THE VINDICATION OF A LATE PAMPHLET, (ENTITLED, 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 learned, 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 knowledge, 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 Nonjurors Party, he may expect to be so treated.   

THE VINDICATION OF OBEDIENCE TO THE Present Government, etc.  

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 Gild 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 justify them, being at the best, but a Pretence taken up after the Fact; and as a subsequent Law cannot condemn, so neither can it justify 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 Public Act, that we knew of, interposed her Judgement 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 Proceed. 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 published 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 called upon to show any other Public Act of the Church of England, any Opinion of one of the approved Sons thereof, the practice of any one that owned 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 though they be silent, since the Opinion of one Churchof- England-man, that is a Man approved, will satisfy the Answerer, he shall have Bishop Bilson's Judgement 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 Empery 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 join together to defend their Ancient and Accustomed Liberty, Regiment and Law, they may not well be counted Rebels.  
This will justify, 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 Governor, as the Head of it, 
See his Case of the Engagement.  as Bishop Sanderson seems to intimate; it sollows thence, That by virtue of the Duty that we own unto the Government, Allegiance must (although the Rightful Governor 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 my Lord Clarendon, observing that the Word Abdicate is no new Word; nor the Caprice and Humour of Princes to abdicate their Kingdoms, a new thing: And representing it as the hardest Case of Subjects, without their Privity, 
Suru. of Leu. p. 94, 95.  to be left in an instant, without any Protection, without any Security, as a Prey to all that are too strong for them. He adds, That it is no New Transaction for Kings and Princes to resign and RELINQVISH THEIR CROWN AND SOVEREIGNTY; nor may it be the better for being old. Yet besides other Accounts there mentioned; Some Princes, saith he, have been so HUMOROUS, as upon the FROWARDNESS AND REFRACTORINESS OF THEIR SUBJECTS, AND BECAUSETHEY COULD NOT GOVERNIN THAT MANNER THEY HAD A MIND TO DO, TO ABDICATE THE GOVERNMENT, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD AFTERWARDS TO HAVE RESUMED IT. Now, I imagine, according to the Judgement of that Great Statesman, and true Churchman, that our Allegiance to the Late King is void.  
And the Letter (of which I have sufficient Testimony) sent from the Jesuits to King James, at Sailsbury, advising him to leave the Kingdom, with a promising Assurance, That he should be Restored, and have his ENDS upon us; implies something worse than a Caprice or Humour.  
3. The most that I have had Converse with, conclude their Present Majesties to have a Right to, as well as Possession of the Crown; and that not only from the Law of the Land, which receives and owns them as Legal King and Queen; but also upon the Appeal which they made to God, for the Injustice done them, on account of the Impostor; which being determined on their sides, fairly gives them a Divine Right. And if so, than the Groundwork of the Gentleman's whole Answer is undermined, and his Building must fall. And this the Author in his Pamphet asserted; but because he knew not what to say to it, he haughtily past it by.  
And thus much for the Principles of some Approved Churchof- England-men.  
Then for their Practice. The Case of the Engagement, represented by the Judicious Bishop Sanderson, who plainly intimates some good men to have taken it, and which is left almost in an Aequilibrio by that profound Casuist; nay, and which was taken by a Great and Good Man (now with God) a Dying Advocate of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, shows the Practices of some that have owned her Principles, not to be altogethee repugnant to ours. But this is an unpleasing Subject, because reflexive upon other men. From hence therefore let us proceed to inquire something after the Convocation-Book.   

CHAP. II. An Account of the Convocation-Book, and why it wanted the Royal Confirmation.  
THE Sense and meaning of this Convocation being to be enquired after, especially in these two things, 1. Whether Right must of necessity be united to Authority, before our Allegiance can be due unto it? And 2. When a Revolution of Government may be supposed to have obtained a thorough Settlement? I thought it not amiss to inquire into the Reasons for the calling of the Convocation; the circumstances of Affairs when the Book was written; and the Causes why it was laid to sleep, not being suffered to appear with the Royal Confirmation: For the understanding of these, will mightily assist us to comprehend their meaning. And what I have received is thus:  
The Spaniards growing weary of their wars with the united-provinces, seeing Queen Elizabeth, the great supporter of the Dutch against the House of Auflria, to grow old, and knowing that James, than King of the Scots, was, after her decease, to succeed her in the Throne of England, a Prince of a Peaceable Disposition; they made previous Applications to him, to pre-engage him, when he came to the Crown of England, to mediate a Truce, or Peace, between them and Holland. The good Queen, according to the course of Nature, in some time after dies; whereupon the Spaniards, by their Ambassador, as soon almost as King James was seated on the English Throne, renew their Negotiation with him, to mediate the foresaid Truce; supposing the united-provinces would scarce refuse his Interposition, because at that time he held in his hands some Cautionary Towns of theirs, which had been delivered to the late Queen. The King being of himself inclinable to Peace, and to oblige the Spaniards (who had a Pontifical claim to the Crown of England) to own and acknowledge his Right and Title to that Crown, that so he might secure to himself the certainty of enjoying ease and safety, undertakes the Mediation: But difficulties arising from the Dutch Pretensions, who demanded to be acknowledged a Free and Independent State, tho' they had but lately withdrawn themselves from the Crown of Spain; His Majesty of Great Britain taking this to be a tender Point, and of great consequence to all Crowned Heads, if a Province or Principality having shaken off their Ancient Lord, might set up for a Free and Independent State; desirous also to overrule the Dutch in their Allegations to this Claim, on the apprehension of a Fear that it would void the overtures of the designed Truce: That he might do it with the greater appearance of Authority and Judgement, he resolves to consult his Convocation about the Origine of Government, its various Forms, Alterations, and Modifications, intending them especially to exalt the Sacredness and Grandeur of Monarchy.  
Accordingly the Convocation go to work, and deduce the Power of Government from its natural and prime Original; taking notice what it was in itself; whence Tyranny and Arbitrary Power usurped upon the Patriarchal: How that again was retrenched, and the True Fatherly Government settled amongst his own People the Jews, till the Captivity of Babylon; giving also an Account what became of them afterwards, what Revolutions they underwent, till they, and all the Western World were made subject to the Roman Eagle.  
This led them to treat of the Variation of Government by the Providence of God, who casts down Kings, and sets up Kings; who altars Kingdoms, and turns them into Aristocratical, or Democratical States; and on the contrary, States into Dukedoms, Elective Monarchies, and the like. As also what Obedience ought to be paid to the said Governments, when they are once throughly settled upon such Revolutions; laying down a Rule, when People with a safe Conscience may, nay aught to pay Obedience to their Authority. But their Determination herein touching too hard upon the Claims of Sovereigns, and the Royalties of Monarchies (of which scarce ever Prince had more tender feeling, than that his Majesty of Britain) King James is displeased with it, and them; charging them, that they had dipped too deep into what all Princes did reserve amongst the Arcana Imperii, as from his Letter at the end may be seen: and by Orders sent by Mr. Solicitor, restrains them from meddling any farther in it. And this, I believe, might be a Reason, why the Convocation, which had promised to treat of the Government of the whole World, did not handle more particularly the Case of Free and Independent States, which are, and were, one sort of Government in the World, and comprised 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 harkened 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 nettled 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 Cockleshells; And therefore, as I guess (for it is no more) the Book, called 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. ●  and pertinent to the present Controversy about Government and Allegiance. That what I have drawn up into Propositions, I have in some of them (if not in all) curtailed and diminished the ●●ll sense of the Convocation. That, above all, by adding words and Limitions, and Glosses, and Explications, I have destroyed the Text, and perfectly 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, etc. 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 aught 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-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 Establish●● Laws of their Respective Kingdoms. And since it is the King's being bound up by Laws that stomaches the Answerer, I desire he would take notice from the Convocation, what those Princes are that w●●● not be bound up by Law; For Nimrod, say they, (and by a Parity 〈◊〉 Reason we may add all such like Princes) not cententing himself with the Patriarchal or Mild Government, ordained of God by the Laws Reason and Nature, became a Tyrant, and Lord of Confusion Should have delivered this Notion of Tyranny, to be sure we had had it 〈◊〉 his Scheme of New Notions; and therefore I recommend it to the Answerers' consideration: Only I observe from them, That a Patriarchal Power, and the being limited in the Exercise of Power by Law are not inconsistent.   

PROP. II. That Descent in Hereditary Kingdoms, is the Ordinary way whereby a Right and Title to the Crown is claimable.  
His Quarrel here is, that these Words, The Ordinary Way, are Words of mine own; for he observes that I add, 
P. 2.  I say, the ordinary Way: And since these were Words of mine own, how could I let him know it otherwise, than by telling him, and all men, that they were my Saying. Surely the Cause is sinking, when men catch thus at Reeds and Rushes. But since I must not say, pray do you say: Is the Proposition true or false? If true, why so captious at it? and if false, why do you not reject it? No matter for that, for tho' there be some extraordinary ways in Hereditary Kingdoms, 
P. 2, 3.  that may give a Right and Title to the Crown besides Descent; yet the Author's extraordinary way is none of them. For this I shall appeal to the Reader to judge; as also for his ingenuity in interpreting the Author's Meaning from the Convocation-Book, which asserts, That the Lord both may, and is able to overthrow Kings or Emperors, notwithstanding any Claim, Right, Title or Interest, which they can challenge to their Countries, Kingdoms, or Empires, to be only God's Permissive Providence, which, I think, the Author scarce mentions above once, and that far from the Sense that the Answerer would insinuate. But my Citation and his must be adjusted anon, and therefore here I will speak no more of this matter.   

PROP. III. That no Violence is to be used to Kings from their own Subjects, for any Irregularities that they commit.  
This, he saith, doth not fully express the sense of the Convocation; yet he intimates not wherein it is defective; but the Author's Comment destroys it. How does this appear? Why, Because the Doctrines of Passive Obedience to a Government established by Law, whether the Prince be Limited or Absolute, is of absolute Necessity to the support of the Government. And is it not so? But this is Mr. 
P. 3.  Johnson 's Passive Obedience, that is limited to the Laws, and not to the Prince. The Author troubles not himself in thinking what it is, but shrewdly suspects that the Answerer was conscious to himself that he abused him, when in the very next Words he confesses, that if so, this is not only a plain Contradiction to the Convocations, but to his own extracted Proposition. Whence the Author supposes, that his Suppositive If, argues too manifestly a conscientiousness of Gild.  
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 newfound Universal Any, when the Logicians shall so esteem it, I will retrench my Indefinites.   

PROP. IU. That having sworn Allegiance to a Prince, we cannot without the dreadful guilt of Perjury, transfer our Allegiance, whilst he continues to have an Authoritative Right and Title to the Crown.  
Kindly here he corrects the false Impression, C. 36. which should have been the 30.  
But what most grieves him here are, the Cramp-words of an Authoritative Right and Title, and not finding them in the Convocation-Book, he discovers again, that I confess them my own, in that I say, an Authoritative Right and Title; but he desires the favour once more to know where I had them. I am loath 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 settled 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' 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 expressly, 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 examined.    

CHAP. IU. Right and Authority, Whether in the Sense of the Convocation, to be always joined 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.  
IU. 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, entrusts 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 King's 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 aught 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 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, although it gives them a Divine Authority, which is far Superior unto it. 'Tis true, he affirms that the Convocation expressly 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 God's 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 kill Joram. Where the words only express the fullness of the Submission of the Captains to him; who submitted as entirely 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 occurred; (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 God's Providence and Pleasure that possessed them of the Powers of Government. I know the Answerer pretends, the Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance 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 expressly 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 aught 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 lie, 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 Sovereign's 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 Gild. 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 expressly teacheth, 
page 57  That Authority, though 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 God's 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 God's Authority, and that the People who live within the Territories of such new Governments, are bound to be subject to God's 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 Convocation-book, is this, that Right without Authority, may and aught 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 God's 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 King's 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 Sceptre 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 God's Authority. And when he can produce such a Declaration of God's 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 privileged 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 David's Posterity had by God's 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 choose 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 expressly 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, God's 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, (though 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 Nabuchadnezzar, 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 God's 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 Jews of old, had the same Spirit of Prophecy to direct them. And since it is Providence alone, that by exalting a Person or Family to a Crown, gives them a Right unto their Subject's Allegiance: I do not understand, but when the same Providence Remands the Power out of their Hands, and transfers it to some other Person, or Family, our Allegiance is transferred also: for the Power being transplanted, our Homage must remove with it, or else we must deny Obedience to that Divine Power which makes Kings, and coming from God is to be reverenced, honoured, and obeyed, where ever it pleaseth him to place it. This I take to be a better account of the Reasons of our Allegiance being transferrable from one Person to another, than his new vamped Notion of transferring a Right, which next comes to be examined.    

CHAP. V Concerning a Prince his transferring a Right.  
THe Answerer saw, and had not the hardiness to deny that there were some Instances of transferring Allegiance mentioned and justified in the Convocation-Book; and since he could not deny them, his Business is to palliate them. 
P. 4, 5.  Hereupon he starts a new, but no sound Notion of transferring a Right, and dishonestly Fathers it on the Convocation, for he saith in these Cases i e. of Revolutions, the Convocation never requires nor justifies the transferring Allegiance, but only where the Right is transferred likewise: 
P. 5.  To prove which he unluckily Instances in the Cases of Jehu and Ahud. But good Mr. Answerer speak out; did Joram transfer a Right to Jehu, to kill his Person and wear his Crown? Did Eglon transfer a Right to Ahud to sheathe his Dagger in his Belly? Yet the same, saith he, may be said of the Jews Submission and Obedience to the Babylonians &c. all mentioned in the Convocation-Book. If so, 
P. 5.  I am sure it is such a transferring Right, as Mortals were never in the least acquainted with, till the Answerer from Mr. Hobbs was pleased to reveal it. And let him here take notice once more, that, I say, from Mr. Hobbs, for he was the first that ever I heard of that started the Notion of a transferring of Sovereignty. So that what the Answerer would fix upon the Convocation, is indeed downright Hobbism, and borrowed from the Leviathan, where a Power is given to his Sovereign, 
P. 114.  to renounce and transfer the Sovereignty to another.  
However on Jehu like he drives, and will have the respective Government of the Babylonians, Persians, etc. to have a right of Government over the Jews, though not in the same manner with the former by God's express Nomination, yet a Right they acquired by the Submission and Acknowledgement of those in whom the Right was. This he saith and requires you to believe it, for he never offers to prove it, but from the Author, who expressly tells you, That the Kings of Israel and Judah became not only Tributary, but Subjects to the King of Babylon. What! by transferring their Right? Not a word of that; yet that was the thing to be proved. But is not this Gentleman happy in his Proof, and full of them too, that is forced to borrow from his Adversary Testimonies to his own ruin. But they submitted he saith, how I pray? Why! they were conquered, and is not this a pretty way of transferring Right.  
I expected he would have produced some Instrument of a Voluntary transferring their Right, but it all dwindles into Force and Power, and they are constrained to part with it, because they cannot keep it. If this be what he means by transferring Right, King James his Desertion transferred it as much as their Submission. Nay, and since Session is one way that he mentions of thus transferring a Right, sure I am, that the Session of King James which had something of Choice and Voluntariness in it being a mixed Action, 
P. 19  implies more of his own Will and Freedom in that Transferance, than any instance he hath yet produced. In short, did ever a Conqueror derive the Validity of his Title to his Conquests from the conquered Princes transferring his Right? I am sure of the contrary; and therefore may conclude there was never such a thing as transferring a Right, but only in the Metaphysical Head of Mr. Hobbs and the Answerer.   

CHAP. VI A Reply to some Captious Exceptions of the Answerers.  
WE are now come to what the Answerer calls the last of the Authors first Propositions, and he may call it an Apple, or an Oyster, if he please, (for both are now in Season, and) 'tis all one to the Author, who for any thing that Quibbling Answerer hath said (after he had given us a cast 〈◊〉 his Wit) meets with him acknowledging it, to lie in this Form That Government derives its Power from God, and not from the People. 
P. 13.  Now though this was not so very unlike the first Proposition which was, that, The Power of King was originally Patriarchal, derived from God, and not from the People, the Predicate being in both the same, he might have see the Necessity of the Author's enlarging the Subject; which 〈◊〉 hope by being only more comprehensive, is not quite another thing. The Convocation undertakes to discourse concerning the Government of the Kingdoms of the whole World; by which word Kingdoms, I suppose they do not strictly mean that one Form of Government, but Synecdochically all other Forms of Government to be understood in that, as the chief; hence they treat of Aristocracy, etc. so that I was obliged to enlarge the Terms of my Proposition to the Proportion of my design, 
P. 56.  it being to be the Ground work of what was to follow: And though this perhaps will not content the Captious Answerer (who hereupon tells us, That Government in General is not Patriarchal; neither are other Forms, 
P. 13.  besides Monarchy, Patriarchal; and more such like Stuff) yet he hopes it may satisfy the Candid Reader. But I must observe his Motions, and 〈◊〉 cannot tell what is meant by Gods being the Author of Nature, and consequently of Humane Societies, but he suspects ('tis a Jealous Man) some bad meaning in it. And if it be as he thinks it is, that Mankind being of a Sociable Nature, by that were directed to Society, and from that, i. e. Society, to Government, it contradicts the Authors own Proposition. Now this is only a Spiteful Innuendo, and what a fair Answerer would scorn to be Guilty of, for he very well knows, that in Nature there is a Priority of Order, when there is none of Time, and the Consequences of things there, respect the manner of our Conceptions, not their Existence; as Light is conceived to be Posterior to the Sun, whence it comes, though they both be at one and the same Instant; even so may Society and Government be Co-existent, yet one Consequent to the other in the order of Nature. But the bad meaning is all his own, for the Expression is so plain, that none, 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 signify, 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 disingenuous 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-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 falsely 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, though 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 People's having notice of God, 
Ch. 17.  even his appointing Princes, Judges and Kings, that they might conform themselves to Obedience, and their cheerfully 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 People's 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 Alwise 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, Shuffle 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 Groundwork 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 though 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 showing 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 Governors 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 Catholic 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 forbade 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 Author's 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 expressly forbidden by God, and so nothing to our Author's purpose. Yes therefore to the Author's purpose, because God did forbid it; for this clearly shows, 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 Judgement 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 rend 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 Solomon's Idolatry, that Rehoboam had no Gild 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 spoke by Ahijah, when he promised Jeroboam (to whom he now gave) the Kingdom, to be the cause of it, that so God's 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 wilful 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 Through 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, etc.) amongst their People; the Authority either so unjustly gotten, or wrung by force from the True and Lawful Possessor, being always God's Authority (and therefore receiving no Impeachment by the Wickedness of those that have it) is ever (when any such Alterations are through settled) 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 showed 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 catched 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, intent as much a Through Settlement, as if I had expressed it? I am sure I did. And after all, what they call a Through. 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 Settled, and throughly Settled, when the Crown with all its Dignities, Prerogatives, Administrations, Authorities, Revenues, etc. 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 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 were, and always will be, discontented Parties at home, and Politic 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 Settled. 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 Author's 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 Through a Settlement now, as was in Queen Elizabeth, and some other Reigns when suchlike places of Importance were in the Enemy's hands. But what becomes of the Poor Irishmen, 
ibid.  he doubts they must be Rebels for all our Author's Demonstration. And the Author doubts the Tories will be so still, which doubtless pleaseth the Answerer, and somebody else, besides one that would be called 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 selfsame Answer for his satisfaction. But a Victorious Army in Ireland sticks on his stomach, and though 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, 
P. 17.  annexed to it, and dependent on it, he plainly justifies them. But Athaliah is brought on the Stage again, for without her he can prove nothing, and with her he only makes a noise.  
But because the Through Settlement is made the other Pillar to support their Cause, let us inquire what the Convocation intended by it. And since he says, There are but two ways to understand the Sense of any Author: The natural and usual Construction of the words they express themselves by; and if there be any Obscurity or Doubt in the meaning of some Expressions, to interpret them by other Expressions, and Assertions in the same Author; to which he might have added a third, had he so pleased, the occasion of the Author's writing. But because this would absolutely confute him; by his own Rules, I will try the Controversy before us.  
Now the natural Construction of the words are very clear and easy; that whenever an Usurper or Rebels have gotten the Authority of a Lawful Possessor into their hands, and so throughly settled themselves, that they are able to hold, and maintain that same Authority which they have gotten; he or they, then are to be obeyed. And that they can mean no more by it, than an Ability to maintain the Authority they have got, is plain from the Context, and the whole Chapter, which speaks and treats of Wring and Forcing this Power out of the hands of the True Possessor, and thereby throughly settling, themselves. Nay which intimates, the Usurper or Rebels having attained their Ungodly Desires, 
P. 57  to be the Measure and Standard of this Through Settlement.  
But the Answerer runs into Fancies of his own, and will have a Settlement to denote two things:  
1. The Legality of a Thing, its being according to Law. Very well! 
P. 18.  And is not a King de Facto, Seignier la Roy, according to our Laws. He had much better for his own cause, have let this Notion of Settlement alone; But,  
2. It denotes a quiet and peaceable Possession, without disturbance from other Claims or Pretenders. Ask his Grace of Northumberland this, whose Title of Northumberland, though throughly settled, and so adjudged by the Supreme Court in England, yet wants not a Pretender, who, they say, is again designing to make some disturbance about it. And if this be so, how ungrounded and unsettled is the Right of those Poor Princes in Germany, to whose Territories, the Answerers and his Master's Friend and Ally, the Leviathan of France lays a Claim, and creates Disturbances. But the Owner is actually at Law with him, or declares that he will be so, so soon as he hath opportunity, or Money to manage the Suit. But if Judgement be given, that the Man that is at Suit, is not the Owner. What then? Why! (without Reflection be it spoken) a Wrangling Knave, and a Litigious Barreter will never acquiesce.  
But there is one word more to be considered, and that is throughly, 
ibid.  Throughly Settled. Now what is the Import of Throughly, but perfectly, to all intents and purposes. Come then, and let us put these together, and the Utmost of a Through Settlement is, such a Right as is enjoyed plainly, and evidently, without any Contradiction or Objection. That is, such a Right as never will be in the World, for there is not that Crown upon any Prince's Head, but what the variety of Principles amongst Men of divers Parties, will afford them matter of Objections against. Such a Cobweb is the Answerers Through Settlement.  
His other way of understanding the Sense of an Author, is by consulting the Context, and other places, that that was their meaning, and no other. Now what can you expect from such an Undertaker, but Demonstration as clear, nay clearer than the Authors; but Parturiunt montes, out comes the Case of Athaliah, for had he not that String, like a Trump Marine to Fiddle on, his Music would be at an end. Yet upon this he hangs out a Flag of Defiance, and defies the Author, or any body else, to show him one single Instance (either in this Chapter, or any where in the whole Book) of any Government that the Convocation requires, and justifies Allegiance to be paid to, but what had first acquired a Right. And if by Right, he means a Civil Legal Right (which he must, or he says nothing) I say, and have before proved, That there are as many Instances of it, as there are of Revolutions of Government (for the Case of Athalia I have showed to be an exempt Case,) and to requite him, I defy him, and all his Party, to produce out of this Convocation Book, one Instance, wherein Allegiance is denied to be due to God's Authority, and to be owing to Legal Right, for Joash (he by this time knows) is acknowledged to have both.  
I all this while have waited, that the Answerer should have made good his sense of the Convocation by other parallel Expressions and Assertions in the Book, as he promised; 
P. 17.  but he hath disappointed me, and if it must be done, I must do it myself. To work then let us go. And besides a long continuance, or Prescription, to which both Parties acknowledge Allegiance to be due; but which in sudden Revolutions can have no place, and therefore is nothing to our present purpose. I find the Convocation supposeth these New Forms of Government (for so they call them, 
Can. 28. page. 59  which intimates that they did not think Continuance to be absolutely necessary to their thorough Settlement) to be throughly settled.  
I. 
Can. 31. page. 67.  When the People are under the New Governor's Power and Protection; for so they affirm of the Jews, That they were the Subjects of Alexander, after his Authority was settled amongst them; which was when Darius was vanquished, 
Pag. 64, 65.  but was yet alive, being escaped by flight. Where the settlement of his Authority, and his favourable dealing with them (of which the Convocation speaks, but not a syllable of his Right) is made the Foundation of their Duty; and they further give this common Reason why the Jews were bound to pray for the long Life and Prosperity both of Alexander and his Empire, as they had done of the other Kings, 
ibid.  Because they lived under their Subjection.  
II. Especially if there be a general Submission of the People; for the want of this is given as one reason of Antiochus his Government not being settled amongst the Jews: 
ibid.  And the access of this, is the only Title whereby Mattathias and his Posterity could claim Allegiance from the People; for I challenge the Answerer to produce out of the Convocation-Book, the intimation of the least Civil Right to it: For if a Possessory Right be something, and, as he saith, 
Page 19  where there is not better it ought to carry it; it is plain, that Antiochus being possessed, had the better Legal Title; yet for want of the general Submission of the People, it was not esteemed settled; and therefore Mattathias his Claim is preferred before it. Of whom, though there neither was nor could be, our Answerer's Prescription, nor a long undisturbed Possession (the last Owner, in our Answerer's words, being actually at Law with him) nor any Legal Right or Title, but barely the Submission and Consent of the People (whence he may also learn how necessary their Consent is to a Government; yet of him: 
Can. 31. p. 68  After the Jews were delivered from their Servitude under the Kings of Syria, and the Government over them was settled in Mattathias 's Posterity (the Convocation teacheth, that it was not lawful for the People, upon any occasion, to have rebelled against them, or to have offered violence to their Persons. I know the Answerer pretends that Antiochus had no Right, and 'tis true he had not the Right which the People's Submission would invest him with; but he had Possession, and that is such a Right as our Answerer confesseth aught to carry it. 
P. 19  If then you desire to know from the Convocation, what they mean by a thorough Settlement, beside the natural Signification of their words, Can. 28. you hence may see, That they suppose that Government to be Thoroughly settled, which hath Authority and Power to support itself; especially when owned and acknowledged by the general Submission of the People, and very cautiously is the word General made use of; for in such Revolutions an universal Submission is not to be expected.  
Thus I have done with my Answerer, and I think, Plainly demonstrated Submission and Obedience to the present Powers, to become the Answerer's Duty, as well as mine, if he dare stick to the Principle of the Convocation; for we have a Government so thoroughly settled, that it can never be unhinged but with the utter Ruin of our Laws and Liberties, and the Desolation of the whole Kingdom. A Government founded upon an Appeal to God for Truth and Justice, and so founded upon a Divine Right. A Government where if there be any Marks and Notes in Providence of God's positive Will and Pleasure, is so characterized and remarked by them (as the Pamphlet doth evidence) that the Answerer could not deny them. In short, I hope a Government that is the Reward of our steadiness and perseverance in the late Times of Trial; and may God continue his Blessings to us, in continuing it.  
But laying aside the Convocation, the Answerer proceeds to show the Absurdity of my Interpretation from other Topics. Now if what I have offered be indeed the sense of the Convocation (and let the Reader judge of it: but if it be so) what he bespatters me with are but so many virulent and base Reflections upon these Venerable Persons whereof the Convocation did consist. The Reply therefore swelling larger than I did expect, I am content to sit down and hear their Reproach. Only from what I have said, let the Reader speak if he think the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance to be (what the Answerer asserted) the whole design of that part of the Book that concerns Civil Government. 
P. 21.   
Then for those Worthies of the Church of England that suffered between the years 42 and 60. a far worthier Pen hath already, and will more fully represent the difference betwixt our Case and theirs.  
And as for the Absurdity of this Doctrine, which (he saith) is, That the Permission of Providence is a Rule of Practice, and a sufficient Warrant to act contrary to the Rule of Right and Justice amongst Men. 
P. 23.  I tell him this is not the Consequence, but a vile Aspersion cast upon the Convocation; for the utmost that can be extorted from it, is, That the Permission of Providence is a Rule of Practice, and a sufficient Warrant to Act. Besides, the Laws of Civil Right and strict Justice, when it hath placed Men in such Circumstances, that it is not possible for them to discharge some other Duties, and observe these Laws. And let him touch here if he can or dare, and therefore denying his Consequence till he can better prove it (and I will give him to latter-Lammas to do it in) I am not accountable for all that putrid stuff that follows. 
P. 23.  As if I taught that Men must direct their Lives, not by fixed and stated Rules, but by God's Permissions and Providential Occurrences, and the like. All which want as much Honesty, as they do Ingenuity.  
I purposely pass by his undutiful Insinuation, of a Thief's having stolen a Purse, and giving it his Neighbour to keep; and then Querying upon it, Whether (since he came by it by Providence) he may not keep it. 
P. 24.  The Account I have already given, when it is, that Providence is a Rule of Practice, removes this Doubt: Which indeed deserves another kind of Answer than a Pen can give. As also something worse than this, that in his Answer may more than once be met with. But I do not mean to turn Informer; nor have I any Stomach to recriminate, else I could charge him, and that truly, for building the Doctrines of Right to Crowns in New erected Governments, upon Violence, Bloodshed and Murder, for he again and again intimates, that if the Royal Line were but extinct, i. e. had they Murdered King James, and brought him to a Scaffold, when they desired him but to withdraw; then the present Government had acquired a Right, and he could have taken the Oaths with a safe Conscience. Now I believe his Master, King James, will ken him no Thanks for this his Doctrine.  
Before I close, I must observe one thing from the Answerer, That after all his discarding Providence from being an Intimation of God's Will and Pleasure in any Revolutions; yet upon my Assertion, That Predictions themselves without this Interposition of Providence are not rashly to be executed; 
P. 26.  for that David refused to stretch forth his Hand against the Lords Anointed; waiting his Way and Pleasure, he confesseth, 
ibid.  That he left it to God's Providence so to order and dispose of things, and to bring it about in such a manner, as he might take the Crown without the Violation if any Duty that he owed, or of any former Engagement he made to King Saul. Now when Providence, saith he, proceeds in this manner, and so makes a clear passage to Submission; then, and then only, it is a justifiable ground to act upon. I am glad that it is ever a justifiable ground to act upon, and doubt not but to show in our case, something of a parity to this, for if the taking of the Crown in such a manner, as not to violate any Duty that he owed to others, does make a clear passage to Submission, and is a justifiable ground then to act upon: pray Sir speak, what Duty was violated by his Sacred Majesty; or by such as by Oath gave him Assurance of their Fidelity, when Providence in such a visible Divine manner had advanced him to the Throne? They durst not oppose God, whose gracious Doing they not only supposed, but so proved it to be, that the Answerer it seems, was not stiff enough to deny it. And then for His Majesty, no Obligation of a Subject was upon him, but if he suspected himself to be wronged, (and there was violent and unsatisfied Suspicion of Wrong in the Highest Nature, both to himself and the whole Kingdom countenanced, abetted, and designed to be established) nothing could restrain him from seeking his Right but a Tame complying Wilfulness to sit down content with his own Loss, and the Kingdoms Ruin. All that could be pretended to the contrary, is the Unseasonableness of seeking his Right; for, as David, they may say, He should have waited till the Lord should smite the King, or his day should come to die, or that he should descend into Battle and perish. As for the last, his late Majesty is resolved to provide against that; but to this I reply, that his then Majesty's Counsels had so ordered the Affairs, that they had made it absolutely necessary for his present Majesty then to seek his Right or never; in that the Parliament that was to be called, would doubtless (by the indirect means that were used) have been such as would have acknowledged and confirmed the Impostor, and so Excluded their present Majesties from the Crown. Add to this his late Majesty's Wilful Recess, and tell me then, If Providence did not proceed in such a manner, as to make a clear passage to Submission, and so a justifiable ground to act upon. Thus far I see no Gild; then for what the Answerer seems to insist on, those Active Spirits that had an hand in the Revolution, by deferting the late King James, I excused them so far, that he takes no notice of it, and therefore I again Repeat it, and say that his Cause in their Conscience, being Bad, they neither could, nor ought actually to assist him: An Equity of the Cause being necessary to the Justification of a War. I now should have done, but for full satisfaction in the case, there is one thing I ought not to pass by.  
The Answerer would make you believe that bare Possession is that Authority or Divine Right, that the Author all along speaks of; and so an Usurper my be possessed of it, an Athaliah, or Antiochus, or a Cromwell. Now the Author thinks, that there are certain Indices and Notes, whereby the Possession that he speaks of, and the Authority that is insisted on, may easily be discerned and distinguished. For the Convocation supposes a Through Settlement, before they Appropriate Obedience to the New Government. So that Possession in General cannot challenge the Allegiance, but yet the Authority they speak of may; for want of which Authority both Athaliah, and Antiochus (though they had got Possession) were Rightly opposed. Now what these Notes are (besides what is delivered in the Pamphlet) from the Convocation's Notion of a Through Settlement, will easily appear. For they requiring the Power, and Protection, or Favourable Dealing of a Prince, and Consent of the People to complete a Settlement, in Opposition to these.  
1. Usurped Possession seldom or never suffers the State to enjoy its Rights, Quiet and Protection; so that it is in vain, if it wee possible, to yield Obedience, Violence, Plunder and Oppression do generally attend Usurped Possession. Law and Justice are stifled, and Arbitrariness rules in all things. Those who do not comply are not permitted to sit down in Peace, and enjoy the Common Benefit of Protection, but are Harassed, Proscribed, Persecuted, and Undone. There is no Connivance, or Favour, but Power and Wilfulness manageth all Things; so that it is scarce possible for them to yield a Due and Full Obedience. For besides that Honour, Reverence and Homage, which (though owing to the Supreme Power) a Ruined, and Oppressed Subject can be hardly conceived to Give. The very Oppression itself disables them from paying Customs, Taxes and Tributes, which are other Branches of this Allegiance; so that the Service of a Liege Subject can scarce be given an Usurper; on the contrary, where it is Authority that is advanced, there the Good of Community is intended, no Violence, Arbitrariness, and Injustice practised, but Law hath its course, and every unsuspected Man his Liberty and Right. This is the very case of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Athaliah. Of the first the Convocation-book expresseth it. And of the last it is to be supposed that she continued to Rule, as she entered, with the utmost Cruelty and Violence: nay and the very Reason of her Son's Wickedness (for which he was punished by God) is imputed to her Instigation, in that she is said to be his Counsellor to do Wickedly. And of her, as well as of Antiochus, the Jews would have eased themselves sooner, had they but had power, for the Scriptures gives this as the reason of her Usurpation, that the House of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the Kingdom. When therefore Jehoiada had strengthened himself with the Levites and Officers, he dethroned the Usurper, and exalted Joash to the Crown.  
Secondly, A Usurpation never meets with a quiet and peaceable Submission of the People, I mean of the great Body of them, for no Revolution can expect them all. There are always powerful Confederacies and Designs against it, and 'tis only an Interested Party that Supports it. You shall meet not only with private Murmur, but loud, open, and (what is worst of all) most just and true Complaints. So that men's Spirits are kept on such a Ferment, that they may be overawed, but cannot be won to a Willing Submission. But where it is Gods Gracious Do, you shall observe such a Cheerful Compliance, a ready Homage, and Acclamations so Universal, that such a Voice of the People can scarce be otherwise Interpreted, than the Voice of God.  
I desire the Answerer to Scan over the Differences betwixt Gods Permissive and his Positive Providence, for if I be not grossly deceived, from the Principles that I have laid down; and the Interest the People have in Consenting to the Form of Government, he may, if he please, discern the Difference betwixt 42 and 88 In Usurpations besides the Violence committed at the grasping at a Crown, which for the future hardens all Good men's Hearts against it; the Subject, not enjoying Protection under it (as never any but an Interested Party do) cannot be thought to be so fond of Chains, as to Kiss and Court them, by paying their Obedience under them, nor do they ever generally own it by submitting Cheerfully and Thankfully unto it. Whereas when there is a Revolution upon an Appeal to God for Justice and Equity; the Prince treats his People with such Tenderness, Care, and Circumspection, as becomes one that being advanced by, thinks himself accountable to God, for the Trust he hath committed to him: And on the other hand the People deport themselves with those returns of Cheerfulness and Thanks in their Submission, as are befitting a People delivered from Wrong, Tyranny and Slavery. And by this time I hope the Answerer hath found out a Difference.   

CHAP. VIII. The Close and Summary of the Whole.  
THE Sum and Substance of the Whole is this: God Delegates to King's Authority and Power, to Govern the People committed to their Charge, in his Stead, and for their Good. And as a King in a Dependent Kingdom constitutes a Deputy, and Communicates with his Power part of his Name unto him, by making him a Viceroy: so God by exalting of them to that Great Trust, makes them, as it were, Vice-Gods; for of them he saith himself, That they are Gods: And as the Viceroy is Responsible to none but the King that entrusted him; so Kings are only Accountable to God, whose Power they have; and in whose Stead they Rule: and if they do abuse his Trust and Power, (seeing no one else can) God hath undertaken to call them to an Account for their Miscarriages, since (as was said in the Pamphlet) all their Violations of this Trust reflect upon God, whose trusties they are. And this is the Reason that makes him threaten so severely to punish Governors, that neglect his Laws, and abuse his Power. For as the King his Vice Roy, so God may Depose them at his own Will and Pleasure. And when they Manage Affairs to his Dishonour, and the Discouragement of Virtue and Probity, as he may, so also (since he himself holds the Helms of all Governments in his own hands) it may be supposed that he will (for the sake of Justice) Animadvert upon them; for shall not the God of the Whole Earth do Right? No one else can; and therefore He, or none, must do it. And when he doth this, it often is by Removing them from that Power and Authority that he had Commissioned them with; and (as a King on the Complaint of the Misgovernment of a Vice Roy) by committing that Charge and Province to Another. For God doth Kings and Emperors no wrong, (though he thus displace them) they being Nothing else but his Agents and Officers, and to be Employed no longer than he knows it to be for the Good of his Church and People.  
When ever therefore (for the sake of an Oppressed people) he is pleased thus to Remove and Displace an Arbitrary and Usurping Governor; and raise another to his Trust and Dignity, whom he in his Infinite Wisdom) foresees to be more for the Good of his Church, and the Glory of his Providence; all Good people are in Conscience bound submissively to Comply with God's Doing, and yield a Cheerful Obedience to his Authority; which wherever it is, aught to be Reverenced. Now because the Meaning of God in such Revolutions are often Dark and Ambiguous; for they may be for our Sins, as well as the Sins of our Governors: therefore we ought throughly to debate the Case in our own Conscience, and unfeignedly and impartially Examine where the Gild lies in Us, or in our Governors; for if for some conceived displeasure to their Persons or Government, we rashly, and too forwardly withdraw from them that Duty we own, we do but add Iniquity to Sin. But if we find ourselves in such Circumstances, that without any sinful Co operation of ours, a Door is opened for our Deliverance; One scarce can suppose it any thing, but God's Gracious Interposition. And since God doth by his Providence now, what in the days of Prophecy he did by his Immediate Revelations; when we see the same Events Consequent upon the same Antecedent Causes; and God hath plainly told us by his Word that He hath done the One; how can we deny (in a Parity of Causes and Events) but that the same Hand did also the Other. Especially when we see the Injured party flying to God for Help; or in the Use of the last Remedy making his Appeal for Justice. This is the Summary of the Whole Case, and it would be Hard indeed, if when Deliverance comes upon our Prayers and Tears, We might not embrace it. Let those that hanker after the Onions in an Egyptian Bondage fix their Eyes on them, till the Effluence of the Acrimony force them to Weep; I, for my part, will Wipe mine Eyes and thank God, that there is no Leading into Captivity, and no more Complaining in Our Streets.  
To close up All. Since the force of the Argument runs much upon Providence, which the Answerer would in this case (as a Loof Sect of Philosophers, that he knows of, do in others) discard from interposing so far, as to be an Inducement for Men to Act Agreeably to it. I cannot, for all him, but Conclude with a Remark of the Wonderful Providence of God in Reserving this Convocation-Book, (which was so long concealed,) for the Publication of these Difficult Times, and the Determination of so Weighty a Matter. I will not say, what Party put it forth; but there seems to be a Providence in that too. But I will say, It hath had Good success, in Bringing over One, that was the Bulwark of their Cause. And that it may prove more and more so Successful, in prevailing with the Answerer, and the Right Reverend the Fathers and Pastors of This our Too much Divided Church, is the Hearty and Daily Prayers of the Author; which may God Almighty in his own Good Time both Hear and (instead of any other) Answer, Amen.   

A True Copy of a Letter Writ by King James the First, to Dr. Abbot, concerning the Convocation called Anno 1603. 1. Jac. and continued by Adjournments and Prorogations to 1610. Now in the Hands of a Gentleman of the Temple.  
Good Dr. Abbot,  
I Cannot abstain to give you my Judgement of your Proceed in your Convocation as you call it; and both, as Rex in solio, and unus gregis in Ecclesia, I am doubly concerned. My Title to the Crown no body calls in question, but they that neither love you nor me; and you guests whom I mean. All that you and your Brethren have said of a King in Possession (for that word I tell you, is no worse than that you make use of in your Canon) concerns not me at all. I am the next Heir, and the Crown is mine by all Rights you can name, but that of Conquest; and Mr. Solicitor has sufficiently expressed my own Thoughts concerning the Nature of Kingship in General, and concerning the Nature of it, ut in mea Persona: And I believe you were all of his Opinion; at lest none of you said aught contrary to it, at the time he spoke to you from me. But you know all of you, as I think, that my Reason of calling you together, was to give your Judgements how far a Christian, and a Protestant King, may concur to assist his Neighbours to shake off their Obedience to their own Sovereign, upon the account of Oppression, Tyranny, or what else you like to name it. In the late Queen's time, this Kingdom was very free in assisting the Hollanders both with Arms and Advice; and none of your Coat ever told me, that any scrupled at it in her Reign. Upon my coming to England you may know that it came from some of yourselves to raise Scruples about this Matter. And albeit I have often told my Mind concerning Jus Regium in Subditos, as in May last in the Star-Chamber, upon the occasion of Hales his Pamphlet; yet I never took any notice of these Scruples, till the Affairs of Spain and Holland forced me to it. All my Neighbours call on me to concur in the Treaty between Holland and Spain; and the Honour of the Nation will not suffer the Hollanders to be abandoned, especially after so much Money and Men spent in their Quarrel. Therefore I was of the Mind to call my Clergy together, to satisfy not so much me, as the World about us of the Justness of my owning the Hollanders at this time: This I needed not to have done; and you have forced me to say, I wish I had not. You have dipped too deep in what all Kings Reserve among the Arcana Imperii. And whatever Aversion you may profess, against Gods being the Author of Sin, you have Stumbled upon the Threshold of that Opinion, in saying upon the Matter, that even Tyranny is God's Authority, and should be Reverenced as such. If the King of Spain should return to claim his old Pontifical Right to my Kingdom, you leave me to seek for others to Fight for it: For you tell us upon the Matter before hand, his Authority is God's Authority, if he prevail.  
Mr. Doctor, I have no time to express my Mind farther in this Thorny Business. I shall give you my Orders about it by Mr. Solicitor, and until then, meddle no more in it, for they are Edge Tools, or rather like that Weapon that's said to Cut with the one Edge, and Cure with the other. I commit you to God's Protection, Good Dr. Abhor, And rest  
Your Good Friend James R.  
FINIS.