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
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-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
THE VINDICATION OF A LATE PAMPHLET ENTITULED Obedience and Submission TO THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT Demonstrated from Bp. Overal's convocation-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
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-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
convocation-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
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-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
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