REFLECTIONS ON Bishop Overall's CONVOCATION-BOOK, M.DC.VI.  
CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD's CATHOLIC CHURCH; AND OF THE Kingdoms of the Whole World.  
LONDON: Printed in the Year M.DC.XC.   

Reflections on Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book, 1606. etc.  
IT having been my purpose to consider all Objections of any weight in themselves, or from the Authority of Persons, which should occur to me against the Right of Their Present Majesties, and the Justice of their Undertaking our Deliverance; I ought not to pass by Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book, composed in the time of James I. Licenced by the late Bishop of Canterbury, since his disowning this Government, and Printed, as it is to be presumed, with a manifest Intention of undermining it; for every Man may discern, that the Scheme of Government there drawn for the whole World, is contrary to the Foundation of our Present Settlement: but though the Hypothesis is laid together with much Subtlety, nothing but Infallibility can give it Authority; and to me it seems a piece of Presumption, only short of that of the Romish Church. For having made a Collection from Sacred and Profane History, and the Apocryphal Writings, (though of the last they say, 
P. 64.  they mean not to attribute any Canonical Authority unto them, nor to establish any Point of Doctrine) they Canonically condemn, of Errors, all that agree not to their Inferences and Conclusions, upon a state of Fact which at least may be false.  
This single Observation might make it needless to consider more particularly what is there said, especially, when I add this further, That it would make Scripture Examples under the Jewish State, to have the force of Precepts now: which if they have, than the Examples of Jehu in killing wicked King Joram, than his Subject; and of Othniel, 
P. 46. 2 King's Judges.  and Ehud, who rescued the Israelites, the one from the King of Moab, the other from the King of Mesopotamia, who had brought them under Subjection, may serve for Rules in the like Cases. If they do not, then to what purpose do they in other Instances bring Precedents of God's dealing with the Jews, of his choosing and anointing their Kings, and the like?  
With these Antidotes we may venture upon a further taste of the Doctrines.  
The Foundation of all, is the Patriarchal Power of Adam, which they suppose to have been absolutely Monarchical all the World over; that Noah had the like Authority all his Life; 
P. 84.  but that he divided the whole World among his Three Sons; upon which they conclude, That if any Man affirm, 
Can. 35.  That God ever committed the Government of all the World, after Adam 's and Noah 's times, to any one Man to be the sole and visible Monarch of it, he doth greatly err. And another Error which they Canonically condemn, is of them who hold, that Christ doth not allow the distributing of this his one Universal Kingdom, 
Lib: 2. Can. 4. p. 147.  into divers Principalities and Kingdoms, to be Ruled by so many Kings, and Absolute Princes under him.  
Upon the whole, the Fatherly Power was absolute in Adam, then in Noah, then in his Three Sons together, and ever after in all the Princes in the World; 
Can. 2.  and as they affirm in relation to Adam's Monarchical Power, that it risen not from any choice of the People; neither, say they, is it deduced by their Consents naturally from them; 
P. 3.  Which is meant of the Powers which now are in the World. And yet, if I mistake not, they elsewhere own, that the Consent of the People may be requisite to the legitimating some Governments, when they justify Mattathias, 
P. 67.  who being moved with the Monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of Antiochus, made open resistance; the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission, or settled by Continuance: wherein the Consent or Submission of the People is owned to be material. The consequence of which will reach a Prince that Exercises a Power beyond what has been submitted to, or settled.  
But admit their Notion of the Absolute Power of the Father should hold, while the World was but one Family, and the Father might be supposed to be the sole Proprietor; I doubt they cannot advance one step further, without mere Fictions of their own Imaginations, or as vain and uncertain Tradition.  
If we attend to the sacred Text, freed from their imposing Comment, Noah's Sons are by God himself made joint Proprietors with him. 
Gen. 9.1, 2.  For the Text says, God blessed Noah and his Sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.  
And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every Beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered.  
If this Donation had no effect, as to the Sons in the life-time of the Father, neither according to the Patriarchal Scheme, could the younger Sons have any Benefit in the life-time of the Elder; wherefore either here was a joint Propriety in all, and consequently the Distribution must proceed from an express or tacit Consent of the Proprietors; or else they must be beholden to Jewish Tradition, for the establishing their Christian Canon, concerning Government.  
For two things, I must confess, we are obliged to them.  
1. For pathetically describing the unhappiness of the Jews, and how Religion went in those days, 
P. 72.  when the Priests had gotten the Reins into their own Hands.  
2. For observing, That the Pharisees, the most proud and stubborn of the Jewish Sects, 
P. 79.  were the only Men who refused to swear Allegiance to Herod and Caesar; 
Can. 30.  yet they say, If any Man shall affirm, that Jaddus, the Jewish High Priest, having sworn Allegiance to Darius, might have lawfully born Arms against him, he doth greatly err.  
This is in a Canon which they raise from the Fact in Josephus, of Jaddus' refusing to assist Alexander in his Wars, and becoming Tributary to the Macedonians, as he had been to the Persians; and this after Alexander had overthrown Darius, who escaped by Flight. The Jewish High Priest seems to put words into the Mouth of our late Archbishop, returning for answer, That he might not yield thereto, because he had taken an Oath of Allegiance to Darius, which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived.  
Compare this with the next Canon, according to the Analogy of their Doctrine, and see how it provides for the Security of Princes, and Obedience to their Governments.  

Can. 31.  If any Man therefore shall affirm either, That the Jews generally, both Priests and People, were not the Subjects of Alexander, after his Authority was settled amongst them, as they had been before the Subjects of Babylon and Persia; or that they were not all bound to pray for the long Life and Prosperity, both of Alexander, and his Empire, as they had been bound before to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the other said Kings and their Kingdoms, whilst they lived under their Subjection; or consequently, that they might lawfully upon any occasion whatsoever, have offered Violence and Destruction, either to their Persons, or to their Kingdoms, for the long continuance and Prosperity whereof, they were bound to pray; or that, after the Jews were deliverred from their Servitude under the Kings of Syria, and the Government over them, was settled in Mattathias' Posterity, it was lawful for the People upon any occasion to have Rebelled against them, or to have offered Violence to their Persons, He doth greatly err.  
The Justice or Injustice of the War on either side, between Darius and Alexander, are made no part of the question; but here are two Princes, both supposed Absolute, with all Adam's Power over their respective People, staking their Kingdoms upon the chance of Battle; one of them is conquered and runs away; yet, according to our Canonists, the Conqueror is not entitled to the Fatherly or Patriarchal Power over the other's People; but it is suspended, at least, during the Life of the King that was beaten, and the Authority not settled all that while: and if the Monarchy was Hereditary, it may be yet more difficult when to fix the Settlement. If it is admitted to be Settled in the life-time of the ejected and conquered Prince, and that it is a duty to pray for the Life and Prosperity of the Conqueror, and upon no occasion to offer any Violence to his Person or Kingdom; yet, according to these Canonists, they were bound, at least, during the Life of the Conquered Prince, to give no active Assistance to the other, in Person, or Contribution. And thus it might be allowable to mock God Almighty, while they pray for that, to which they will not contribute the means in their Power; or else their Prayers were to have such a mental Reservation, as some have, who pray for King James, while they pray for [The King]. But if they were to pray for Alexander's Prosperity without reserve, one would think it was lawful, at least, to Fight for him against Darius, notwithstanding the Oath of Allegiance taken to Darius, by reason of the Authority which he had lost.  
If any one shall say, That this Convocation-Book was innocently published at this time, let him read the following Canon.  
If ano Man therefore shall affirm, 
Can. 28.  either that the Subjects, when they shake off the Yoke of their Obedience to their Sovereigns, and set up a Form of Government among themselves, after their own Humours, do not therein very wickedly; or that it is lawful for anh Bordering Kings, through Ambition and Malice, to Invade their Neighbours: Or that the Providence and Goodness to God, in using of Rebellions and Oppressions to execute his justice against anh King or Country, doth mitigate, or qualify the Offences of any such Rebels, or Oppressing Kings; or that when han such new Forms of Government, begun by Rebellion, are after thoroughly Settled, the Authority in them is not of God: or that any, who live within the Territories of such new Governments, are not bound to be Subject to God's Authority, which is there executed, but may Rebel against the same: Or that the Jews, either in Egypt, or Babylon, might lawfully for any Cause, have taken Arms against any of those Kings, or have offered any Violence to their Persons, He doth greatly Err.  
If this be taken according to any rational, or so much as probable Account of Government in General, particularly applied to the English Constitution; I see no danger in admitting, that People ought not to throw off the Yoke of Obedience, and set up a Form of Government after their own Humours; and that it is not justifiable in any Bordering King, or Prince, through Ambition and Malice, to Invade his Neighbours. And yet this would not in the least condemn either the People of England, in shaking off a former illegal and arbitary Yoke, while yet they retain the ancient Form, and Fundamental Rights of the Government; or our Present Sovereign in his Heroical Undertaking our Deliverance. But if all Princes are as Absolute as their Notion makes them, the Nation had no Ground of complaint, and His Present Majesty's Expedition would fall under the Imputation of Ambition, or Malice; 'tis certain, that no just cause could be assigned for it upon their Principles; and yet these would as well condemn our Dissenting Bishops of Disobedience to the Late King, in not complying with the Commands of a Prince, whom this Book would make Absolute.  
And of this, the Archbishop would have done well to have bethought himself, when he gave his Licence for the Church-Militant, to put on this old rusty Armour, which hung up without use for above eighty years, 
Vid. Advertisement, called Anno 1603. continued to 1610.  had been full three, if not not six Years in hammering out, and was brought forth in this Critical Time, to do Wonders for their supposed King of Divine Right, of their making, at least, if not of God's. Whilst the Clergy in that, and following times, Wrote, and Preached for Preferments, and Condemned all Notions which lay in their way to it; it is to be feared, that they incurred the Curse pronounced from more Divine Authority, against him that removes his Neighbour's Landmark. And he that would Model the English Government by those of the East of old, set up and maintained by Confusion, would do well to transplant his Family into Turkey, where he may find one of the truest Patterns of the fancied Patriarchal Government.  
But if that, or the Anticyrae, to which an old Roman would have advised them, be too far for them to Travel in their Canonical Habit; they may take a step into France, where its Monarch assumes and exercises a Power according to their Primitive Stamp.  
Yet the latter part of the foregoing Canon tells you, That you are bound to be subject to God's Authority, even in those new Governments, which are set up after the Humours of the People. So that fully to maintain their Passive Character, even in the Case of Usurpation, and Introducing a new Form, contrary to the Fundamental Constitution, they are bound to sit still, and never to Assist to Restore their Rightful Prince, or ancient Form of Government, but should trust Providence, or rather tempt it to forsake them, to their utter destruction.  
But they who would be led by the Authority of these Canons, to condemn our present Settlement, I hope will learn even from thence to submit to it, and attempt nothing against it; and then I doubt not but there are brave English Men enough to defend it from all Foreign Force.  
FINIS.