THE History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation, tells us, That it was the Doctrine of all Ages.

To which I return this plain Answer: Our Noble and Blessed Reformers, and all Pro­testant Divines (as we who oppose Passive Obedi­ence, do at this day) declare, that the King's Power is of God, yea, that all Power is of God; that Kings are God's Ministers and Vice-gerents; that they are God's Ordinance, and are not to be Resisted, but Obeyed; not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake: That God is the only Ruler of Princes; that neither Heresie nor Infi­delity absolve Subjects from their Allegiance and Duty to Kings. This, and the like is granted on all hands. And this is all that I could ever Col­lect from the Homilies, Articles, Injunctions, or Canons, Liturgy, and first Bishops of the Prote­stant English Church.

So that I shall premise these General Rules, for the understanding of the Judgment of the first Reformers, and of other later Divines by him mentioned.

First, Either they speak against Faction, Sedi­tion, and Rebellion, in very large and general Terms; as all Divines, even those of our Perswa­sion, do, as a most heinous and unnatural wick­edness, without stating any particular Case.

Or, Secondly, They speak of Kings Ruling ac­cording to the Laws of their Country. Suppose I should say in a Sermon, Good Christian People, ye must in no case, or for no cause Resist King William, for he that Resisteth, shall receive to himself Damnation. Would any Man (who knows my judgment) from such words conclude, that I am for Passive Obedience? Would they not rather conclude, that I am zealous for obedi­ence to the King, and harbour no jealousie of my Governors, but have a strong presumption that he will Rule according to Law; do what is Right, and that his Subjects may lead a quiet and peace­able Life, in all Godliness and Honesty: And, doing their Duty, may assure themselves of all the benefits of good Government. The Apostle saith, Whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that Resist, shall [Page 2]receive to themselves Damnation. The Homilies [...]y, We must in no case resist; and that it [...] not Lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any [...]se to resist and stand against the Superior Pow­ [...]s: (I hope this Author will acknowledge, that [...]e Homilies speak in the same sence with St. [...]aul) We say so too.

But the Question is, whether Paul calls Defen­ [...]ve Arms against Illegal Proceedings and Univer­ [...]l Oppression Damnable Resistance. We say, [...]hat it is not the Resistance of which St. Paul [...]peaks. And the Author brings no Reason to [...]rove it is. But we give Reasons for our Inter­ [...]retation. And this is one; Neither God, nor Man gives Authority to Governors to Oppress. Hear what a Learned Man and a grave Divine saith, ‘The Apostle doth not say expresly, Whosoever resisteth the Highest Men shall receive Damna­tion, but whosoever shall resist the Power. Let every one be subject, not to the will of the Highest Men, but to the Higher Powers.’ There is a great deal of difference between these two. The Higher Powers, that is, that Autho­rity that God and man hath put upon such a Man. It is [...], not [...], that must be Sub­jected to, and not Resisted. We profess against resisting Power, Authority, though abused. If they who have power to make Laws, shall make sinful Laws, and so give Authority to any to force Obedience, we say here, there must be either Fly­ing or Passive Obedience. But if one that is in Authority commands out of his own will, and not by Law, I Resist no Power, no Authority at all, if I neither Actively, nor Passively Obey: No, I do not so much as resist abused Authority. This may seem strange at first, but if you think of it, you will believe it. We distinguish between the Man that hath the Power, and the Power of that Man, and say though the Power must not be Resisted according to the letter and sense of the Text, yet the Illegal Will and Ways of the Man may be Resisted, without the least Offence against the Text. But of the Homilies I shall speak in due place.

Or, Thirdly, They speak of Personal Infirmi­ties and Crimes of Princes, of which God alone is the Avenger and Judge.

Or, Fourthly, They speak of Tyranny in Exer­cise, when Laws enable Princes to Execute cruel Edicts, or when wicked Laws are made, and put in Execution; which is called the Abuse of Power. In which case we own Passive Obedience, in Imi­tation of the Primitive Christians. And so it was in Queen Mary's days.

Or, Fifthly, They hyperbolize in zealous Ex­pressions from an abhorrence of [...]ebellion, and due Reverence of Sacred Majesty and Crowned Heads, God's Anointed, and Princes of greatest Merit and Renown. As if I should say of His present Majesty, (in an Extasie of Joy upon Medi­tation of our great Deliverance) He is the Earthly God and Saviour of England: Could any from hence rationally infer, that I den [...] Defensive Arms in some case?

Or, Sixthly, They Write in times wherein Ar­bitrary power and Innovations got footing: And so out of blind Zeal, and (as I may say) Super­stitious Devotion to Princes; or out of Prejudice; or they were Court-parasites and Flatterers, as Mountague, Manwaring, Sibthorp, Parker, Cartwright, &c. or possessed with some other evil Affection: Or they wrote zealously against the Pope's Supremacy, and his pretended power of Excommunicating and Deposing Kings, and against the Assassination and Murdering of Prin­ces, justified by some Jesuits most Audaciously.

Or, Lastly, They have spoken their own Senti­ments and private Opinions, not the Doctrine of the Church of England; and have been opposed by others in all times, (sometimes Secretly, some­times Openly) of the same Communion and Church; and by Men of as great Knowledge, Piety, and Loyalty both to King and Country: And these have been both of the Clergy and Laity, as far as with due Reverence to their Su­periors they could. But surely no man in his Sen­ses, can think that a whole Kingdom is to be made a Sacrifice to the perverse Will and Lust of a Tyrant, who dispenseth with all Laws, and is resolved to Rule Arbitrarily, and will hearken to no Petitions, &c.

And thus having premised these general Rules for our plain Understanding, I descend to the par­ticulars of this History. And first, I will consi­der his Preface.

He begins thus. Having always thought, that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, or Non-resi­stance of our Lawful Superiors, had been a Do­ctrine founded in the Holy Scriptures, recom­mended to the Christian World by the Precepts and Examples of our Blessed Saviour, and the Practice of his more immediate Followers; which Copy the Church of England hath exactly Tran­scribed, to whose Immortal Glory it must be said, that she alone (in contradistinction both to Pa­pists and Dissenters) hath asserted the Principles of Obedience to Princes, as the best Ages of Chri­stianity own'd, and practised it.

Answ. This Author's Thoughts are no Rule for us to live by: And I make no question (if he will lay aside Prejudice) but that he will see reason to change his mind, and to acknowledge, that Passive Obedience in his sense, is no Doct­rine founded in the Holy Scriptures, &c. And that the Church of England hath transcribed no such Copy as he speaks of. For it would be not the Immortal Glory, but the Everlasting Shame of the Bishops and Clergy, to justifie such Do­ctrine as must necessarily bring Slavery upon their Native Country. As if Christ came into the World not to save mankind, but destroy it; and God had left all Political Society to be a Prey to Wolves: For so Tyrants are called.

Obj. The matter of Fact as to the first Ages of Reformation, is denied: (So the Author brings us in objecting) while some affirm, that the Te­net is no older than Arch-bishop Laud, and was introduced by a few Court-Bishops, the better to make way for the attaining and establishing of their own Grandeur.

Answ. We say, that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience in this Authors sense, was not taught by the first Blessed Reformers; and that it began about the latter end of the Reign of King James the First, as we hope to prove in the following Discourse. And we fear Temporal Interest, and somewhat of the humour of Diotrephes, who loved to have the Preheminence, more than Zeal to propagate the Truth of the Gospel brought into the Church this and some other like Doctrines, to which we say, our first Reformers were whol­ly Strangers.

Obj. The Doctrine of Passive Obedience can­not be unseasonable, since no Government can be safe without it.

Answ. Some Men have a great fondness for their own Opinions. Is there any Kingdom, State, or Government in Christendom, that thinks as this Author Writes? And must his Ipse Dixit suffice? For he offers no Reason. Is there no way to avoid Faction, Sedition, and Rebellion, but by teaching Men to deny their Senses, and be calm, like innocent Lambs, while the most Barbarous Papists would cut their Throats, and ruine their Posterity?

What if Lewd Libellers, as Parsons the Jesuit, Milton, &c. Traduce the best of God's Anoin­ted? And what if Rebels Murder the best of Kings, must not therefore the Innocent defend themselves? Was David Wicked for defending himself by force of Arms against the Tyranny of Saul, because Absalem was a Rebel, and exposed his Fathers admirable Reign? It is the Cause makes a thing Just, or Unjust. Every Sophister may see the Fallacy of such Arguments. I am sure Passive Obedience was so unseasonable in our days, that it had almost Ruined the most Glori­ous National Church upon Earth, and threatned Laws, Liberty, and Property. Such advantage had the impudent Jesuits made of it.

Obj. Did we seriously study the Laws of Pro­vidence, and consider the indispensible Obliga­tion said on us of taking up the Cross: Did we remember that Affliction is the Churches Portion; and that not the least Evil may be done to pro­cure the greatest Good, this Doctrine would be more easily Believed, and more readily Embra­ced.

Answ. God's Providence and Human Prudence, are not Inconsistent. But God requires of us the use of Means to deliver our selves out of Af­fliction. And we say in some case it is so far from being Evil, that it is a most Heroick Ver­tue, when God inspires the Nobles of a Nation to throw off the Yoak of Universal Oppression. And though Affliction is the Churches portion, yet if God gives us Halcyon days, or in our Distress we have opportunity to free our selves from Aegyptian Task-masters, it is both Sin and Folly to continue in Bondage.

Obj. This is the Doctrine of Hobbs, and Par­sons the Jesuit, That Power is Originally in the Body of the People; that the Foundation of all Government is laid in Compact; and that the breach of Conditions by one Party, dispenseth with the Duty of the other, though confirmed with Sacraments. Oaths, and reiterated Promises.

Answ. That all Government is a Trust, and founded in Covenant, I have elsewhere proved And though we say, that all Power is of God yet the Limitation, Qualification, and Designa­tion of the Person, or Soveraign, and the Form of Regiment, is an Ordinance of Man. And we affirm, that if our Prince suffers in a good Cause, as in a Rebellion, we are bound to Suffer with him. And this is not Hobbism. But if Hobbs owns some Truths that we, and all wise Politi­tians, and most Reformed Divines own, is Truth the worse? What if the Devil said, Jesus, thou Son of God, must not we say so likewise? Leave off these foolish Imputations. As for the Papists, (as a Learned Divine hath observed) they hold and practise against this, and for this, and beyond this, as they see they may serve their own Turns. In their Practice, especially of late, they have laboured to infuse into the People, yea, and [Page 4]into Princes, an opinion of their Absolute Pow­er, as conceiving it for the present most condu­cing to their ends, who have preached up that all is the King's; that his Will is our Law; that all Grants are but Acts of Grace; that whatsoever he Commands, must be obey'd, either by Doing, or Suffering.

Of a like nature is that childish Insinuation, if not willful Calumny, that we are not obedient to our Soveraign, because he is God's Vice-gerent, and because God hath obliged us to be subject, not only for Wrath, but for Conscience sake: And that we are Obedient and Loyal only, because our Compliance advanceth our Designs, &c. This is a Machiavellian trick, and unworthy of a Dis­putant.

Sir, I beseech you consider that we are about a case of Conscience of greatest concern to the whole Kingdom; and use Arguments, or relate Authorities; and do not act the part of a Slan­derer, instead of an Historian. For we take our selves to have as good a Conscience in this matter as you, be you who you will. And if we know our own Hearts, had no design in this great Re­volution, but delivering our selves, and our Po­sterity from Popery and Slavery. So much for the Preface.

Let us go on to the Introduction.

And here I agree with the Author about the Interpretation of the Counsel of our Holy Saviour, St. Matt. 7.15, 16. who when he bids us to Be­ware of false Prophets, who come in Sheeps Clo­thing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves, cau­tions us, that we shall know them by their Fruits. That is, not by the Fruits of their Lives, but of their Doctrine. Now we say, the natural conse­quences of Passive Obedience, when we have a willful or wicked Prince, are Arbitrary Power, Oppression, Tyranny, Popery, Slavery, Invalida­ting of Laws, Obstructions of publick Justice, and any Grievance that can befall a Nation. I wish we had not seen these Evils with our own Eyes. But then perhaps we should have been hard put to it to make this Author, and men of his Perswasion, to believe the many horrid Mischiefs which plain­ly follow such flattering Doctrine.

Likewise I acknowledge, that if we would judge of the Doctrines of our Church, we must consult her Articles, Canons, publick Homilies, Publick Offices of Devotion, General Orders of her Bishops, Censures of her Universities, and Writings of her Great Men, who have Vindica­ted her Doctrine, and explained her Belief.

I proceed to the First Chapter, according to this method, which contains the Doctrine of the 39 Articles.

Anno 1552. In the Convocation held at Lon­don, Articles of Religion were agreed upon, of which the Thirty sixth runs thus,

The Civil Magistrate is Ordained and allowed of God, and therefore is to be Obeyed, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake. And expresly asserts, that the Bishop of Rome hath no Juris­diction in this Realm of England.

In the Articles of our Church under Queen Elizabeth, Anno 1562. it runs thus, and so con­tinues to this day.

The Queens Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, un­to whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical, or Civil, in all cases doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction.

Answ. Surely no man, who bears the name of a Protestant, ever denied this. But I imagine, that if Passive Obedience had been such a peculiar and Characteristical Doctrine of the Church of England, as we have been perswaded of late to believe, we should have had an Article against Defensive Arms in any case; and it would have been condemned as a factious, seditious and rebel­lious Principle, if it deserved Damnation, as this Author speaks often times. I expected plain right down English to condemn such wicked and dange­rous Doctrine, but I find not one word about it in the Articles, nor can this Author. Which is to me a strong presumption, that the first Refor­mers medled not with this as an Article of Re­ligion.

And this Author confesseth pag. 4. That this Doctrine is not limited to the particular case of Subjects taking up Arms. Well, but it seems to him by two necessary Consequences to be deduced from it.

Let us hear them. First, Because if the Pope, who pretends by Divine Right, had no power over Kings, much less have the People any Power, who pretend to an Inferior Right, that of Com­pact. (As if by the way the People had not a Divine right to Defend themselves: Which Law of Na­ture is certainly the Law of God unwritten, and is only in Man's Heart.)

Secondly. Because the Article makes no Di­stinction, but Excludes all other Power as well as that of the Pope.

Answ. All that the Article Disclaims is the Usurped Power of the Pope: And all that it de­clares is, the Supream Power of the King over all [Page 5]Persons in his Dominions. But the first Refor­mers were not so senseless as to speak a word against the Peoples power of Self-preservation. And who among us saith, that the People have Power or Jurisdiction over their Prince, (when we say that they are not Rulers, or in Office) but they have a Power of Self-preservation? And if a Prince seeks their Ruine causelessly, they may Defend themselves by the Law of Nature, and compel him to keep his Covenant and Oath, the good of the whole Kingdom being the end of all Government. And if they can no longer trust him with their Safety, because he hath will­fully broken his Promises, they may Elect one whom they can Trust; and they are not bound to be Passive under Illegal Oppressions. God Rest the Soul of this Author for his honest simplicity and well-meaning; but I would gladly see his Logick in Mood and Figure. For verily, I con­ceive, that no Consciencious and Wise Man, who is for Passive Obedience, did ever dream that this Article denied Defensive Arms. And for me it shall go for the peculiar Fancy of the Author.

We say that the Power of the King is of God; but we say also that Originally they were Elected by the People. And Dr. Fern acknowledgeth, That it was probably so at first in this Nation. But we say that it was certainly so, not only in this, but in all the Kingdoms of the World. See Po­lydore Virgil, the Book called the Mirror, Bra­cton, Fortescue, &c. And for 2970 years, or thereabouts, (as Chronologers compute) that is, from Adam to Rehoboam, there was no Lineal Descent, or Hereditary Succession among God's own People. And it must be confessed by all, That if the Royal Line should fail in any Kingdom, there must be Election, for God doth not now work Miracles, nor send extraordinary Prophets to Anoint Kings; but he whom the People in such case would chuse, is God's Anointed, and to him all owe Obedience. I shall say no more at this time about this first Chapter: Only I cannot but observe, that though this Author pretends to the Meekness and Spirit of Christ Jesus, yet he is very prone to Calumniate his Antagonists. For who ever of our side in his Wits, said, that the People are the Interpreters of the meaning of the Laws, as he speaks p. 4. And if any ever said, that the Parliament, the Representatives of the People, and the Highest Court of the Kingdom, are the Interpreters of the meaning of the Laws, it must be understood with such Exceptions as these, That they have not Arbitrary Power; That they are not Infallible; That they must be guided by right Reason, &c. But there needs no great Con­sultation in case of Universal Oppression: (In which case alone we justifie Defensive Arms) for it is a thing sensible, and we have Experience of it, or feel it, and cannot deny our Senses, but are forced as sensible Creatures, to complain and desire the Redress of our Grievances.

I go on to Chapter II. which contains the In­junctions and Canons.

Nothing but blind Zeal to maintain a Party that a Man hath espoused, could move the Author to produce the Injunctions and Canons, made in the time of Edward the VI. and Queen Eliza­beth, as asserting Passive Obedience, or condemn­ing Defensive Arms in some case; for all Ortho­dox Divines acknowledge every tittle to be true; and they overthrow the Pope's Supremacy in Eng­land, and all Foreign Jurisdiction. But the first Reformers of our Church had more Wisdom and Moderation than to Condemn their Brethren of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, when both Luther and Calvin justified Defensive Arms. And surely every wise and considerate Reader must needs Laugh at the palpable Folly and Weakness of this Author, to infer from these Injunctions and Canons, that Passive Obedience was the Cha­racteristical Mark of the Church of England in those days. He is Pur-blind with Prejudice, and so now the Sun shines bright and clear, he is bet­ter pleased with the Owl-light of his own Ima­gination. Surely we receive these Injunctions and Canons as the beginning of Reformation, with Hearts full of Joy. And I am fully of Opi­nion, that Henry VIII began at the Root, when he renounced the Pope's Supremacy.

But let us hear the Doctrine of the Injunctions and Canons.

In the Infancy of the Reformation under Hen­ry VIII. (for there I begin the Restoration of Religion to her purity in this Kingdom, as Dr. Burnet doth) Anno 1536. Injunctions were Is­sued out: The first of which is, That every Man that hath Cure of Souls, shall for the Establishing and Confirmation of the King's Authority and Jurisdiction, sincerely declare, manifest and open for the space of one quarter of a Year next en­suing, once every Sunday, and after that at least wise twice every Quarter in their Sermons and other Collations, That the Bishop of Rome's Ʋsurped Power and Jurisdiction having no Esta­blishment or Ground in the Law of God, was of most just cause, taken away and Abolished—And that the King's Power in his Dominions, is the Highest Power and Potentate under God, to [Page 6]whom all Men within the same Dominions, by Gods Command owe most Loyalty and Obedience, afore and above all other Potentates on Earth.

I am so far from disowning any of this, that I wish it had been every Week published in every Market Town in the Reign of King James II. We always abhorred the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome: And we always owned the King's Lawful Power and Authority. But we say, that if a King is resolved to Subject us to a Forreign Power, and to Dispense with all Laws made for our Security, Liberty and Property, and the Established Reli­gion, we may hinder him from Cutting our Throats, and Defend our selves. And this is nei­ther R [...]bellion nor Resistance, properly so called; but Natural Self preservation, against the Freaks and prodigious Melancholy Fits of a raging and beastly Tyrant, who with greatest Ingratitude would devour Friends as well as Foes.

But let us see his Inference p. 5. Now if the King be above all other Powers, then he cannot be Accountable to any other Power, and so ought not to be Resisted.

Answ. He that resists the Lust of a Tyrant, re­sists no Power, as hath been said often; because neither God nor Man gave him such Power. And though the King is above all Power, and it is not for me to meddle with the King's Prerogatives, or the Parliaments Priviledges, yet I may safely say, He is not above Law, which makes him King, as I shall shew anon out of the Fragments of Mr. Hooker's Eighth Book. And it is a Sen­tence worthy to be written in Letters of Gold, which I find, ( [...]. Sect. 5. p. 31. with me) King Charles the First mentioned, More than the Law gives me I would not have, and less the meanest Subject should not. And let me remind the Author that he saith in the Preface, that he only doth the office of an Historian, and intended not to promote any Disturbance. But here and else­where he cannot forbear his own Inferences, how unreasonable so ever they be.

Again he saith, The Injunctions of the Lord Cromwell, Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, plainly distinguish the Claim of the Pope from other Claims, implying, That our Church always believed that her Princes Power was derived immediately from God, and that they were Supe­rior to all their Subjects, either Singly, or Col­lectively, and so were not accountable to them, but only to God.

Answ. No Mans private inferences and Opinions are the Doctrines of the Church. The Injuncti­ons and Canons have left such a Latitude, that both Sides approve. Likeas the 17th. Article is of such a latitude, that both Calvinists and Arminians subscribe with Cheerfulness and a good Conscience. And this I take to be great Wisdom in our first Re­formers. I wish those Bishops that Succeeded them had been as wise at all times. For let this Author i­magine what he pleaseth, private Opinions, when urged as Doctrines of the Church, or made Cha­racteristical Marks of the Church, have been the cause of all Disturbances in the Christian World. We all believe that the King's Power is of God; but that any one form of Regiment is derived immediately from God, is no Doctrine of our Church, nor of any Church; and is the first fal­shood in political Government; as I have shewed elsewhere. All Kings receive their power Medi­ately by the People. And Mr. Hooker faith, tho he is singulis Major, yet he is universis Minor. But my opinion is, this is according to the Con­stitution of every Kingdom, though no People can give away the right of Self-preservation.

I am weary of this Cuckow tune always the same thing. In short, the Canons of the Church of England are Innocent in this matter: And I would justifie our Church; but the Guilt of some and the Peevishness of others, will not suffer me. And such as these may call me an Apostate and Presbyterian, perhaps only because they are a­shamed to confess their own Guilt. I profess my self as true a Son of the Church of England as any Man in England. And I always was, and am at this day, for Monarchy, Epscopacy and Liturgy, as Established by Law. And I humbly submit in all things of Order, Decency and Go­vernment, to the Fathers of the Church, and to the King and Parliament. And let Men sunk in Prejudice say what they will, this was always the Judgment of the Protestant English Church. If our Governors think fit to change things in their own nature changeable, every Subject is bound in Conscience to Obey. If they think not fit, be things as they are, I am contented.

Now as for the Canons of the year 1640, I con­fess they have a spice of Innovation. And I say, (I hope without offence to any Impartial considerer of those days) That Arbitrary Power began to creep upon us. And Arch-bishop Laud and his Party, nor the Puritans and their Party, are not to be justified in all things. And here I make my Appeal to Rushworth's Collections, or any other impartial Record of those times. But I think the Author had better have buried these things in Silence. For how they tend to the Credit of the Church of England, I do not understand, and I need not descant upon them.

Let us go on to Chap. III. which contains the Doctrine of the Homilies.

Here I shall not say with Mr. Mountague, (Ap­peal. p. 260.) I will admit the Homilies, as con­taining certain Godly and wholsom Exhortations; but not as publick Dogmatical Resolutions, Con­firmed of the Church of England. They have not Dogmatical Positions or Doctrines to be propugned and subscribed in all and every point. They may seem to speak somewhat too hard, and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England.

But with this Author I will account them ad­mirable Sermons made by our first Reformers, as the Body of practical Divinity, and the Confuta­tions of the Errors and Idolatries of the Church of Rome, &c.

And by the way I am Glad that the Homilies are allowed to confute the Idolatries of the Church of Rome. Because not long since divers for Passive Obedience and Non-resistance, denied that there was any Idolatry in the Church of Rome, to the great Scandal of our Mother the Church of England.

This premised, I affirm that if Mens thoughts may be known by their words, Dr. Welw. (Let­ter to Mr. March, p. 10.) might well say, That Passive Obedience, in the narrow sense we take it in, was not so much as thought on at the time of publishing the Homilies.

First, Because the words Passive Obedience are not in the Homilies.

Secondly, Because they do not state our Case; which is this, If a King is resolved to destroy the Religion by Law Established, and Liberty and Property, and will rule by the Sword, contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, whe­ther in this case Defensive Arms are not Lawful? Now we say, the Compilers of the Homilies never condemned this: Neither are the words, Defensive Arms are Ʋnlawful, in the Homilies.

Thirdly, because in those days the Writings of many Divines of the Foreign Reformed Churches, in which Defensive Arms were Justified, were ap­proved, and publickly printed and owned by the Universities, or at least not publickly Censured: As Calvin's Institutions, all Luther's Works, and the Writings of Peter Martyr, &c.

And we say, that in popular Sermons, fitted to the Capacities of the Common people, many zea­lous and hyperbolical Expressions may be allowed, and favourably Interpreted, especially against those horrid Crimes of Sedition and Rebellion, which yet would scarce pass in Dogmatical Decisions. For these latter require dry Reason and plain Scripture, without Rhetorications, or Metaphorical Expressi­ons, Allusions, or Illustrations.

I will put a Case. Suppose the Late King should have sent three or four Officers of his standing Army to a Nobleman's House, with a Commissi­on or Command to cut the Throats of his Chil­dren, Wife, and his Own; and these Officers should have such wicked Hearts as to endeavour to ac­complish this Villany: If in this case the Noble­man may defend himself by force of Arms against these Cut-throats, and call in his Neighbours to help him; then those phrases in the Homilies, In no case to Resist; In any case it is not Lawful; we may not in any wise withstand Violently, &c. must admit of the sense that I put upon them. (And most assuredly those Blessed Authors of Re­formation abhorred such bruitish Tyranny.)

And if this Author will not recant this disinal Doctrine in the vast extent thereof, he must be in a deep Melancholy, and fitter for Dark Rooms, than to Converse with Humane Society.

Again, I must confess, that the most barbarous, impudent, and brazen-fac'd Murder of our Royal Martyr King Charles the First, a Prince of most excellent Virtues, and of ever blessed Memory, could do no less than provoke every Loyal Sub­ject in Parliament to make a most Severe and Zealous Declaration about taking Arms against the King. But I believe in my Conscience this Declaration never intended to Enslave us, or ne­ver affirmed that if the King will cut our Throats, we may not defend our selves by the Law of Na­ture. So that my Interpretation must take place, that the Phrases are not meant absolutely in the utmost Extremity: For this would be to suppose that the People of England had chosen for their Representatives in Parliament, men resolved to make them Slaves, and not to preserve Liberty and Property.

This, with the Distinctions before used, is a suf­ficient Answer to any Man who hath no mind to be Obstinate and Cavil, but contends for Truth not for Victory. Not to say that Bishop Jews and without pretence of Contradiction, Dr. Bilson acknowledged Defensive Arms Lawful in some case, in those very days, and when he purposely handled the Subject or Controversie.

Observe also the time, when the Homilies were made. They were composed in the happy Reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth; in whose days there was no fear of Popery, or Arbitrary Power, on their parts; though some Besorted Priests and People, that hated to be Reformed, [Page 8]might Rebel against Moses and Aaron, and desire to return back into Aegyptian Bondage and Sla­very And the Homilies were made chiefly to perswade such to Peace and Obedience to their Lawful Superiors, whom God had set over them, and to shew them the Heinousness of Rebelling against them: And may now with much profit be read to perswade all good Christian people of England, to Honour Reverence and Obey King William and Queen Mary, whom God's most Gracious providence hath placed on the Throne.

I descend to Chapter IV. which contains the Doctrine of the Liturgy.

Though I do not equal the Liturgy with the Word of God, nor take it to be absolutely unalte­rable (nor doth the Church) yet I am of this Author's mind, That it is the most excellent Body of publick prayers that the World owns: Or, (as I have elsewhere expressed my self) It I should say, that there is no Church on Earth, which Worships god and Christ with greater Purity, Majesty, Reverence and expressions of Devotion, than the English Protestant, no Man could con­fute me. Particularly no Church in the World Prays more Zealously for Kings and Governors. And what this Author produceth out of the Li­turgy was never disputed by any of us. We profess that God is the only Ruler of Princes; we pray that God would deliver us from all Se­dition, privy Conspiracy, and Rebellion; we say, that King William and Queen Mary are God's Minis [...]ers and we beg of God that all their Sub­jects duly considering that they have God's Au­thority, may faithfully Serve, Honour and hum­bly Obey them, according to God's blessed Word and Ordinance; and we pray God that the King may cut off all such workers of Iniquity, as turn Religion into Rebellion, and Faith into Faction; and we beseech God to accept of our unfeigned Oblation of our selves, vowing all Holy obedience in thought, word, and work unto the Divine Ma­jesty, and promising in him, and for him, all Du­tiful Allegiance to his Anointed Servants, and to their Heirs for ever.

But what is all this to Passive Obedience? This Author cannot be so Ignorant, as not to know that all Learned Divines, of what Perswasion so­ever, own this. Insomuch, that I must needs say, that as greatly as he pretends to the meek­ness and peaceableness of a Christian Spirit, he hath foully transgressed the Rule of Christian Charity, which commands to think no Evil, by insinua­ting that we allow of Se [...]ition, Conspiracy, Re­bellion, Faction, &c. And because he finds these words in the Liturgy, he infers, that the Liturgy is for Passive Obedience. But the very mention­ing of this is sufficient Commation; and shews that the Author had more Zeal than Knowledge. And pray, Reader observe, that the Words Passive Obedience asserted, and Defensive Arms condem­ned, or the like, are not once to be sound, either in the Articles, or in the Injunctions or Canons, or in the Homilies, or in the Liturgy. From whence I infer, that it was not the Doctrine of the first Reformers much less a Characteristical mark of a Son of the Church of England.

To answer all his Authorities were endless, tho I think many of them are nothing to the pur­pose. And the General Rules prescribed in the beginning of this Discourse will suffice; and the Learned Reader may make Application of them without Difficulty.

Wherefore, I shall only observe what the Au­thor confesseth of the Meek, Wise, and ever re­nowned Hooker, p. 29. In this (i. Q. Elizabeth's) Reign, Mr. Hooker published his Judicious Books of Ecclesiastical Polity. From the first of which it must be confessed, it is observed, that he lays the Foundation of Government in Agree­ment, he herein following the Schools too strict­ly, &c.

And here by the way, he tells us that Aristotle was a great lover of Democracy. But I think he wrongs the Great Philosopher: For he seems to me to be a lover of Monarchy, though I confess he seems to like an Elective Kingdom. See his Book of Polities; especially Book III Chap. 14.

But be it as it will, we are sure Aristotle, the School men, and Mr. Hooker, are all ours in this Controversie.

And if Mr. Hooker's Eighth Book be Authen­tick, as Published by Dr. Gaudon Bishop of Exe­ter, I desire no better Authority. See p. 190, &c. He mentions and approves the old Axiom, Attri­buat Rex Legi, quod Lex attribuit es. And again, Rex non debetesse sub homine, sed sub De [...] & Leg [...].

Thirdly, Whereas it is altogether without rea­son, that Kings are judged to have by virtue of their Dominion, though greater Power than any, yet not then all the States of those Societies con­joyned, wherein such Soveraign Rule is given them; there is not any thing hereunto to the con­trary by us affirmed; no not when we grant Su­pream Authority to Kings: Because Supremacy is not otherwise intended or meant but to ex­clude partly Forreign Powers, and partly the Pow­er which belongeth in several unto others con­tained as parts in that Politick Body over which [Page 9]those Kings have Supremacy, &c. It hath been declared already in general how [...] ­blished Dominion is, where the Law doth most Rule the King, &c.

Again, p. 192. Every Independent multitude before any certain form of [...] Established, hath under God Supream Authority, full Domi­nion over it self, even as a man not tied with the Band of Subjection as yet unto any other, hath over himself the like power, &c. And, p. 103. That which we speak of Kings, shall be in respect of the State, and according to the nature of this Kingdom, where the People are in no Subjection, but such as willingly themselves have condescen­ded unto for their own most behoof and Secu­rity. In Kingdoms therefore of this Quality, the Highest Governor hath indeed Universal Domi­nion, but with dependency upon that whole in­tire Body, over the several parts whereof he hath Dominion: So that it standeth for an Axiom in this case the King is Major [...]gulis, univer [...]is Mi­nor, &c Again, p. 195. The Axioms of our Regal Government are these, Lex facit R [...]gem Rex nihil potest nisi quod jure potest.

I hope no man for the future, will deny that Mr. Hooker is of my Opinion, that all Govern­ment is Founded in Covenant.

I have other Authors, whom I shalt reserve, till I have further Occasion.

I shall at present only desire two things of this Author. First, I beg of him to shew how all Kings have received Power immediately from God: For I cannot apprehend his meaning.

Secondly, In what manner the Laws of Provi­dence (of which he speaks) are to be understood in Governing the Kingdoms of the Earth. Let him plainly and sincerely declare his Judgment in these two Propositions and then we may possbly come to a right Understanding For verily these Notions seem to me like Aristotle's Occult Qua­lities, or to border upon Enthusiasm.

And now to conclude, I am so confident of the truth of [...]y Principles that I have, and will Sa­crisice all that is dear to Man for them: I am sure they tend to the Glory of God, the propagation of the true Religion, the Honour and Safety of the King and Royal Family, and the happiness and welfare of my Native Country. And if we may judge Principles to be true by their good Fruits, we see the generality of the Nation very well pleased, Fearing God, and Honouring the King. And if we have any Murmurers they are declared Papists. or Souls seduced and corrupted by the false Principle of Passive Obedience, or Discontented, Lewd and Ungovernable Men, for all other Protestants give God and the King thanks for this Deliverance. And though we have the vast Charge of a French War, and great and sore In­conveniencies that attend divers particular Persons thereby, yet no man of Sense can be ignorant, that War cannot be maintained without Money. And therefore all Protestant Subjects and good Christians bear the Charge freely without any Discontent, hoping and praying that God would give Success to his Majesties Armies, and Naval Forces; and that he would abate the Pride of that Monarch, who hath been the Scourge of Christendom.

And though I will not say, that this Author de­signed to move Sedition by this History; yet (if he could not satis [...]e his own Conscience, and Swear Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary) I think he might have spared his great pains in this numerous Collection of Testimonies: For surely this History doth not tend to the Reputation of some of the late Doctors of the Church of Eng­land, and I have sh [...]ed that the first Reformers preached no such Doctrine: Insomuch that I could imagine the Author of this History to be some Sub [...]le Jesuit, personating a Protestant, on pur­pose to expose the Nakedness of late Divines, who through Prejudice insensibly prepared the way to that which I am sure they Abhorred, Po­pery, and Arbitrary power. But this which hath been the B [...]ne of the King and Nation, and the Incendiary of all parties is now out of Doors. And we have a Gracious Soveraign whom God hath raised upon our great Distress, in pitty to his People, and Mercy to this Land. When the Popish Enemy would come in like a Flood, the Spirit of the Lord hath lift up a Standard against him. And our Prince is our Deliverer from hea­vy Burthens; our Reformer of great Corrupti­ons; the Physician of a Diseased Church and State.

And if some little Men Murmur against Mo­ses and Aaron, (like Corah and his Company) It is because they prefer Egyptian Onions to the Dainties of Canaan. I hope the time is at hand, when Men may use this speech in England, con­cerning the State, The Lord bless thee, O Habi­tation of Justice: And concerning the Church, The Lo [...]d bless thee. O Mountain of Holiness. And it was the prayer of a good Man, that this Parliament (the repairer of Breeches; the resto­rer of Paths to dwell in) by Loyalty to their Majesties; Fidelity to the Kingdom, and Zeal to Religion, may be the joy of many Generations. [Page 10]And I perswade my self, that he Loves and Ho­nours the King most, and fixeth the Crown Im­moveably upon him and his Posterity, that wish­eth and endeavoureth for these things, though he renounce Passive Obedience.

I am very sensible, that they who justifie a King's Proceedings, are in no great danger, tho they Err. But he that speaks against Tyranny, if he slips in the least, hath presently Adversaries that aggravate his humane Frailties. (For who Errs not in some things?)

Again, Truth in this Controversie must be handled with all care and circumspection imagi­nable, lest we give Offence. Whereas, they who plead for the King, though never so weakly, are bold, and never Condemned for careless Expressi­ons. I may run great hazard in speaking freely, though it be Truth. But I think a slavish Life is not worth enjoying. I am for no Peace with Rome: But may God's Church and the English Government for ever prosper. And I shall end with the saying of St. Augustin, ‘Domine Deus, quaecun (que) dixi, de tuo, agnos­cant & tui: Siqua de meo, & tu ignosce, & tui. Amen.’