THAT those of the Church of En­gland, who have taken the Oaths to Their Majesties KING William and QUEEN Mary, have De­serted their Principles about Allegiance and Government, is the common Reflection cast upon them, by some, whom either Malice or Ignorance does Dispose to Reproach 'em: But since Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book appeared, they now Plead Reason and Au­thority [Page 2]to Justify the Scandal, and pretend that they have got a whole Convocation of Unprejudic'd and Learned Men, who have Unanimously Condemned the late Sub­mission, and such, as being far removed from any Temptation, are the fittest and most fair Judges that we can be Deter­mined by; (tho' their Proceedings not ha­ving the Royal Confirmation which is ab­solutely necessary for Canons, does (as some think) very much, if not altogether inva­lidate their Authority, and makes 'em as insignificant as the last Convocation we heard of.) I thought therefore I might do some Service to the Church, and its Members, if I could in some Measure Vin­dicate It and Them, by proving that their Compliance with the present Settlement, has not in the least deviated from the Doctrine of the Church of England, as it was Profess'd and Taught in that Convo­cation.

I shall begin therefore with laying down the Doctrine about Government and Alle­giance in Four Propositions extracted out of the Convocation-Book, to which may be [Page 3]Reduced, whatever almost can be pretend­ed in this Controversy;

And they are these,

First, That the Power of Kings was Ori­ginally Patriarchal, Deriv'd from GOD and not from the People, C. 2.6, 13.

For tho' Kings are, or ought to be Bound up, and Limited in the Exercise of their Power by Laws, C. 15. yet that proceeds from GOD and Nature, who never in­tended Princes to be such Leviathans, whose wilful Pleasure should be Laws; but Pa­rents of their Countrey, Impowered from Above to Maintain the Native Liberty and Property of their Subjects, as of their Children. For the Conceit of Absoluteness never did, or could prevail in any State, but where Superstition or Ignorance blind­ed Mens Reasons, as in Turky, and most of the Eastern Empires; or Parasitical Flattery, and the naked Sword Maintain the Arbi­trary Usurpation, as it is in a Neighbour­ing Kingdom.

Second Prop. That Descent in Hereditary Kingdoms, is the ordinary Way whereby a Right and Title to the Crown is Claimable.

I say, Prov. 8.15. is the ordinary Way; For since Kings Rule by GOD, it is only, as the Convocation-Book saith, The Lord, who 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, pag. 53.

Third Prop. That no Violence is to be used to Kings from their own Subjects for any Irre­gularities that they commit, C. 22.

For the Doctrine of Passive Obedience to a Government Established by Law, whether the PRINCE be Limited and Sworn to Go­vern by Laws Chosen by the People, and En­acted with his Consent, or the PRINCE be Absolute, and his will sufficiently Declared, be the Law, is of absolute necessity to the Support of any Government; and they who deny that, can never clear themselves from the Suspicion of some Designs against this.

Fourth Prop. 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, C. 36.

I say an Authoritative Right and Title, because the Case may so happen, that these being separated, the Claim of Right with­out the Authority, cannot Challenge our Allegiance, as in the Case of the Kings of Israel and Judah, that were led Captive by the Babylonians, who they surviv'd in Baby­lon, and some of them out of Confinement yet, (as it appears from Jeremy's calling for the Peoples Prayers, and Obedience to the Babylonish Kings) could lay no Claim to the Allegiance of their late Subjects. The Reason of which, is, Because it is the Au­thority, which is GOD's, that Commands our Allegiance; and tho' no Mortal can separate this Authority from the Person in­vested with it, yet GOD can, (of which more hereafter) and if he do transfer it to another, wherever it is plac'd, it calls for our Allegiance.

This is the Sum, I think, of what can be pretended in the present Controversie. To Reply to which, I will not Expatiate on what hath been abundantly offer'd by others, but Confine my self, as much as possible, to the Convocation-Book, that the Impar­tial Reader may judge which side, the Ju­rors or Non-Jurors, the Old Established Doctrine of the Church of England does countenance.

And as to the First Proposition, That Government in general, whether Monarchy, or any other Form, derives it's Authority from GOD, the Author of Nature, and consequently of Humane Society, and not from the People, (tho' their Consent be ordinarily necessary to the Constitution, both of the Form of Government, and the Per­sons Governing) is that which is to be the Ground-Work of the whole Discourse, and therefore in the first Place to be admitted, which I the more Confirm, by observing from the Right Reverend the Author; First, That all Kingdoms are now (what was more peculiarly appropriated to the Jewish Nation in their First Constitution) in some [Page 7]sort Theocracies, wherein GOD according to His own Pleasure, takes away Kings, and setteth up Kings: For C. 35. P. 83. GOD being the Universal Lord, and Ruler over all the World, the whole World is His Universal Kingdom; in the Government whereof, He useth the Ministry of Civil Magistrates, as well in other Countries, as amongst His own pe­culiar People Israel, without any Desert of theirs, but as in His Heavenly Providence, He thinks it most convenient, p. 84. Howbeit He does not leave them at Liberty to do what they list, but holds Himself the Helm of every Kingdom, and useth their Services in such sort, as be they Good or Bad, and their Designments Holy or Wicked; He ever makes them the Executioners of His own Just Judgments, Will, and Good Plea­sure, according as He is minded to Punish any Kingdom, People, or Countrey. And this He does by reserving to His Providence, the Prerogative of the Designation of the Per­son whom He intends for His Vice-Gerent, and that even in Hereditary Kingdoms, 1 Chro. 3.25. as Adoniah, who was Solomon's Elder Brother, and Anointed by Abiathar to succeed his Father, so his great Disappointment may be an In­stance. [Page 8]Nay, GOD sometimes for the only design'd Usurpation of a Prince, whose Title, and that in an Hereditary, was al­together Indisputable, does deprive him of the Government in Part or Whole, and will not allow him so much as to Endeavour the re-gaining of it, which was the Case of Rehoboam. And how oft he has Extin­guish'd the Line Royal, and Advanc'd to the Crown such as had no Relation to it, the History of the Kings of Israel does am­ply Testify. In all which Cases, since it was GOD's doing, the Dethroned Prince could have no Pretence unto the Subjects Allegiance. All that I will Note hence, is, That the Line of Descent in an Hereditary Kingdom may be Interrupted, and yet the Law of Succession not Violated.

Secondly, I Remark, That a Sovereign may be Devested of his Power which he receiv'd from GOD, and Decline into the Inferiour Condition of a Subject.

This is plain from the Kings of Israel and Judah, who of Independent Monarchs, became not only Tributary, but Subjects to [Page 9]the Kings of Babylon, and being Subjects, whatever other Duty might, yet Allegiance could no way be due unto them, that be­ing in general, peculiar only to a Sovereign Prince, not Dependent on, or Tributary to, another. This is Confirm'd and Improv'd from the Convocation-Book, which in the Case of Jehu intimates, That his former Prince became his Subject, Ch. 25. p. 40. and both he and Ahud are excused from Guilt in laying violent Hands upon their Liege-Lords, in that, tho' they had been Sub­jects, yet before the Commission of the Fact, they were Advanc'd to be Judges, Princes, and Rulers of God's People, C. 27. p. 53. I will make no Corollary from hence, be­cause of the Reverence that I bear to all such Heads as ever wore a Crown. I therefore hasten to the Last Observation; which is,

Thirdly, That when a Prince is thus De­vested of his Power from GOD, and another Advanc'd to his Throne, our Legal Allegiance may justly be Claimed by the Possessor.

We have been told this from our Law-Books again, and again, and now you shall hear the Decision of it from the Convoca­tion-Book, which taking Notice, C. 28. p. 56. of the strange Variations of Govern­ments in its Forms, and Governours in their Persons, whether by Usurping Nimrods, or Traytorous Phocas's, gives hereunto this Satis­faction, p. 57. That when either Ambitious Kings by bringing any Countrey into their Sub­jection, or Disloyal Subjects by their Rebellious Rising against their Natural Sovereign, have Established any Degenerate Form of Government, (viz. Aristocratical, Democratical, &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 throughly Settled) to be Reverenc'd and Obey'd, 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.

Here you may see that upon a Revo­lution from the worst of Circumstances, [Page 11]Usurpation, and Rebellion, Obedience to the Establishment is acknowledg'd Due. And sure I am, That Malice it self cannot be so bitter as to think the present Settlement Pa­rallel to this Representation: For,

First, Here was no Ambitious Monarch, but a Prince that had a Just Cause of War, on the Account of the Pretended Prince of Wales, which whether he was Real, or Suppo­sititious, since he had not that Satisfaction which was but Equitable as he Demand­ed, he might Appeal to GOD to Decide the Truth and Justice of it by the Sword. And,

Secondly, As for those who did Desert King James, thus much may be said for them, That they could not with a Safe Con­science Assist him in that War, because they Esteem'd it on his Side Unlawful, and therefore they were Oblig'd at the least to Lay down their Arms.

Thirdly, The Monarchy is not Degene­rated into a baser Form. We have the same Constitution, the same Laws, the same [Page 12]Liberties, or Greater than we had before; and therefore if in want of all these we ought to yield (as the Book asserts) Obe­dience; in the Enjoyment of them, we ought to add unto it, Thankfulness.

All that can be mov'd hereupon, is, When a Government may be said to be Settled.

And with Submission, I cannot but con­ceive, That the Government is Settled, when the Crown with all its Dignities, Pre­rogatives, Administrations, Authorities, Re­venues, &c. are generally Recogniz'd, and Personally Enjoy'd, which must be suppo­sed to be, when all Places of Power and Trust, of Royalty and Importance, are in the Sovereign's 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 was, and always will be Discontented Parties at home, and Politick Machinations abroad, that either Actually do, or Craftily design to Disturb the Peace; so that we cannot but acknowledge that to be a Real Esta­blishment, which hath the Countenance [Page 13]of Laws, and Parliament, to Own and Con­firm it.

Thus since GOD hath been pleased to Devest the Late King James of that Autho­rity which he had once Committed to him, and Transferr'd it into anothers Hands; both Clergy and Laity according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, ought to Reverence, Obey, and be Subject to it, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake.

I have almost Flatter'd my self, so as to Believe the most moderate Persons will Sub­scribe what I have said, if I could but Pro­duce any Moral Evidence that this was GOD's Doing: To Answer whose Ex­pectations, I will Search after such Crite­rions, as may Evince the present Revoluti­on to be the Will and Pleasure of Almighty GOD. I therefore before hand, declare my Aversion to such Doctrines (as have not long since been Censur'd by one of our [...]lourishing Universitys) wherein, Success Aproduc'd for an Argument of the Divine Aprobation of such Means, Methods, and In [...]ments, as are concern'd in a Revolu­tion

But then I must assume, That GOD's Providence in permitting, is a sufficient Indi­cation of his Will and Pleasure as to the Event; which whether He designs it, that he may thereby Punish the Sins of his People, or that he may Protect the Peace of the Church, is above my Capacity to Deter­mine. But since Prophecy hath ceased, sure I am, that nothing but his Providence is Vocal to us; and such strong Arguments may we produce from it (especially where we can find a Parity of GOD's Proceed­ing) as will not with Ease or Ridicule be Eluded.

I cannot therefore but observe, and that from this Convocation-Book, C. 24. p. 47. That even the Success of Divine Benedictions are to be left to the Disposition of GOD's Heaven­ly Providence, which is there ascribed to the very Reason, why David, tho' already Anoin­ted King, was not Advanc'd to the pro­mis'd Crown till Saul's Death, Whence, sin [...] a Prediction, tho' Divine, is not suffici [...] Ground to proceed upon, until GOD's o­vidence does interfere; I cannot restraimy Pen from moving this Query, viz. Whe­ther [Page 15]the manifest Interpositions of a Gra­cious Providence, that tends to the promo­tion of GOD's Honor, and the Establish­ment of his Church, (without which, Pre­dictions themselves are not rashly to be Ex­ecuted) be not to us (now that Prophecy is ceas'd) a Justifiable Ground for any Ra­tional Man to Act upon, especially when it holds Analogy with those Proceedings, where­in GOD hath already Notify'd His Holy Will and Pleasure?

I think this will hardly be deny'd, and therefore all that remains, is to produce some Precedents wherein Royal Authority has been Translated, and GOD hath own'd it for his immediate Doing. For if his Head was Interpos'd there, I see not how we can Exclude it here: Therefore,

First, When Kings have Illegally Oppres­sed their Subjects, and been too Arbitrary in their Imposition, GOD hath been pleas'd [...] Discharge them of their Trust: The [...]eason of which is, because they are GOD's Roresentatives, and therefore what they doby Implication is, and cannot but be [Page 16]Interpreted to be GOD's Work; and then as he saith of the Judges in the Execution of their Office, 2 Chron. That they Judge not for Man, but for the LORD who is with them in the Judgment. The Wrong, if they do any, is an Injury to GOD, whose Judg­ment it is suppos'd to be; which Injury, he will not suffer to go unpunish'd. So the Usurpations of Princes, being Reflecti­ons upon GOD, whose Trustees they are, his Honor stands Engag'd, (when our sins are sufficiently punish'd by such Scourges) to Vindicate its own Innocence, in Remo­ving or otherwise Animadverting upon them that so abus'd his Trust. We have a no­table Instance of this in Rehoboam, who be­ing Rejected of the People, because of his Resov'd Usurpations, and Endeavouring to Regain his Right by the Sword, is for­bid by GOD; for which Prohibition, the Reason that is given by no mean States-Man, my Lord Clarendon, is this, Because I had been in the Fault himself. The Applica­on I leave to the Reader.

Secondly, The Instance of Time is ano­ther Mark of GOD's Interposition. For when His Church is on the Brink of Ruin, and the Designs against Her, have been so prevalent, that it is not in the Power of Man to over-rule Them, than [...], He is a Present GOD in Trouble. This the Deliverance of the Israelites out of Aegypt, will Attest, who have made upon it, this Comfortable Observation; then, whenever the Tale of Bricks, i. e. The utmost Ser­vitude is imposed; Moses, i. e. A Deliverer is near at hand. And the Methods prescri­bed by Father Parsons, for the Reduction of England to the Roman Yoak, found in the Closet of the Late King James, and so re­ligiously observ'd throughout his Reign, is too great an Evidence of our design'd Ex­tirpation for Impudence it self to deny.

Thirdly, The Way and Manner of this Revolution, which was without Bloodshed and Battles, i. e. Such as beseems the God of Peace, doth confirm the same. For not to enlarge on this, I desire any of the Non-Jurors to speak plainly, if they do not think [Page 18]the Peaceableness of the Restoration of King Charles to be an unanswerable Testi­mony of God's Work, and Interposition; for my part, I must confess I always did. And then I know not how to deny the In­fatuation of his Brothers Desertion to inti­mate, that the same Hand that restored the One, was very much Confenting to the withdrawing of the Other.

I have done, and will provoke no Man by Reflections, but yet I earnestly intreat our Non-Juring Brethren, to Consider;

First, That the refusing of an Oath which may Lawfully be taken, as this in Contro­versie may, (if what these Canons say, be True) makes the Refusers Responsible for the Want of all that Good, which their Of­ficiating in their Cures might have produc'd, together with all that Unsettledness in the STATE, which their Example hath en­couraged.

Secondly; If what I have produc'd, be the Canonical Doctrine of the Church of England, let them be advised of the Mischief of that [Page 19]Fatal Division, which their Obstinacy will bring amongst us, and is already design'd, if not begun, in a Form of Prayer preten­ded (though I think it smells too strong of Jesuite) to be theirs.

Therefore, for the Sake of Peace, where­of Christ is the Head, and his Doctrine is the Gospel: For the Sake of our Church threatned with a more Affecting and Patheti­cal Division than ever: For the Sake of the Reformation, which this Breach, above all things, will prejudice; and above all, for the Sake of GOD, Whose Truth and Worship, if another Revolution come, are, as far as we can see, to be extinguish't. I entreat and beg of you seriously, to lay aside all Passion, Heat, and Peevishness, and whatever else may byass your Reason; and Consider, if what I have wrote be the Genuine Doctrine of the Church of England. For if it be not, I must Acknowledge my Mistake, and beg GOD Pardon for the Guilt, which by taking the New Oath I have incurr'd; which, till my Conscience be more enlightened, I am so far from sus­pecting, that I would not as my Conscience, [Page 20]for more Kingdoms than King James has lost, be in the same Guilt with those, who by refusing to take the Oaths, Contribute too much to the Designs of such, as will favour neither Them, nor Us, if our Sins should ever prevail with GOD to give them the Ascendency. Which GOD pre­vent for the Merits of His Son, the King of Peace and Truth. Amen.