God's peculiar prerogative, he moſt certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itſelf leads you to approve of every thing which ever happened or may happen to Kings, as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles then died not by the hands of man; and ſhould the preſent proud Imitator of him come to the ſame untimely end, the writers and publiſhers of the teſtimony are bound by the doctrine it contains to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about by any other means than ſuch as are common and human; and ſuch as we are now uſing. Even the diſperſion of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuſe to be the means on one ſide, ye ought not to be medlers on the other but to wait the iſſue in ſilence, and unleſs ye can produce divine authority to prove, that the Almighty, who hath made and placed this new world at the greateſt diſtance it could poſſibly ſtand, eaſt and weſt, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheleſs, diſapprove of its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unleſs I ſay ye can ſhew this, how can ye, on the ground of your principles, juſtify the exciting and ſtirring up the people "firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all ſuch writings and meaſures, as evidence a deſire and deſign to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto enjoyed with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our juſt and neceſſary ſubordination to the King, and thoſe who are lawfully placed in authority under him?" What a ſlap of the face is here! The men who, in the very paragraph before, have quietly and paſſively reſigned up the ordering, altering and diſpoſal of Kings and governments into the hands of God, are now recalling, their principles, and putting in for a ſhare of the buſineſs. Is it poſſible that the concluſion, which is here juſtly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconſiſtency is too glaring not to be ſeen; the abſurdity too great not to be laughed at; and ſuch as could only have been made by thoſe, whoſe underſtandings were darkened by the narrow and crabbed ſpirit of a deſpairing political party; for ye are not to be conſidered as the whole body of the Quakers, but only as a factional and fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your teſtimony (which I call upon no man to abhor as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly) to which I ſubjoin the following remark; "that the ſetting up and putting down of Kings," moſt certainly mean, the making him a King who is yet not ſo, and the making him no King who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the preſent caſe? We neither mean to ſet up nor to pull down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore your teſtimony, in whatever light it is viewed, ſerves only to diſhonor your judgment, and for many other reaſons had better have been let alone than publiſhed.
