to a Government established by Law whether the Prince be Limited or Absolute is of absolute Necessity to the support of the Government And is it not so But this is Mr. P. 3. Johnson 's Passive Obedience that is limited to the Laws and not to the Prince The Author troubles not himself in thinking what it is but shrewdly suspects that the Answerer was conscious to himself that he abused him when in the very next Words he confesses that if so this is not only a plain Contradiction to the Convocations but to his own extracted Proposition Whence the Author supposes that his Suppositive If argues too manifestly a conscientiousness of Guilt Before I pass hence I must take notice of a fine Word that the Answerer hath met with Yclepd Irregularity which again he supposes the Author can mean nothing less by than a Prince's acting and governing against Law P. 3. by his favour besides Law will amount to an irregularity and for his new-found Universal Any when the Logicians shall so esteem it I will retrench my Indefinites PROP. IV. That having sworn Allegiance to a Prince we cannot without the dreadful guilt of Perjury transfer our Allegiance whilst he continues to have an Authoritative Right and Title to the Crown Kindly here he corrects the false Impression C. 36. which should have been the 30. But what most grieves him here are the Cramp-words of an Authoritative Right and Title and not finding them in the Convocation-Book he discovers again that I confess them my own in that I say an Authoritative Right and Title but he desires the favour once more to know where I had them I am loth to disoblige him and therefore may he know that I had them from the Words of Can. 31. where the Authority of Alexander is acknowledged to be setled amongst the Jews which if the Story be true and the Convocation-Book not I am to answer for that of necessity must be in the Life-time of Darius as the Book plainly intimates Ca. Can. 30 31. taking notice that he had preserved his Life by flight and if so there was an Expiration though not of Darius's Life yet of his Authoritative Right and Title And this the Answerer fairly confesseth in these Words The Convocation supposes that Darius had not at that time that Authoritative Title the Author mentions for they tell us expresly that this was when Darius was escaped by flight P. 27. after his Army was discomfited And so both he and they confess him at this time to be Alive But saith he The Author goes on and on he may go for any stop that he hath given him asserting that the Claim of Right without the Authority cannot Challenge our Allegiance Which whether the Sense of the Convocation or no is now to be examin'd CHAP. IV. Right and Authority Whether in the Sense of the Convocation to be always joyn'd as the Foundation of our Allegiance ONE of the greatest Points in Controversy between the Author and the Answerer is conconcering Right and Authority and whether they must of necessity be united before a Foundation whereon to build our Allegiance can be laid and therefore to place this in the clearest Light I will I. Consider what is meant by Right and Authority II. Lay down the Grounds on which each Party builds their Confidence of the Convocation favouring them III. Impartially and in their own words state the matter in debate betwixt them And. IV. Fairly adjust the Authority that each Party brings from the Convocation that the unbiast Reader may see where the Truth lies Now. 1. For the word Right when it is separated from and opposed to Authority the Author always understands a Right or Title founded upon Proximity of Blood which the Answerer calls a Legal Title I suppose he means it of the Law of Nature which indeed doth respect the aforesaid Right of Proximity of Blood Otherwise if he means it of the Laws of the Land it is very plain whatever Nature may our Constitution is not such as of necessity annexeth the Crown to the next Heir of the Blood for to say that the King and Parliament cannot dispose of it otherwise is a Praemunire And it was actually disposed of otherwise in its descent either upon Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth one of them being what I will not Name A King de facto too is a Legal King according to the Laws of the Realm Yet our Answerer I believe in his Sense will not own him such so that by Right he means the Right of Nature or Proximity of Blood which is what the Author understood by it when he opposed it to Authority nor could he indeed understand by it any thing else for Authority in this Case is nothing else but that Divine Power which God who is Superior to all Laws intrusts a Person with from above to act and execute with Equity and Mercy the Administration of a Government committed to his Hands So that the Opposition betwixt Right and Authority in the Author's Sense and he thinks in the Convocation too of which anon is not as the Answerer supposeth betwixt Right i. e. a Legal Title and Possession which he pretends is all that the Author means by Authority but the Author if he will give him Liberty to explain himself means something more by it as is above expressed But plainly the Opposition is betwixt Right as that implies a Civil Title amongst Men which excludes the Pretences of all other Humane Rights and Authority as that includes in it a Claim from God These two generally are united but God for Causes best known to himself may and sometimes doth separate them and when they are thus separated since it is by him that Kings Reign the Author supposeth his Allegiance to be due to God's Authority and not to the Civil Right And he thought he had proved this from the Instance of the Kings of Israel and Judah who being led Captive into Babylon though they survived there could lay no claim to the Allegiance of their Subjects And this it is or nothing that the Answerer must oppose But he Equivocates in his Notion of Right and sometimes understands by it Civil Right sometimes Divine and on this Homonimy the whole Stream of his Answer runs He must understand by it Civil Right when he puts the Query Page 4. Whether Allegiance may be separated from Right and transferred to Authority without Right So when he affirms that according to the Convocation Right without Authority may Ibid. and ought to challenge Allegiance and that Authority without Right cannot challenge it Where if he do not mean a Civil Right he fights without an Adversary But then in the very next Page by Right he must understand Divine Right where in the case of Jehu and Ahud he saith Page 5. It is plain from the Convocation-Book that they had a Right before Allegiance became due Where by Right he must understand
Divine Right for they had no Civil Right or Legal Claim to the Crown for Joram being in Possession and the other out his Title was far better by all Humane Laws And as for Ahud his being acknowledged a Subject he could pretend no Legal Title to the Crown Nor can he evade this by saying that they had both Gods express Nomination for that cannot alter the nature of things and create them a Civil Legal Title altho it gives them a Divine Authority which is far Superior unto it 'T is true he affirms that the Convocation expresly asserts Jehu to be a Lawful King page 5. but I expect he should recall his words unless he can make a Note of Similitude As of necessity to be a Character of Identity and prove things that may be construed only to be alike or equal to be the very same for the words are That Jehu upon the knowledge of Gods will page 46. and the Submission of the Princes and Captains of Israel unto hsm As to their Lawful King did put in execution the said Message by killing Joram Where the words only express the fullness of the Submission of the Captains to him who submitted as intirely As to their Lawful King but need not at all to respect a Legal Title for he had none Thus the Author hath declared what he means by Right and Authority and doubts not but to manifest it in its due place to be the meaning of the Convocation too For Secondly The account that he hath given of the calling of this Convocation and the Circumstances of Affairs that during its continuance occur'd which was to consider of the Claim of the United Provinces as to their being a Free and Independent State doth very plainly Evidence it For since their Authority could have no Legal Foundation it must wholly be derived from a Divine Interposition and it was not Civil Right but Gods Providence and Pleasure that possessed them of the Powers of Government I know the Answerer pretends the Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance to be the whole Design of the Book page 21. Now all that I shall say to this at present is that neither of these is so much as once expresly named in all the Book and that this is the whole design of it will be found difficult for him to prove But upon the apprehension of these different Ends and Intention of the Convocation the different Construction of the words of the Book are in some measure grounded therefore as I promised Thirdly I must impartially and in their own words state the Matter in Debate betwixt them And the Author plainly affirms that Right and Authority may be separated and that when they are so separated page 5. the Claim of Right i. e. Civil Right without the Authority i. e. the Divine Power of Government cannot challenge our Allegiance On the other side the Answerer asserts that Right without Authority may page 4. and ought to challenge our Allegiance and that Authority without Right cannot challenge it Now if Reason might decide it since the Authority even in Civil Right comes from God and the Powers that be are ordained of God it seems strange that the Ordinance of God cannot command our Allegiance because it doth not quadrate with the Constitution of Man or that God who is acknowledged by the Answerer to be above all Laws cannot by his Providence dispose of his own Power but according to Law But I must remember that our Appeal was to be to the Convocation book and to it therefore let us go which is the last thing Fourthly To adjust the Authority that each Party brings from the Convocation-book that the Unprejudiced Reader may see on which side the plain Truth doth lye I will begin with the Author whose Assertion is That the Claim of Right without Authority is not sufficient to challenge our Allegiance the terms of which being before explained he produceth these Authorities from the Convocation-book to confirm it which if a Man will but open his Eyes are positive and determinative The Ground on which the Convocation builds the Justification of Jehu and Ahad in laying violent hands on their lawful Sovereigns clearly prove it for that is this that God may and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors page 53. notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countries Kingdoms or Empires So that here is an Authority to which the Captains did pay Allegiance as to their Lawful King acknowledged without Right and executed without Guilt To put this past all doubt the Convocation-book having told us that it was not lawful for any Person whatsoever ibid. upon pretence of any Revelation Inspiration or Commandment from the Divine Majesty either to touch the Person of his Sovereign or to bear Arms against him makes this Exception Except God should first advance the said Person from his private Estate and make him a King or an Absolute Prince to succeed his late Master in his Kingdom or Principality Which words if they were not intended to express a Separation of Authority from Right and when they are so separated to vindicate our Allegiance to the Person whom God from a private Estate advanceth to be King have no design or meaning at All. It is to no purpose for the Answerer to pretend here Gods express Nomination for that is only to say that God may do by Revelation what he cannot by Providence and the one ought to be obeyed and not the other whereas if it be Gods doing in either way it requires our Submission Again the Convocation book expresly teacheth page 57. That Authority tho unjustly gotten and wrung by force from the True and Lawful Possessor who surely had and is here supposed to have the Legal Right being always Gods Authority is ever when any such Alterations are throughly settled to be Reverenced and Obeyed by all sorts of People and that for Conscience sake Where if they do not distinguish Authority from Right and require our Obedience to Authority against Right no words can declare it Again speaking of such Governments as are founded on being begun by Rebellion and I hope the Answerer will not say that Rebellion hath Right on its side the Convocation owns them when throughly settled page 59. to have Gods Authority and that the People who live within the Territories of such new Governments are bound to be subject to Gods Authority If this be not Demonstration I will pretend no more to it for it is hence plain enough that the Claim of Right without Authority cannot challenge our Allegiance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Case of the Moabites and Ammonites who had thus Authority over the Jews the History of the Kings and Chronicles and the very frame of the Governments in being throughout all the World are so many Instances of this Truth What the Answerer affirms to be the meaning of the
Convocation-book is this that Right without Authority may and ought to challenge our Allegiance page 4. and that Authority without Right cannot challenge it Now all that he brings for proof of this are these words Can. 17. If any Man shall affirm that the Kingdom of Judah by Gods Ordinance going by Succession when one King was Dead his Heir was not in Right their King howbeit by some Athaliah he might be hindered from enjoying it or that the People were not bound without any farther Circumstance upon sufficient notice of their former Kings death to have obeyed his Heir apparent as their lawful King he doth greatly err Add the Instance of Joash and Athaliah Where notwithstanding Joash had none of our Authors Authoritative Right and Title Ch. Can. 23. page 4. as the Answerer saith but if you believe it you believe a notorious Untruth as will shortly appear and had only the Claim of Right without the Authority yet when Jehojada called the People together and acquainted them with the Preservation of the Prince they altogether by a Covenant acknowledged their Allegiance to him as to their Lawful King and in consequence of that slew Athaliah the Usurper This is the whole of his Pretences and all that he can make of it is That God having declared that he would not give his Authority to any Person to Sway the Scepter of Judah but only such as were of the Line of David whoever did ascend the Throne not being of that Stock and Lineage did Usurp upon Gods Authority And when he can produce such a Declaration of Gods Pleasure concerning all other Kingdoms the Kingdoms of the whole World of which in General the Convocation treats then and not till then we shall allow his Plea for surely a particular and exempt priviledged Case of the Kingdom of Judah will not be a standing Rule for the Kingdoms of the whole World The Case of Athaliah But because this is all that he can build on it shall have a particular Disquisition The Case of Athaliah is the Burden of the Song let us therefore examine the Convocation-book about it which represents it thus David was called and advanced to the Kingdom of Judah by God himself Can. 14. as truly as Aaron was to the Priesthood and Davids Posterity had by Gods Ordinance as rightful an Interest to succeed him in his said Kingdom See Can. 17. as either Aaron 's Sons had to succeed him in the Priesthood or Moses and Joshua oend the rest of the Judges notwithstanding that God himself did chuse and named them particularly had in their Governments Nor had the People then any more Authority to withstand David or any of his Posterity from being their King than they had to have expelled either Moses or Joshua or any of the rest of the Judges whom God by name did appoint to govern them But Athaliah after the Death of her Son Ahaziah killed all his Children save one Chap. 23. who was secretly conveyed away and usurped the Throne which she held Six years After which space of time Jehojada acquainting the Fathers of Judah and Benjamin that Joash of the Seed of David to whose Posterity God had expresly given the Crown nay and what was more that it was the Lords Will that he should reign over them was alive page 31. they in Obedience to Gods express command acknowledge their Allegiance to him and advance him to the Throne In all which process saith the Convocation nothing was done either by Jehojada the High Priest ibid. or by the rest of the Princes and People of Judah and Benjamin which God himself did not require at their hands And let the Answerer produce such an Entail of the Crown upon a Family as this is let him add to that Gods express command to Dethrone the Possessor as the Convocation here saith Jehojada and the Princes had to depose Athaliah and then he produceth something to the purpose Otherwise since they attempted not to Dethrone Athaliah tho another had as Divine a Right to the Crown as Moses who was named by God till they were anew acquainted that it was the Lords Will that Joash should reign over them it would almost move a forward Man to infer the necessity of Circumspection and Caution in the Deposing even of Usurpers However from the Divine Entailment of the Crown of Judah on the Posterity of David it is manifest that Authority could not in them be separated from Right and therefore the Answerer unjustly affirms That Joash had not that Authoritative Right and Title which the Author speaks of page 4. but only a Claim of Right without Authority the contrary to which from what I have said is very evident What I would observe from the case of Joash and Athaliah is thus God by express Revelation had given to David and his Posterity the Throne of Judah and Israel and no one of those Kingdoms without opposing the Express Nomination of God could deny Allegiance to David or his Posterity till he had a Command as expressive to withdraw it as at first he had to yield it i. e. a plain Revelation to the contrary For since it was Gods express word to settle those Crowns on David and his Posterity nothing but the same word as Expressive could revoke the Donation It was therefore this express word by his Prophet revoking for the Sins of his Posterity that grant to David that excused the Ten Tribes in refusing their Allegiance to Rehoboam and transferring it to his Competitor And I believe it was the Admonition of the Prophet Jeremiah from God requiring the Jews to pay Obedience to Nebuchadnezzar that did discharge them of their Obedience to the Posterity of David For the Answerer may please himself with his Conceit of a Transferring Right But sure I am that God having once by Prophecy declared his Entailing the Crown on David and his Posterity nothing but a Prophecy to the contrary as express as that could ever revoke it or vindicate them in paying it elsewhere What I have discoursed of Gods express Nomination of the Posterity of David to rule the House of Judah that it required a Revelation as express to revoke that Authority and Donation may I think be happily applied unto all other cases where instead of Personal Designation by Prophecy the special Indication of Providence exalts Persons and Families unto Thrones and accordingly Dethrones them For what Prophecy was to them both to advance and remove that Providence must be to us There is now no Person or Family raised to a Crown but by the Providence of God and since it is Providence alone that doth inaugurate them when the same Providence doth Depose them who are we that we should Fight against God We have when once the Prevailing Power doth come unto a Settlement the same Providence that acted in their Exaltation and Depression to direct us in our Duty of Allegiance even as the
purpose because God did forbid it for this clearly shews that when a Prince is removed for his Usurpation it is God that did deprive him unless you will deny the Interposition of God in any other way than express Revelation which I suppose you dare not And this is so visible a Judgment of God upon Unjust Kings Edit Lat. Lond. 1651. P. 31. that the Book called God and the King cannot but take notice of it That it is common and familiar with God when he is vehemently provoked by wicked Kings and the Contemners of his Laws to threaten them that he will rent their Kingdoms from them as he did from Saul and Rehoboam and destroy and extirpate their Family But had he not had that express Prohibition might he not then have endeavoured to regain them P. 15. Yes if he would And so he did but what then doth God countenance Deposed Usurpers with Success No! he never could regain his Right And from this something more would follow than I shall mention The other thing is a foul Prevarication of Scripture for the Author says That God deprived Rehoboam of his Government for his only designed Usurpation whereas the Scripture is as express as can be that it was for the Idolatry of his Father Solomon If so I perceive Rehoboam had hard measure and God contrary to his express word made the Child to bear the Iniquity of the Father which unless they imitate the Fathers in Sin I believe the Answerer will not be so hardy as to assert and let him consider from hence who makes boldest with Scripture But tell me Sir was the Cause of this Dethronement so wholly Solomons Idolatry that Rehoboam had no Guilt in it or if he had Any speak out and shame the Devil For you might pretend if you so pleased the Saying which the Lord spake by Ahijah when he promised Jeroboam to whom he now gave the Kingdom to be the cause of it that so Gods Word which the Scripture also takes notice of might be fulfilled Yet neither of these being proper and personal to Rehoboam some other must be produced to clear the Equity of Gods dealing with him And since you disallow what I have mentioned pray Sir turn over your Bible and Squeeze out any other if you can Believe me Sir such Trifling Illusions as these may possibly become your Cause but they do not your Coat But the willful Prevarication that follows it is Injurious to them both for when I had noted That the Line of Descent in an Hereditary Kingdom might be interrupted and yet the Law of Succession not broken could I be supposed to mean it of Rehoboam and Jeroboam who were nothing related or of Solomon and Adonijah who are mentioned in the same Paragraph and where it is observed that the Younger Brother was advanced to the Crown I have heard and I find it true that none are so blind as those that will not see CHAP. VII Concerning a Thorough Settlement WE are now come to the Mighty Place and which indeed doth direct us in paying the Duty of our Allegiance for the Convocation taking notice of the Variation of Governments in the World having these words Ch. 28. P. 57. That when having attained their Ungodly Desires whether Ambitious Kings by bringing any Country into their Subjection or Disloyal Subjects by their Rebellions rising against their natural Sovereign they have established any of the said degenerate Forms of Government viz. Aristocratical Demecratical c. amongst their People the Authority either so unjustly gotten or wrung by force from the True and Lawful Possessor being always Gods Authority and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it is ever when any such Alterations are through setled to be reverenced and obeyed and the People of all sorts as well of the Clergy as of the Laity are to be subject unto it not only for Fear but also for Conscience sake Hereupon I had observed that upon a Revolution from the worst of Circumstances Usurpation and Rebellion Obedience to the Establishment is acknowledged due This the Answerer takes no notice of as if it had been nothing concerned in the Cause I then show'd the vast Dispacity betwixt that their Representation and our present Merciful Deliverance and Settlement but this also he passes over But when I moved here upon the Question when a Government may be said to be settled there he leaps like a Fish at a Fly and because I left out the word Throughly he thinks he has catch'd me Napping and what if he had greater than I are sometimes so taken But did I make any advantage of this Omission he charges me with none Did I not by Settlement intend as much a Thorough Settlement as if I had expressed it I am sure I did And after all what they call a Thorough do I not express it by a Real Establishment P. 12. by which for all he hath said I cannot yet but mean a Government that is Throughly Settled for what I said before I repeat again That that Government is then Setled and throughly Setled when the Crown with all its Dignities Prerogatives Administrations Authorities Revenues c. are generally Recognized and personally enjoyed which must be supposed to be when all Places of Power and Trust of Royalty and Importance are in the Sovereigns hands and wholly at his Disposal For to say because there are Foreign Wars or Secret Plots that the Crown is not in full Possession since there always were and always will be discontented Parties at home and Politick Machinations abroad that either actually do or craftily design to disture the Peace is to say that no Kingdom ever was or ever can be Setled He saw this last Period did obviate his Important Objection of Limerick and therefore he wisely but how fairly let others judge quite left it out But yet Limerick is a Place of Trust and therefore the Authors Notion of Settlement will do him no service just as much as he intended P. 16. and neither more nor less For it will prove as Thorough a Settlement now as was in Queen Elizabeth and some other Reigns when such-like places of Importance were in the Enemies hands But what becomes of the Poor Irish-men ibid. he doubts they must be Rebels for all our Authors Demonstration And the Author doubts the Tories will be so still which doubtless pleaseth the Answerer and somebody else besides one that would be call'd Most Christian very well Then for the Rest when the Answerer tells me what became of Jaddus whilst in the Power of Darius I will send him back the very self-same Answer for his satisfaction But a Victorious Army in Ireland sticks on his stomack and tho he is willing to blast them that they may fall before their Enemies yet neither his Breath or Pen is so Omnipotent and therefore acknowledging Ireland to be a Branch of the Crown of England
P. 17. annexed to it and dependent on it he plainly justifies them But Athaliah is brought on the Stage again for without her he can prove nothing and with her he only makes a noise But because the Thorough Settlement is made the other Pillar to support their Cause let us enquire what the Convocation intended by it And since he says There are but two ways to understand the Sense of any Author The natural and usual Construction of the words they express themselves by and if there be any Obscurity or Doubt in the meaning of some Expressions to interpret them by other Expressions and Assertions in the same Author to which he might have added a third had he so pleased the occasion of the Authors writing But because this would absolutely confute him by his own Rules I will try the Controversie before us Now the natural Construction of the words are very clear and easie that whenever an Usurper or Rebels have gotten the Authority of a Lawful Possessor into their hands and so throughly settled themselves that they are able to hold and maintain that same Authority which they have gotten he or they then are to be obeyed And that they can mean no more by it than an Ability to maintain the Authority they have got is plain from the Context and the whole Chapter which speaks and treats of Wringing and Forcing this Power out of the hands of the True Possessor and thereby throughly settling themselves Nay which intimates the Usurper or Rebels having attained their Ungodly Desires P. 57. to be the Measure and Standard of this Thorough Settlement But the Answerer runs into Fancies of his own and will have a Settlement to denote two things 1. The Legality of a Thing its being according to Law Very well P. 18. And is not a King de Facto Seignier la Roy according to our Laws He had much better for his own cause have let this Notion of Settlement alone But 2. It denotes a quiet and peaceable Possession without disturbance from other Claims or Pretenders Ask his Grace of Northumberland this whose Title of Northumberland tho throughly settled and so adjudged by the Supream Court in England yet wants not a Pretender who they say is again designing to make some disturbance about it And if this be so how ungrounded and unsettled is the Right of those Poor Princes in Germany to whose Territories the Answerers and his Masters Friend and Ally the Leviathan of France lays a Claim and creates Disturbances But the Owner is actually at Law with him or declares that he will be so so soon as he hath opportunity or Money to manage the Suit But if Judgment be given that the Man that is at Suit is not the Owner What then Why without Reflection be it spoken a Wrangling Knave and a Litigious Barreter will never acquiesce But there is one word more to be considered and that is throughly ibid. Throughly Settled Now what is the Import of Throughly but perfectly to all intents and purposes Come then and let us put these together and the Utmost of a Thorough Settlement is such a Right as is enjoyed plainly and evidently without any Contradiction or Objection That is such a Right as never will be in the World for there is not that Crown upon any Princes Head but what the variety of Principles amongst Men of diverse Parties will afford them matter of Objections against Such a Cobweb is the Answerers Thorough Settlement His other way of understanding the Sense of an Author is by consulting the Context and other places that that was their meaning and no other Now what can you expect from such an Undertaker but Demonstration as clear nay clearer than the Authors but Parturiunt montes out comes the Case of Athaliah for had he not that String like a Trump Marine to Fiddle on his Musick would be at an end Yet upon this he hangs out a Flag of Defiance and defies the Author or any body else to shew him one single Instance either in this Chapter or any where in the whole Book of any Government that the Convocation requires and justifies Allegiance to be paid to but what had first acquired a Right And if by Right he means a Civil Legal Right which he must or he says nothing I say and have before proved That there are as many Instances of it as there are of Revolutions of Government for the Case of Athalia I have shew'd to be an exempt Case and to requite him I defie him and all his Party to produce out of this Convocation Book one Instance wherein Allegiance is denied to be due to God's Authority and to be owing to Legal Right for Joash he by this time knows is acknowledged to have both I all this while have waited that the Answerer should have made good his sense of the Convocation by other parallel Expressions and Assertions in the Book as he promised P. 17. but he hath disappointed me and if it must be done I must do it my self To work then let us go And besides a long continuance or Prescription to which both Parties acknowledge Allegiance to be due but which in sudden Revolutions can have no place and therefore is nothing to our present purpose I find the Convocation supposeth these New Forms of Government for so they call them Can. 28. page 59. which intimates that they did not think Continuance to be absolutely necessary to their thorough Settlement to be throughly settled I. Can. 31. page 67. When the People are under the New Governor's Power and Protection for so they affirm of the Jews That they were the Subjects of Alexander after his Authority was setled amongst them which was when Darius was vanquished Pag. 64 65. but was yet alive being escaped by flight Where the settlement of his Authority and his favourable dealing with them of which the Convocation speaks but not a syllable of his Right is made the Foundation of their Duty and they further give this common Reason why the Jews were bound to pray for the long Life and Prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire as they had done of the other Kings ibid. Because they lived under their Subjection II. Especially if there be a general Submission of the People for the want of this is given as one reason of Antiochus his Government not being setled amongst the Jews ibid. And the access of this is the only Title whereby Mattathias and his Posterity could claim Allegiance from the People for I challenge the Answerer to produce out of the Convocation-Book the intimation of the least Civil Right to it For if a Possessory Right be something and as he saith Page 19. where there is not better it ought to carry it it is plain that Antiochus being possessed had the better Legal Title yet for want of the general Submission of the People it was not esteemed setled and therefore
this time I hope the Answerer hath found out a Difference CHAP. VIII The Close and Summary of the Whole THE Summ and Substance of the Whole is this God Delegates to Kings Authority and Power to Govern the People committed to their Charge in his Stead and for their Good And as a King in a Dependent Kingdom constitutes a Deputy and Communicates with his Power part of his Name unto him by making him a Vice-Roy so God by exalting of them to that Great Trust makes them as it were Vice-Gods for of them he saith himself That they are Gods And as the Vice-Roy is Responsible to none but the King that entrusted him so Kings are only Accountable to God whose Power they have and in whose Stead they Rule and if they do abuse his Trust and Power seeing no one else can God hath undertaken to call them to an Account for their Miscariages since as was said in the Pamphlet all their Violations of this Trust reflect upon God whose Trustees they are And this is the Reason that makes him threaten so severely to punish Governors that neglect his Laws and abuse his Power For as the King his Vice Roy so God may Depose them at his own Will and Pleasure And when they Manage Affairs to his Dishonour and the Discouragement of Virtue and Probity as he may so also since he himself holds the Helms of all Governments in his own hands it may be supposed that he will for the sake of Justice Animadvert upon them for shall not the God of the Whole Earth do Right No one else can and therefore He or none must do it And when he doth this it often is by Removing them from that Power and Authority that he had Commissioned them with and as a King on the Complaint of the Misgovernment of a Vice Roy by committing that Charge and Province to Another For God doth Kings and Emperors no wrong though he thus displace them they being Nothing else but his Agents and Officers and to be Employ'd no longer than he knows it to be for the Good of his Church and People When ever therefore for the sake of an Oppressed people he is pleased thus to Remove and Displace an Arbitrary and Usurping Governor and raise another to his Trust and Dignity whom he in his Infinite Wisdom foresees to be more for the Good of his Church and the Glory of his Providence all Good people are in Conscience bound submissively to Comply with God's Doing and yield a Chearful Obedience to his Authority which where-ever it is ought to be Reverenced Now because the Meaning of God in such Revolutions are often Dark and Ambiguous for they may be for our Sins as well as the Sins of our Governors therefore we ought throughly to debate the Case in our own Conscience and unfeignedly and impartially Examine where the Guilt lies in Us or in our Governors for if for some conceived displeasure to their Persons or Government we rashly and too forwardly withdraw from them that Duty we owe we do but add Iniquity to Sin But if we find our selves in such Circumstances that without any sinful Co operation of ours a Door is opened for our Deliverance One scarce can suppose it any thing but God's Gracious Interposition And since God doth by his Providence now what in the days of Prophecy he did by his Immediate Revelations when we see the same Events Consequent upon the same Antecedent Causes and God hath plainly told us by his Word that He hath done the One how can we deny in a Parity of Causes and Events but that the same Hand did also the Other Especially when we see the Injured party flying to God for Help or in the Use of the last Remedy making his Appeal for Justice This is the Summary of the Whole Case and it would be Hard indeed if when Deliverance comes upon our Prayers and Tears We might not embrace it Let those that hanker after the Onions in an Egyptian Bondage fix their Eyes on them till the Effluence of the Acrimony force them to Weep I for my part will Wipe mine Eyes and thank God that there is no Leading into Captivity and no more Complaining in Our Streets To close up All. Since the force of the Argument runs much upon Providence which the Answerer would in this case as a Loofe Sect of Philosophers that he knows of do in others discard from interposing so far as to be an Inducement for Men to Act Agreeably to it I cannot for all him but Conclude with a Remarque of the Wonderful Providence of God in Reserving this Convocation-Book which was so long concealed for the Publication of these Difficult Times and the Determination of so Weighty a Matter I will not say what Party put it forth but there seems to be a Providence in that too But I will say It hath had Good success in Bringing over One that was the Bulwark of their Cause And that it may prove more and more so Successful in prevailing with the Answerer and the Right Reverend the Fathers and Pastors of This our Too much Divided Church is the Hearty and Daily Prayers of the Author which may God Almighty in his own Good Time both Hear and instead of any other Answer Amen A True Copy of a Letter Writ by King James the First to Dr. Abbot concerning the Convocation called Anno 1603. 1. Jac. and continued by Adjournments and Prorogations to 1610. Now in the Hands of a Gentleman of the Temple Good Dr. Abbot I Cannot abstain to give you my Judgment of your Proceedings in your Convocation as you call it and both as Rex in solio and unus gregis in Ecclesia I am doubly concerned My Title to the Crown no body calls in question but they that neither love you nor me and you guess whom I mean All that you and your Brethren have said of a King in Possession for that word I tell you is no worse than that you make use of in your Canon concerns not me at all I am the next Heir and the Crown is mine by all Rights you can name but that of Conquest and Mr. Sollicitor has sufficiently expressed my own Thoughts concerning the Nature of Kingship in General and concerning the Nature of it ut in mea Persona And I believe you were all of his Opinion at least none of you said ought contrary to it at the time he spoke to you from me But you know all of you as I think that my Reason of calling you together was to give your Judgments how far a Christian and a Protestant King may concur to assist his Neighbours to shake off their Obedience to their own Sovereign upon the account of Oppression Tyranny or what else you like to name it In the late Queens time this Kingdom was very free in assisting the Hollanders both with Arms and Advice and none of your Coat ever told me that any scrupled at it in her Reign Vpon my coming to England you may know that it came from some of your selves to raise Scruples about this Matter And albeit I have often told my Mind concerning Jus Regium in Subditos as in May last in the Star-Chamber upon the occasion of Hales his Pamphlet yet I never took any notice of these Scruples till the Affairs of Spain and Holland forced me to it All my Neighbours call on me to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain and the Honour of the Nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned especially after so much Money and Men spent in their Quarrel Therefore I was of the Mind to call my Clergy together to satisfie not so much me as the World about us of the Justness of my owning the Hollanders at this time This I needed not to have done and you have forced me to say I wish I had not You have dipped too deep in what all Kings Reserve among the Arcana Imperii And whatever Aversion you may profess against Gods being the Author of Sin you have Stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion in saying upon the Matter that even Tyranny is Gods Authority and should be Reverenced as such If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom you leave me to seek for others to Fight for it For you tell us upon the Matter before hand his Authority is Gods Authority if he prevail Mr. Doctor I have no time to express my Mind farther in this Thorny Business I shall give you my Orders about it by Mr. Sollicitor and until then meddle no more in it for they are Edge Tools or rather like that Weapon that 's said to Cut with the one Edge and Cure with the other I commit you to Gods Protection Good Dr. Abhor And rest Your Good Friend James R. FINIS