THE VINDICATION OF A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED Obedience and Submission TO THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT Demonstrated from Bp. Overal's Convocation-Book From the False Glosses and Illusive Interpretations of a Pretended Answer By the Author of the First Pamphlet LONDON Printed for Ric. Baldwin near the Oxford-Arms-Inn in Warwick-Lane MDCXCI THE PREFACE MAlice and Ignorance are very Spiteful and Opprobrious Words and such as the Author had little Comfort of since he saw them in the Printed Pamphlet for he had learnt That the Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God And his design was not to provoke and exasperate but if he could to win and prevail upon his Non-juring Brethren with Calmness and Composedness to examine candidly whether what he had writ was the Sense of that Learned Convocation or no Hoping that if they found it was they might be brought over to comply with and increase the Happiness of this Present Government Far therefore was he from reproaching them with Malice or Ignorance for he Reverenced the Persons and Admired the Parts and lamented the loss of many of them So that the Truth is those words never fell from the Pen of the Author and therefore he desires that the Dissembling Stationer who abused him in Printing the Book without his knowledg may be examined about it for till those words were Printed he knew nothing of them Whoever therefore would be so abused may commit his Papers to Mr. C and from his Confederacy with the Non-Jurors Party he may expect to be so treated THE VINDICATION OF OBEDIENCE TO THE Present Government c. CHAP. I. Concerning the Imputation cast on those who took the Oaths before the Publication of the Convocation-Book THE first Effort of the Answerer is an Imputation of Guilt upon all the Jurors and that whether the Allegations of the Author from the Convocation p. 1. be true or false This is hard on many a good man that knew nothing either of the obscure Convocation or the obscurer Author But so it is For this can by no means justifie them being at the best but a Pretence taken up after the Fact and as a subsequent Law cannot condemn so neither can it justifie a Fact previous to it But doth he think the Author produced this for a Reason of what he had beforehand done The Answerer is not so soft but he knew this to be only an Inducement to such as himself that were more scrupulous of the Equity and Legality of it And the Case is this The Church of England had not by any Publick Act that we knew of interposed her Judgment on either side but every man was left to the Direction of his own Conscience guided by the General Principles of that Church and the Word of God And all the Obligation that the Church could lay upon them was only an acting consonantly to her declared Principles Hereupon some took the Oaths and some did not and yet I dare not think but that both Parties acted on a Principle of Conscience Afterwards an old Convocation-Book is produced and the Jurors perusing it discover the Doctrine of the Church of England to justify their Proceedings Now though the subsequent Discovery could not be produced as the Ground and Reason of their Previous Act yet sure I am it doth clear and vindicate them from that Scandal of their deserting their Old Principles which some men labour to cast upon them And that was all that was designed from it But if in the Innocency of our Souls we had acted besides the Principles of the Church of England which were not sufficiently declared to us could those who kept this Book so long private and afterwards publish'd it as if it had been meant for a Snare to our Consciences hold themselves excused Whatever they can do in this respect P. 2. we are call'd upon to shew any other Publick Act of the Church of England any Opinion of one of the approved Sons thereof the practice of any one that own'd her Principles in favour of the Doctrines we now teach and the Practices we now follow and then we shall be allowed to say something To obtain his favour though the Principles whereupon men took the Oaths were various yet I will instance some of them and oblige my Answerer by confirming them both by the Authority of Principles and Practice which is all that a Man can require Now 1. Some men took the Oaths upon a Supposition That the Violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Land did release them from the Duty of their Allegiance and though the Convocation-Book doth no where purposely discourse this Case P. 27. yet the Notion that it gives of Tyranny of which more presently and its vindicating the Jews in opposing Autiochus Epiphanes a Tyrant leaves us very doubtful of their sense herein But tho they be silent since the Opinion of one Church-of England-man that is a Man approved will satisfie the Answerer he shall have Bishop Bilson's Judgment in this Case who discoursing purposely of Christian Subjection P. 279. Ed. 1586. Dare not rashly pronounce all that resist to be Rebels because Cases may so fall out even in Christian Kingdoms where the People may plead their Right against their Prince and not be charged with Rebellion And being demanded to produce an Example he adds If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or Change the Form of the Commonwealth from Impery to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by Common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own pleasure in these saith he and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to defend their Ancient and Accustomed Liberty Regiment and Law they may not well be counted Rebels This will justifie I think all those that deserted his Late Majesty had they done more than they did For an Embassy to Rome an Arbitrariness over Laws and before the Oaths were imposed yea probably before the Desertion an Open Negotiation with France which means our Slavery amounts to such a Vindication of us and them as cannot from this Principle be denied And this his Determination is not destitute of all Reason For if our Allegiance respect primarily the Government and then the Governour as the Head of it See his Case of the Engagement as Bishop Sanderson seems to intimate it sollows thence That by vertue of the Duty that we owe unto the Government Allegiance must although the Rightful Governour by withdrawing incapacitate himself to receive it be paid somewhere or other or else the Government must be dissolved And since this Learned Bishop judged thus I doubt not but as some others that built on the same Principles he would have practised so also 2. Others supposing that the King's Desertion or Abdication which you will left them in a State of Liberty thought their late Oath of Allegiance to him was vacated and so were free to oblige themselves anew And
my Lord Clarendon observing that the Word Abdicate is no new Word nor the Caprice and Humour of Princes to abdicate their Kingdoms a new thing And representing it as the hardest Case of Subjects without their Privity Surv. of Lev. p. 94 95. to be left in an instant without any Protection without any Security as a Prey to all that are too strong for them He adds That it is no New Transaction for Kings and Princes to resign and RELINQVISH THEIR CROWN AND SOVEREIGNTY nor may it be the better for being old Yet besides other Accounts there mentioned Some Princes saith he have been so HVMOROVS as upon the FROWARDNESS AND REFRACTORINESS OF THEIR SVBJECTS AND BECAVSETHEY COVLD NOT GOVERNIN THAT MANNER THEY HAD A MIND TO DO TO ABDICATE THE GOVERNMENT AND WOVLD HAVE BEEN GLAD AFTERWARDS TO HAVE RESVMED IT Now I imagine according to the Judgment of that Great Statesman and true Church-man that our Allegiance to the Late King is void And the Letter of which I have sufficient Testimony sent from the Jesuits to King James at Sailsbury advising him to leave the Kingdom with a promising Assurance That he should be Restored and have his ENDS upon us implies something worse than a Caprice or Humour 3. The most that I have had Converse with conclude their Present Majesties to have a Right to as well as Possession of the Crown and that not only from the Law of the Land which receives and owns them as Legal King and Queen but also upon the Appeal which they made to God for the Injustice done them on account of the Impostor which being determined on their sides fairly gives them a Divine Right And if so then the Ground-work of the Gentleman 's whole Answer is undermined and his Building must fall And this the Author in his Pamphet asserted but because he knew not what to say to it he haughtily past it by And thus much for the Principles of some Approved Church-of England-men Then for their Practice The Case of the Engagement represented by the Judicious Bishop Sanderson who plainly intimates some good men to have taken it and which is left almost in an Aequilibrio by that profound Casuist nay and which was taken by a Great and Good Man now with God a Dying Advocate of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience shews the Practices of some that have owned her Principles not to be altogethee repugnant to ours But this is an unpleasing Subject because reflexive upon other men From hence therefore let us proceed to enquire something after the Convocation-Book CHAP. II. An Account of the Convocation-Book and why it wanted the Royal Confirmation THE Sense and meaning of this Convocation being to be enquired after especially in these two things 1. Whether Right must of necessity be united to Authority before our Allegiance can be due unto it And 2. When a Revolution of Government may be supposed to have obtained a thorow Settlement I thought it not amiss to enquire into the Reasons for the calling of the Convocation the circumstances of Affairs when the Book was written and the Causes why it was laid to sleep not being suffer'd to appear with the Royal Confirmation For the understanding of these will mightily assist us to comprehend their meaning And what I have received is thus The Spaniards growing weary of their wars with the Vnited-Provinces seeing Queen Elizabeth the great supporter of the Dutch against the House of Auflria to grow old and knowing that James then King of the Scots was after her decease to succeed her in the Throne of England a Prince of a Peaceable Disposition they made previous Applications to him to pre-engage him when he came to the Crown of England to mediate a Truce or Peace between them and Holland The good Queen according to the course of Nature in some time after dies whereupon the Spaniards by their Ambassador as soon almost as King James was seated on the English Throne renew their Negotiation with him to mediate the foresaid Truce supposing the Vnited-Provinces would scarce refuse his Interposition because at that time he held in his hands some Cautionary Towns of theirs which had been delivered to the late Queen The King being of himself inclinable to Peace and to oblige the Spaniards who had a Pontifical claim to the Crown of England to own and acknowledg his Right and Title to that Crown that so he might secure to himself the certainty of enjoying ease and safety undertakes the Mediation But difficulties arising from the Dutch Pretentions who demanded to be acknowledged a Free and Independent State tho' they had but lately withdrawn themselves from the Crown of Spain His Majesty of Great Britain taking this to be a tender Point and of great consequence to all Crowned Heads if a Province or Principality having shaken off their Ancient Lord might set up for a Free and Independent State desirous also to over-rule the Dutch in their Allegations to this Claim on the apprehension of a Fear that it would void the overtures of the designed Truce That he might do it with the greater appearance of Authority and Judgment he resolves to consult his Convocation about the Origine of Government its various Forms Alterations and Modifications intending them especially to exalt the Sacredness and Grandeur of Monarchy Accordingly the Convocation go to work and deduce the Power of Government from its natural and prime Original taking notice what it was in it self whence Tyranny and Arbitrary Power usurped upon the Patriarchal How that again was retrenched and the True Fatherly Government setled amongst his own People the Jews till the Captivity of Babylon giving also an Account what became of them afterwards what Revolutions they underwent till they and all the Western World were made subject to the Roman Eagle This led them to treat of the Variation of Government by the Providence of God who casts down Kings and sets up Kings who alters Kingdoms and turns them into Aristocratical or Democratical States and on the contrary States into Dukedoms Elective Monarchies and the like As also what Obedience ought to be paid to the said Governments when they are once throughly setled upon such Revolutions laying down a Rule when People with a safe Conscience may nay ought to pay Obedience to their Authority But their Determination herein touching too hard upon the Claims of Sovereigns and the Royalties of Monarchies of which scarce ever Prince had more tender feeling than that his Majesty of Britain King James is displeased with it and them charging them that they had dipped too deep into what all Princes did reserve amongst the Arcana Imperii as from his Letter at the end may be seen and by Orders sent by Mr. Sollicitor restrains them from medling any farther in it And this I believe might be a Reason why the Convocation which had promised to treat of the Government of the whole World did not handle more particularly the Case of Free
and Independent States which are and were one sort of Government in the World and comprized by them as I before hinted in the word Kingdoms and which the clew of their discourse would have led them to and they plainly seem to aim at Ch. Ca. 23. had they not by a Prohibition from the King been restrained However they said enough to maintain the Dutch Pretences who insisted immovably on the Claim of being acknowledged a Free and Independent State or else no Accommodation would be hearkened to no Truce concluded And the Spanish Affairs being such at that time as would not suffer them to contest the matter any longer they thought it convenient to yield to their Claim or if you would have it in the Answerer's Language to transfer their Right over to the States whereupon a Truce betwixt them was concluded whereof King James was made the Chief Guarantee And these were the Circumstances when the Convocation sat as from the History of those Times the Date of the Convocation which was called Anno 1603 and continued by Adjournments and Prorogations to 1610. that is a year after the aforesaid Truce was concluded which commenced in April Anno 1609. and ended after the Term of Twelve years and above all by King James his Commission to this Convocation if we could be so happy as to get a fight of it Thus the Affairs of Spain and Holland were Accommodated but it netled King James to have the Convocation determine so positively of Obedience to be due to Governments established upon such Revolutions as are there mentioned Hereupon it is supposed that he refused the Canons his Royal Assent and left them to be devoured Blattis Tineis or at least by Old Time if by nothing else But for the Honour of the Convocation something was to appear lest that Venerable Assembly should seem to meet only as the Emperor with his Army to gather Cockle-shels And therefore as I guess for it is no more the Book call'd God and the King which whoever compares with this will find in many things of its last Part to be an Abstract of some of these Chapters was collected hence and sent abroad into the World to atone his displeased Majesty And so much for the Convocation and the Occasion of their being summoned and Commissionated CHAP. III. Concerning the Four Propositions of Government Extracted out of the Convocation-Book A Grievous Charge is now laid against me That though I pretended to demonstrate yet I have omitted many things that are material P. 2. â— and pertinent to the present Controversie about Government and Allegiance That what I have drawn up into Proâ—â—sitions I have in some of them if not in all curtail'd and diminished the â—â—ll sense of the Convocation That above all by adding words and Limitions and Glosses and Explications I have destroyed the Text and perâ—â—â—tly corrupted and perverted their sense Well! I will not take any exceptions at his words else how I could argue on a Subject without adding Glosses and Explications c. I know not but how far I am guilty I leave the Reader to judge and so hasten to the Propositions The First of which was PROP. I. That the Power of Kings was originally Patriarchal Derived from God and not from the People Ca. 2 6 13. On which the Complaint is That I have expounded away P. 12. as I always do the sense of the Convocation for it seems I say that Kings are and ought to be bound up by Laws P. 13. and he prays to know by what Laws The very next words tell him but because nothing will digest with him but the express words of the Convocation-Book from them he might have understood that they wre the Laws of God and Nature P. 9 11. as they did concern Civil Societies and Governments which surely ought to bind But why did not I express it in the words of the Convocation-Book to which I refer A man hath need of patience that hath to deal with such a Questionarist But to give him satisfaction It was because I had a mind to deliver in general what the Convocation had said but in Particular For that very same Reason that obliged the Kings of Judah to the Observation of the Civil-Laws of their Particular Government obligeth all other Kings to the observation of the Fundamental Establishâ—â— Laws of their Respective Kingdoms And since it is the King 's being bound up by Laws that stomachs the Answerer I desire he would take notice from the Convocation what those Princes are that wâ—â—â— not be bound up by Law For Nimrod say they and by a Parity 〈◊〉 Reason we may add all such like Princes not cententing himself with the Patriarchal or Mild Government ordained of God by the Laws Reason and Nature became a Tyrant and Lord of Confusion Should have delivered this Notion of Tyranny to be sure we had had it 〈◊〉 his Scheme of New Notions and therefore I recommend it to the Answerers consideration Only I observe from them That a Patriarchal Power and the being limited in the Exercise of Power by Law are not inconsistent PROP. II. That Descent in Hereditary Kingdoms is the Ordinary way whereby a Right and Title to the Crown is claimable His Quarrel here is that these Words The Ordinary Way are Words of mine own for he observes that I add P. 2. I say the ordinary Way And since these were Words of mine own how could I let him know it otherwise than by telling him and all men that they were my Saying Surely the Cause is sinking when men catch thus at Reeds and Rushes But since I must not say pray do you say Is the Proposition true or false If true why so captious at it and if false why do you not reject it No matter for that for tho' there be some extraordinary ways in Hereditary Kingdoms P. 2 3. that may give a Right and Title to the Crown besides Descent yet the Author 's extraordinary way is none of them For this I shall appeal to the Reader to judge as also for his ingenuity in interpreting the Author's Meaning from the convocation-Convocation-Book which asserts That the Lord both may and is able to overthrow Kings or Emperors notwithstanding any Claim Right Title or Interest which they can challenge to their Countries Kingdoms or Empires to be only God's Permissive Providence which I think the Author scarce mentions above once and that far from the Sense that the Answerer would insinuate But my Citation and his must be adjusted anon and therefore here I will speak no more of this matter PROP. III. That no Violence is to be used to Kings from their own Subjects for any Irregularities that they commit This he saith doth not fully express the sense of the Convocation yet he intimates not wherein it is defective but the Author's Comment destroys it How does this appear Why Because the Doctrines of Passive Obedience
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-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
but who had the design of a Scandal could misinterpret it for what is more Intelligible than this that Government in General deriving its Authority from God the Author of Nature and consequently of Humane Societies must signifie that the same God who was the Author of our Nature being Sociable was consequently the Author of Humane Societies which must of necessity follow a Sociable Nature What more strained forced and disturbed than his Explication of it is which first would make me suppose Humane Societies and then Government for they were directed saith he to Society and from that to Government as if there could be Society without Government when Government is only an Administration of Societies Such another disingenious Practice doth he fly to wherein he pretends that quoting a Passage out of the Convocation book P. 25. P. 47. I changed Benedictions into Predictions as if they were all one Whereas the words were not quoted out of the Convocation-book but were my own words put into an Observation that I thence had made so that he might have understood the word Benedictions to have been falsly Printed for Predictions but then he had wanted an Exception against the Author and by such means as these must a Tottering Cause be supported The next thing that he is displeased at is the Gloss I give upon these words That Government is not derived from the People tho their Consent be ordinarily necessary to the Constitution P. 13. both of the Form of Government and the Persons Governing And is it not so ibid. he is silent upon it But it is plain the Convocation never thought so but the contrary But whence proves he this not a word of the Pudding for if you will not believe him he cannot afford to prove it But sure I am the Peoples having notice of God Ch. 17. even his appointing Princes Judges and Kings that they might conform themselves to Obedience and their chearfully and with great Thankfulness submitting themselves to be ruled by them their willingly protesting their Obedience their following them their shouting when they saw them and saying God Save the King and other such Expressions of their Joy and Gladness are no Intimations that their Consent was not had in all that was done Indeed the Canon saith That the King did not receive any such virtue or strength from the People Can. 17. their said Notice Presence and Applause as that without the same the said Callings of God either by Name or by Succession had been Insufficient And elsewhere That when God raised up Judges to Rule and Govern them Can. 13. the Peoples consent was not necessary thereunto But whoever pretended it was when God immediately did Interpose or could so much as imagine it unless we should conceive a People so Foolish as not to Acquiesce in the manifest Choice and Determination of an All-wise and an All-good God or so Besotted as to think they might insist upon their Right against his Declaration which was the Case of Judah And for other the best constituted Governments when the Solemnity of the Coronation is altered He may then but not till then Dispute the Insignificancy of their Consent Well at last however through all the Authors and the Answerers Shufflings and Intermixings we are got to this Point P. 13. That Government derives its Power from God and not from the People And because I thought that herein we should agree I made it the Ground-work of the following as well as it is of the antecedent Discourse and confirmed it and who would think the Answerer should be displeased by having such a pleasing Truth confirmed by three Observations all which are so many Arguments that Government derives its Authority from God For if all Kingdoms now be in some sort Theocracies if the Tenure of Sovereigns be such that God may divest them of that Power and transfer both it and the Duty that is owing to it unto some other Person it undeniably follows that Government derives its Power from God And tho he disproves not one of these nay fairly acknowledgeth the Truth of the two last yet his Captious Humour will not suffer him to pass over the first because there is something that misrepresented he may find occasion to talk of Nothing could be fairer than having observed from the Convocation that all Kingdoms are now in some sort Theocracies I should express it in what sort they were so and this I did by shewing from the Book That God used the Ministry of Civil Magistrates Ch. 35. P. 83. as well in other Countries as amongst his own Peculiar People Israel without any desert of theirs but as in his Heavenly Providence he thought it most convenient This seems to me to respect his Choice of the Persons of the Governours whose Ministry he useth and since this was one Instance of the Theocracy of Israel as the Convocation intimates when they tell us that upon recourse to God he did appoint one for their Prince P. 18. P. 21. chief Captain and Ruler I think in this sort and Sense Christ Jesus to whom all Power both in Heaven and Earth is committed doth for the good of his Catholick Church thus rule the World And for this Kingdom in particular it is something remarkable what Mr. Camden in his Remains relates of one Brithwald a Monk who not long before the Conquest busying his Brain much about the Succession of the Crown because the Royal Blood was almost extinguished had a strange Vision and heard a Voice which forbad him to be Inquisitive of such Matters sounding in his Ears The Kingdom of England is Gods own Kingdom and for it God himself will Provide But the Answerer doth not much oppose this only he complains of a Brood of New Notions amongst which Theocracy is one P. 14. and truly as he interprets it to be only Gods Permissive Providence it is so But then that is a Notion of his own not of the Authors He next takes notice of the Authors Infortunity in proving his Principles who to prove that Providence designs the Person of the Sovereign in other Kingdoms as well as in Judah P. 14 15. instances only in the Kingdom of Judah P. 14. And are not these Pure Proofs But the Author thought he had proved this from the Convocation book and brought those Instances only for an Illustration of the manner how God did it And for the case of Rehoboam whereon I had remarked That God sometimes for the only designed Usurpation of a Prince whose Title and that in an Hereditary Kingdom was altogether indisputable does deprive him of the Government in part or whole and will not allow him so much as to endeavour the regaining of it he finds two things that deserve Reflection the one is That Rehoboam's not regaining the Ten Tribes P. 15. was expresly forbidden by God and so nothing to our Authors purpose Yes therefore to the Authors
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