Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A64277
|
The vindication of a late pamphlet (entituled 0bedience 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.
|
Taylor, Zachary, 1653-1705.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing T602; ESTC R37878
|
32,401
|
41
|
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-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-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
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