doctors and Masters, in July 1683, damned your Doctrine in the Censure of the following Proposition, which in the Decree runs in these Words, —Possession and Strength give a Right to Govern, and Success in a Cause or Enterprize, proclaims it to be lawful and just; to justify it is to comply with the Will of God, because it is to follow the Conduct of his Providence. And then in the Margent over against it, they cite Hobbs, Owen, Baxter and Jenkins; and in the next Impression I hope they will put your Name in that glorious Company, to shew the Sense of Mankind. I ground my Confidence, in this Appeal, upon Discourses which I, and others, have had with several worthy Members of the Convocation, who have been so free as to tell us that they could not be of your Opinion; nay some of them have told me frankly, that they abhorred your Principle, and could never have taken the Oath upon it: I believe you would be angry with them should I tell you their Names; but I do not know why they may not contradict you, as well as you have contradicted the Bishop of St. Asaph; for, contrary to his Sermon, entituled God's ways of disposing Kingdoms, which he preached before the Queen, You, in your Fast-Sermon preached not long after, be∣fore her, in June, the last year, and printed, as his was, by her Majesties Special Command, tell us, That God doth not always determine what is right and wrong by the Events of War, for he is the Sovereign Judge of the World,* 1.48 and may often punish a wicked Nation, by unjust Oppressors, as he did the Israelites. The good Lord be merciful to the poor Jacobites, who are like never to be converted at this rate, when one of you so apparently contradicts another, and each part of the Contradiction hath Royal Authority on its side. I do not say that you designedly contradicted the Bishop, and I had almost said your self too, for that Proposition seems to look very foul upon your 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Doctrine of Providence, and almost needs an Explication; and in good Truth Doctor, the Sense of Mankind, and the natural Notions, are on the other side of the Controversy, and if you do not carefully prevent them, they will obtrude upon you, and carry you to contradict your self, as your Father Hobs did in his History of the Civil Wars, who before he was a∣ware of it, run into the Arbitrary distinction betwixt Supream Strength and Right to govern: For to the Question, Who had the Supream Power when there was no Parliament?* 1.49 If by Power (saith he) you mean the Right to Govern, no Body had it; but if you mean the Supream Strength, that was clearly in Cromwel, who was obeyed as General of the Forces in England, Scotland and Ireland.

Here, Doctor, I stopt a little to review the Authorities I have brought against you; and I find, that as a Man who has many Witnesses at a Tryal, may forget to call some; so I have forgot two Testimonies against you, which I desire may be now heard speak. The first is the Testimony of the Judges and Peers in Queen Mary's time; and the second is that of the First Parliament of William and Mary.* 1.50 The former, at the Tryal of the Duke of Northumberland, made Answer to the Duke, Querying by way of Plea, Whether a Man acting by the Authority of the Great Seal, and Or∣der of the Privy Council, could become thereby Guilty of Treason? That the Great Seal of One that was not Lawful Queen, could give no Authority nor Indemnity to those that acted on such a Warrant. The latter, in several of their Acts, as in that for a Poll towards reducing Ireland, 1 Gul. & Mar, 1 May 1689. and that for the Relief of their Majesties Pro∣testant Subjects in Ireland, 1 Gul. & Mar. Jan. 27. 1689. declared the Irish, then under King James' Possession, and actual Government, to owe their Obedience to King William, and for breach thereof to be Rebels; though King James had been solemnly recognized by the Estates of the Realm.

But now, Doctor, after all these Testimonies against you, perhaps you will reply, that these are only Testimonies, as to the Sense, but not as to the Practise of Men; whereas you have Asserted the Reasonings of some among our selves, to be not only against the General Sense, but the General Pra∣ctice of Mankind, in all Revolutions, and that this is apparently on your side: But if you, or any for you, object this against me, I pray you to consider, that the Practises of Men are to be tryed by Principles, and not Principles by the General Practises of men; for Mankind, Doctor, is a very corrupt Creature, apt to act against the most acknowledged Prin∣ciples of Truth and Falshood, Good and Evil, which God has engraven on all men's hearts, as the Common Law, or Common Sense, or Common Notions of all mankind. And as they will act against these Common Notions, or the Law of Nature, so will they act against the Law of Grace, or the Notions of revealed Religion; more especially they will act a∣gainst both in times of Persecution, when Ease, Safety, Honour, and Preferment, attend those who take part with Error against Truth, and Wrong against Right; and Danger, Trouble, Disgrace, and poverty,

those who side with Truth against Errour, and Right against Wrong. In such hard Cases, Doctor, few will choose the Suffering side; but the generality of men will act, not only against the general Sense of mankind, but against the inward Sence and Checks of their own Consciences; as in the Idolatrous Reign of Ahab, when Idolatry was the general practise of the Jews; in the Arrian Reign of Valens, when the Arrian Doctrine de∣nying Jesus to be true God, was the general profession, and Arrian Wor∣ship the general practise of Christians;* 1.51 in the Popish Reign of Queen Ma∣ry, when all the Clergy of the Church of England, but one hundred seven∣ty seven, turn'd Papists after Popery was throughly settled by Parliament, and recognized by the Estates of the Realm, and so became the Providential Religion of the Church; so in the late French Persecution, the generality of Protestants, preferring Ease and Safety before a good Conscience, turn'd Converts to Popery against their own Faith and Principles; and as for those few which did not, the Bp. of Meaux might have told them, That they had nothing to support them but some uncertain Reasonings which contradict the general Practice of Mankind in all Revolutions of Religion. You see, Do∣ctor, what a poor Argument the general Practice of mankind is in Revolu∣tions, where the great majority will go with the Stream of Power and Pre∣ferment: And therefore we are bid not to follow a multitude to doe Evil; but to stick to Principles against Men's Practices, and the Precepts of natural and revealed Religion against Men's Examples, be they never so many and great: For in truth, Doctor, few Men will doe their duty in any kind; and therefore there are but few that will be saved, especially in such an Age of latitude as this, wherein loose Principles make loose Practices; so that you will find very few Men of strict, or if you please, Doctor, of stupid and slavish Vertue. In particular, if you please, to look about, I be∣lieve you will find almost as few men of stupid and slavish Sobriety, or stupid and slavish Chastity, as of stupid and slavish Loyalty. Nay, if the general Complaints be true, there are but very few of stupid and slavish Justice and Honesty: For why should a Man of Honour (as the Cardinal said) be a Slave to his Word, or to his Oath either, especially of late,* 1.52 since we can hardly tell how to reconcile the eternal Misery of Hell with the Ju∣stice and Goodness of God, who, notwithstanding all his Threatenings of it in Scripture, is free to doe what he pleases. But this, Doctor, doth not be∣long to you, but to some of those Nine Men, who you told * 1.53 us, not long before you took the Oath, had Latitude enough to conform to a Church de facto which had Power on its side, and Tenderness and Moderation enough to part with any thing but their Church Preferments. When you were at the Writing of that Letter, † 1.54 the A. Bp. and other Bishops and Clergymen under Suspension, were as eminent for a prudent and well tempered Zeal, as for their constant Loyalty; but now their well tempered Zeal, though not one degree altered from its Temper, is factious, and their constant Loyalty stupid and slavish Allegi∣ance, and what else you will hereafter be pleased to call it or them.

13. Having now, I hope, vindicated the Opinions and Reasonings of some among our selves from Singularity and Novelty, by shewing that they do not contradict the general Sense of Mankind, but are the very Sense of the wisest and best part of it; I come now to examine what you say, for I cannot call what you say Arguments against them,* 1.55 who, as you tell the World, withdraw from our Communion, because we pray for K. William and Q. Mary: but they say, and I fear are able to prove it too, that it is you that have withdrawn from them and their Communion, and that the Schism, and the causes of it, is in you and not in them. But to let that pass, you assert that St. Paul, in your Text, makes no difference of Kings, but that they do; but I tell you, Sir, that they make as little difference as St. Paul, for they grant that he commands us to pray for all Kings; but then they say that the Usurpers of Kingdoms, as long as they remain so, are not Kings, nor within the Intention of your Text. But you tell us, they say, That St. Paul means only Lawful and Rightful Kings; it is true, they do say so; but then they also say, that there are no Kings but what are Lawful or have the Legal Right, and that all others exercising the Kingly Power in any Kingdom, against Law, are onely called Kings, as Idols are called Idols, but are not true Kings. You tell us again, the Commandment is ge∣neral to pray for Kings; and they say so too: but then they tell you that this doth not bind them to pray for Usurpers, who call themselves Kings, and are so called by those who set them up against Law, but are not so. But then you think you ask them a very confounding Question, though they have answered it an hundred times before, (viz.) Whether there is any such Distinction as this in Scripture, that we must not pray for all Kings, but one∣ly for Legal Kings? To this they answer, that all Kings in the nature of the thing, and in Scripture intendment, are Legal Kings; as all Husbands and Wives, in the sense of the Scriptures, are Husbands and Wives by lawful Wedlock: though an Adulterer may sometimes usurp the Name of a Husband, as did the pretended Husband of the Samaritan Woman, whom our Saviour told her for that reason was not her Husband. And as the Duty of Wives to their Husbands, commanded by the Apostle, is in no danger, by asserting that they must not be subject to any but Rightful Husbands: So neither, to answer your trifling Question, are Subjects in any danger of being delivered from the Duty, in your Text, of praying for Kings, by teaching that we must pray for none but lawful Kings. But then you tell us, that this distinction of lawful Kings, from Kings that are not law∣ful * 1.56 is Arbitrary, and that it hath no † 1.57 solid Foundation in Reason and Na∣ture; but they have told you over and over, that it is a Real and no Arbi∣trary distinction, founded upon the common Notions of Right and Wrong, Truth and Falshood; and that it is a distinction not of a thing from it self (which is Arbitrary) but of a thing from what it is not; and that it is as necessary for Subjects to make this distinction between Kings, as for Chil∣dren and Wives to distinguish betwixt lawful and unlawful Husbands and Fathers; or Clergy-men to distinguish between Canonical and Uncanonical Bishops; or to distinguish in Religion between the true God and Idols, who

are worshipped in the stile of Gods. And therefore to come to your Latria and Dulia, to which you foolishly compare this distinction,* 1.58 they return it upon you, and say, that the Scriptures appropriate the Allegiance of Sub∣jects, of which praying is a part, to lawful Kings; but that you are more than a Papist in Politicks, because you are for giving away not only Dulia, or half Allegiance, but Latria, or the whole Allegiance,* 1.59 from True to Idol-Kings. And then as for avoiding the Duty of the Fifth Commandment by the Vow Corban, which you misapply to them, that returns upon your self: for they have shew'd you again and again, in their Answers, that that Com∣mandment directs the Duty of it to true and lawful both natural and civil Parents, and have made it appear that you are one of the Pharisees, who have endeavoured to make that and other Commandments of none effect, by giving the Name of Kings to pure Providential Usurpers, though they are no more Kings by possessing the lawful Kings Throne, than Idols are Gods, by possessing the Temple of the true God. Idols have all the En∣signs of Divinity, as you say the other have of Majesty, and by God's own Providence come to be invested with all the Religious Rights and Ceremo∣nies of the true God, and often happen to be worshipped and recognized for Gods by the People and Estates of Idolatrous Realms; but for all that they are but abominable Idols, that ought to be thrown down, and bro∣ken in pieces; and the more cursed and abominable by how much the more their Worship is like of that of the true God. But you tell us,* 1.60 that there is Reason to conclude that St. Paul spoke of such Kings, [i. e. of Kings that were set up by the Estates and People, without legal Title,] if we will allow that he spoke the language of the Age wherein he lived. To which I answer, That neither the Language of that Age, nor any Age before or since the Apostle wrote, ever meant such Kings, whenever they spoke of Subjects duty in Praying for Kings; and that when the Apostle wrote, the Roman Powers, or King or Emperour then in being, was a Lawful as well as a Providen∣tial King; and that therefore he is to be understood onely of lawful Kings.* 1.61 But you on the contrary assert, That he wrote in a time of most violent Ʋsur∣pation, when he had reason to distinguish between lawful Kings, and such as were not lawful; but no Man of less Forehead and Conscience than your self would have asserted, it after the contrary had been so fully proved against you: Indeed, had the Emperor, when the Apostle wrote, been an Usurper, you had said something to purpose; but this you cannot prove, and there∣fore you only say it: But had it been true, you might easily have proved it, by shewing who was the claiming injured Party, and to whom the Em∣pire belonged by Law, and whose Right that unlawful Emperor did usurp. No body will deny but that the Apostle wrote his Epistle to the Romans, and his first Epistle to Timothy, in the Reigns of Caligula, Claudius or Nero. But to pass over the Roman Historians, to which your Answerers appeal to prove they were no Usurpers, I will here prove from the Roman Coins that they were lawful Princes, upon whom the Senate and People of the Common-Wealth of Rome had conferred the Sovereign Authority, as Au∣thority, signifies Right as well as Power. Now to prove this I must adver∣tise

you, if you did not know it before, that all Coines in which we find † 1.62 S. C. or EXS. C. as also S. P. Q. R. shew that they were coined by the special Order, and Au∣thority of the Senate: And as to their Inscri∣ptions and Devises, were not left to Discretion of Triumviri monetales, or Masters of the Mint. Therefore all such Coines, as learned Medallists observe, are of greater Authority than any Pri∣vate Historians, as being so many Publick Acts of the Senate, by which they gave as well as declared the Powers which are read in the Inscriptions of such Coines. I will begin with Caligula, of whom there are many such Senatarian Coines, which on the Front or ℞ of them have S. C. or EXS. C. or S. P. Q. R. with all his Sovereign Imperato∣rial Titles. Of the former sort are these, which about his Head bear the following Inscriptions, CAIUS CAESAR AUG. GERMANICUS PON. MAX. TR. P. S. C. and CAIUS CAESAR DIVI AUG. PRON. AUG. P. M. TR. POT. III. P. P. S. C. Of the latter sort are those which have the foresaid Titles on the Front, and S. C. or S. P. Q. R on the ℞℞. as that which within an oken Crown, or Corona Civica, hath inscribed S. P. Q. R. P. P. ob. C. S. So that hath S. C. on the ℞ in which are stamped the Heads of his three Sisters, Agripina, Drusilla, and Livia. The ℞ of ano∣ther bearing the former Titles hath the Temple which he dedicated to Angustus, with S. on one side of it, and C. on the other. And there is ano∣ther curious piece extant, which hath the Head of Agripina surrounded with this Inscription AGRIPPINAM. F. MAT. C. CAESARIS AUG. and on the Reverse a Tensa drawn by two Mules, and this Inscription, S. P. Q. R. ME∣MORIAE AGRIPPINAE.

Then for Claudius there is a Coin which hath this Inscription about his Head, TI. CLAUDIUS. CAESAR AUG GERM. P. M. TR. P. IMP. P. P. S. C. Another hath this Inscription about his Image, TI. CLAUDIUS CAESAR. AUG. and on ℞ P. M. TR. P. IMP. COS. II. S. C. Another hath this Inscription about his Image, T. CLAUDIUS CAESAR AUG. P. M. TR. P. IMP. P. P. and on ℞ SPES AUGUSTA. S. C. Another about the Head of his Mother hath ANTONIA AUGUSTA and on ℞ TITUS CLAU∣DIUS CAESAR AUG. P. M. S. C. On the ℞ of another bearing his Impe∣rial Titles, there is within an Oken Crown EXSC. OB CIVES SERVATOS. On ℞ of another, within an Oken Crown, S. P. Q. R. P. P. OB C. S Ano∣ther ℞ hath CONSTANTINE AUGUSTI S.C. Another SPES AUGUSTA S. C. And another ℞. in which is stamped the Emperor and the Praetorian Signifer PRAETOR RECEPT. S. C.

Lastly for Nero. There is one with an Oken Crown bearing this Inscri∣ption about it, NERONI CLAUD. DIVI. F. CAES AUG. GERM. IMP. TR P. and within it EX. S. C and on ℞ AGRIPPINA AUG. DIVI. CLAUD. NERONIS. CAES. MAT. about the Heads of Nero and Agrippina, looking one upon another. Another with Nero CLAUD. CAES. AUG. GERM. 〈…〉〈…〉, and on the 〈…〉〈…〉. Another hath

NERO CAES. AUG. IMP. about his Image, and on ℞ PONT. MAX. TR P. about an Oken Crown, and in it E X. S. C. And as for the ℞℞ on this Emperour's Coines, one hath PONTIF. MAX. TR. P. V. P. P. E X. S. C. another hath PONTIF. MAX. TR. P. VII. COS. IIII. P. P! E X. S. C. Another PONTIF. MAX. TR. P. X. COS. IIII. P. P. EX. S. C. Another a Pomana Armata, with a Victoriola on her hand, E X. S. C. Another under a triumphant Arch SC. And these Coins prove as plainly that these Emperours were lawful and rightful Emperors, as that of Pompey proves him to have been the lawful Admiral of Rome, which hath this Inscription, POMPEIUS MAGNUS PRAEFECT. CLAS. ET ORAE MARITIMAE, which Office he bore, as Historians shew us, in the Piratical War. And now, Doctor, as I have shewn from these Coins, that that Emperor, who∣ever he was, under whom St. Paul wrote, was a lawful Emperor, or right∣ful Possessor of the Emperial Power; so let me ask you one Question: is it needful that I should distinguish here betwixt true and counterfeit Coins, or not? If not, then it was much less needful for the Apostle to distinguish between lawful Kings and Kings that were not lawful, because he wrote under a lawful King, that had no Competitor at home or abroad to claim or prosecute his Right against him: But because there are many Cavans or counterfeit Coins, I here distinguish between them, though I think I need not, and tell you, that I have made use of none but true Coins: But if you suspect me, you may borrow a litte from the Bp. of St. Asaph, as you did a little * 1.63 Chronology about Jaddus from him, and he'll help you out in both alike. And in the mean time, Doctor, take this with you, That your pure Providential King in Policy, are no better than counterfeit Medals in Antiquity, or Bristol-stones among Diamonds; they shew and glister like Kings, but are not Kings, but Usurpers: And the distinction between them and Kings, by the help of the Word lawful or unlawful, is as real and natural as that of the Nummists between real and forged Medals, or that of the Jewellers between true and false Diamonds, or that of all the World between true and counterfeit Silver and Gold. It is the Appearance of Things without Reality that is the Ground of this distinction; and to discover real from apparent, true from false, and right from wrong in the moral and natural World, makes these distinctions useful, that other∣wise would be useless; and when Authors do not use them in speaking of Things, they are supposed to speak of real, true, and right things of eve∣ry kind, and not of things of another Nature, that for some shew, like∣ness, or false Pretensions, are called by their Names. You think you speak finely, when you say it is matter of Sense to know who is King, be∣cause a Man may see who administers the Government by Regal Authority. But if it be matter of Sense, Doctor, how came you to lose your Senses so long? And what made you so blind that you could not see it when other Men did? This shews, Doctor, that it is not matter of Sense, but of Rea∣son: for Sense can onely perceive the supream external Force that is admi∣nistred in any Kingdom; but to discern the Right or Authority to exercise the supreme Force of Power which makes a King; is the work of Reason; because Authority is a moral Quality, as hath been * 1.64 excellently proved to

you, of which Reason and Conscience is Judge. O but then, say you, it must be a matter of Wit,* 1.65 or Law, or Philosophy, to know who is King. It is so, Doctor; but of no more Wit, Law, and Philosophy, than every com∣mon Understanding hath; and no more than is needful to know who is Husband,* 1.66 or Master of any Family, or Parson of any Pa∣rish, or Mayor of any Corporation. The World knows (saith an excellent little Book) who it is that the Law and Custome of this Nation states to be the Heir and Successor of the King, even the eldest Son of the Predecessor. In truth, Doctor, there is no difficulty in it; there is not a Countrey Fellow in any Kingdom but knows by what Title the Crown is held; and in an hereditary Kingdom there is no great need of Wit, or Law, or Philosophy, to know the Royal Family, and the next Heir in it. But you have had enough of this in your learned Answerers; and none but a Man that is desperate, and past blushing, would preach the same Stuff again,* 1.67 especially before such an Audience, when he knew he could not defend what he said. But you tell us, you will not dispute the Matter; and the Reason is plain, because you cannot dispute it, though you are one of the Disputers of this World, your Adversaries having put the Controversie beyond all reasonable Dispute. But if you will not dispute it, why should you meddle any more with it? Or is it because you are a great Man, and a great Rabbi, that ought not to dispute with such little Writers?

14. Well; but though you will not dispute them, yet you'l vouchsafe to chatechise them,* 1.68 and ask them some hard Questions about Certainty: And before I answer for them, I must beg leave, Doctor, tho' of late you do not love distinctions, to distinguish about Certainty, and I hope it is no arbitrary distinction, that hath no Foundation in Reason and Nature. Certainty then, Doctor, is of two sorts, absolute, of which no doubt can possibly be made, and against which there lies no Objection; or such, which though it be not free from all doubts and Objections; yet it is such as the nature of the Thing will bear, and such as command a firm assent of the Mind, without doubting of the truth of what it believes. The first is a Mathe∣matical or Metaphysical Certainty, and with this absolute, mathematical, and metaphysical Certainty, you, and I, and all the World, are sure that two and two make four, and that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. The second is moral Certainty, which results from Reasons on one side in every Matter and Question, that visibly preponderate the Reasons on the other, and so commands the Assent of a Man's Understanding, that he hath either no doubt, or very weak ones, of the truth of the thing which he believes. This indeed is a sort of Certainty inferior to the other; but yet such a one as you, and I, and all Men, have of most of the things of which we are certain, as that there was such a Man as Moses; and upon this sort of Certainty, and no other, we make no doubt of venturing our Lives and Estates in this World, and our Souls in the next. I presume, Doctor, you will allow this for a good distinction; and if you do, then, with submission, I must ask you, Which Certainty do you mean in the Questions you have

put to these Men. I dare say you do not mean the former, for some ill Consequences I need not mention; but if the latter, then Dr. for once permit one of the little Wri∣ters to shew you the Folly and Vanity of this way of arguing in Questions about Cer∣tainty, from a few Questions of the same Nature. Are you certain then, that your Text is the Words of St. Paul, or that they were written by divine Inspiration? Are you certain that there are there Persons in the holy Trinity? That there is such a Continent as America? Or, to jest and argue together, are you certain that your Priests Orders are valid, that your Marriage with your incomparable Lady was law∣full, or that your Children are your own? The answering these Questions, Dr. will help to convince you, to what little purpose you put so many of the same na∣ture about Certainty; however I will answer them in order.

To the first then, they say, that they are as certain that by all Powers, Rom. 13.1. the Apostle only means such as have legal Right and Title to Power, as they are that he expresly teaches, that all Power is of God. But, 2. They also say, that tho' they were not so certain, which is not necessary; yet they are so certain of it, as that they make no doubt of it, and venture their All, here and hereafter, upon the truth of it. Your second Question, they say, agrees not with your first, nor with the design of your Sermon: For when you ask them whether they are as certain that it is unlawful to pray for Kings legally invested, &c. as they are that the Apostle commands us to pray for Kings; they say, that according to your Hypothesis the questoin ought to be put of Kings illegally invested with the Royal Power; and then they answer, that illegal Kings cannot be legally invested, and as certain that it is as unlawful to pray for illegal Kings, as they are that the Apostle commands us to pray for Kings, and all that are in Authority; and likewise add, as before to the Answer of the first Que∣stion. In your third they observe, that you call the lawful King's Right a supposed Right, whereas the providential King's Right is merely so; but the lawful King out of Possession hath, according to your state of the Controversie, a real Right to possess, and to recover Possession if he can; and therefore if they could wonder at you for any thing, they say they should wonder why you call it a supposed Right: And in or∣der to answer the question, as they are a distinguishing sort of Men; so they distin∣guish about Estates of the Realm, and they say they are of three sorts: 1. Estates that are always free. 2. Estates that are sometimes free. And, 3. Estates that are never free. The first are Sovereign Estates, as the Estates of Rome formerly were, and those of Venice now are, in whom the supreme Authority is lodged, and all Persons in their Dominions are subject to them, and they are subject unto none. The second are the Estates of Elective Kingdoms, where there is an Interregnum of Freedom to chuse a new King in, as in Poland, and some other Kingdoms. And the third are the Estates of Hereditary Kingdoms, where by Law there is no Interreg∣num, but the last moment of one King's Reign is the first of another, and where by consequence all Ranks and Orders of Men are constantly subject, even as constantly as if they had but one immortal, or never dying King. This distinction being pre∣mised, they answer in Thesi, that they are certain that it is the Duty of Subjects to adhere to the legal Right, and him that hath it, in opposition to an unlawful King, put into the Throne by subject and unfree Estates, that have no Authority, Right, or Liberty to make Kings, because the Law hath always Kings ready made for them, to whom they ought to be subject. I say they are certain, nay as certain that it is

the Duty of Subjects, whatever they suffer by it, to adhere to the legal Right in such a Case, as they are that it is our duty to pray for Kings. And then to your last Question they answer, that they are as certain that the Roman Powers or Emperors were legal and rightful Powers, when the Apostle wrote, as that he commanded the Christians to be subject to them, and pray for them: For they were placed in the Throne by free Estates, who had Authority to place them there; but you, more like a Sophister than a Preacher of Truth, take no notice of this plane distinction, as if the Estates of all Kingdoms were alike free and Sovereign: These Men, say you, (p. 18.) will pray for no Kings unless they be legal Kings, tho' they have all the En∣signs of Majesty, and are invested with the legal Authority and Power, with all the legal and customary Rights and Solemnities of Investiture, and are acknowledged and recognized by the Estates of the Realm. These are fine words, Dr. but did you never hear of Realms where Kings are Kings without any Ensigns of Majesty, before the Solemnitie of Co∣ronation; of Realms where the King, quatenus King, never dyeth, and by conse∣quence where the Estates are always subject to the King, and have no Interregnum of Freedom; of Realms where for the aforesaid Reason the King is said to demise when he departs this Life, and where the King is crowned because he is King, and not King because he is crowned? Fie, Dr. fie; I am ashamed of your Ignorance, if you have lived among Lawyers so long, and not know these things, or of something worse than that, if you knew them, and suppress them because they did not suit with you Providential Scheme.

I have now, Dr. answered your Questions plainly, and perhaps more plainly than you desired; but to shew you and the Worshipful Bench how much you dare impose upon them, I must ask you the same questions, the same proper questions about degrees of Evidence and Certitude, (p. 20.) Come therefore, Dr. sublime, seraphick, irre∣fragable Dr. for once vouchsafe to answer a poor little Writer, who humbly desires to know, 1. Whether you are as certain, that by all Powers Rom. 13.1. the Apo∣stle means Powers that have no legal Right and Title, as well as Powers that have legal Right and Title and prosecute that Right, as you are that he expresly teaches that all Power is of God? 2. Whether you are as certain that it is lawful to pray for unlawful Kings, who have no legal Right to the Power which they exercise, as you are that the Apostle commands us to pray for Kings, and all that are in Authority? 3. Whether you are as certain that it is the Subjects duty to adhere to a supposed Providential Right, against the Laws of the Realm, and in opposition to the lawful King, and his Right, as you are that it is our duty to pray for Kings? 4. Are you as certain that the Roman Powers, when the Apostles wrote, were illegal and usur∣ping Powers, which you affirm, as you are that St. Paul commanded Christians to be subject to them, and to pray for them? These, Dr. are your own Questions, and doubt∣less you can answer them better than any other Man; but when you think fit to do so, let me entreat you not to perplex the Controversie of Right and legal Right, with the Word antecedent, as you have done in your Sermon 4 or 5 times, merely to a∣muze your Readers, and fill them with Prejudice against these Men; as if they would own no Man for King, but such as comes to the Administration of the Sovereign Power with an antecedent Right. But this, Dr. is a great, and I fear a wilful mistake of yours; for provided that he that hath the actual Administration of Government hath a legal Right to it, it is all one to them whether it be an antecedent, concomitant,

or consequent Right; Right, or legal Right is the thing that they look after in him that hath the Sovereign Power, and that alone which can lay the Obligation of Obedience upon Men's Consciences, and command Subjection from them. Sovereign Power, how providentially soever it is attained, is but Sovereign Force and Tyranny with∣out it, and to speak in logical Strictness, King is a name of Law and Right; and assoon as a Man hath the Right which the Law gives to Sovereign Power, he is King; and King no sooner than he hath that Right.

I have now answered every thing in your Sermon relating to the Controversie concerning Kings, and I here declare that I have onely defended the Principles and Reasonings of your Adversaries against you; but if they be mistaken in Law, and misapply them and this to the wrong Object, let them answer themselves for their Mistake. My design and business is only to rescue your Text, and that in Rom. 13.1. and the Duties there commanded, from the mere Providential to the Legal King; but if those Men have so little Wit, Law, or Philosophy, nay, so little common Sense, as of two Pretenders to the Crown at any time, not to know which hath the legal Ti∣tle, their Mistake may prove fatal, but I have nothing to doe with that. I am sure, Dr. you have done their Majesties much Disservice by awarding the legal Right from them, and giving them instead of it, an airy Title by Providence, which Athaliah, Absolom, and Cromwel had, and every prosperous Usurper can pretend to and I am confident had they been rightly informed of the nature of your Principle; and of that loose and fickle, and worthless Allegiance which Princes only get by it, they would have had your Case of Allegiance censured, as it deserves, and instead of pre∣ferring you, had punished you as the underminer of their Throne. I am certain had you wrote and preached so in any of the former Protestant Raigns, you would have been severely censured, and punished by the Laws of Church and State; and if, as you tell us, the Revolution hath made no Alteration in Government, it is not yet too late to bring you to condign Punishment.

15. I thought I should have made an end, but finding some other Passages in your Sermon, upon which the Reader may expect I should make some Reflections. I cannot well pass them over. First then I cannot but animadvert upon the great and undecent Liberty you take of speaking of the FRENCH KING, in this, and al∣most all your Sermons; whereas in France that Antichristian Tyrant, as you mo∣destly call him, will not suffer the greatest of his Clergy to bring so much as a rai∣ling Accusation against their Majesties, or meddle with their Administration, as you, and the Bp. of St. Asaph, and I know not how many more, presume to do with his. But who made you Judges over him? He is God's Minister, and God's annointed Servant, and who art thou that judgest another Man's Servant? To his own Master he standeth or falleth. And what have you to doe to impeach him of Tyranny, Persecu∣tion, and Oppression? Do you know the reasons of his Actions, or can you tell what may be said to justifie or excuse the worst thing that he ever did? You told Dr. Bur∣rnet at Ely-house, when he spoke reproachfully of King James, that Crowned Heads ought not to be so treated; but now, Dr. you make no difficulty of treating the great∣est of Crowned Heads at a much worse rate, tho' he is God's ordinance on a double account, both as a Legal and Providential King. One would think, to read in what a losty and insolent manner you speak of him, that you were your self IMP. PON. MAX. or some great Prophet, that had received Commission from Heaven to arraign Kings. Certainly there is something very extraordinary in you, something very di∣vine,

or very diabolical, that of late you have a Mouth given you speaking Blasphe∣mies against Kings, and against a King who has as many and great Ver∣tues as any King in the World, * 1.69 Persecutor, Oppressor, Enslaver of Mens Bodies and Souls, Tyrant, and antichristian Tyrant. This, Dr. sounds like the Language of the Beast, not of a Minister of the Church of England; it runs in the Style of an Excommunication Bull; and as you are as great as the Pope in your own Opinion, so you have learnt to huff and hector Kings: But, what! are you thus to take upon you? You who but the other day were digging in Gravel-lane for Bread, to what an height are you come from almost nothing, and a Conventicle, to defie Crow∣ned Heads! But we know from whence all this comes, even from a most servile Spi∣rit, that cares not what it saith or doth, so it humor the Times, and please the Peo∣ple: Of this no man hath been more guilty than you, and I will give you and the World an instance of it. Sometimes Liberty and Indulgence to Dissenters were in vogue, and sometimes not; and accordingly you watcht the Opportunities, and wrote pro and con on it on both sides: You were for it in your Preface to your Re∣ligious Assemblies, and you were against it in your Answer to Whitby, and your Re∣flexions upon the Plot; but for it again in your Sermon before the Ld. Mayor, a little before the Revolution; and I doubt not but another Crisis would make you once more against it. From this Time-serving and Self-seeking Principle it comes, that the French K. is made the common place of Satyr in your and other such Clergy-mens Sermons. He hath taken the part of K. James, and that makes him so great a Tyrant; but had he been against him, and the Confederate Power for him, then they had been the Ty∣rants and Oppressors; and he that is now a Nero, a Dioclesian, had then been a most excellent Prince. How many Declamations had Dr. Sherlock by this time made for him, and against them, if he had been our Allie, and his victorious Legions employed in our Service? Then we had heard again from the Pulpits the old Philippicks against Spain, and the Inquisition; the Pulpits would have rung then with Invectives against the Pope, the Emperor, and the Hungarian Persecutions; and we should have been told again of Amboyna, and all the Injuries and Insults of the Dutch: But as the Case now stands, nothing must be said against them; the French K. is the only Antichrist, and all the Tyrants in Europe, a very Devil in humane shape. Well, Dr. you know many men have made Speeches in praise of the Plague, and Famine, and Tyrants, and there∣fore for once let us defend a Paradox, and try what may be said for Busiris, or rather for the Hercules of France. You tell us he invades the Liberties of Europe; but I protest that is News to me, for I never heard before that he made War with Europe. Swe∣den, Denmark, Poland, Switzerland, Italy, and Russia, as I take it, are all in Europe; but I hear them not complain of him for usurping on their Liberties, or pretend to have any Reprisals to make upon him. Besides, Dr. I am not able to understand what are the Liberties of Europe, and desire to know where they are, or in what Code or Charter one may find them. If Europe have any Liberties, it must be a Community; but I ne∣ver read of the Community of Europe, tho' I have of that of Asia, (which was a Com∣munity of 13 Cities in the Proconsular Asia,) both in Books and Coins. The Communi∣ty of Asia coined a fine new Medal to the memory of Germanicus and Drusus, which on the Reverse within a Lawrel Crown hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and they also coined Medals in memory of a Temple which they consecrated to Rome and Augustus, with

COM on one side of the Temple, and ASIAE on the other; but I never read of any thing done by the Community of Europe, and would be glad to be informed what the Nature and Constitution of it is, where it holds its Dyets, when it chuses the Europarcha, and in what place its Members or their Deputies meet: But it may be, Doctor, by the Liberties of Europe you mean those of the Confederate Part of Europe; and if you do, then, ex∣cepting our own Countrey, I pray tell me where the People live better, or enjoy greater Liberties than they do in France. In France truly the common People go in wooden Shoes, and in most of the foreign Confe∣derate Countries they have the Liberty to go barefoot; in France they have whole Canvass, or other mean Cloathing, and in many of the Confe∣derate Countries they are half naked; and if indeed King Lewis were such an Oppressour of Liberties, then the Common People, and Burghors, and Clergy of the Spanish Netherlands would not so favour him, and desire to come under his Government, as we are informed they do: The Spanish Clergy underhand commend him to their People, and the Clergy and learned men of his own Kingdom admire him; and this shews at least that he is good to the Clergy, and maintains their Privileges and Revenues; and that, Doctour, I tell you is maintaining our Religion in their Style as well as ours. You blame him also for destroying and extirpating his Prote∣stant Subjects; but would you blame him if he did it because they had a de∣sign to destroy and extirpate him? You formerly said in one of your Ser∣mons, that If the Consciences of Subjects will serve them to rebell for Religion,* 1.70 it seems a very hard Case, if the Conscience of the Prince must not allow him to hang them for their Rebellion. And so, Sir, if the Consciences of Subjects will serve them to extirpate their King; it is very hard, if he comes to the knowledge of it, that he may not be beforehand with them, and extirpate them. The French King is no stranger to the Civil Wars of France, he knew what Principles and Persons had been the cause of most of them; and as sensible as he is of his own Greatness, yet he knew he was not a Match to Confederate Enemies without, and Rebels within, at the same time: Wherefore he thought it for the safety of his Crown and Kingdoms to send the Trumpeters of Rebellion betimes out of his Kingdom, who since have sollicited all the Princes of Europe against him, and plainly shewn, that if they did not know what Spirit they were of, he did. I must here beg par∣don, O ye humble and holy Souls of Ramus, Charpenter, Moulin, Amy∣rault, and Bouchart! You indeed were not fighting Evangelists; but there were few such as you in times past, and fewer of late among the French Protestants, who would prefer the Cross before the Sword. The Attempt and Actions of some of them this Summer have justified their King, and discovered the Secret of his Severity against them, as Monsieur Louvois did some time since to an English Lord, to whom he appointed a time on purpose to discourse on that Subject, and then assured him that his Master had discovered a dangerous Correspondence betwixt his Pro∣testant Subjects and the Dutch, and that to prevent the ill Consequences of it, had once clapt up a hasty Peace with them, and found he could not

be safe in the next War, whenever that should happen, unless he first sub∣dued them. The Conversation we have had with them doth confirm this Opinion of their King; they are generally known to be for the cursed Doctrine of Resistence; and for my part I never heard but of * 1.71 one of them that was against it: The rest openly avow it, as Jurieux in Holland, and Allix now Canon of Salisbury, who although he had begg'd leave of King James to dedicate a † 1.72 Book to him, in token of his Gratitude, and the Gratitude of his Countrey∣men, for the Protection and the Kindness they had received from him; yet upon the Revolution he did all he could to suppress the Dedication in which he had set forth his Majesty's Praises, and railed against him in his distress with all the Rage that a Tongue could do that was set on fire of Hell. That King was not ig∣norant of their Spirit, no more than their own; for when the Bishops interceded with his Majesty for a Brief in their Behalf, My Lords, said he, Perhaps if you know these Men as well as I, you would not ask this of me; but you shall see I am a Christian, and that I can doe good to them that hate me. These Men I know are mine Enemies; but nevertheless I will not onely grant them a Brief, that my People may relieve them, but I will also relieve them my self. And as he foretold it came to pass; for they listed in great numbers against him, and help'd to drive him out of his Kingdom of Ireland, although, Doctour, he had your Title of Providence to it, and was recognized by the Estates of the Realm. This, Doctour, I fear is the Spirit, and these the Principles, generally speaking, of the Refugees; and this Spirit, and these Principles, of which they give so many Signs, obliged the King for his own Security to send their Ministers out of his Kingdom; but he did not send them away empty, he did not send them to the Galleys, as you know who did. What I have said, Doctour, is out of justice, and not out of kind∣ness to the French Monarch, I am none of those that wish he may prevail, and bear all before him like a Tor∣rent; but I do not like that he should be ignorantly and partially traduc'd by every soul mouth'd Pulpitier, when were it not for his invincible Mistake in Religion, he would be thought, even by you, one of the bravest Princes that ever wore a Crown: Nor have I any ill Will at his Protestant Subjects; I have been as great a Reliever of them in proportion to my Ability, as any other Man in the Kingdom, and should be glad to see a Vindication of them, that I might have a better Opinion of them. I grant the King hath persecuted them with very great Severi∣ty,

and made havock of their Church, and am as sorry as you can be for it, and for the Cause of it; but then are there no persecutors among the Confederate Princes? Look about you, Doctor; set the Acts, and Edicts, and Executions of other Princes against his; and then you will find, that other Protestants besides the French have been dragoon'd, and lost their Estates, their Lives, their Liberties, and their Countrey, for Conscience sake. In short, the French Apologists tell us, that the King persecuted them, because they intended to persecute him: This their own Consci∣ences can tell them whether it be true or no; and if it be true, then their destruction is of themselves, and they have brought down their Ruine upon their own Heads. The Bishop of St. Asaph, who foretold the Downfall of their King, hath now foretold his Conversion, and their Re∣stitution: It is some Months ago since he foretold that this would happen within a year; God grant his Prediction may prove true; it would make his Majesty a Constantine to his People: But yet I fear that would not sa∣tisfie some Men, nor reconcile their ulcerated Minds to him, unless with the Popish Religion he quitted the Interests of King James. This, Doctor, is another crowned Head, against whom you love to croak: All your ma∣licious Speeches and Slanders of him, and particularly those in your first and second Letter concerning the French Invasion, are filed up in Heaven, and shall be brought in Evidence against you at the great Day of Judg¦ment, when, without publick and bitter Repentance, you will appear at the left Hand, with Cromwell, Bradshaw, Cook, Milton, and Thom. Good. win, and be sent with those Worthies of the Old Cause into your own place. You cannot be content with sober and wise Men among your Bre∣thren, to say nothing of him; or when you speak, to speak of him as they do, with Decency and Respect: but you fall upon him as the Mob did at Feversham, with a brutal Rage, without any Regard to his Royal Name and Person, or to her Majesty and the Princess, whom you disho∣nour in reproaching of him: For let me tell you, Doctor, the Disgrace of the Chief always terminates in the Clan; and the Men of Honour will tell you, they are bound to revenge it, as soon as they have the Oppor∣tunity.

16. In this Sermon you also upbraid him with his Misfortunes, which no good Man can think of, without the greatest degree of Compassion, scornfully calling him the late unfortunate Prince. It is true, Doctor, he is unfortunate; but you should have remembred what Solon said of Croesus, and that what happens to Kings may also happen to Divines. You live now in great Prosperity, and State; but God may yet bring you down: He can when he pleases take off the Wheels of your Chariot, turn your Silver Candelesticks into Brass, and your Wax Candles into Tallow, and reduce you even beyond your first principals, yet before you dye. I wish this may not happen to you, nor none of those who insult over the Cala∣mities of that unfortunate Prince; but if it do so, remember you saw the Anguish of his Soul, and had no Pity for him, and then say, therefore if this Distress come upon us,— One of the Nine Men, when he heard

him pitied, had the Barbarity to say, Why, what matter is it? He is but a Bastard, St. Alban's Bastard; and it is great pity that her Majesty had not been told of it, before he put on his Lawn Slieves. We commonly say Misfortunes are no Crimes; and before you upbraid him with them again, remember his Father, the Martyr of the Church of England, was unfortu∣nate before him, and had this also added to the rest of his Misfortunes, that he was reviled, and had in derision by such Sons of the Earth as you. But God supported him by his Grace, and made him more than Conqueror; and the same God which supported the Father, hath also upheld the Son under his Misfortunes; which let me tell you, had never come upon him, had you and your Brethren the Clergy done their Duty, as some of them did: And therefore methinks you should take no pleasure in ripping up his Misfortunes, which are your Crimes. He was unfortunate in you more than in his Lay Subjects: You might have saved him, as well as your Re∣ligion, if you would have preached but half as much for him as you did for that; but your general Silence in the needfull time betrayed him to all his Misfortunes, and Now such as you among your Brethren are very sor∣ry that they are not greater, and mad against the suffering Remnant, be∣cause they do not renounce him in his Misfortunes, and murmur against God that hath preserved him, and laid Help upon one that is mighty for him; a mighty Prince, who hath long maintain'd more Legions than the Roman Empire did at the highest Pitch of Greatness, and who perhaps one day, like Augustus and Trajan, may inscribe upon his Medals coined upon such glorious Occasions, REX PARTHIS REX ARMENIS DATƲS; for God seldom raises Princes to that Greatness, but he hath something extraordinary for them to doe. I must also remind you of another great Blessing, which God, who remembers Mercy in Judgment has bestowed upon him, and thereby enabled him the better to bear the loss of his King∣doms: He hath given him of his most virtuous Queen a Royal * 1.73 Son and Daughter, by whom I trust the Royal Family will be multiplied into many Branches, and come to be restored to its antient Rights and Glo∣ry. The Seed of the Royal Martyr is in them; and I hope it is no Crime to pray, that God would give them the sure Mercies of David, and let them grow up like tender Plants before him, in Wisdom, and Stature, and Fa∣vour both with God and Man.

17. Another thing, Doctor, I cannot but take notice of, is your Para∣suical and most exorbitant manner of aggrandizing our late Victory at Sea, which encreases that Contempt the World had before of you, and hath given just occasion to some observing men, who have compared your Character of it with that of the Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Scot to affirm, that there was never so much Flattering heard from the English Pulpits as in these days.* 1.74 Dr. Scot in lofty strains saith, That it is one of the most glorious and signal Victories that ever the Sea beheld; and yet afterwards tells us how much their strength was inferiour to ours. And you say, that no Story can equal it, except we compare it to the miraculous Overthrow of Pharaoh, and all his Host in the red Sea.* 1.75 I profess to you, Doctor, I am no great Historian;

but to shew you much the Doctor and you shot above the mark, I will present you with a Summary of a few Sea Fights, where the Victory hath been incomparably greater than this last of ours.

In the Battel at Salamis, Themistocles with CCCLXXX defeated the Per∣sian Navy, consisting of MCCC. In the Battel between the Phalacrian Promontory and the mouth of the River Helicon in Sicily, C. Druillius with a lesser Navy vanquished the Carthaginian Fleet, consisting of CXXX Sail, of which, besides those he destroyed, he took L, of which Hannibal, the Admiral's Ship, was one, and the greatest part of the Carthaginians were also slain. Before this, I think, Claudius Pulcher, the Consul, fighting with an ill Omen against the Carthaginians, was defeated, and of CCXX Ships he saved onely XXX, the Enemies having taken and sunk the rest, Twenty thousand being made Captives. Attilus Regulus and Manlius Vol∣so, in another Sea Fight against Amilcar, took LXX Vessels, with all their men, and sunk LXIV. And Marcus Aemilius, and Servius Fulvius, with CCCL. Vessels, routed the Fleet of the Carthaginians, in which they killed XVM men, and took and sunk CXIV Ships. C. Lutatius Catulus, with no more than CCC Vessels, routed the Carthaginian Fleet, consisting of CCCC sail; of which he took L, and sunk LXX; or, as Eutropius writes, he took LXXIII, and sunk CXXV; took 30000 Prisoners, and slew 13000; after which, the Carthaginians, who had so bravely disputed the Empire of the Sea, were forced to sue for Peace; which I do not hear the French King hath done yet. But to take a great leap from Antient to modern History, at the Famous Battel of Lepanto, the Christians under the con∣duct of Don John of Austria, October 7. 1571. defeated the Turkish Fleet, though double in number of Gallies to theirs; and the particular Account of this great Victory is thus in Knolls's Turkish History: They took 161 Gallies, with 60 other smaller Vessels, and sunk and burnt 40 Gallies more. The number of the slain was uncertain, but they were reckoned about 30000, other Accounts say 25000, and they delivered 1200 Slaves; and all but with the loss of 7566 men. And within the memory of Man * 1.76 Blake, in 1652, with 8 Fregats fought 12 Dutch Men of War, sunk 3, and took the rest. † 1.77 June 1653. the English, without the loss of one Ship, and but with the loss of 126 men, besides General Dean, and one Captain, took 20 Dutch Men of War, 1350 Prisoners, and their whole loss amounted, by their own computation, to 5000 men; among the Ships that were taken were one Viceadmiral, and two Rearadmirals. August the 1st, 1653. in a sharp Fight between the English and Dutch, near the Coast of Holland, the English according to General Monk's and Viceadmi∣al Pen's Account, sunk 30 of their Men of War, and took 1000 Prisoners, whereof Viceadmiral * 1.78 Evertson was one, and killed about 3000, whereof † 1.79 Vantrump the Admiral was one. The Dutch owned to have lost 27 Men of War in this Fight, and 6000 men; the English lost but two Ships, and about 250 men. And in the first Dutch War after the Restauration, the English, under the Conduct of his Royal Highness the Duke of York, sunk

and destroyed 20 of the Dutch Ships, and blew up Admiral Opdam, with little loss on our side. These few Instances, Doctor, are enough to shew you, that there have been many greater Victories at Sea, than this last of ours, and I hope they will teach you hereafter to speak justly and ade∣quately to your Subject, which Longinus makes one of the Characters of true Eloquence, and I believe it will go a great way in the Character of a wise and honest man.

18. I cannot also but observe, how many and great things you say of our Deliverance, page 29, 30. because you thought it no Deleverance not long before you took the Oath. To use your own Words against you, page 31. you thought it then a Judgment and Calamity to be so delivered, and like a good Casuist thought there might be some ways of Deliverance which a good man ought not to accept of; and some among our selves have heard you speak of Generous and Heroic Heathens, who have chosen to dye, rather than to deliver themselves by the Breach of their Oaths. Principles of strict Honesty and Justice went a great deal farther among them then, than they do now among some Christians; and, as you in those days would say, they shall rise up in Judgment against them, and condemn them: For then you could not see Wood for Trees, no more than those Men, in seeing you could not see this great and blessed Deliverance, nor understand it; and therefore, Doctor, it did not become you to reflect upon them who remain in an Errour which held you so long captive; your business should be to convince them, and to provoke them, to over∣come them with soft Words and hard Arguments; but on the contrary you reproach them and revile them, telling the World, page 32. That they invite the French to conquer them, and to place a zealous Papist, and arbitrary Prince upon the Throne. Certainly, Doctor, never man made so many rods for his own back, as you do in all your Writings on this unhappy Con∣troversie: For how long is it since you would have rejoiced to see this Prince upon his Throne again, and would have had the Miracle done, though France or Mahomet had done it? Is he more popish or arbitrary now than He was then? Or is it not as lawfull now as it was then to make di∣stinction between the King and the Papist, and between the French, as French, and as the Allies of King James? The Dutch are a People that all the World knows have done the English forty times more and greater Injuries than the French have done; and yet we could, when time served, and still do distinguish between the Dutch as Dutch, and the Dutch as our Friends and Allies: And by consequence it would be false Logick, and a foul Reflexion upon some, to say that they invited the Dutch to conquer us. Well, but your meaning is, that you wonder that any English Protestants should invite the French to place King James in his Throne again: For my part I know no such English Protestants as invite the French upon any score; but Have you not left King James the legal Right to the Throne? And do not you allow him to prosecute it, and recover it if he can? And doth not the Law, from which, as you grant, he hath his Right to pro∣secute and recover, permit him also to seek Aid from the French, as well

as from the Dutch or Spaniards? And I dare say, if these would bring him in, it would be all one to him, and to you too. Ay, but the French are Papists: And was not the last Pope but one a Papist? And was not S — privately sent to him; and did not he send a Nuncio privately hi∣ther? And are not the Spaniards Inquisition-Papists? Or did the French ever do so base a thing, as to say they were French, and no Christians; or have they not as much natural Humanity, as any other men? But they are arbitrary Masters: But what have we to doe with them as Masters? And do not those that have to doe with them, find them as good Masters as some find their Neighbours? And come, Doctor, tell me plainly, would you not accept of Help from the French, if you stood in need of it? Nay, Would you not onely accept of it, but be very glad of it too? And therefore can you blame your old Master, if he seeks for Help from France, since you to recover much less than Three Kingdoms would doe the same thing. If he had choice of Assistance you might have some colour to blame him for accepting of French Help, and be angry with those who consider the French as his Allies. But here, Doctor, lies the Secret of your Displeasure: It is not the French as French, or any other thing, but as King James's Friends and Allies, that you and other Men hate them. You are affraid of him, and would hate the Dutch as well as the French, if they were his Friends: And the reason why you hate him is not that he is popish or arbitrary, but because if he recover his Throne you will lose your Chair. This, Doctor, is the hidden but true Resource of all the Venom you disgorge upon him and the French: You know you have sinned be∣yond 〈…〉〈…〉 like the Trumpeter in the * 1.80 Fable, which with the Re∣flexion upon it I recommend to your 〈…〉〈…〉 could you have been secured of Pardon, and more Preferment upon his Restoration, I believe you would never have written your two Letters against the French Inva∣sion, nor have done the part of Shimei and Milton against him, as you have lately done. It is observed for your Honour, that neither you nor the other Pamphietiers preach'd or published one word against him before our late Victory over the French Fleet; and I am confident, if they had been victorious, the World had never seen your Temple Sermon, nor Letters, nor the Pretences of the French Invasion examined, by that or any other hand. On the contrary, we should have had Books and Sermons of another make, and to another Tune, from the same Quarter, and Apologies for King James, and the most arbitrary of his Proceedings, upon those very To∣picks, from which (p. 23, 24, 25, 26.) you shew in three particulars how needfull it is to pray for Kings. I would to God, Doctor, you would se∣riously read them over again, and apply them to your old Master; and if you will doe so, I heartily pray God, that while you read and so apply them, he would pour out upon you the Spirit of Prayer and Supplication, that you may look upon him whom you have pierced, and mourn for him, and all the Evils you have done against him as one mourneth for his onely Son.

The last thing I observe is a Contradiction of what you say, p. 27. by what you say in p. 29. In the former place you truly tell us, That No Prince can take our Religion from us, if we resolve to keep it; but they may disturb the Quiet and peaceable Enjoyment of it; which was the state of the Church under the Heathen and persecuting Emperours. This, Doctor, looks like something spoken by the Author of Christian Prudence, or one of those Men who distinguish between Religion and the Externals of Religion, to shew the Fallacies and Dis-ingenuity of others, that will not distin∣guish between our Religion, and the Peace, Profit, and Honours, which by Law attend the Profession and Administration of it. But then you forget your self again, and run into this modish Fallacy in the latter place, where you tell us, That we owe our Religion to K. William, which cannot be true, if King James could not take it from us, as indeed he could not, let him have done the worst you can imagine, if we had had the Faith and Constancy of the Church under the persecuting Emperours: Had we followed their blessed Example, no Persecution could have hurt our Religion; but like the Persecutions in primitive Times, would have made it more august and venerable, and established it for ever; where∣as it is now evil spoken of for your sakes, and seems to be drawing on to a fatal End in Theism, Atheism, Schisms, Heresies, and Enthusi∣asm, and an utter Contempt of the Clergy, of which you have as much reason to be sensible, as any other Man. But what need I to ob∣serve this Contradiction in you, who have contradicted your self so of∣ten, that it will take up a great part of your Time and Thoughts to 〈…〉〈…〉 view, and censure your own Writings, and finally 〈…〉〈…〉 what you will stand to, and what you 〈…〉〈…〉, and what you will have put in the collection of your Works, and what you will have left out of it. I know this is no acceptable Work to a great and haughty Writer; but, Doctor, it is a Work necessary to be done; and comfort gour self with the Ex∣ample of the great St. Augustin, and set about it presently, while it is called day, lest the Night come upon you, when you cannot work. You are bound in Honour and Conscience to do it, and the World expects it from you, and will censure you when you are dead, if you leave it undone. Consi∣der therefore, Doctor, which of your contradictory Pieces is fit to stand in the Collection of your Works, to declare your last Opinion of things: Must the Old Case of Nonresistence. or the New Case of Allegiance make part of them? Will you stand by your Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our Ʋnion and Communion with him, and the Defence and Continuation of that discourse; or will you stand by the Discourse concer∣ning the Nature, Ʋnity and Communion of the Catholick Church, which Dr. Clegget told you was a flat Contradiction to the two former, and which you have been told again and again the Dissenters make ill use of against the Church of England? Shall your Sermons before, or your Sermons since you took the Oath, make part of that Collection: By which of your two Faces will you be represented to Posterity, the Face that looks back∣ward

before your Apostacy, or the Face that looks forward since you Apostatized from your Principles? And will you finally stand to your Tritheistical Notion of the Trinity, which hath so exposed you to the Ar∣rians and Socinians, or will you retract it? These are things, Doctor, that will require your most mature and serious Thoughts; and God grant, that you may so determine about them, as may be most for his Glory, the Honour of the Church of England, and that of your own Memory in Ages to come. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Case of Alleg. to Sovereign Powers.
• * 1.2

  P. 21, 22.
• * 1.3

  P. 6.
• * 1.4

  P. 19.
• * 1.5

  xxix p. 21.
• * 1.6

  Judge Jenkins in his Works, p. 28.
• * 1.7

  xxix. p. 24, 25, 26.
• * 1.8

  xxx. p. 23.
• * 1.9

  See h.
• * 1.10

  xxx. p. 23.
• * 1.11

  e. from p. 5. to p. 15. b. from p. 32. to p. 39. c. ch. p. 6. d. from p. 62. to p. 82.
• * 1.12

  P. 19.
• * 1.13

  xxx. p. 22.
• * 1.14

  P. 23.
• * 1.15

  P. 8, 9.
• † 1.16

  P. 9.
• ‡ 1.17

  P. 26, 27.
• ‖ 1.18

  f s p. 26, 27.
• * 1.19

  P. 19
• * 1.20

  P. 20.
• † 1.21

  P. 20.
• * 1.22

  b. p. 48.
• * 1.23

  Procop. Caes. de Bello Vanda∣lico, l. 1. c. 7, 8.
• * 1.24

  Dicerem, nisi adulatio videre∣tur, non imparem fuiss•• Julio Cae∣sari. Robertus Christiana Pie∣tate insignis. Anno 1139.
• * 1.25

  Robertus quasi positus in speculâ Rerum providebat exitum, & ne de juramento quod fe∣cerat sorori erga Deum & Homines perfidiae notaretur sedulo cagitabat. Anno 1137.
• † 1.26

  Homagio etiam abdicato rationem praeserens, quàm injuste id fecerat, quia & Rex illicite ad Regnum aspiraverat. — Ipsemet etiam contra Legem egecisset, qui post Sacramentum quod sorori dedirat, alteri cuilibet, ea viven∣te, se manus dare non trubuisset.
• ‡ 1.27

  Quamvis ipse jurasset juramen∣tum fidelitatis Imperatrici, & Henrico filio suo, tamen quasi Tempestas invasit Diadema Regni Angliae. Qui si legitime Regnum fuisset ingressus— Hoveden. Qui Rex illicite ad Regnum aspicaverat,— Malmsbury. Sed dum externam vim propulsat, Domestica petitur, jam manifeste Deo Perjurii poenas ob eo expectente. Polyd. Virg.
• ‖ 1.28

  Quibus, De propitio, salubriter actis Rex Angliam & Angliae Pacem recepit, Annis enim jam plarimis sere nudo Regis nomine insignis tunc recipere vijus est hujus rem nominis, quia tunc primo, purgata invasionis Tyrannica Macula Legitimi Principis Justitiam inducit.
• * 1.29

  Anno 1138.
• * 1.30

  Anno 1143. Non sum mei (inquit) sed alleni juris—
• * 1.31

  Ille velut Pe∣lagi rupes immo∣ta.
• * 1.32

  Non deerant qui ejus vicem dolentes sum∣mae Principes perfidiae, ac Edoardum Regem ac Isabellam impietatis criminis notarent— Aliqui Optimates, Auctore Edmundo Cantii Comite, secreta passim jam consilia & Sermones deliberāndo Edoardo una conserre ceperunt. Polyd. Virg. Ang. Hist. lib. 18.
• * 1.33

  As I suppose, the Earls of Salisbury, Huntington, Glocester, the Lords Clarenden, Roper, with divers other Knights and E∣squires; and after that the Lord Thomas Piercy Earl of Worcester, and Lord Henry Piercy, Son and Heir to the Earl of Nor∣thumberland.
• † 1.34

  In the first Volume of Fox's Acts and Monuments in the Reign of H. IV.
• * 1.35

  XXIX p. 17, 20.
• * 1.36

  Praelect. V.
• * 1.37

  p. 27.
• * 1.38

  p. 463. to 498.
• † 1.39

  Providence and Precept
• ‖ 1.40

  d. p. 101. c. p. 37.
• † 1.41

  Sir Francs Moorts Reports 79.
• * 1.42

  aa. p. 93.
• † 1.43

  De Jar. Bell. & Pac. l. 1. c. 14.
• * 1.44

  Vid. p. 58, 80, 81, 83, 85.
• * 1.45

  Vindic. p. 79, 80.
• * 1.46

  aa. p. 106, 111. See also p. 11.
• † 1.47

  a. Postscript.
• * 1.48

  P. 25.
• * 1.49

  P. 252.
• * 1.50

  c. p. 32, 33.
• * 1.51

  Sir Simon Dew's Journal, p. 23.
• * 1.52

  Dr. Tillotson's Serm. of Hell-Torments.
• * 1.53

  In a Letter to a Friend, containing some Queries about the New Commission for making Alte∣rations in the Liturgy, Canons, &c. of the Church of England; sent to the Press by Dr. Sherlock, and published a little before the first Sitting of the Convo∣cation.
• † 1.54

  p 5.
• * 1.55

  p. 15.
• * 1.56

  p. 17.
• † 1.57

  p. 20.
• * 1.58

  p. 1••.
• * 1.59

  Ibid.
• * 1.60

  p. 18.
• * 1.61

  p. 20.
• † 1.62

  Suppetunt plane quam plu∣rima ut hae literae S. C. quae in Aereis Nummis Romano∣rum, & in Argentis nonnullis leguntur E. X S C. quae Sena∣tûs Consulti Auctoritate Cu∣sos significant. Anton August. Dialog. 1.
• * 1.63

  See the learned Answer to the Bishop, aaa.
• * 1.64

  c. ch. 20.
• * 1.65

  p. 18.
• * 1.66

  Entituled, The Resurrection of Loyalty and Obedience out of the Grave of Rebellion, by the sa∣cred Force of the Oaths of Su∣premacy and Allegiance. Printed for Will. Shears in Bedford-street near Covent-Garden, at the blue Bible, and inscribed to Gen. Monk.
• * 1.67

  P. 19.
• * 1.68

  Ibid.
• * 1.69

  f. s. p. 10, 11, 12.
• * 1.70

  Reflexions on the Discovery of the late Plot, p. 15.
• * 1.71

  The Author of a Book, entitu∣led, Traite du Pourvoir absolu des Prin∣ces Soveraines, &c.
• † 1.72

  The Title of the Book is, Re∣flexious sur les Cinque Livres de Moyse. It was printed at London, 1687 But the Dedication of it bears date Dec. 12. 1636. In that he declares, that the Favours which his Majesty had done to th••se of their Nation, who sought for Repose under the shadow of his Scepter, were so great, and the Manner in which his Majesty had signalized his Compassion towards them, had had such Effect on the Spirits of his Subjects, that all the World ought to abhor them, if they had not a lively sense of his Benefits, and did not endeavour to signaliz•• an Eternal Grati∣tude to him. Then he proceeds to make a solemn Protestation in his own name, and the name of his suffering Countreymen, of a profound Submission to his Majesty's Commands, and an in∣violable fidelity to his Service; acknow∣ledging that he was the greatest Instru∣ment that God had chosen to protect and comfort 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in their Miseries, and that it was to God that they applied themselves in ••ti••ual Obligations of most ardent Vows for his Prosperity: And in the Conclusion begs leave that his Maie∣sty would accept the weak Efforts of his Zeal, and permit him to style himself his Majesty's most humble and most obtai∣ne Subiect and Servant, P. Allix. But forgetting all this when the Bishops were in the Tower, he said to one of his Acquaintance, What do the Tem∣poral Lords mean? Why do they not fly to 〈◊〉〈◊〉?
• * 1.73

  See the Ob∣servator pub∣lished Monday Aug. 21. and Wednesday Aug. 23. 1682.
• * 1.74

  In his Thanks∣giving Sermon before the Queen, p. 23.
• * 1.75

  p. 31.
• * 1.76

  Whitlock's Memoirs, p. 515, 516.
• † 1.77

  p. 532.
• * 1.78

  Id. p. 544.
• † 1.79

  Id. p. 545.
• * 1.80

  In Sir Roger L'Estrange's Aesop's Fables.