Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	article_n	church_n	homily_n	2,191	5	11.8103	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65419	A vindication of the present great revolution in England in five letters pass'd betwixt James Welwood, M.D. and Mr. John March, Vicar of Newcastle upon Tyne : occasion'd by a sermon preach'd by him on January 30. 1688/9 ...	Welwood, James, 1652-1727.; March, John, 1640-1692.; Welwood, James, 1652-1727.	1689 (1689)	Wing W1310; ESTC R691	40,072	42

from a more intimate acquaintance than your narrow Theatre could allow you obliges me to do that Justice to the Protestants abroad as to affirm That notwithstanding all the Resistance they made to their Tyrannizing Princes they are as much for Passive Obedience in its true and rational sense as the Church of England it self that is where the Commands of the Sovereign are incompatible with their duty they hold themselves oblig'd to suffer for their disobedience rather than to sin In all their Confessions of Faith they own Magistracy as the Ordinance of God and disapprove opposition to it in execution of Law But they never so far divested themselves of Reason as to yield up their Throats to be cut by their Princes turn'd absolute Tyrants when it was in their power to vindicate their Religion and Liberties by their Sword. That England concurr'd with them in this opinion appears as I told you in my Letter by the mighty protection they vouchsaft them in this their Resistance Moreover which I forgot to tell you in all the Convocations of the Clergy of England at that time there were vast sums given to carry it on and the preamble of ev'ry Act does fairly insinuate the lawfulness of that resistance made by the Protestants abroad against their Princes so that resistance was not only allowed by the Nation but likewise by the Church of England in a full Convocation of its Fathers And if the Church of England assisted so generously in the support of the Protestants abroad at a time when their Religion was Heresie by the Laws of their Country How much rather would these excellent Fathers of the Church have done it if their Religion had been settled by positive and fundamental Laws as it was after by several Edicts and Treaties What you say of the difference of the Government of the Empire and that of England I know but let me tell you as the Golden Bull is the great Barrer against Slavery there the same is the Coronation Oath here and consequently if the Germans may lawfully resist the Emperor or the Rex Romanorum upon breach of that Bull the same may the Representatives and Nobility of England do upon palpable breaches of the Coronation Oath for as the Golden Bull is the great security of the German aggregate Body against the incroachments of the Emperor the same is the Coronation Oath in England against the incroachments of the King. Fourthly You tell me you hold Passive Obedience to be founded on the word of God and maintain'd by the Church of England and contain'd in her Homilies To this I Answer 1. Tell me what opinion was ever broached in the Church without a pretence of Scripture to back it And what gloss can you put upon any Text of Holy Writ to prove your position but what has been a thousand times said and as many times refell'd Yet if you had allowed me a Copy of your Sermon I would have endeavoured to clear the sense of the Texts you make use of which I do not exactly remember so as to make nothing for your purpose And in your doing the one and I the other neither of us would have reason to value our selves upon that score since I fear none of us could outdo what has been again and again done already on that Subject In the mean time let me tell you that the simple stating of the Question solves all the Arguments you can bring from Scripture as I shall make appear in one word anon 2. As to Passive Obedience its being the Doctrine of the Church of England I have told you already that the Fathers of the Church of England contradicted it in Queen Elizabeths Reign And where can we find more authentick records of their Opinion and Doctrine than in the Printed Manifesto's and Acts made in Convocation As to the 39 Articles which is in place of a Confession of Faith and the Homilies wherein you say that Doctrine is maintain'd I 'll make bold to say that Passive Obedience in the narrow sense you take it was not so much as thought on at the time of their Publishing And albeit you should find a way to make them seem to speak for you the simple right stating of thē question answers them sufficiently It would seem to me that the Mitred Clergy and particularly that excellent Prelate My Lord Bishop of London should be at least as well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church of England as any private Minister in a corner of the Nation and how far they have refell'd your fond Principle appears with a Witness in their committing the Government to the Prince in this juncture and a great many other publick actings If your Passive Obedience be the Principle of the Church of England how few Church of England-men are there in both Houses of Convention at present since they act so diametrically opposite to it And yet I perswade my self these Worthy Patriots would take it ill to be call'd of any other Church 3. To refell your Tenet of Passive Obedience in one word I need no more but to state the case fair and without equivocation thus Whate're can be said from Scripture or the acknowledgment of Protestant Churches Centers all in this viz. That it is unlawful to resist the Magistrate while he is lawfully such because he is Gods Vicegerent within his own Iurisdistion But when by his maleversations he divests himself of that Office and assumes a contradictory Character by trampling upon Laws and endeavouring to subvert the fundamental constitutions of the State contrary to his Coronation Oath in this case in my humble opinion He is no more justly a Magistrate nor the object of our Obedience and sua culpa amittit Imperium Upon which the Primores Regni and the Representatives of the People may lawfully fill up the Throne vacated by such palpable incroachments This being the State of the case all the Texts of Scripture you can produce for Obedience to Magistrates are to be natively understood and in a Logical propriety of predication asserted of Obedience to Magistrates when they are justly and lawfully such but the Relatives do not meet when the Magistrate by his own fault becomes dispossest of the Office. There is one thing more I would have you to take notice of to clear this head and it 's this There is a great difference betwixt resisting the Magistrate when he tramples upon the Religion and Liberty of any part of his Subjects in the execution of the Laws made against them and his doing of it in contradiction to Fundamental Laws already made in their Favours As for example albeit I should acknowledge that in Nero's time it had been unlawful for the Christians to resist him because Christianity was at that time contradictory to the Laws of the Empire Yet I cannot perswade my self but in case the Laws at that time had not only established the Christian Religion as the Religion of the Empire but had

the Company your Messenger found me engaged in You are pleased in the first place to accuse me of treating Dr. Burnet in a very rude manner to which accusation I return you this Answer First That I knew not that Doctor Burnet was the Author of that Pamphlet Secondly I have been Informed that he disowns it Thirdly I am willing to believe this Information for the Doctors honour because it is well known he hath in his Learned Writings stiffly asserted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience insomuch that some have been pleased to tell the World in Print that he hath asserted it even to a fault Fourthly If Doctor Burnet be the Author of the said Pamphlet I have not treated him so ill as he hath done a Crowned Head and his own Sovereign Prince and this I hope will pass for a just Apology with a Person of your Loyalty In the second place you quarrel with those Epithets I bestowed on the Anonymus Author of the said Pamphlet but it had been a more substantial Vindication of his Innocence to have refuted the reasons on which the imputation was grounded In the third place You take notice that I affirm'd in my Sermon that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience c. was a Principle asserted by all the Protestants in the World but as to this part of my Sermon either your great memory or great understanding failed you for that which I asserted was this That all the Protestant Churches own the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners and for a proof of this I do now refer you as I did then to the Corpus Confessionum and thus you have spent a third part of your Letter in chasing your own shadow if my Sermon had concerned me in the Controversie I would also make it appear that you injure some of those great names you mention in your Letter such as Luther Calvin Melancton and others by making them Patrons of Resistance which is but another name for Rebellion But Doctor Burnet was better informed by a Learned Divine of Franckford as you may see in his Travels where you find the Government of the Empire differs from this of England so far that what would be unlawful Resistance here would be but a just and legal defence there but my Sermon is not concern'd in this matter and therefore I shall wave it In the fourth place you say that I asserted Passive Obedience and Non-resistance of the higher Powers as a Principle founded in the Word of God this I confess I must own and it is not only my private opinion but also the Doctrine of our Church as you may see in her excellent Homilies against Rebellion When you shall give your self the trouble to prove these Texts are misapply'd by our Church you shall hear farther from me and I assure you I urged no other Texts than what you 'l find there and this will save me the labour of copying out that part of my Sermon In the fifth place you admire what bad Genius prompted me to stile self defence even in the general notion of it an old Phanatick Principle Sir I find you are very subject to make misrepresentations I was not obliged by my Text to treat of self defence in the general notions of it and I do assure you 't is lawful to defend our selves against Robbers and private Aggressors as it would have been for the late Archbishop of St. Andrews against Balfour and his other barbarous Assassines This I easily grant you but I inveigh'd in my Sermon as the Text did warrant me against such as resisted the Higher Powers and to tell you the truth the bad Genius that prompted me to stile such resistance an old Fanatick Principle came out of Scotland for I have in my little Library Buchanan Douglas Rutherford Nephthali and other Scotch Fanaticks who maintained Rebellion under the disguise of such self defence and because you pretend to great skill in the Civil Law I must tell you I have in my little Library the Roman Tables the Codex Pandects Institutes and several Famous Civilians that have commented upon them and I do not find that they allow self defence against the Higher Powers I desire you therefore to tell me whether the Lex Regia or what part of the Codex Pandects c. doth allow self defence against the Higher Powers and I would also know whether St. Paul did not understand the Roman Tables and the Constitution of that Oecomenical Empire and whether he chose rather to Preach as I did the Doctrine of Non-resistance than that of Self-defence I hope you will not say as a wretched Socinian once did Paulo majora canamus Whereas you add I should have given some distinctions of the several kinds of self defence I think with Submission the Text made it needless to distinguish seeing there is express mention of Resisting the Higher Powers which had your zeal given you leave to have attended to I 'm so charitable as to believe you would have reserved your complaint for a fitter occasion In the sixth place you tell me you cannot recount without horror the passage of my Sermon Whosoever medleth with the Kings Forts Militia c. were guilty of Damnation the passage fairly represented was thus Our Saviour commands Subjects to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars now since by the undoubted Laws of the Land all Forts Customs Militia c. are the things that belong to our English Caesar our Saviour were he now upon Earth would command the Subjects of this Kingdom at this time to render those things unto Caesar and not to seize them c. Is this such terrible Doctrine that you could not mention it without horror but in England we bring solid Arguments not puerile Exclamations to prove a Doctrine to be false If then it be a sin for Subjects to seize the Kings Revenues c. as I shall presume it to be till I see the contrary proved it will no doubt without repentance expose the sinner to Damnation unless you believe it to be but a venial sin you seem a little malicious when you make me reflect upon the Prince of Orange but you can't but know that I am discoursing of the duty of Subjects and I hope you do not believe the Prince to be one As therefore I had no occasion to mention him so I can assure you he was far from my thoughts You shew little skill in our Laws when you call Preaching up Passive Obedience which your Friend Doctor Burnet will inform you is the avowed Doctrine of our Church Scandalum Magnatum your rash censure sounds more like a Scandalum Ecclesiae you are mightily concern'd for the Protestant States and Princes of Europe but I know no injury done them by my Sermon I am confident there is not a Protestant Prince who understands his own Interest that will be offended at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience you

but this was too hot for your Fingers and therefore you thought fit to drop it Secondly In your Second Paragraph I find nothing material for having referr'd you to the Homilies of our Church for Scripture Proofs of Passive Obedience you are it seems afraid to look into that excellent Book lest you should be found guilty of a Scandalum Ecclesiae and in truth I must commend your Wisdom for its much safer writing against a private Minister than against so glorious a Church but believe it you must not expect to go Scot-free since I have now prov'd the Doctrin of Passive Obedience in my narrow sense as you call it very improperly seeing it is the largest sense any takes it in to be the Doctrin of the Church of England Thirdly You say that I am unwilling the Protestants abroad should share with the Church of England in her darling Doctrin of Passive Obedience which is a Story as true as many you use to tell in the Coffee-house for if you look into the third Paragraph of my former Letter you 'll find me reproving your Learned Ignorance for abusing several of those great Names you mention such as Luther Melancthon Calvin Grotius and others whom you represent as Patrons of Resistance which is but another name for Rebellion You are now forc'd to own That the Government of the Empire differs so far from ours in England that what would be unlawful Resistance here would be but a legal Defence there and this alone is sufficient to vindicate most of those Foreign Divines you mention But because you are very hard to please I shall add further out of Sleidans Comment Lib. XVII where he tells us That the Elector of Saxony who was the chief Person engaged in the German Wars against Charles the Fifth did openly declare That if the said Charles was own'd to be a proper Sovereign with respect to the Princes of the Empire it must then be granted That it was not lawful to wage War with him I hope you will not be so injurious to the Prince of Orange as to affirm That he is no Sovereign Prince because he is proclaimed King of England Luther indeed at first was ignorant as you were of the Constitution of the Empire and therefore was altogether for resisting Charles the Fifth but afterwards he was better inform'd by Learned Lawyers as Sleidan and Melchar Adam Report Melancthon you 'll find Orthodox in this matter if you consult his Loc. Com. de Vindicat. Magistrat Indeed some have thought Calvin as you do a favourer of resisting Sovereign Princes because Lib. 4. Institut he has this Passage Si qui nunc sint populares Magistratus ad moderandum Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacaedemoniis Regibus oppositi erant Ephori If saith he there be any such Magistrates as the Ephori were among the Lacaedemonians they may oppose and resist Kings but in other cases he denies it Now because you are ignorant of the Power of the Ephori among the Spartans and that their two Kings were not proper Sovereigns but the one Admiral by Sea and the other Generalissimo of Land Forces I shall for your better instruction remit you to Arist. Polit. Lib. 2. Plutarch in Pausan or Keckerman de Repub. Spart a Book perhaps more easie to be got in Scotland You are pleas'd to triumph because Grotius as you say is of your Opinion and tell me He is not inferiour to me either for Learning or Judgment It 's well that you can speak a little truth at any time but whether it be your gross Ignorance or the liberty Travellers use to take it s very seldom that you speak all the Truth for the Learned Grotius though in his Book de Iure Belli pacis and in another written in his Younger Time he did drop some unmeet Expressions and unfound Arguments yet when he had weighed Matters better he retracted his former Opinions and in his last Works is as much for Non-Resistance as I was in my Sermon For proof of this Vid. Anot. on Rom. 13. Mat. 26.52 Vot pro pace where he approves of the Proceedings of the University of Oxford about Paraeus on the Romans and allows of this their Determination viz. That Subjects ought by no means to resist their King by force nor ought they to take either offensive or defensive Arms against the King for the cause of Religion or any other thing whatsoever But you no doubt will despise the Determination of our famous University though applauded by your own Grotius and imitate your Country-man Gillispie who in scorn called Prayers and Tears Oxford Divinity By these few instances it will I hope be evident to all unprejudic'd Persons how much you have abus'd these great Names Luther Melancthon Calvin and Grotius Fourthly In the next place you have the confidence to tell me That the Church of England is for the Principle of Resistance and that the Homilies cannot be for Passive Obedience Now this is not only to contradict me but also to contradict your self having in your former Paragraph call'd it the darling Doctrin of our Church You might have receiv'd full satisfaction in this matter had you according to my Advice consulted the Book of Homilies but instead of doing this and to have an opportunity to shew your great Talent of wrangling you labour to evince your impudent Assertion by these impertinent Arguments First Because Queen Elizabeth protected the Hollanders in the Revolt from Spain but this I have answer'd in my former Letter and obliged you to acknowledge That the Government of the Netherlands was vastly different from this of England so that theirs was not properly Resistance but a warrantable Defence This I say you were told before and own'd the matter and yet think fit to serve up your twice sodden Coleworts that you may seem to say something Secondly You tell me as a great Secret That the Convocation of the Clergy of England gave vast Sums towards the Protection of the Hollanders and the Preamble of every Act insinuates the lawfulness of their Resisting the King of Spain This is a Secret with a Witness for I dare be bold to say That the Learnedst Lawyer in England never heard of an Act of Parliament for Mony made by a Convocation But suppose the Bishops or any of the Clergy did contribute such vast Sums it will not prove That our Church did not own Passive Obedience in Queen Elizabeths time as you assert But pray Sir were not the Homilies in her time And that the Fathers of our Church did then take them in the same sense as I did in my Sermon will appear beyond all contradiction from the Testimonies of Bishop Bilson and Iewell I begin with Bishop Bilson who speaks thus in his Book of Christian Subjection Deliverance if you would have it obtain it by Prayer and expect it in Peace These be the Weapons for Christians the Subjects have no Refuge against their

remain SIR Your Humble Servant JOHN MARCH Feb. 19. 1688 9. For the Reverend Mr. JOHN MARCH Vicar of Newcastle Newcastle March 3. 1688 9. SIR AFTER your so unusual method of exposing your Second Letter at your Stationers Shop and thereby to most of the Town I might have expected it my self especially considering my so often sending for it but your delaying it from day to day and at last absolute Refusal put me upon the necessity of getting a Copy of it another way I cannot much blame you for this Conduct the writing and dispersing such a Letter required indeed the Denial of it to the Person for whom it was design'd I find you are liable to the fate of him of whom it was said If he had held his Peace he might have been thought a Philosopher and I was nothing unwilling you should continue such in the Opinion of the Mobile I might well spare my self the trouble of a Rejoinder there being nothing in your Letter that requires one for they must have clearer Eyes than mine that can discover any thing material or to the purpose in it but instead thereof a continued shuffling and waving of the Question mixt with so mean Sarcasms that for your own Honour I could have wish'd you had omitted them So that to give you an Answer I am at a great loss being unacquainted with Billingsgate Oratory and oblig'd at every turn to repeat my own words in my former Letters which you have been pleas'd to wrest so far as I cannot say you have given a fair repetition of one single Sentence of mine all along yours But to evince to the unbiass'd and knowing Persons of the place That you are not infallible as your admiring Mobile would have you I have put my self upon a nauseating Task of writing you these few Lines in answer to so indigested and immethodick a Letter You begin it with bantering my taking notice of the Direction of your first and tell me That the Heraulds Office will inform me that a Doctor of a Foreign University has no Priviledge in England I pretend to no great Priviledges any where but I had reason to expect a designation you refuse not to some who scarce ever saw an University Neither have I liv'd so obscure or been so little imploy'd as not to be known for what I am by most of the Gentry and People of Quality in the place and you notably contradict your self in saying You was ignorant of my Quality since you name expresly my Profession in your first Letter But we shall not fall out upon that Head since the Heraulds Office is not like to be much troubled with either of our Escutcheons Next you would fix upon me a great ferment of Choler and Rudeness in many of my Expressions you enumerate and tell me I deserved not so modest an Answer as you vouchsaf'd me considering the Provocations I gave you a Person that never disobliged me I submit both my first and second to any neutral Person who perhaps will allow them a better Construction and if any thing of Heat has slipt from my Pen I hope the occasion of it will do more than procure me a pardon It 's true you never disoblig'd me but no Personal Injury could have affected me more than the hearing a glorious and unparallel'd Deliverance branded in the Pulpit with the infamous Names of Rebellion Damnation and the like and the being a Witness to a Series of Actings consequential to such Expressions You seem'd to me in inveighing against a Revolution wherein the Finger of God was so visible to act much in parallel with those of old who dar'd to attribute the stupendious Effects of Omnipotence to a baser Influence And for me to have been an Apathist on such an occasion would have been but another name for Stupidity In your accusing me of Passion you must needs have a fling at poor Zeno and Two thousand Years rest in his Grave must not shelter him from your accusation of a felo de se albeit his manner of Death is not agreed upon by Authors whereof not a few allow him a natural one Before you come to answer my Letter you will needs premise something concerning the Doctrin of the Church of England and this you say will bring us to the true State of the Question Whereupon you are at the pains to cite several Passages out of the Book of Homilies against Resistance and for Passive Obedience and then you subsume Having premis'd thus much to state the Question you come to examine my Letter Sir I thought every School-Boy knew better what it was to state a Question than to cite Authorities to prove the thing questioned and what gentiel Name to give your thus stating it I am at a loss The stating of a Question is properly the removing all Equivocation of Terms or Amphibologies of Speech as the Schools speak whereby both the Opponent and Defendant may agree in the same sense and meaning of the words And pray Sir how came you to imagine That the Authorities produc'd removed any Difficulty arising from a wrong understanding of the words Passive Obedience and Resistance c. that are the Subjects of our Debate If you had been at pains to cast your Eyes upon my Letter so as to read it I presume you would have found me stating the Question betwixt us thus upon the matter viz. That to resist the Magistrate when he is lawfully such and acting in execution of Laws is one thing but to resist the same Person when he divests himself of that Sacred Character by trampling on Fundamental Laws is quite another The first is certainly unlawful but not the second And to elucidate this I told you there was a great Difference betwixt a Princes trampling upon a part of his Subjects in execution of Laws made against them and his doing of the same in downright contradiction of Fundamental Laws made in their Favours And albeit in the first case it were disallowable to Resist yet in the second reason and common sense in my Opinion does warrant it And upon my thus stating of the Question I did then as now once for all tell you That all places of the Homilies yea of Holy Scripture it self disproving Resistance of Magistrates are to be understood in a natural sense and with Analogy of Reason to be meant of Magistrates when lawfully such and acting conform to Laws and not of Princes divesting themselves of that Office by their own Faults and Mismanagement And in my giving so necessary and natural a Gloss upon the Homilies I do but Justice to those worthy Reformers that compil'd them whereas on the contrary you by endeavouring to wrest their Words to your notion of Passive Obedience derogate from the Reason and Learning of those Excellent Men And thus you have lost your pains and time in citing them At length you come to examine my Letter and in the first place you tell me I will have Dr.