IT was too great a Favour that you should present me particularly with those Reasons which our dissatisfied Clergy may have to offer for themselves for their not taking the Oaths; when you were pleased to lay the chiefest stress of their not doing so upon the Doctrine of Non-Resistance, that you should single me out a­mong [Page 2]all my Brethren, who were as much Preachers of it as my self, and put me upon the hard Task, as you thought no doubt, of reconciling that with the present Government and the present Oaths, or of renouncing the one or the other.

The Pains which some of you have taken in the History of Passive Obedience, shows that this is not the singular Doctrine of some few men but of Most if not All Divines, so that if it were a mistake, and a man had bin i'the wrong, he has a great deal of good Compa­ny with him, and need not be much ashamed of being call'd out to do Penance alone, or be taken to task for such a General Error. But however some of late are pleased to be very Angry or very Pleasant with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance, Rediculing and Exposing it as the flattering Heresie of the late Clergy, and talking against it at such a rate as if they would have St. Paul's words quite blotted out of the Bible, They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation; and when they are Friends to the present Government, yet do so far discredit it, as to be of their mind [Page 3]to think it inconsistent with that Principle, yet I am perfectly of another Opinion, and think that as true a Doctrine now as it was in St. Paul's time; and that we are no way bound to recant it in order to our taking the Oaths, and joyning with the present Government, or that it is necessary to give up either the one or the other. That this is a Christian Doctrine in the general, as much as not Revenging or not Killing, St. Pauls words set it beyond all dis­pute, though there may be Limitations and Exceptions to them all in extraordinary Cases, and it requires great Prudence and Caution when we come to the particular stating of this, and run into nice Discourses about Govern­ment, which many a good Divine may no more understand than Matters of Trade; and therefore may be apt to mistake in some Cases of both, and commit great oversights in going out of his Province, and applying general Rules to some particular Cases that will not bear them. The way of rightly stating this Doctrine, I have always thought was accord­ing to the Form and Constitution of our Laws and Government; whatever they are we are to be passive to them, and ought not to resist [Page 4]that Legal Power and Constitution which is the Ordinance of God which he has set over us.

But to make it an Instrument to destroy our Laws and our Constitution by advancing Prerogative above Law, and setting up I know not what Imperial Power above the Political, and requiring such a Loyalty to the Prince in Con­science, as is no way due by the Law of the Land, which is the true Rule and Measure of our Duty, this is to state it wrong, and to squeeze and wring a great Error and Mischeif out of a Real Truth; and whether this hath not bin done by a great many who have there­by brought an Odium and Discredit upon the Doctrine it self, I leave you to judge; but there is not the least colour of charging this upon any of my Sermons, where I lay the matter very much upon our own Constituti­on, and allow expresly the other Provision in the German Empire, and in the Capitulation of Spain and the Low Countries, pag. 25. Serm. 2. But if the Unlawfulness of Resisting upon any pre­tence whatsoever, was a slavish Doctrine in Eng­land, as some inconsidering Men throw out a­gainst the Clergy, 'twas more owing to the two Houses of Parliament who made that a Legal [Page 5]Declaration, then to any of the Clergy who Preached it up.

I doubt not but that, as general and absolute as it was, carried in it the Supposition of the Legal Constitution, and was not designed to alter or overthrow that, but there may some extra­ordinary Cases happen which no positive Laws can provide against, or ought indeed to suppose, but when they do happen the plain Reason and Necessity of things will pro­vide against them, and there cannot be certain and standing Rules made for them, but they fall under the Equity and Reason though not the Letter of the Constitution. I am fully of the mind that it is more for Publick Good and the Peace of the World, to teach People the Doctrines of Obedience to Gover­nors, and Non-Resistance Generally and Ab­solutely, then to open a door to unquiet Spirits to disturb the Government they live under up­on all occasions, but yet the greatest Divines who have Conscientiously done this, and par­ticularly Dr. Falkner among our own, when they have bin unwilling to allow any particu­lar and practical Cases of doing otherwise, be­cause they do but seldom and extraordinarily [Page 6]fall out, yet when they do, must and cannot but allow an exception to a general Duty, as he particularly mentions the case of Antio­chus, and of a Princes design to destroy and ruin a considerable part of his People contrary to the esta­blish'd Laws; to which some think ours comes up under King James, and yet he still vindi­cates that General Declaration of not Resisting upon any pretence whatsoever, because that is ordi­narily and generally true, and the exception to it is so rare and extraordinary as ought not to be taken in and supposed; and as no way hinders the Truth of such a general saying, as when holy Scripture declare that Wives and Children must obey their Husbands and Parents in all things; and whom God hath joyned together no man must put asunder. These Declarations how general soever, and how Exclusive they may seem of doing otherwise upon any pretence what­soever, yet still are not without some Excepti­ons in extraordinary Cases, which all Divines do allow.

Some Cases may fall out in Government, though they ought not to be supposed, nor can well be provided against: As if a King [Page 7]shall endeavor to destroy his People, to change the Constitution, to turn a Legal Govern­ment into an Absolute Empire; if he shall put a stop to Justice, and shut up Westminster-Hall, and give out no Commissions to Judges and Sheriffs, and appoint either none or other Officers then the Law knows; if he shall fall into Lunacy and Madness, or the like incapa­city, if he shall voluntarily Desert and Leave the Kingdom without any Government; if the whole Royal Family shall be extinct, and there be no Lineal Heirs to the Crown; if the right Heir be dubious, or there be a reasonable ground to believe a suppositious Child put in the place of the right Heir: In these, and such like Cases there is no ordinary Provision made by our Law, nor indeed can there well or possibly be in all of them; but when they do happen, the plain Necessity and Reason of the thing must direct to some provision or o­ther; and it is very unreasonable to quarrel with that because it is not in every thing agree­able with ordinary and standing Rules, and the exact Measures that the Laws do at other times require, but cannot then be observed.

This Sir answers all that is objected in the latter part of your Letter, which is the most considerable thing in it, concerning the Conven­tion and House of Commons, whither they had as you say, any Authority to Act as an House of Parliament in imposing these Oaths? pag. 4. Let. Because,

i. e. The Members of Parliament were before their Sitting to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King.

Now because this is true in all ordinary Cases must it be so in all extraordinary ones too? Were all these things observed by the Convention in 1660 which brought in King Charles the Second? And are we therefore to be dissatisfied about the Laws they made, and the proceedings done by them, because some of you may think that by our Constitution, a Conven­tion hath no power at all in Law? And because they observed not all the ordinary Rules required at other times by our Laws? If we do, we shall call in question the Legality at least of that Revolution, and that Convention as well as of this.

The Truth is, Positive Laws cannot al­ways be observed, but must give way to the [Page 10]greater Law of Necessity, and of notorious greater good; and even the Laws of God himself have often done so, as we find in Scri­pture. When therefore you urge on your side some particular Laws of the Kingdom which you cannot wholly reconcile with the present Government, and this I believe is the great Difficulty that sticks with you; we on the o­ther side think it such an extraordinary Case as dispenses with those, and that the plainness and notoriety of the thing may satisfie any mans Conscience about it, and did so when the Prince of Orange came, even these who now dissent, not only wisht well to the Prince, and went over to him in their Hearts and Affecti­ons, but denied their Assistance to King James; and did several other things which the Law would not warrant them in had it not bin an extraordinary Case; and most if not all of you have to my knowledge own­ed you did go in with the Prince so far as his Declaration, which was not altogether strictly Legal I suppose, by any of our Laws in bring­ing a King by such a manner to good Terms, so that we must leave God to judge whither it was not in the whole, such an extraordi­nary [Page 11]and extralegal Case as justifies whatever was done though not altogether according to express Laws and whither we have not acted sincerely in thinking so all along, and you unreasonably and perversly in thinking other­wise at one time, though not at another.

As to what you urge out of the Statute of 1. James 1. which declares the Right to the Monarchy to have lineally descended to the Prince, and by Proximity of Blood, and that hereupon he was recognized and submitted to by the whole Nati­on, and not upon any Choice or Election of the People. Who will not own this to be a common and rightful way of coming to the Crown in such an Hereditary Monarchy as ours is? But does that Statute say, that no other King of Eng­land who-ever came to the Crown, or ever should without such a Lineal Descent and Proximity of Bloud, was rightful King? Or does it say that King and Parliament have not a power to limit and settle the descent of the Crown according to the Thirteenth of Elizabeth? Does it take away that Act by ex­press Words, without which I think our Law­yers say no former Act is nulled or abrogated? What is it then to the purpose? Have not [Page 12]King William and Queen Mary a right of Blood and Lineal Descent, if King James his Right be ceased? Do they or the Kingdom ever own or declare that they hold the Crown by the Choice or Election of the People? Have not half of the Kings of England, before the Conquest and after, bin as much or more cho­sen by the people according to all our Histo­rians? Is there not a great difference between the Peoples Choosing and Electing of a King, and the States and Representatives of a King­dom Recognizing and Declaring them to be King and Queen by whatever unnamed Right? When you have satisfied me in these Questi­ons you will fully satisfie your self about that Matter.

You tell me there is another Statute of the same King, that enjoyns the Oath of Allegiance to him, as the true and Rightful King, and (which deserves well to be considered) makes it Trea­son to go about to perswade one to take the Oath to any else. Now is it any wonder or does it deserve any mighty Consideration, that the Law should make it Treason to go about to perswade one to take the Oath of Allegiance to him that is not King, this sure if any thing tends to the [Page 13]Kings Disherison and Destruction; and Par­sons I suppose, and some of the Popish Party in the beginning of King James I. Reign had such a design against which that Statute is levelled; but that which you bring it for, is upon the account of the Rightful King, so that you would have it meant against those who are for a King de facto only that is not Rightful: Now though this does not in the least concern me, but those who are of that Opinion, to answer, yet I believe this Statute had no Eye to any such thing nor is any way concerned about it, nor does it however take away the Act of Henry the Seventh about those who adhere to the King in Possession, but what you add to it is very Considerable, and the greatest though shortest thing in your whole Letter (for as to the business of Non-Resistance, I take that to be very impertinent to the Clergy's taking the Oaths, and to concern only a very few others) which is this; So long as Allegiance is thus due to the Rightful King, you would be very kind if you would shew those that are dissatisfied, that they may transfer it to any other without Sin. Now, Sir, in answer to this, I must own that I know not how Allegiance can be due to two Kings at [Page 14]once; to a King de jure and a King de facto, no one can actually serve two such Masters, but if our Law allow such a distinction, which I am not at present to dispute, then it must by requiring Allegiance to the King de facto, dis­charge us at that time from the Allegiance due to the King de jure, and transfer it to the other; if there be such a Law and Constitution of the Kingdom for the sake of Publick Peace and the security of private Persons, I would know what Law of God there is against it? And then whether a Man may not without sin sub­mit to it, and take the benefit of it? But I think Allegiance to a Rightful King ceases, by his ceasing to be King; and then it may be easily known know it comes to be transfer'd to another.

As to the 12 Carol. 2. c. 30. That neither the Peers of this Land, nor the Commons, nor both together in Parliament or out of Parliament, nor the People Collectively or Representatively, nor any other persons whatsoever, have any Coercive power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm. This will be readily owned, you know, by me who do not think that our Government is such as that of the [Page 15]Lacedemonians under their Kings and Ephori, and by all but those who are of the mind of the Judges of Charles the First; had those who were chiefly concerned in the late revolution bin of another Opinion, K. James had bin stopt from going either to France or to Ireland. Our Peers and Commons in Parliament did not use any Coercive power over King James, nor give any proper judicial Sentence against him to exclude him the Government, as having any Superiority or Sovereignty over him, but only declared the throne Vacant of him for many Reasons, and that William and Mary were King and Queen of this Realm, and this they did, not as formal Judges but as Arbitrators made so by the necessity of the Circumstances we were then in, and however you may dis­like their award and Arbitrement, for which they alone are answerable, yet if as private Persons you may not submit to it, you must break up the World, and disband the Society of Mankind, and necessarily run into a state of War and Confusion, and we shall be hard­ly able to live under any Government what­soever. However you do not think I suppose that a Foreign Prince is tyed up and obliged [Page 16]by that Statute against making War upon a King of England when he supposes him to have done him an otherwise irreparable injury, nor are the Nation hindered hereby from go­ing over to the just side or bound to assist their Prince in an unjust Cause, especially when they know it would have bin to their own cer­tain Destruction.

Thus I think the Matter might be stated without touching upon any of those Statutes you mention or the Doctrine of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience which lye far enough out of the way from hindering our taking the Oathes or coming into the Government, though you think fit to throw them in as Rubs to keep you from both; but you desire me not to shift of the matter to a Conquest, which is nei­ther owned by King nor People, and yet may be true enough in point of Conscience, though not insisted on in point of Prudence; Nor to a Va­cancy by a voluntary Desertion, which is a falsity in matter of Fact; and yet if it be well considered it will amount to as much as if he had bin brought to a Resignation under his hand, and may as well satisfie any Mans Conscience, [Page 17]for that might with as much reason be sup­posed to be as little Voluntary, and not with­out a design of returning to his Government again, if he could; but this I dare assure you is true in matter of Fact that King James ra­ther chose to go away, than to tarry and call a Parliament, and give thereby a reasonable Security to the Nation against Popery and De­struction; and this was not only Voluntary but Deliberate too, and upon the Advice of his Po­pish Counsellors, and so far it was a Voluntary Desertion.

As to the Case of Non-Resistance, what I have ever taught from the Press or the Pulpit, in neither of which Chair I pretend to be Infalli­ble, or have in a solemn manner professed that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up arms against the King or any Commissioned by him, I did it as you hope, and God is my Witness, in the sincerity of my heart, for the good of the World and Peace of Mankind, as I thought it agreeable to the Law of God, and the Law of the Land, and I do not think that either this or any other Wise Government, will think it a dangerous Opinion, or oblige any Divine to [Page 18]Renounce or Recant it, and if any unseen and extraordinary Case should ever happen to be an exception against it, I am clearly of the mind 'tis much better to let it alone to provide for it self when it comes, then to mention it in a Sermon or Practical Discourse, and fill Peoples Heads with a Nicety they may be too apt to abuse. As to give you a plain Case, if you were to Preach against Stealing, and taking away another mans Goods without his consent, and were showing the great Mischief and Unlawfulness of it in all Cases, and how contrary it was both to the good of the World, and to the Laws of God and of Man, you would not, I suppose, think it Necessary or Prudent to acquaint your Auditory with that extraordinary Case of a Mans Stealing for the support of his Life, when he must otherwise starve, though you with Thomas Aquinas, and other Divines, thought it lawful to do so in such a Case of Necessity.

The Case of Non-Resistance, however high it was carried in all the likely and practical Cases, to stop most of the Holes at which Treason and Rebellion might be then apt to break out, or at least through which Factious [Page 19]Spirits might as they pleased creep out of that ordinary Duty and Obedience they owed to the Government and have too many others to follow them, and so embroil and disturb the World, by disobeying and resisting as they thought fit, so that if we would speak to any purpose it was necessary to speak to those Cases and to show the unlawfulness of private Persons Re­sisting or Rebelling either in the Case of meer Religion, or the Case of Legal Rights, when we might justly complain with the Primitive Christians in Tertullians Apology that some of those were taken from us and yet still suffer patiently; or in the Case of Natural Defence which is not so allowable to private Persons against the Government as against one another, and the Otherwise Remediless Case by the encroachment of Princes, who are not to be Resisted for every encroachment. But in all these Cases there may be several degrees which you do not con­sider, and which it was not so proper for me to do at that time. However in all of them there is not that great, but one would think unlikely, and therefore unthought of Case, of a Princes Destroying the Community, and o­verturning the Government, and Ruining the [Page 20]greatest part of his People; concerning which I desire you to consult Dr. Falkner, and see what he says about it, who has yet spoken as fully for Non-Resistance in all Cases as I or you your self can do; and I think now you find that true which you quote out of my Sermon, and which might have deserved another sort of re­mark from you, though it was spoke without the Spirit of Prophecy, namely, That Gods Providence and Government of the World is the best Security in this and all other Evils we are subject to; that the great Patron of Justice will set bounds to the Power and Injustice of Princes; and as far as is ne­cessary for the good of the World, and for his wise de­signs, so far they shall go and no farther; that he will take the matter into his own hands, & satis est quod Deum expectent ultorem, who will not there­fore strike them immediately and miraculously with Thunder from Heaven, but raise up In­struments, and find out means in his Wise Pro­vidence to Deliver a people by those who were under no manner of Obligation from the Doctrine of Non-Resistance.

The Clergy who have taken the Oathes, were no more concerned in Resisting K. James while he was their King, nor in adhereing to any [Page 21]that did so in this particular, than any of you who refuse the Oaths, and for that sin of Omission in not Assisting him, which is a duty we are ordi­narily bound to by our Laws and by our for­mer Oaths, that if it be one, is a common Crime we are both equally responsible for, and the same reason by which you unloose your selves from part of the Oath of Allegiance, which was to defend and assist the King, and which made you not think your selves bound to keep that when the Prince came because it tended to your manifest destruction, might have unloosed you from the whole, even, if you please as Sampson did his withs; and we think our selves now fully un­loosed by his not being King.

I wonder therefore, and can hardly think you in earnest, when you bring such frivolous and unconcluding Reasons for your not taking the Oaths, or non-compliance with the present Government, which can satisfie no body; and if they expose any, 'tis those who bring them, as for example, because ye would not be like a kind of Weather-glasses, by having your obedience to Governors higher or lower according to the temperature or variati­on of outward Affairs. This fancy of Weather­glasses has had great Honour and Credit done to it by several of your party, and particularly [Page 22]by the Wise Publisher of the History of Passive Obedience, who was pleased to put it into his Preface as the only piece of Wit there, and if any of you stand in the same need of it, and it be further serviceable to you, the Owner of it will still allow you the free use of it, but then pray take this with it, and all that belongs to it, That none may be so malicious as to think we Cal­culate our Sermons meerly for the present Circum­stances, as if the Pulpit were a kind of Weather-glass wherein the Doctrine of Obedience to Governours is higher or lower according to the Temperature or Vari­ation of outward Affairs, I challenge Malice it self to name the Pulpit where this Doctrine has faln so much as half a tenth since the late Revolution, or where the contrary Doctrine, to wit, the Lawfulness of Resisting has ever bin Preach'd by any unless perhaps by a Non­swearer; so that I see no danger hereby of our rendering our Ministerial endeavors useless and in­effectual, or becoming a great Scandal and Distur­bance to such as have known our former Doctrine and manner of Life and bringing a reproach upon the ex­cellent Religion we profess. If any thing of this be, it is owing more to those who stand out, who thereby furnish some weak Persons with Scruples, and some discontented ones with Pre­tences [Page 23]against the present Government, but which of us do hereby render their Ministerial endea­vors more useless and ineffectual, let the Body of the Nation judge, and let any of your selves judge by the small number of those whom you can bring to be of your Minds in your own Parishes; if you come to consider Consequen­ces, as ye thus object to us upon our coming in to the Government, what are those upon your standing out, but the Ruin not only of your Country, but of the Protestant Religion here, and all over Europe; and the serving a Cause, and joyning in an Interest that no Ho­nest Englishman or Hearty Protestant, though he may suffer for it in Conscience, yet can in Conscience wish well to; you need therefore be as Cautious against those, as you are you say, against Treason, because you have bin told, and I hope you would have bin so, if you had not bin told, that Treason has stood so long in this Na­tion, in the late times, that it has run to seed, and scattered its principles, &c. and that it is a Disease, which though it be not like the Sweating Sickness of old, a Malady peculiar to Englishmen, yet the plenty and luxury of our Country may perhaps make us more subject to it than others; I would therefore have your Party have a care of it, for I do not be­lieve [Page 24]this Government will be more a friend to it than any other, but I think no man is ex­posed by a thousand such like Quotations ei­ther against Treason or for Non-Resistance, which will hold as long as there is any Govern­ment i'the World; and I am of Opinion that Treason is as great a Crime under K. William's Reign, and Non-Resistance as much a Duty as it was under K. Charles's.

I can easily grant you all that either I or o­thers have said much better upon that Subject, while they have kept to the Laws and to the Constitution, and not run into such Notions and Schemes of Government as destroy both, and nothing will follow or be concluded from it that shall in the least injure K. William, if he be our true and proper Sovereign, or be any way serviceable to K. James, if he be not. This is the great Point which you have not hit, but may if you please make it the Subject of the next loving Letter between us: All that is in this I have answered with that kindness and o­penness that becomes a Friend, and with that seriousness that becomes a point of Conscience and such as I fear not to be ashamed of at the last day.