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
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-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-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
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-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