of those who hold Resistance in some Cases necessary of those that maintain our Monarchy to have been limitted by the very constitution it self of those that suppose all our rights and Liberties 〈◊〉 the very Being of Parliaments themselves to owe their Original wholly to the gracious Concession and Favour of our former Kings Having made some impartial Collections of this Nature I showed them to some Friends who told me they thought they might prove of great use for the satisfying of some mens doubts and scruples concerning Lawful Obedience to the Government of their present Majesties as looking upon it as the best and most ingenious way of Conviction to propose the Arguments fairly on both sides without interposing my own Iudgment but to leave it to the intelligent and impartial Reader to embrace that side on which he found the most rational and convincing Arguments This task tho' troublesome enough I was prevail'd with to undertake not for Fame's sake since I do not desire to be known but meerly for the puplick good and happiness of my Country but being also satisfied that a Subject of this great important deserved more pains than what I had yet bestowed upon it and to be handled in a more Artificial Method than the old dry Schâ—lastick way of Objection and Solution I therefore thought that it would prove more pleasant as well as profitable for the Readers especially those of our young Nobility and Gentry for whom I principally design this undertaking to digest all that I had written on these Subjects into so many distinct Dialogues or Conversations supposed to be held between two intimate Friends who notwithstanding their different Principles and Opinions in Politicks had always maintained a strict and generous correspondency but I was the more inclined to this way of writing not only because I have observed that Controversial matters written by way of Dialogue according to the true Rules thereof have very well obtained among all intelligent Readers but also since the Subjects I treat of are of a nice nature and that the Collections I had made contained strict Inquiries into the Principles and Tenâ—â—s in the Writings of diverse persons of Reputation for Learning and Ingenuity I was sensible how invidicus a Tâ—â—k it must be to write on purpose against so many great men as also how troublesom and â—edious is would prove to my self as well as the Readers to pursue and confute the Opinions of any Author page by page since it must be chiefly imputed to that mannar of managing of Controversies that answers to Books prove so unacceptable to the World And though I grant that this way of writing hath also its difficulties and objections as being more diffuâ—ive and so taking up more time both to write and read Discourses Dialogue-wise where either one or other of the Disputants 〈◊〉 often apt to rove from the Subject yeâ— I must also affirm that this may be in great part prevented by the Writer who may if he pleaâ—â—â— take care to keep close to the Question and not start afresh Har◠〈◊〉 the old one is run down and aâ— for the diffusiveness of Dialogues above Polemical Discourses that is no considerable Objection since a man may either make or answer Objections in almost as few words this way as the other And thô it be granted that matter of â—een form in Dialogues the more tedious yet the Reader as well as Traveller will find that the 〈◊〉 of the Road often 〈…〉 for its 〈◊〉 somewhat 〈◊〉 But whether I have truly put 〈◊〉 the Rules of Dialogue in that 〈◊〉 the â—â—suing Discourses I intend to publish on these Subjects Tiâ—â—st 〈◊〉 to the Readers Iudgment but this much I think I may safely affirm that I have carefuly avoided all bitter reflecting language on either side since I designe these Discourses for common places of Arâ—giâ—â—â—â—ntâ—â— noâ— forms of 〈◊〉 And I have also declined showing my self a Party or giving my own opinion in any Question proposed and therefore I have 〈…〉 either 〈◊〉 my Disputants converting each other to his own Opinion since I know nothing is more easie in writing of Dialogues well as Romances than to make the Knight Efrane always beat the Gyant But it is fit I give you some account of this present Discourse as also of the rest that may follow it This first Dialogue then 〈◊〉 chiefly on this 〈◊〉 Whether any particular Specâ—es of Government is of Divine Right or Institution â— The next shall be Whether there can be made out from the natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right The third and fourth Whether Passive Obedience as it is called or an absolute Nonresistance of the Supream Powers in any case whatsoever be enjoyed by the Law of Nature and the holy Scriptures As also Whether this hath always been the Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England The fifth concerns the Original of Civil Authority in what sense it is derived from God and in what form the People and whether their Consent be always necessary to make any Government to be obeyed for Conscience sake The sixth shall treat of the Original and Fundamental Constitution of our English Government whether it was an absolute or limited Monarchy in its first Institution and whether the King is and hath been the sole Legislative Power of the Nation The seventh Whether the Parliament or great Counsel owe its Orignal to the meer Grace and Favour of our Kings or whether it is not as Antient as the Constitution it self The eighth and last Whether our late Revolution and the Conventions and present Parliament's Declaration and Recognition of their present Majesties K. William and Q. Mary be not Legal and according to the Antient Constitution and Fundamental Govâ—rnment of this Kingdom and consequently Whether the Oath of Allegiance may not be taken to them not only as King and Q. de facto but de Iure In all which Discourses I have considered and contracted the best Arguments that I could find made use of by the most considerable both Antient and Modern Authors either in Latine or English especially the Pamphlets that have been writ on either side since the late Revolution But as for those in our own Language when-ever any Author speaks so well and argues so closely that to put it into other words would make it worse I have still put the Arguments of either one or other of the Disputants in his own word thô because I would not be thought guilty of Plagiary I have truly quoted the book and page from whence I took it and I hope no Author will take it ill if I have made bold sometimes to contract their Arguments without altering their sense or words farther than by putting in or out a word or expression to make the style run the more smoothly and I desire they would not think I write on purpose to confute them since I freely declare my design is not to
fifty years ago but I do not look upon them as the Antient Establisht Doctrine of our Church because these Canons are not confirmed but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments and consequently never legally Established as they ought to be by the publick Saction of the King and Nation Our Old Queen Elix Divines such as Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines nay teaching in several places of their Writings the quite contrary Noâ— was this Doctrine of absolute Subjection and Non-Resistance ever generally maintained until about the middle of King Iame's Reign when some Court Bishops and Divines began to make new Discoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity and did by their Preaching and Writings affirm that the King had an absolute Power over Mens Estates So that it was unlawful in any Case to disobey or resist his Personal Commandâ— if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God as may appear by Dr. Harsâ—et then Bishop of Chichester his Sermon upon this Text Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's wherein he maintained That all the Subjects Goods and Money were Caesar's that is the Kings and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the publick use which Sermon thô order'd by the Lords and Commons to be Burnt by the Hangman yet was so grateful to the Court that he was so far from being out of Favour for it that he was not long after Translated to Norwich and from thence to the Archbishoprick of York So likewise about the beginning of the Reign of King Charles the First Dr. Manwaring preached before him the substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher than the former viz. That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land not to impose Taxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament and that when they were so imposed the Subjects were oblieged in Conscience and upon pain of Damnation to pay them which if they refused to do they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebelion For which Sermon he was Impeacht by the Commons in Parliament 4. Car. I and thereupon Sentenced by the House of Lords to be Disabled to hold or receve any Ecclesiastical Living or Secular Office whatever and also to be Imprisoned and Fined a Thousand Pound Notwithstanding all which we find him presently after the Parliament was disolved not only at Liberty but also presented by the King to a Rich Benefice in Essex and not long after made Bishop of St. Davids So likewise one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Asâ—ize Sermon at Northamtâ—n on Rom. 13.7 wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines as that it was the King alone that made the laws and that nothing could excuse from an active Obedience to his Commands but what is against the Law of God and Nature And that Kings had Power to lay Pole Money upon their Subject Heads But this much I have read that this Sermon was Licensed by Dr. Laud then Bishop of St. Davids because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law for which he was very much frwoned upon at Court and it is supposed to have been one of the main causes of his Suspension from his Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction which not long after happened But as for this Siothâ—rp tho he lived long after even till the Kings Return yet being as Archbishop Abbot describes him a man of but small Learning I cannot learn that he was ever preferred higher than the Parsonages of Barchley and in Northamptonshire But I find a New Doctrine broach'd by some Modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of King Iames the first That Monarchy was of Divine Right or Institution at least so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful and of this New Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written several Treatises to prove this Doctrine and which is worse That all Monarchs being Absolute they cannot be limited or obliged either by Oaths Laws or Contracts with their People farther than they themselves shall think fit or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives of which they only are to be the Sole Judges So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings what strong inclinations they had to render themselves Absolute and that few Divines or Common or Civil Lawyers were preferr'd in their Reigns to any considerable Place either in Church or State who did not maintain these New Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit You need not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way if so many were carried away with it since it was but to expose themselves to certain misery if not to utter ruin to oppugn it All who offered by Speaking or Writing to maintain the contrary being branded with the odious Names of Puritans Common-wealths-men Whigs c. Some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned Fined nay Whipt for so doing So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought nor could any thing but the imminent danger upon our Laws Religion and Properties proceeding from the Kings illegal practices have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen Gentlemen and Clergy who contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue did generously venture both their Lives and Estates to joyn their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings M. I do not doubt notwithstanding all you have said to prove before I have done these Doctrines of Non-Resistance and of the Divine institution of Monarchy to be most consonant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and also to that of our Reformed Church of England Nor were those Divines you mention in K. Iames the First 's time the Authors or inventers of these Doctrines which were publickly received and Decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began in the first Year of K. Iames and continued till the Year 1610. as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins late Bishop of Durham besides a very fair Copy now to be seen in the Archbishops Library at Lambeth which if you please to peruse you may be quickly satisfied that the Church of England long before ever Sir R. F. writ thoses Treatises you mention held that Civil Power was given by God to Adam and Noah and their Descendants as also that absolute subjection and obedience was due to all Soveraign Powers without any resistance as claiming under those Original Charters These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted as the Doctrines of our Church So that you deal very unjustly with the memory of those Divines as also of Sir R. F. to
by the Scripture as by Iosephus his Testimony that there was no more Divine Revelation after Malachi neither do the Books of the Maccabees Iosephus Sulpitius Severus or any other ancient Ecclesiastical Writer mention these Maccabees as Men inspired by God I grant indeed they might be excited by some Divine Impulse of Gods spirit to do what they did But this is so far from being at all Miraculous that I do suppose that divers great and good Men have been in our latter times of Reformation stirred up by the same Divine Spirit to undertake and perform extraordinary things for the Reformation of Religion and the deliverance of Gods Church and People And therefore as for the Vision or Dream which you mention it doth not appear that it was any more than an Ordinary Dream and if this might pâ—sâ— for a proof of a Divine Revelation I could quote you many such Dreams as this out of the Lives of Luther Calvin and divers others of the first Reformers whom I suppose you will not maintain to have had any express Revelation to do what they did contrary to the Civil and Ecclesiastic Laws of those Princes and States under which they lived And tho' t is true these Books are not held Canonical yet they were always esteemed in the Church as Sacred Writing as Written tho' not by Inspired yet by Pious Men and tho' they are not received in matters of Faith and Doctrine yet you know very well they are Commanded to be read in our Châ—râ—â—es as containing excellent Precepts and Examples in matters of Morality and therefore 〈◊〉 pâ—rhaps they would not be a good Authority to a Praesbyterian yet I hope we of the Churchâ—s England cannot refuse them as Rules of Morality But I think we are now come to the last Instancâ—â—hat can be brought before the Coming of Christ and therefore pray will you now proceed with your Quotations out of the New Testament which I suppose you have ready for me M. I confess I am not able in a Story so imperfectly related as this of the Maccabees to prove they had Gods express Warrant for this Resistance and you on the other side produce bâ—t a Negative Argument that they had not viz because neither Iosephus nor the Book of the Maccabees expresly mention any such thing and yet for all that Mattathias might for ought that you or I know have acted in this matter by Divine Revelation since as the Rabbins suppose there was for a long time after the times of the Prophets a lâ—wer sâ—â—t of Revelation given by God to some particular Men called Batcol that is the Daughter of the Vâ—â—ce which seems to have been some Private or inward Voice by which God Revealed his Will in some Particular Cases and we read that long after this Iosephus relates that Hâ—rcanus the last good High-Priest of the Maccabean Race had the Gift of Prophecy by Divine Revelation And why his Great Grand-Father might not have it likewise I see no reason besides all this there might be other reasons that God might allow to the People of the Iews a greater Liberty of Resistance even without Cruel Authority to revenge the Profanation of his Temple and Religion being the Place where he was pleased particularly to place his Name than are allowed to us Christians at this Day who have no such Visible Temple nor are under such severe Obligations to extirpate Idolatry So that what Mattathias and the People of the Iews acted in this matter they might do it by the Right of Zealotâ— for the defence of the Law of Moses even as Phineas did who by killing Zimri and Cosbi for Fornication and Idolatry did that which in another occasion and at another time would have been down right Murder But be it as it will I think we Christians are by the Laws of the Gospel tyed to a stricter Subjection to the Supream Powers if it be possible than the Iews themselves were and whatsoever they might have done under Antiochus for their own defence and to avoid Persecution yet Iesus Christ doth now require Higher things of us and hath by his own Example as well as Precept forbidden us to Resist the Supream Powers for any Persâ—cution for Religion whatsoever since he hath Ordained his Religion to be Propagated and desended by Sufferings and Persuasions and not by Force of Arms against the Will of the Supream Powers and if not for Religion the most Weightâ— of all Concerns surely not for any Temporal thing whatsoever But the Proof of this requires more time than this evening will afford without trespassing too much upon your as well as my own repose And therefore I should be glad of another Eveningâ— conversation with you to free your Mind if it were possible from this dangerous Error and to bring you over to the true Belief and Practice of the Primitive Christians and of our Mother the Church of England who treids exactly in their steps F. I humbly thank you for your great Kindness to me and the Pains you have taken â—as also for what you intend to take for the better Information of my Conscience and therefore if you please and that you have no other occasion to draw you forth out of your Lodgings I will wait upon you again to morrow in the Evening about seven and shall think it a very proper Work for the Lords Day to have my Conscience better informed by those Testimonies which you say you will bring out of the New Testament and Waitings of the Primitive Fathers and Church Historians for my Instruction and if you can out of them prove to me that all Resistance whatever is unlawful I promise you upon the Word of an Honest Man to become a Proselyte to this Doctrine M. I humbly thank you Sir for your great Candour and Ingenuity and tho' I am no Profest Divine yet I hope by the help of the Scripture and those Quotations that I can produce out of the Fathers as also from the constant practice of the Primitive Church to prove these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance to be the true Antient and Apostolical Bâ—â—â—s But it is now late and I will not trouble you any longer to night therefore shall take my leave of you and so Sir your Humble Servant F. Dear Sir good Night yours most heartily Well to morrow I will wait upon you as I appointed M. Pray be sure to come at your hour for I 'll expect you FINIS Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Reformed Church of England Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Fourth LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane neaâ— the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Second and Third Dialogues 169â— The Subject of the
make them the first breachers of it whereas you may find that it was the opinion of the whole Convocation for many years before ever those Divines or that Gentleman began to Preach or write upon this subject Nor were these the only men who maintained these Principles but Archbishop Usher and Bishop Sanderson whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines you so much condemn as any of that party you find fault with and have very well proved all resistance of the Supream Powers to be unlawful not only in absolute but limited Monarchies Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfie your self if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bishops viz. The Lord Primate Usher's Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it as also the said Bishop's Treatise de Iura nouto written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford F. I must beg your pardon Sir if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention much less of the opinions therein contained since there is no mention made of their proceedings in any History or Record of those times either Ecclesiastical or Civil as I know of But this much I am certain of That these Determinations or Decrees you mention call them which you please never received the Royal Assent much less the confirmation of the King and Parliament one of which if not both is certainly requisite to make any opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doctrine of the Church of England otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience tho' they stand at this day condemned by Act of Parliament so that however even according to your own Principles you cannot urge this Book as the Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent which you your self do not affirm they had for you very well know that as in Civil Laws no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King hath refused to give his Royal Assent to it so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Lay-men till they have received the confirmation of the King and the two Houses of Parliament or otherwise the consequence would be that if the King who hath the nomination of all the Bishopricks and Deaneries as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England of which the Convocation chiefly consists should nominate such men into those places which would agree with him to alter the present establisht Reformed Religion â—n Governmenâ— and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it or at least to submit without any contraditioâ— to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make which of how fatal a consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion in this Kingdom this Kings choice of Bishops and Deans such as he thought most fit for his turn would have taught â—s when it had been too late M. You very must mistake me Sir if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons which I grant must have the Royal Assent but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament I very much question since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church and diverse Canons made under Queen Elizabeth and King Iames are good in Law at this day tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you to let you see that these Doctrines are more Antient than the time you prescribe and also that the Major part of the Bishops and â—lergy of the Church of England held these Doctrines which you so much condemn long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention medled with this controversie and I suppose we may as well quote such a Convocation Book as a Testimony of their sense upon these subjects as we do the French Helvetian or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines tho' without any confirmation of the Civil Power F. If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony and not Authority I shall not contend any further about it but then let me tell you that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation though never so much confirmed by King and Parliament do no further oblige in Conscience than as they are agreable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures sure their determinations without any such Authority can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reuerence for the Judgments of so many Learned Men yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book I think notwithstanding that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason and express Testimonies of Scripture by either of which when I see you can convince me of the falshood of my Tenets I shall count my self happy to be beâ—â—er informed But as for those Treatises of Bishop Usâ—er and Bishop â—anderson which you now mentioned I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately writen and tho' I am against Rebellion as much as any man and do believe that subjects may too often be guilty of it yet am I not therefore convinced that it is absolutely unlawful in all cases whatsoever even in the most Absolute and Arbitrary sort of Civil Government for the People when violently and intolerably opprest to take up Arms and resist such unjust violence or to join with any Foraign Prince who will be so generous as to take upon him their deliverance So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bishops you mention were very Pious and Learned men â—im â—hat I bear great reverence to their memories yet doth it not therefore follow that I must oâ—â— them to be Infallible or as great Polititians as they were Learned Divines or that they understood the Laws of England as well as they did the Scriptures or Fathers and perhaps there may be a great deal more said on their behalfe than can be for divers others who have since Wâ—â—een and Prâ—â— so much upon those subjects for if you please to consider the times of their writing those Treatises you will find them written about the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars which they supposed to be begâ—n and carried on contrary to all Law and Justice under the pretenced Authority of the two Houses of Parliament against King Charles the First and therefore it is no wonder if they thought themselves obliged to Write very high for the Prerogatives
these Christians were under no other Obligations to Non resistance then what the particular Providence of God had brought them to as these French Protestants who remain still in France are now under that is Obligations of Fear and not of meer Conscience And as for your Example of the Thebaean Legion tho' it is true they might have sold their Lives dear before they had been killed yet would this Resistance have served them to little purpose against the Rest of the Army which might consist of 30 or 40000 men all Heathen and Headed by the Emperour himself But what if after all this stir about this Story it should not be true for Eusebius and Socrates who lived nearer the time in which this Action is supposed to be done make no mention at all of it tho' they had very good occasion to do it The first writer that ever made any mention of this Story was Eucherius Arch-bishop of Lyons who did not write this Act oâ— the Martyrs till above 150 years after the thing was done and he is also followed by one Ado in his Martyrology who lived likewise some time after him when writing of Legends began to grow in Fashion But granting all the matter of Fact to be as you relate it it proves no more than what I have already granted that the Christians were at that time obliged to lay down their lives for the Testimony of Christ rather than to make any Resistance but that this Precept is of a Constant and Eternal Obligation when the Ends for which it was ordained are no longer of any use and when our Religion is established by such Laws as the King himself cannot abrogate or dispense with I utterly deny And certainly if you were not very much blinded with the Prejudice of these Notions of Passive-Obedience and Non Resistance you would not leave all the People of England at the Mercy of a Popish King to be dragooned out of their Lives Liberties and Estates as the Protestants have been in France and Savoy whenever the King shall please to put them to that severe Tryal M. You have given me a very long and I wish I could say a satisfactory Answer and I see provided it would serve your turn you do not value how much you vilifie the Sufferings of the Primitive Christians by making them not of Ability to make any considerable Resistance if they would Tho' Tertullian expresly affirms the contrary and so you likewise take upon you to follow the Example of a late Dâ—ctor and to Question the Truth of the Story of the Thebaean Legion which tho' it might not be committed to writing before Eucherius published it yet might be very well have received a faithful account of this matter either by Tradition or by some Private Memorials that might be kept of it in that Church since they suffered this Martyrdom not far from Octodurum a place now called Martinach in Vallaâ—s a part of Switzerland and not far from Lyons so that he might very well have a sufficient Information of such a remarkable Action as this was Nor doth what you say savour less of a Latitudinarian Principle whilst you maintain that a Patient Submission to the Supream Powers is not of constant and Eternal Obligation in all Circumstances which is contrary to the opinion of the Primitive Fathers and also of the Church of England But if St. Paul's Doctrine be true that we are not to do the least Evil that Good may come And if our Saviour hath enjoined us not to resist the Supream Powâ—rs upon any account whatsoever and also to lay down our Lives for the Testimony of the Truth we ought certainly to observe his Commands let the Consequence be what it will tho' it were to the total Destruction of a whole Church or Nation Since God if he pleases may by the just Course of his Providence lay such severe Iudgments upon us who can also infinitely reward us for our Patient Suffering of them in the Life to come F. I think I may without any Crime Question the Truth of Tertullian's account of the Power the Christians had to make any considerable Resistance in his time for sure he may be out in such a Nice matter of Fact Since he could be guilty of such gross Errours in point of Doctrine for before he turned Mortanist he was like our Quakers and thought all Resistance of what kind soever unlawful and therefore he tells us in his Apologetick Idem sumus Imperatoribus qui vicinis no 〈◊〉 and a little after Quodeunque enim non licet in Imperatorem â—d nec in quenqâ—â—m and he likewise condemned all â—light in time of Persecution as you may see in the Treatise he writ upon that Subject And as for the bare Practice of Primitive Christians they are not of any general binding Example to us unless the Principle they go upon be true since I doubt not but many of them suffered Death out of a pure desire of Martyrdom of which Sulpitius Severus tells us they were more Covetous than Men were in his time of Bishopricks in so much that it was a common thing even for Women and Boys to offer themselves to voluntary Martyrdom that the Council of was forced to make a Decree on purpose to forbid it And as for the Truth of the Story of the Thebaean Legion it not being recorded by any Writer of the Age in which it is said to have been done I think a Man may very well question its reality without any Suspicion of Heresie And when I can see those Arguments answered by you or any Body else which the Learned Doctor you mention hath brought against it I will give more credit to it than now I do But you may call me a Person of Latitudinarian Principles as much as you please in this matter until you are able to prove to me by better Arguments than you have done hitherto that the Doctrine of Non-Resistance in Case of Persecution for Religion is of Constant and Eternal Obligation unless it be in the same Case in which the Primitive Christians were obliged to suffer rather than resist and till this be done I fear not falling under St. Pauâ—'s Censure of doing Evil that good may come of it and unless God had in down-right Terms commanded it I will never Believe but that I may have a very good Right in such a Government as ours to deâ—end my Life against any one that would take it away upon the bare score of Religion nor can I think it a Doctrine suitable to the Iustice and Goodness of God to ordain a whole Nation to fall as a Sacrifice to the Cruelty or Superstition of any one or more Men. But since you are pleased to urge me with Examples of Primitive Christians who chose to die rather than Resist or Râ—bâ—l against their Prince pray give me leave likewise to tell you a few stories wherein these Primitive Christians have not shew'd themselves so
Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any Pretence whatsoever is at least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God And tho' they do not invade but only resist St. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves Damnation From which you may plainly see that this Convocation which consisted of as great Men as I think had been for divers Ages do clearly maintain Monarchy to be of Divine Right and Resistance to be in no Case lawful F. I should grant the Canons of this Convocation to be a good Proof of the Iudgment of the Church of England were it not for two very good Reasons I have against them The one I will tell you presently and the other I will keep a while to my self In the first place therefore I suppose you cannot but very well know that this Convocation sate and passed these Canons which likewise received the King's Confirmation after the Parliament that was summoned together with this Convocation was dissolved And I suppose you know that by the Law of England the Convocation having from all times been looked upon as an Appendix to the Parliament was till then always dissolved with it For which Reason all Acts and Proceedings of this Convocation were condemned and declared null and void by the Long Parliament that began to fit the latter End of the same Year And which is more was likewise condemned by the first Parliament after the Restauration of King Charles the second And therefore I think I have very little Reason to own thâ—se Canons as Conclusive M. In the first place I might reply to what you have now said that that very Parliament which first condemned these Canons afterwards ruined the Monarchy it self In the next place that in old time the General or Provincial Synods were not Dependant upon the Assembly of the States at the same time And I likewise farther Answer that these Canons were made and confirmed in a full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury and York and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom 2. The Canons were confirmed by the King which was all that was of old required in such Cases and tho' the Convocation sate after the Dissolution of the Parliament yet this is not without President even in the Happy Days of Queen Elizabeth not to look back unto Henry the eighth or the Primitive times And as for your Objection that these Canons were reprobated since the Restitution of Charles the II. I say that I quote them not as Law but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time F. Your first Answer in behalf of these Canons is altogether Invidious For it was not this Parliament that ruâ—ned the Monarchy but only the Rump or Fag end of it after it had suffered divers Violences and Exclusions of Members by the Army and that the House of Lords being by this Iunto voted useless and dangerous were shut out of doors nor is your second Answer any more true for antiently in the Saxons time the Wittena Gemot or Great Counsel and the General Synod made one and the same Assembly consisting both of Clergy-men and Lay men and then all matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline were enacted and confirmed by the King as also the Spiritual as well as Temporal States Nor can you shew me an Example of any General or Provincial Synod which met independently and without the States of the Realm until after the Reign of Henry the first when the Popes took upon them to encroach upon the Royal Authority as also upon our Civil Rights and by his Legaâ—s to call Synods and make Ecclesiastical Constitutions in which neither the King nor the States of the Kingdom had any thing to do And tho' I grant that upon the Reformation the King was restor'd to those Rights as Supream Governour of the Church which the Pope had before usurped yet is not this Act of the Supremacy to be so understood as to give the King all that Power which the Pope unjustly took upon him to execute before for that had been to make their Case no better than 〈◊〉 was before and therefore this Act of the Supremacy being only an Act of Restoration of the King to his Pristine Rights of which that of Calling Synods and Convocations was one of the Principal the King could not call nor continue those Assemblies in any other form or after any other manner than they were held before the Popes Usurpation in taking upon him to call such Independant Synods and notwithstanding what you tell me I am confident you cannot shew me any Precedent of a Convocation so turned into a Synod as this was in all the Reigns of Henry the eighth and Queen Elizabeth But as for your last reply that you quote not these Canons for a Law that obliges the Church but as the Sense of the Church of England at that time if they do not now oblige the Church neither in Point of Belief nor Practice as you may seem to grant it signifieth no more to me what was the Sense of the greatest part of the Members of that Convocation in this matter nor doth it any more shew me what is the true Doctrine of the Church of England than if I should tell you that because in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Major part of the Bishops and Clergy of our Church were rigid Calvinists in the Interpretation of that Article about Predestination that therefore Calvinism was then the Doctrine of the Church of England but is not so now And therefore we ought not to take that for a Doctrine of any National Church unless the Synod or Assembly that declares such Doctrine be solemnly and Lawfully assembled according to the Laws and Customs of that Nation or Country wherein they are so declared M. Since you so much contest the Authority of these Canons I shall no longer insist upon them but I shall here shew you out of the Books of Homilies to which all the Clergy in England are bound to subscribe by Act of Parliament as well as to the Articles and Canons as containing wholesome Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God so that these Homilies do indeed thereby become a part of the known Laws of the Land that in these very Homilies there are divers passages so very full and Plain against all Resistance of the Sovereign Powers for any Cause whatsoever that if you are a true Church of England Man as I hope you are you can have no just Reason to deny their Authority The Homily or Exhortation to Obedience was made An. 1547. in the Reign of King Edward the sixth in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience we are told in these Words which I desire you to read along with me That it is the Calling of God's People to be patient and on the suffering side
or Inadvertency have written on this matter and yet I can shew you a Passage out of Calvin's Institutions which expresly forbids Subjects or private Persons to take up Arms against the Supream Powers as you may see by his own words in the fourth Book cap. 20. Neque enim si ultio Domini est essraenata Dominationis correctio ideo protinus de mandatam nobis arbiâ—remur Quibus nullum aliud quam parendi patiendi datum est mandatum de privatis Hominibus sempâ—r loquor and tho' I grant some Divines of our Church have allowed Resistance in some Cases where the People by the Laws and Constitutions of their Country might lawfully have made such a Defence of their Liberties yet have they denyed it in â—ll other Cases and particularly in our own Government which is sufficient to shew that what ever your Thoughts may be of it yet that they thought it absolutely Unlawful for the Subjects of this Realm to take up Arms against the King or those who acted by his Authority upon any Account whatsoever and therefore I must needs confess to you that I look upon these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as the distinguishing Characters of the Church of England from all other Churches F. Tho' I do not much value the Opinion of Divines in matter of Politicks since most of them that I have met with have been very unhappy when they have undertaken to meddle with that Trade Yet I doubt not but I can shew you that some Learned Men of our Church have not thought all Resistance to be unlawful in case the main and Fundamental Constitutions of our Government shall happen to be assaulted or our selves in respect of our Liberties and Estates like to be reduced to absolute Vassalage and Slavery And therefore if your Divines will own Resistance where by the Constitution of the Government it is allowed to be Lawful I think I can also prove that it is not only lawful but necessary in some Cases in our own for the Preservation of the Original Constitution and if this should prove so I know not what your distinguishing Character of the Church of England will signifie unless you will make it necessary for particular Churches to have other distinguishing Characters than the Scripture requires or the Constitution of the Government will allow of and if so I doubt the Church of Englaâ—d would get as little Credit by such distinguishing Characters as the Calvinist Churches abroad do by making absolute Predestination one of the Terms of their Communions the Scriptures without their rigid Interpretation teaching no such Doctrine But as for your Quotation out of Calvin it amounts to no more than what I have all along granted That single private Subjects ought never to take up Arms or resist those in Power but when the good of the whole Common-wealth requires it And therefore he in the same Book places a Power of Resistance in Subordinate popular Magistrates whereby you may see he grants the thing lawful but will not leave the Power of judging only in the common People or Mobile and so far I confess he is in the Right tho I grant those Magistrates are in respect of the Monarch as much subject as the People M. I should be glad to know what Divines of our Church they are who have granted Resistance of the Subjects of this Kingdom to be in any Case Lawful for if there are any such I confess they are Authors unknown to me nor do I know any but one who was seemingly in the Communion of the Church of England who hath asserted this Doctrine in his Book of Iulian the Apostate But you see he was presently confuted by those learned Men of our own Church who undertook him and I think have so well performed it that I cannot tell whether it hath been more for their Eternal Glory or his Disgrace But as for what you say against making Passive Obedience the distinguishing Character of our Church I confess indeed it is very bad for a Church to hold evil or indifferent distinguishing Doctrines but it is as certain that it is very convenient for a Church to have distinguishing Doctrines provided they be good ones unless a Church can be obliged to Err for Company and to avoid distinction which will not very well agree with the Text that forbids us to follow a Multitude to do Evil nor with the Practice of the Primitive Christians when the Orthodox were so few in comparison that had there not been some Names of Note among them they would hardly have been reckoned a Number But it agrees admirably well with the Principles of Popery thus to avoid Distinction which hath its Numbers to boast of when nothing else is to be said But there is one Lord one Faith one Baptism and St. Paul reproves the Corinthians because one cryed he was of Paul and another of Apollos a third of Cephas and the fourth of Christ And must not then those that held one Lord one Faith one Baptism necessarily distinguish themselves from all that held more than one And if some would say they were of Paul and some of Apollos and some of Cephas might not others distinguish themselves from them by saying they were of Christ But by this Doctrine you pretend we distinguish our selves from all other Churches in the World and so from the Catholick Church and therefore you cannot comprehend why any one should value a Doctrine so much on that score but you may comprehend if you please that it was never pretended that this Doctrine is taught no where but in our Church And as I hope I have proved that it was taught in the Primitive Church and is taught in other Protestant Churches at this day But this is evident by fatal Experience that Passive Obedience is the distinguishing Character of the Church of England by Law Established whereby it is distinguished from the Separate Congregations among us both of Fanaticks and Papists and to justifie this Distinction we have the express Testimony of several of our Princes since the Reformation and of the Laws themselves too that are still in force which abundantly shew how dangerous the Principles of other Perswasions are to the State as well as to the Church â— Yet if other Churches have not so well preserved this Doctrine in its Purity as ours hath done as we would not provoke them to a comparison so we have no Reason to be ashamed of it But that many among them have taught this Doctrine might be proved from the Writings of many of the most Learned and Pious Foreign Divines and particularly from a Book of a French Protestant lately written who in the midst of Persecution writes in defence of Passive Obedience when he at the same time suffered what we have feared F. Tho' I confess at a time when it was made criminal for any Man publickly to maintain that it was lawful to Resist in case the King
of this I shall proceed with the earliest Instances of this kind after the Conquest viz. in the Time of King Richard the First during whose absence in the holy Land he had committed the Government of his Kingdom to William Bishop of Ely who abused his Power by an Arbitrary and Insolent Carriage affronting and oppressing Iohn Earl of Morton the King 's own Brother and Geoffry Arch-Bishop of York the King 's base Brother whereupon they rose up against him and having the Bishops the Earls and Barons of their side appointed the said Bishop a day to answer to his Crimes in the King's Court or great Council of the Bishops Lords and Tenants in Capite then called Curia Regis where when he refused to appear they all with one consent came to London and fought with the Followers and Adherents of the said Chancellour by the way when they came to Town Earl Iohn with the Arch-Bishops of York and Rouen with all the Earls and Barons together with the Citizens of London met in St. Paul's Church-Yard and there it was proposed that the said Chancellour should for his Evil Government he deposed and banisht the Kingdom and so he immediately was by the general Consent of the Common Council of the Kingdom so that you see the Nobility Clergy and People had then no notion of an Irresistible Power in the King and those put in Commission by him when they found their Power to grow Tyrannical and Insupportable M. But if I forget not you omit one material Circumstance in this Affâ—ir which seems to make against you which is that Arch-Bishop of Rouen and William the Earl Mareschal did at that time produce the King's Letters signed with his 〈◊〉 wherein he had appointed that they two should be associated in the Government with the Bishop of Ely and that he should do nothing without their privity and consents and of those associated with him in the business of the Kingdom and that if he offered to do otherwise he should be deposed So that it seems what they now acted was not so muchin opposition to the King's Commission as to the Bishops who had refused to obey his Commands F. I confess it was as you set forth yet this makes nothing against my Opinion since it is apparent that Arms were taken and this Resistance made by the major part of the Bishops Earls and Barons together with the Londoners before ever it was known that such Letters were written by the King And so it seems they would have done much the same thing if there had been no such Letters sent by the King at all You may also rememâ—er that all these proceedings also were approved of and confirmed by the King himself But that I may proceed in my History of Non-Resistance I come to the Reign of King Iohn his Brother who when he had refused the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and all the Bishops Earls and Barons of the Kingdom to confirm the great Charter of King Henry the First they together with the rest of the great Men and People of the Kingdom of all degrees and conditions took up Arms and made a vast Army resolving never to lay them down till he had new granted and confirmed the Charters of Liberties and Forrests till at last the King finding himself almost quite forsaken so that he had scarce five Knights left about him he was at last forced to meet the said Bishops Earls Barons and People at Runne-Mead and there to grant them that great Charter which has been the Subject of so much discourse between us so that you see here that the Church of England in those Times if the Bishops and Clergy are the Representatives of this Church had then no notion of this Doctrine of Passiâ—e Obedienâ—e to the King 's Absolute Will and Commands M. I cannot deny the matter of fact to be as you say but yet you may remember that the same Author tells us that the Pope thought the King hardly dealt withal in this matter so that he gave Audience to the King's Ambassadors concerning the Rebellions and Injuries which the Barons of England had committed against their King and that upon a solemn hearing of the whole business and after a consultation with his Cardinals he did as Supreme Lord of Engâ—and after King Iohn's Resignation of his Crown to him by his Bull then published make void the said great Charters of Liberties and Forrests and condemn all the Barons proceedings as against their Duty and Allegiance to the King their Soveraign Lord so that it seems this was not approved of any where but by the Actors the Pope thereupon Excommunicating the Barons and Suspending the Arch-Bishop of Caâ—terbury for joyning with them F. I believe you will make nothing of this Objection for it appears from the same Author that the Pope had before this Excommunicated the King and as far as lay in his power depriv'd him of his Kingdom and absolved all his Subjects of their Allegiance so that it is plaiâ— it was not out of any true Principle or hatred of Rebellion and Resistance in Subjects that the Pope had thus acted but purely to gratifie the King at this juncture of time and to defend him in his Tyranny and breach of his own Charters because he was then become his Vassal and so he cared not how much he oppressed his Subjects because he was thereby the more able to pay him the Tribute before promised and he could also expect the more securely to extort Money from the whole Kingdom But that this Bull of the Popes was contrary to the King 's own Express Act and Agreement appears plainly by that Clause which is still to be found in a Charter under the Seal of this King and which seems to have been the Heads of the great Charter according to which it was drawn into the Form we now find it in Mat. Paris in which it is expresly provided and granted by the said King that in case he should go about to break or infringe any Clause in the said Charter and shall not amend it within the space of forty days that then Iâ—li Barones cum Communia totius Terrae distringent gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus pouerint aut scil per captionem Castrorum Terrarum possessionum aliis modis quibus potuerint donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum salva Persona nostra Reginâ—e nostra Liberorum nostrorum cum â—uerit emendatum intendent nobis sient prius fecerunt So that you see here in the Judgment even of the King himself they might freely resist and take up Arms against him till he made good every Article of these Charters if violated and were not to return to their Obedience till it was amended and the like Clause almost word for word is also to be found in the conclusion of the great Charters published in Mat. Paris M. I grant the Clause is there as
against those that are Commissioned by him in pursuance of such Military Commissions and it is also to be noted that all Mayors of Cities or other Corporations were obliged by a former Statute of the 13th of this King to take the same Oath From both which Statutes and Declaration we may draw these Conclusions First That the Militia i. e. the Command of all Military Forces and War-like Affairs are declared to be wholly in the King Secondly That either or both Houses of Parliament cannot make any War offensive or defensive against him c. Pray mark that Thirdly That the contrary practice hath tended almost to the destruction of this Kingdom and that many evil and Rebellious Principles whereof this without doubt is intended for the chief have been instilled into the minds of the People c. And lastly That in pursuance thereof all persons above-mentioned were not only obliged to renounce taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever but also against any that shall be authoriz'd by the King 's Military Commissions without any Exceptions And it is farther Enacted That all Clergy-men should be obliged to take this Oath as well as the Laity and it is likewise there ordained That all Clergy-men who were to enjoy any Livings or Preferments in the Church were likewise for the space of Twenty Years next ensuing obliged to subscribe this Declaration so that it is no wonder if the Loyal Clergy of the Church of England think themselves not only tied by the Express Rules of Scripture but also by the Laws of the Land strictly to observe this great Law of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance Now pray see here the Doctrine of Non-Resistance in its full amplitude yea this very Doctrine declared to be the Law of this Kingdom and that by two express Acts of Parliament And can you think the Two Houses were not in earnest when they made this Declaration surely had they not been so they had been very ridiculous to jest with all our Laws and Liberties had they not been I say verily perswaded of the truth of this Doctrine by Law as well as by Scripture So that I hope you must now be forced to confess that even our own Representatives have solemnly renounc'd for themselves and the whole Nation all right of Resistance so much as defensive against those Commissioned by the King upon any pretence or occasion whatsoever and we have left us nothing whereby to defend our selves against our Kings or those Commissioned by them no not if they never so much abuse their power but the old Primitive Artillery of Preces and Lachryma F. As for what you have more than once said that this Doctrine of Resistance if carried home always ends in the Deposition and Murder of the King tho' it hath I grant sometimes happened yet that has not been always so but most often to the contrary as appears in those Resistances that were made in the Reigns of King Richard the First Henry the Third Edward the First and divers times in Edward and Richard the Second's Reign before things were driven to that extremity as they afterwards were and as I will not justifie the Deposition of those Princes tho' done by Parliament yet will I not absolutely condemn them since no Act of Parliament hath as I know ever done it And tho' it is true all the proceedings in Parliament against Edward the Second are taken off the Rolls yet was it not done by Order of Parliament but by Richard the 2d alone when he by his exorbitant courses feared to be served after the same manner but that there was in those times some Ancient Law extant which was also destroyed by that King appears by that remarkable Declaration of the Lords and Commons in Parliament sent by way of Message to the King then wilfully absenting himself from the Parliament by the Duke of Gloucester his Uncle and the Bishop of Ely who sure were too great to tell so notorious a Lye The Speech you will find at large in Knyghton beginning thus Domine Râ—x And after many Petitions and good Advices at last thus concludes which I shall give you in Latine Sed unum aeliud de animo nostro superest nobis ex parte Populi vestri vobis intimare habint enim ex antiquo Statuto de facto non longe retroactis temporibus experienter quod dolendum est habito si Rex maligno Consilio quocunque vel inepta conâ—â—macia aut contemptu seu protervae voluntate singulari aut quovis modo irregulari se alienaverit à Populo suo nec voluerit per jura Regni Statuta laudabiles Ordinationes cum salubri Consilio Dominorum Procerum Regni gubernari regulari sed captiosâ— in suis inâ—anis Confiliis propriam voluntatem suam singularem proterve exercere tunc licituâ— est iis cum comâ—uni assensu Populi Regni ipsum Regem de Regali solio abrogare propinquiorem aliquem de stirpe Regis loco ejus in Regni solio sublimare From whence you may observe that the Lords here relate to an Ancient Statute or Law then in being tho' the execution of it on the person of his great Grand-father Edward the Second was but of times not long passed and that King Richard might as well destroy the Record of that Law being not then commonly known or in private mens hands as well as he did divers other Records as appears in the 24th Article against this King wherein it is set forth That the said King had caused the Rolls of the Records touching the State and Government of this Kingdom to be defaced and razed to the great prejudice of his People and the disinherison of the said Realm c. So that nothing is more certain than that the Two Houses of Parliament at that time did look upon it as their undoubted right to Depose the King in case he violated the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Kingdom tho' how this could consist with that Power which the King then exercised of calling and dissolving Parliaments at his pleasure I do not understand since it can never be supposed that a King if in full power would permit a Parliament called in his name to sit to Depose himself for Evil Government As for the Resistance made by the Two Houses against King Charles the First I shall not undertake to justifie for the Reasons already given as also because it it was not a War undertaken by the general consent of the whole Kingdom but carried on chiefly by the Puritan or Presbyterian Party For tho' the City of London and many other great Towns were for the Parliament yet it is also certain that the major part of the Nobility and Gentry of England fought for the King and were so considerable a number as to make an Anti-Parliament at Oxford so that this War could never have happened had not the King parted with the power of
no Reason since they are only Declarative and Persuant to the late Act of the Convention whereby after the Declaration of the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects King William and Queen Mary are Declared That they were and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Soveraign Leige Lord and Lady and King and Queen of England c. M. Well it is late and besides to no purpose to argue this Point any longer since it concerns not me nor any of my Principles what new Oaths you make and impose upon those whose Consciences will never permit us to take them What I have said was only to shew you the Folly and Weakness of such Oaths and Consequently that they can be subservient to no other end then a renewal and aggravation of the Sin of Perjury among us which God forgive this sinful Nation among the many crying Sins it now growns under Yet give me leave still to mind you that you have not given any answer to the Objection I have made concerning the Schism that is like to follow from the depriving of all such Bishops and Clergy that shall refuse to take the new Oath by such a time which Deprivation being uncanonically ordain'd by the meer lay power of the Convention without the authority of a Convocation or Synod such proceedings are sufficient cause for all of our way to break off all Church Communion with you as soon as the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and those other Bishops shall happen to be deprived and new ones put in their Places since all Church Communion wholly depends upon the lawfullness of the Bishops who are the supreme Pastors of our Church F. I forgot to say any thing of this because I said so much to answer concerning the new Oath I proposed as sit to taken by those in places of Trust but since you desire it I shall say somewhat though not so large as I could speak upon this Subject First I must tell you it is altogether a new Notion and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England whereby it is declared that the Kings of this Realm have the same Power with Persons in the Church as the Kings of Iudah and Israel had among the Jews therefore you must either depart from the Doctrine of this Canon or else the King and Parliament who are certainly as much the supreme Power of the Nation as the Kings of Iudah were to that of the Jews may as well deprive the Arch Bishop of Canterbury for Example for Treason or Disobedience to the Government as Solomon did Abiathar for Anointing his Brother Adonijah King and besides this I can shew you many Examples of the like power exercised by the Roman and Greek Emperours in depriving and banishing not only Bishops but Patriarchs for the matters of State without any Sentence or Judgment of a Synod or general Council of other Bishops if your Doctrine were true the poor Greek Church would be in a sad Condition and all her Members in a perpetual Schism for some Ages past that there hath been scarce any Canonical Elections or Deprivations of the Patriarchs of any of the great Seats viz. Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria but they are all nominated and put in and out at the Grand Seigniors nay Visiers Will and Pleasure as any Man who will but peâ—uâ—e Sr. Paul Rycauts account of the Greek Church may easily see But indeed you fall into this Errour for want of considering the original of Bishop-pricks in England and the true meaning of this intended Deprivation for pray take Notice that though Episcopacy was setled in England in the time of the Britains yet all the Seas and Jurisdictions of the Bishops of this Realm in respect of such and such Diocesses have been wholly oweing to the bounty of our Kings and the Authority of our Great Councils which were also confirmed by the Popes Bulls and since the Reformation to the Authority of the King and Parliament as were all the Bishop-pricks erected in Henry the VIII ths Reign so that let the Bishops meer Spiritual Power of Ordaining Excommunicating c. be derived immediately from Christ if you please yet the Exercise thereof as limited and appointed to this or that Precint or See is as meer a temporal Institution as that of Parishes which was not introduced till long after Christianity was settled in this Island So that the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the See of Canterbury for Example being a Civil Institution it hath anciently belonged to Supream Powers not only to confer this Power as appears by their ancient Investitures of our Bishops per Baculum Annulum but also to take it away for Treason or Disobedience against the State since the King and Parliament do not pretend to deprive them of their Spiritual Character or Episcopal Orders but only of their right to exercise it within such Sees or Diocesses thus although the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishops of London and Wichester with the rest of the Popish Bishops were deprived by Act of Parliament in 1 o th of Elizabeth for not taking the Oath of Supremacy the Queen and Parliament never took upon them to degrade those Bishops of their Episcopal Orders but only to forbid their acting as Bishops in their former respective Diocesses and therefore I doubt not but that notwithstanding this Depriviation those Bishops might if they had pleased have ordained Priests and confirmed Children and that such Ordinations and Confirmations would been good even in our Protestant Church if such Priests or Children had afterwards turned Protestants since 't is very well known that the Church of England ownes the orders of the Church of Rome to be valid which is more then we do for the ordinations of meer Presbyters coming from those Protestant Countrys where there are no Bishops at all the like I may say for their Confirmations too But pray Sir consider how upon your Principles this Schism can be so Universal as to influence and involve all England in it for if the Arch Bishop of Yorke for example will rather take this Oath then suffer Deprivation and that the rest of the Bishops of his Province should be of the mind as I am credibly informed they will pray tell me how the People of that Province being a distinct Church or body Ecclesiastical from that of Canterbury as to all Spiritual matters as having a distinct Convocation of their own can ever be involved in this Schism by the deprivation of the Arch Bishop and Bishops of the Province of Canterbury And pray also tell me in the next place how all the Members of the two Universities can ever be involv'd in this intended Schism since they owe no Canonical Obedience to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury or York nor to any other Bishop but only to their Chancellour and the Vice-Chancellour as his Deputy who exercise all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the said Universities and therefore their Church
8. p. 580 581. W. All Burroughs that sent Members antiently held in Capite of the King D. 8. p. 557 578. W. They sent such Members by an inherent Right or at the Discretion of the Sheriffs Ib. p. 593. 604. C Cain W. he forfeited his Birth-right by the Murther of his Brother D. 2. p. 67. W. His Eldest Son was a Prince over his Brethren Ib. Canons of 1640. their validity discussed D. 4. p. 284. to 286. King Charles the Firsts pretended Commission to Sir Philim O Neal considered D. 9. p. 636 637. Great Charter of King Iohnâ— W. it was the sole Act of that King or else made by the advice and consent of all the Freemen of England D. 5. p. 324. D. 7. p. 455 456. Great Charter of Hen. the Third W. all the Copies we have now of it were his or else Edward I. his Charters Ib. 461. Children how far and how long bound to be subject to their Parents D. 1. p. 45. to 52. Christians W. as much obliged to suffer for Religion now as in the Primitive Times D. 4â— p. 230. to 234. Chester its County W. the Earl thereof could charge all his Tenants in Parliament without their consent D. 7. p. 501. Church of England W. Passive Obedience be its distinguishing Doctrine from other Churches D. 4. p. 292 293. Cities and Burroughs more numerous in the Saxon times than now D. 6. p. 379. to 400. W. They had any Representatives in Parliament before the 49th of Henry the IIId D. 5. p. 565 572. Whether Cities and Burroughs had not always had Representatives in the Parliaments of Scotland D. 7. p. 505. Clerici terras habentes quae ad Ecclesias non pertinent who they were D. 7. p. 450.451 Clergy a part of the Great Council of the Kingdom in the Saxon Times and long after D. 8. p. 544 to 550. W. None of the Clergy but such as held in Capite appeared at such Councils Ibid. W. The Inferiour Clergy had their Representatives in Parliament different from the Convocation Ib. 546 to 558. Commandment Vth in what sence Princes are comprehended under it D. 2. p. 106. to 109 111. Communitas Regni W. that Phrase in ancient Records and Acts of Parliament does not often signifie the Commons as well before the 49th of Henry the Third as afterwards D. 7. p. 412 to 415. W. That Phrase does not also signifie the whole body of the Kingdom consisting of Peers and Commons D. 6. p. 416. The Drs. proofs to the contrary considered 417 to 423. W. It does also often signifie the Commons alone D. 8. p. 572. to 574. Their Declaration to the Pope in the 48th of Edward the Third D. 8. p. 581 to 582. Their Petition to Henry the Fifth Their Protestation in Parliament in Richard the Seconds time 584. Commons of Cities and great Towns had their Representatives in the Assemblies of Estates of all the Kingdoms in Europe founded by the ancient Germans and Gothes Ibid 607 to 612. Commons their request and consent when first mentioned in Old Statutes D. 5. p. 329. W. Ever summoned to Parliament from the 49th of Hen. the Third to the 18th of Edw. the First D. 7. p. 522. Commons W. part of the Great Council before the Conquest D. 5. p. 369 372. The words Commune de Commune les communes do frequently signifie the Commons before the 49th of Henry the Third D. 6. 423. D. 7. 423 to 484. Common-Council of the whole Kingdom W. different from the Common-Council of Tenants in Capite D. 7. p. 437. to 474. Communitas Scotiae W. it always signified none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. p. 505. to 508. Conquest alone W. it confers a right to a Crown D. 2. p. 128 129. W. It it gives a King a right to all the Lands and Estates of the Conquer'd Kingom D. 3. 168. to 170. W. Any Conquest of this Kingdom was made by King William the First D. 10. p. 715. to the end Constitutions of Clarendon their Title explained D. 6. p. 430 431. Contract Originel W. there were ever any such thing D. 10 p. 695 to 709. D. 12. p. 809 8â—3 Convention W. its voting King James to have abdicaâ—ed the Government be justifiable D. 11. p. 809 to 834. W. Its Declaration of King James's violations of our fundamental Rights be well grounded Ibid. p. 816 832. W. It s voting the Throne vacant can be justified from the ancient constitution of the Government D. 12. p. 839 to 883. W. Whether its placing K. W. and Q. M. on the Throne may be also justified by the said Constitution Ibid. p. 883 to 894. W. It s making an Act excluding all Roman Catholick Princes was legal Ibid. p. 894 to the end Convocation Book drawn up by Bishop Overal its validity examined D. 1. p. 6 8. Copy Holders why they to have no Votes at Elections to Parliament D. 5. p. 513. Great Councils or Convention the only Iudges of Princes Titles upon any dispute about the succession or vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 895. D. 13. p. 917. to 919 924. Council of the King in Parliament what it was anciently D. 5. p. 334. Great Council or general Convention of the Estates of the Kingdom W. legal without the Kings Summons D. 5. p. 353. D. 12. p. 894. to 898. Curia Regis what iâ— anciently was and W. it consisted of none but Tenants in Capite Ibid. 368. Crown W. it can by Law be ever forfeited D. 12. p. 833 834. D Defence of a Mans self in what case justifiable D. 3. p. 148 149. Declaration of the Convention setting forth King James's violation of the fundamental rights of the Nation W. justifiable or not D. 11. p. 816. to the end Private Divines their Opiâ—nions about Passive Obedience and Resistance of what Authority D. 4. p. 291 294. W. Many of them have not quitted the ancient Doctrine of the Church of England declaring the Pope to be Antichrist vid. Append. Dispencing Power W. justifiable by Law D. 12. p. 119 to 828. Dissolution of all Government W. it necessarily follows from the Conventions declaration of the vacancy of the Throne D. 12. p. 890 891. Durham W. its Bishop could lay Taxes in Parliament on the whole County Palatine without their consents D. 7. p. 501 502. E Earls of Counties their ancient Office and Institution D. 5 p. 363 to 370. King Edward the Second being deposed W. any vacancy of the Throne followed thereupon D. 12. p. 158 to 861. Queen Elizabeth W. she had any Title to the Crown but by Act of Parliament Ibid. p 872 873. England when first so called D. 5. p. 362. English-Men W. they lost all their Liberties and Estates by the Norman Conquest D. 10. p. 753. to the end English Bishops Earls and Barons W. then all deprived of their Honours and Estates Ib. 756 to 762. English Saxon Laws W. confirmed or abrogated by K. William D. 10. p. 760. Estates of the Kingdom
Latine Translation of the Old Coronation-Oath D. 8. p. 560. to 563. W Wales W. it s Titular Prince be really Son to King James the Second and Queen Mary D. 11. p. 784 to 789. W. He ought to have been received as the true Son and Heir of the said King D. 12. p. 875. to 877. and that let the consequences be what they will Ib. p. 879. to 881. Wardship Marriage and Relief W. wholly derived from the Normans D. 10. p. 750.751 Its advantages and inconveniencies considered Ib. A Wife W. she can ever be discharged from the Power her Husband hath over her in the state of Nature by any means but by his express consent D. 1. p. 43. King William the First why stiled the Conquerour D. 5. p. 325. W. He claimed to be King of England by Donation of King Edward the Confessor or by Conquest D. 10. p. 715.718 719. W. He was ever Elected and took the same Coronation-Oath as the English Saxon Kings had done before D. 10. p. 716.722 to 737. W. He might justly have seized all the Lands in England to his own use D. 2. p. 171. W. He gave most of the Lands of England to his followers Ibid. p. 721 to 729. and to 747. W. He alter'd any thing in the fundamental constitution of the Government D. 5. p. 320. to 322. W. He altered all the Old Laws of England or confirmed those of King Edward D. 10. p. 737. to 760. His Second Oath upon the Relicks of St. Alban Ib. 761 762. His Laws concerning all Freemens exemption from Taxes upon their finding Arms D. 6. p. 426 427. W. He and his Son William Rufus made Laws and imposed Taxes without the consent of the Great Council D 10. p. 744 755. King William the Third W. he hath any Title by Conquest over King James or else from his Marriage with the Princess and the Act of the Convention D. 12. p. 883. to 899. His Religion and Principles vindicated Ib. 886 887. Wites or Wise-Men in the English Saxon Councils the true signification of that term D. 6. p. 373. to 378. Wittena à Gemots or Great Councils among the English Saxons W. they consisted of more than the higher Nobility Ib. p. 381. Wives how far obliged to be obedient to the Commands of their Husbands D. 1. p. 40. Writ of Summons to the Commmons of the 49th of Henry the Third W it was the first of that kind D. 7. p. 519. to 521. W. Any Writs of Summons of Bishops or Lords to Parliament are to be found before that time Ib. p. 516. Writ of the 19th of Henry the Third to the Sâ—eriffs to levy two Marks Scutage upon Tenants by Knights Service holding of Tenants in Capite Ib. 445 Writ of the 24th of Henry the Third commanding all Men holding a whole Knights Fee of whatsoever Tenure to be Knighted D. 6. p. 432. Writs of Summons to Knights Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament at Shrewsbury in the 11th of Edward the First D. 8. p. 574. Writ of Summons to Knights of Shires cited by Dr. B. in the 18th of Edward the First W. it was to a Parliament D. 7. p. 530. to 536. Writ of the 22d of Edward the First W. a Summons to Parliament D. 7. p. 533 534. Writ of the 30th of Edward the First commanding the Levying of Forty Shillings upon each Knights Fee which had been granted ever since the Eighteenth Ibid. p. 479. W. The Commons Granted that Tax Ibid. Writs of the 28th of Edward the First and 45th of Edward the Third W. of Summons to Parliaments Ib. 537. Writs for Expences to Knights of Shires how ancient D. 8. p. 589. to 591. Y Duke of York Richard his Title declared in Parliament D. 12. p. 863. Edward Duke of York Recognized by Parliament to be lawful King from the Death of his Father Richard Duke of York Ib. p. 865. Duke of York James W. he was not intirely in the French Interest and Designs before he came to the Crown D. 11. p. 802. AN APPENDIX Containing some Authorities sit to be added for farther confirmation of some things laid down in the foregoing Dialogues TO be added to Dialogue the Fourth p. 290. at the end of F s Speech after these words no particular Church can read thus And that divers of the most Eminent Divines of our Church have used the same freedom with several other Doctrines contained in these Homilies may appear from Dr. Hammonds Dr. Heylins and Dr. Taylors with several other Eminent Writers expresly denying that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry or that the Pope is Antichrist tho' both these Doctrines are as plainly laid down in the Homilies as the Doctrine of Non-Resistance And yet none of these Men are ever taxed by those of the Church of England for quitting her Ancient Orthodox Doctrines and I desire you to give me a good Reason if you can why it is more lawful and excusable to part with the former of these Doctrines than the latter The like I may say also for the Doctrine of Predestination which tho expresly asserted in the 36 Articles of the Church of England as interpreted by all the Bishops and Writers in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and King Iames as also the Bishops and Divines sent as Delegates from our Church to the Synod of Dort who joyned in the interpretation of that Article in the strict Calvinistical sense you find in all the determinations of that Synod against the Doctrines of the Arminians which then began to prevail yet since the time that Arch-Bishop Laud had the nominating of what Persons he thought fit to be made Bishops Deans c. not one in ten of them but have been Arminians in all those Points wherein they wholly differ from the Doctrine of Calvin which is but the same with that of our 36 Articles so interpreted yet none of the Divines of our present Church who hold these Opinions are branded with Apostacy from its Ancient Doctrine but if any well meaning Divine out of love to his Country and to prevent Popery and Slavery from breaking in upon us have but Preach'd or Publish'd any thing in derogation to these Darling Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance he is straight branded with Apostacy from the Church in quitting its main distinguishing Character and we have lately seen Degrading nay the most cruel Whipping and Imprisonment thought too little for such a Man but one may say of some Men with truth enough Dat veniam Corvis vexat censura Columbis So Dialogue the Sixth p. 397. at the bottom after these words in those times read this But that the House of Commons were anciently often comprehended under the stile of Grantz which is the same with Magnates in Latine pray consult the Parliament Rolls of Edward the Third where you will find in the 4 th of that King this passage est assentu accorde per nostre Seigneur le Roy tous les Grantz
ADVERTISEMENT THE Author hath thought fit for the Reasons he hath given you to alter the Method he laid down in his Preface to the First Dialogue and to propose the Subjects he treats of in this following Method Bibliotheca Politica OR AN ENQUIRY INTO The Ancient Constitution OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT Both in respect to the just extent of Regal Power and the Rights and Liberties of the Subject Wherein all the Chief Arguments as well against as for the late Revolution are impartially Represented and considered in Thirteen Dialogues Collected out of the Best Authors as well Antient as Modern To which is added an Alphabetical INDEX to the whole Work LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where may be had the First Second Tâ—ird Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelvth and Thirteenth Dialogues 1694. THE QUESTIONS Debated in the Ensuing Dialogues WHETHER Monarchy be Iure Divino Dialogue the First Whether there can be made out from the Natural or revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Dialogue the Second Whether Resistances of the SVPREAM POWER by a whole Nation or People in cases of the last extremity can be justified by the Law of Nature or Rules of the Gospel Dialogue the Third Whether Absolute Non Resistances of the SVPREAM POWERS be enjoyned by the Doctrine of the Gospel and was the Ancient Practice of the Primitive Church and the constant Doctrine of our Regormed Church of England Dialogue the Fourth Whether the King be the Sole Supream Legislative Power of the Kingdom and whether our Great Councils or Parliaments be a Fundamental Part of the Government or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions of former Kings Dialogue the Fifth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Dialogue the Sixth Whether the Commons of England represented by Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament were one of the Three Estates in Parliament before the 49th of Henry III. or 18th of Edw. I. Thâ— Second Parâ—â— Dialogue the Sevenâ—h A Continuation â—f tâ—e former Discourse concâ—rnâ—ng the Antiquity of the Commons in Parliament wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed and examined With an Entrance upon the Question of Non Resistance The Third Part Dialogue the Eighth Whether by the Ancient Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom as well as by the Statutes of the 13th and 14th of King Charles the II. all Resistance of the King or of those Commissioned by him are expresly forbid upon any pretence whatsoever And also whether all those who assisted his present Majesty King William either before or after his coming over are guilty of the breach of this Law Dialogue the Ninth I. Whether a King of England can ever fall from or forfeit his Royal Dignity for any breach of an Original Contract or wilful violation of the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom II. Whether King William commonly stiled the Conquerour did by the Conquest acquire such an absolute unconditioned Right to the Crown of this Realm for Himself and his Heirs as can never be lawfully resisted or forfeited for any Male-Administration or Tyranny whatever Dialogue the Tenth I. In what Sense all Civil Power is derived from God and in what Sense may be also from the People II. Whether His Present Majesty King William when Prince of Orange had a just Cause of War against King Iames the II. III. Whether the Proceedings of His Present Majesty before he was King as also of the late Convention in respect of the said King Iames is justifiable by the Law of Nations and the Constitution of our Government Dialogue the Eleventh I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention wherein they declared the Throne to be vacant can be justified from the Ancient Constitution and Customs of this Kingdom II. Whether the said Convention declaring King William and Queen Mary to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England may be justified by the said Constitution III. Whether the Act passed in the said Convention after it became a Parliament whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from succeeding to the Crown was according to Law Dialogue the Twelfth I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a King or Queen de facto or for the time being II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath whether to an actual defence of their Title against all Persons whatsoever or else to a bare submission to their Power III. Whether the Bishops who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to their present Majesties could be lawfully deprived of their Bishopricks Dialogue the Thirteenth ADVERTISEMENT THE Author writing these Dialogue purely for the discovery of Truth and for giving a full and impartial account of all the considerable Arguments and Authorities that have been urged on either side in the Controversies discussed in the foregoing Dialogues if therefore any Person who having perused them is dissatisfied with any of the Arguments Answers or Authorities there made use of and supposes he could confute them or else put better in their stead if such Persons do not think it worth while to write a Treatise on purpose on this Subject they may if they please send their Animadversions to the Publisher of these Dialogues who will undertake to communicate them to the Author who hereby also engages to Publish them fairly without any Alterations or Additions together with his Answers or Replys to them if the Subject will admit it the Persons concerned may follow the Method used in the foregoing Appendix of Additions but are desired to send in their Animadversions by the beginning of next Michaelmas Term when if sent they shall be Publish'd Bibliotheca Politica Or A DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER MONARCHY BE IVRE DIVINO Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the First LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms 1694. The Epistle Dedicatory To all Impartial and unprejudiced Readers especially those of our Hopeful and Ingenious Nobility and Gentry HAving out of Curiosity for some years before the late wonderful happy Revolution as well aâ— since for the satisfaction of my own Conscience carefully perused all Treatises of any value that have been published of late years concerning the Original and Rights of Civil Government aâ— well of Monarchy aâ— the other kinds thereof as also of the Antient Government and Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom I have found it necessary in order to my better retaining of what I had read and making a more certain Iudgment thereupon to commit to writing the most considerable Arguments on both sides as well of those who have Monarchy to be Jure Devino as of those who only allow it to Government in general of those who hold an Absolute Subjection or Passive Obedience as their Phrase is as well as
Spirits of Fortitude and the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render Boldness of Confidence and which did often transport them to say those things to persecuting Kings or their Governours which had been insufferable to any man else on another occasion and this was not only in words but Actions too Thus when the Emperours Numerianus or Deâ—â—us for my Author doth not know which it was would have entred into the Cathedral Church of Antioch in time of Divine Service Babylus the Bishop standing in the Church-Porch shut the Door against him telling him that He would not suffer him who was a Wolf to enter into the Sheep fold of Christ. And we also read that Valentinian who was afterwards Emperour being then an Officer under Iulian and wanting upon him to the Door of a Heathen Temple gave the Priest a Box on the Ear because he offered to sprinkle him being a Christian with his Prophane Holy Water Yet I confess Theodoret commends the Action and says they after chose that Valentinian Emperour him who had before struck the Priest And therefore I wonder to what purpose you quote such Passages â—ut of Antient Writers and the Actions of Primitive Christians which if you are a Man of that Loyalty or good Breeding as I hope you are you will not your self approve of F. I do not tell you I quote them for our Imitation but only to let you see that the Actions of those you call Primitive Christians and Fathers are not by your own Confession to be the only Pattern for us to follow so that indeed their Practices can signifie nothing to us unless the Principle they acted by were suitable to the Laws of God and right Reason unless you will have no Precedents to be good but what shall suite with your Humour and those Principles you have already imbibed and if Babylus the Martyr might without any sin shut the Emperour out of the Church by Force and that Valentinian was commended for striking the Emperours Priest on the Face I think here are by your own Confession two sufficient Primitive Examples of Resistance both of the Emperour's Person as also of those commissioned by him as certainly this Priest was or else he could have had no Right to have exercised his Idolatrous Worship after the Temples had been shut up under Constantine and Constantius But I now desire your Patience to let you see that not long after these times the Christians as well Souldiers as others were not so through paced in these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-resistance as you would make them for it was by the Rebellion of the Christian Legions in Britain that Maximus took the boldness to Rebel against the Emperour Gratian and making himself Emperour marched into Gaul against him where the poor Prince being also deserted by his Christian Army and forced to fly away with a few followers was not long after murdered by Andragathius after which this Maximus had so good Success that he possessed himself not only of Britain but Spain Gaul and part of Germany and was also acknowledged for Emperour by all the Subjects in those Provinces as well Clergy as Laity tho' the Emperour Valentinian the Son of Gratian was then alive All the Bishops making their Applications to him and desiring him to call a Council in Gaul to suppress the Heresie of Priscillian which he did in Complyance with their Desires wherein they condemned him and his Followers of Heresie who afterwards at the Instance of Ithacius and some other Bishops by this Usurping Emperour were condemned with diveâ—s other of his Followers to suffer Death being the first that ever suffered that Punishment for Heresie This Maximus after five years Reign was overcome and killed in Battle By the Emperour Theodosius who restored that part of the Empire to Valentinian the II. And farther to let you see that the common People of these Primitive Times tho' they were not able to make Emperours so well as the Army yet they were not so streight-laced as not to Resist the Emperours Orders whenever they thought they entrenched upon their Religion or that they went about to persecute them for it I can give you a great many Examples out of Ecclesiastical History of which I will only here set down some few The first is out of Socrates Eccl Hist. Book 2 d. when the Emperour Constantius at the Instigation of Macedonius the Arian Bishop had perswaded him to send some Bands of Soldiers into Paphlagonis to terrifie the People â—punc and make them turn Arrians The Inhabitants of Mantinium enflamed with a Zeal for the Orthodox Religion marched against the Soldiers with a good Courage and having provided themselves with the best Arms they could they gave them Battle in which few or none of the Emperour's Soldiers escaped And tho' I confess the Historians say these People were most of them Novatians yet this Action ought not to be condemned only for that Cause since they were rather lookt upon as Schismaticks than Hereticks and were in all things else except that one point about reconciling the lapsed very Orthodox but in all other things were more strict and scrupulous than the Catholicks themselves So likewise when the Orthodox at Constantinople had chosen Paul for their Bishop but the Emperour resolving to make Macedonius Bishop in spite of their Teeth and had sent Philip the President to fix Macedonius in that See as he was about to give him Possession of the Church tho' they were guarded all along with Soldiers Yet when they came near the Door the People made that Resistance that they could not get in till several thousands of them were killed And some years after when the Emperour Theodosius the II. had banished St. Chrysostome about the Year 404. The People flocked together about the Palace so that the Emperour to pacifie them was forced to recall him from his Banishmen And when St. Ambrosâ— was banished by Valentinian at the Instigation of his Mother Iustina the People did Resist such as came to carry him away and such was their Zâ—al for the Truth and Love to their Injured Bishop that they chose rather to lose their Lives than suffer their Pastor to be taken away by the Soldiers that were sent to drag him out of the Church I could give you more Instances of this kind from the e Primitive Times but these may be sufficiâ—nt to shew you of how little account the Doctrine of Non-Resistance was in those times aftâ—â— Christianity was once settled and that the People supposed they 〈◊〉 the Law on their side Neither do I produce them as fit to be imitated 〈◊〉 like Cases but only to let you see that the Example of those times you call Primitive are no Sufficient Argument of what was lawful or unlawful to be done M. Since you your self do allow All or however most of these Actions to be unlawful I think you might very well have spared
the mentioning of them since I grant that about the End of the Fourth Century when these things happen'd not only the common People but also the Clergy began to grow very corrupt in their Manners And therefore I cannot much value any Precedents that you can bring in that time to justifie Resistance in Christians unless you could have shewn me any before the time of Constantine which I am sure you are not able to do much less any Authority from any of the Primitive Fathers which justifieth Resistance of the Supream Powers upon any account whatsoever F. 'T is a very hard matter to satisfie you by Quotations for before the time of Constantine it is evident the Christians were not only weak dispersed and disarmed but had also the Laws of the Empire against them And I have already granted That Self-defence against Persecution upon account of Religion was unlawful but when in the time of Constantine's Son and Successor the People having the Law on their side stood upon their defence against those that would have taken away their Lives as in the Examples I have brought of the Inhabitants of Paphlagonia then the Instances come too late and the Age is grown so corrupt that they are no longer Primitive Christians than they observe your Doctrines But as for express Precepts or Testimonies out of the Scriptures and Fathers to justifie Resistance I think it is very needless to bring any for the great Mr. Hooker shews us very well that it is the intent of the Scripture to deliver us all the Credenda and Agenda necessary to Salvation but in other Matters within the compass of our Reason it is enough if we have evident Reason for them Scripturâ non contradicente and if the Scripture doth not forbid such Resistance for Self-defence as I hope I have now proved to be Lawful I do not value whether there be any Express Authority to be quoted out of the Fathers for it or not For whatever the Scripture leaves free I think the Fathers have no Power to forbid M. I see it is to no purpose to argue longer with you from Primitive Examples or Testimonies And therefore I come now to the last thing I proposed which is to shew you that the Doctrine of our Church of England as it is contained in the 39 Articles Canons and Book of Homilies is as expresly for passive Obedience and against All Resistance of the Supream Powâ—rs as the Primitive Church it self And therefore I shall begin with the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry the VIII For there I begin the Restoration of Religion to its Purity in this Kingdom F. I pray Sir give me leave to interrupt you for I must tell you I will not be concluded by any thing that the King or Church in those times did publish concerning matters of Faith or Practice since unless it were in that one Political rather than Religioâ—s Article concerning the Pope's Supremacy the Church in all other Speculative and Practical Doctrines was as much infected with Popâ—ry as it was before And therefore if you will have me to be converted by your Authorities I pray begin with the Purer Times of Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth M. I shall comply with your desires since you will have it so And therefore I shall begin with the 39 Articles of the Church of England where in the 37 Article as they were past under Queen Elizabeth Anno 1562 you may find it runs thus The Queen's Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the Chief Government of all the Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Iurisdiction It is true this Doctrine is not limited to the particular Case of Subjects taking up Arms but it seems to me by two necessary Consequences to be deduced from it First Because if the Pope who pretended by a Divine Right had no Power over Kings much less have the People any such Power who pretend to an Inferiour Right that of Compact Secondly Because the Article makes no distinction but excludes all other Power as well as that of the Pope And in truth the Plea is the same on either side the Pope says as long as the Prince Governs according to the Laws of God and the Church of which He is the Interpreter so long the Censures of the Church do not reach him and say the People as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land and of the meaning of those Laws they themselves will be the Interpreters so long are they bound to be obedient but as soon as the King doth any thing that may contradict the Pope then he is deservedly say the Romanists excommunicated deposed and murdered and when he usurâ—s upon the Peoples Liberties then he ought to be deposed by the People The Arguments on either side are the same and for the most part the Authorities F. I must confess this is the first time that ever I knew any Man go about to prove Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance out of the 39 Articles and indeed I should have thought you might have deduced any thing else from these Articles as well as that But let us see how what I have saiâ— in this Discourse can come within the Contents of this Article which only says that the King or Queen of England is Supream Governour over all Persons as also in all Causes whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and is not subject to any foreign Iurisdiction from whence you raise this Argument that if the Pope who claims by a Divine Right hath no Power over our Kings much less have the People who can pretend to no such Right as he does but only that by Compact Now pray tell me whether this be conclusive I assert that the People have by the Law of God and Nature a Right to defend themselves against the Supream Powers in case they are violently Assaulted in their Lives Liberties or Estates Now I would very fain have you prove to me how Resistance for Self-defence doth subjâ—ct a Prince to any Iurisdiction either Foreign or Domestick and whether the People can have no Right to Resist such Violence unless they have also an Authoritative Power over them M. It is not worth while to dispute this any longer with you to so little purpose And therefore I shall come to the Canons of the Church and in particular those of the year 1640 which I look upon as a full Explanation of the Belief of our Church in this Point where you may see in the first Canon these two plain Propositions among others First That the most Sacred Order of Kings is of Divine Right being the Ordinance of God himself founded in the Prime Laws of Nature and clearly Established by express Texts both of the Old and New Testaments Secondly For Subjects to bear
whole People or Nation together with the Religion established should be thus ruined and destroyed rather than that such Resistance should be made M. But pray tell me can there be any thing more express against your Interpretation or more plainly oblige us to a patient Suffering without Resistance of the cruellest and most intolerable Tyranny than these Words I last read The farther and farther any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government the greater Plague be is of Gods Wrath and Punishment by Gods Iustice unto the Country and People over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governour And by what there follows you will see that tho' such a Prince be so great a Plague to them Yet they cannot without Sin judge such a Prince or Rebel against him but must patiently wait God's Leisure to remove him F. I confess this is the strictest Passage of any in the whole Book yet doth not this expressly reach the Case here put or if it had do I think my Self or any Body else obliged because of one or two unwary Passages in this Homily which perhaps neither the Parliament nor Convocation closely considered the evil Consequence of or so much as knew they were there things of this kind usually passing such great Assemblies by the Lump as relying upon the Testimony of some Leading Bishops or Clergy men without considering the Book of Homilies strictly Or reading over the whole So that the Parliament might very well declare that they contained sound Doctrine and nothing contrary to the Word of God without asserting the literal Truth of every particular passage in them much less that all that is contained therein is to believed upon pain of Damnation and therefore I must beg your pardon if I cannot suppose that all Resistance whatsoever tho' in the most necessary Cases of Self-defence which I have now puâ— is absolutely unlawful and rebellious or that the Fathers of our Church ever intended to lay so hard a Yoak upon the Neck of this Nation which neither they nor their Fathers were ever able to bear much less that there is thereby taken away from this Nation defending those fundamental Rights and Priviledges which are essential to the Nature of the Government and which as it distinguisheth it from a Despotick Monarchy So it doth the Subjects likewise from those of other Nations for if the Scriptures themselves were never intended to alter Civil Constitutions much less certainly can either our Canons or Homilies do it And therefore to deal freely with you if the Canons and Homilies had been nâ—ver so express on your side yet as long as no such Consequence can be drawn from the Holy Scriptures I should not much value what they say unless you can prove the Church of England to be infallible And for this I have the sixeenth and twentieth Article of the Church of England made in the Year 1562. to bear me out The former of which concerning the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation runs thus The Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought necessary or requisite to Salvation Therefore if I have plainly proved by sufficient Authority that your Doctrines of Passive-Obeâ—ience and Non Resistance are not expresly found in Scripture nor by necessary Consequence may be rationally deduced from thence they cannot be required of any Man to be believed or practiced as necessary to Salvation And therefore if either this Church or any other imposes such a Burden upon me I am not obliged to bear it And this the latter of these Articles of the Authority of the Church expresly asserts in these Words It is not Lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to Gods Word Written c. after which it follows thus So besides the same it ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation Where Note that besides the same is to be understood any thing that is not found therein or may be proved thereby by necessary Consequence as was said before and if the whole Church it self cannot do this certainly no Particular Church can M. Methinks Sir it is a great Presumption in you and those of your Party to make your selves the sole Interpreters of those Places of Scripture which so expresly forbid all Resistance of the Supream Powers and then when you have wrested the Scriptures to your own Mind to cry out that you are not bound to believe these Christian Doctrines because you suppose they are contrary to Men's humane Reason and the too great Love they have to their own concerns which is but the same way of reasoning which the Socinians and Arians make use of against our Saviour's God head because their narrow Understandings cannot comprehend it But besides all this I could shew you out of the best Writers of the Reformed Religion both in this and other Protestant Churches who interpret these Places of Scripture against all Resistance in the same Sense as our honest Homilies have done but I find it grows late and I have not time now to shew you them or if I had do I believe you would be much Edified by them since you make so slight of the Authority of our Homilies F. You are very much in the Right of it and indeed I do not desire you should put your self to that trouble for the Papists themselves will not own any thing for a Doctrine of their Church which is not expresly found in the Council of Trent or the Catechism composed according to its Decrees and therefore will not be concluded by the Sermons or Theological Treatises of any of the Divines of their own Church as to any thing or matter in debate between us And I think I that am a Protestant may certainly claim alike Christian Liberty especially since I am very sensible upon what account too many Men have carried these Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance to so great a heighth as they have done of late years But since you tell me that so many Learned Writers both of this and other Protestant Churches have been of your Mind So I could also if I had a mind to Cap Quotations with you produce a sufficient number of places out of Luther Calvin Zuinglius and other first Reformers as also of our own Writers at home who have in many places of their Works allowed Resistance for self-defence in case of Intolerable Violence and Oppression to be Lawful and of these I can give you a Large Catalogue whenever you please to command me But since they will convince you as little as I suppose your Writers would do me I shall forbear mentioning them any further M. I value not much what Luther Calvin or any other violent Men of that sort may out of Passion
should go about to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government among us by Force and that whosoever went about to assert the Lawfulness of such Resistance was sure to meet if not with Punishment at least with loss of Preferment and Disgrace when the Doctrine of Passive Obedience ran so High both in the Press and Pulpits it was no wonder if any of our Church who consulted their own Safety durst stem so violent a Current and yet even in these times the Learned Dr. Falconeâ— in his Treatise of Christian Loyalty Chap. 5. Sect. 2. doth tho' cautiously allow Resistance in such great Cases as of a Prince's Alienating his Kingdom or of destroying his People in an hostile manner to be Lawful if ever it should happen But out of a needless fear lest this Doctrine of Resistance may be made use of as a Pretence for Rebellion will not allow it can scarce seem possible ever to happen in a King Compoâ— moâ—tâ— towards his whole Dominions But I think I have already proved the possibility of it and why they may not do the same in an absolute Empiâ—e where the Prince would make them Slaves and Beggars by invading their Liberties and Properties I can see no Reason but think I have given very good ones for it But as for the other Person you mention who did openly in Print oppose this Doctrine of Resistance whether He or his Opponent had the better in this Dispute I leave to the indifferent Readers who I believe will acknowledge that the Author of that Treatise did not so much forfeit his Reputation by asserting a Right of Defence where the Religion and Liberty are Established by Law and became a part of the Civill Constitution as his Opponent did by introducing an Arbitrary Imperial Power in this Nation unknown to our Laws whereby a few Mâ—râ—â—narâ— Red Coats either of thâ— or a Foreign Nation should have by the King's Commission an irresistible Power over the Lives Liberties and Estates of all Protestants But since he went about to make us all Slaves by his Imperial Law I do not 〈◊〉 all envy him so generous a Performance And yet for all that I had much rather have that man's Reputation whom he appyled tho with all his Suffering than the Gentlemans tho' attended with all his Learning and Preferments But as for what you say in 〈◊〉 of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance in all Cases whatsoever it signifies little since it is grounded upon a wrong Supposition for you still take that for granted which is the Question yet to be proved that because the Primitive Christians were against Râ—sistance in case of Persecution therefore this must needs extend to whole Nations aâ—d Common weâ—lths in all States and Conditions whatsoever which whether you have well proved or not I leave it to your own Conscience to judge for my own part I cannot say you have convinced me with what you have said on this Subject So that if these Doctrines as you have put them are neither good in themselves nor necessary to be bâ—lieved nor practised in all Cases I doubt God may justly ask those who either practise or impose them on others Who hath required these things at your hands And as for those Divines of Foreign Churches who you say have writ for these Doctrines as well as ours as I know not who they are nor in what manner they have defended them so do I not much value their Opinion since there are many more altogether as Learned and Pious as they who have held the Contrary Nor are all Divines who maintain Passive Obedience and Non-resistance of your side who write which I also allow that for particular Private Subjects to Râ—sist Princes in Revenge of private Injuries and Rebel against the Supream Powers for not being of their own Religion or to take upon them to call Princes to an Account or pass Iudgment upon them or punish them for their Actions is altogether wicked and unlawful Yeâ— doth it not therefore follow that they have maintained all Resistance to be unlawful in any Case whatsoever tho' perhaps if you were to make use of their Authority you would produce them of your own side To conclude I own my self for Non-resistance in that limited Sense I have now given as far as it extends to particular private Men Yet that this Rule doth not extend to the whole Civil Society or People And therefore altho' in my own private Capacity I ought to submit to and suffer the greatest Injustice rather than Resist and disturb Government yet when the Main Foundations thereof are once begun to be pulled up As I am an English Man I think I am more obliged by all Ties both Sacred and Civil to defend and maintain the Government or Constitution of which I am a Member than I am to obey the King 's personal Commands and that being the Primary Obligation ought to be discharged in the first place M. I shall no longer compare whether the Divines that write for or those that write against Resistance are the wiser or more Learned since you your self it seems at last are feign to own a limited Non-resistance which you will have extend to private Persons but not to the whole Civil Society or People But I think I may venture still to maintain that the Supream Power where ever it is placed must be Irresistible and that a whole Civil Society or People who are not invested with part of the Soveraignty can have no more Right to Resist than single Persons For to say that whole Societies have a Power to Resist and that particular private Persons as Members thereof have it also is such a Diminution of Supream Power as can never be consistent with it for all Inferiours whether Private Persons or whole Societies can have no Power but what is derived from the Supream and therefore if they have a Right to Resist even that must be derived from the Supream Power and so that Power must destroy it self But as for what you alledge in your Iustification that Resistance may be Lawful to avoid Subversion of the Government To this I may reply that if Subjects be no longer in Subjection to the Supream Powers the Government is hereby destroyed for what more manifest Subversion can there be than this That Subjects are now no longer in Subjâ—ction nor Governours can be no longer able to Govern So that this Argument tends only to prove that Subjects may Subvert the Government one way rather than suffer the Soveraign Power to do it another So that upon the whole matter if the Government mâ—st be Subverted you would have no body have the doing of it but your selves F. However false your Premises are and however weak the Proofs that you have brought for them yet I see you are resolved to stick close to your Conclusion i. e. That all Supream Powers are absolutely Irresistible In which Dispute whether you or I have been in the wrong I
to introduce his Religion by all the ways and means he could but how near the French Forces were to be brought over into this Kingdom the last Summer is very well known to those who were then in France and saw them upon the Sea Coast ready to Imbark nor was their coming over put off by any other motives than that two of the Cabinet-Council represented to the King that it would be the only means to make the whole Nation rise up against him and joyn with the Prince of Orange as soon as he Landed which I suppose was the only reason that hindred it for that the French King offered to send them is very certain Yet it does not follow for all that but the King might take an opportunity of doing it another time and bringing them over in their own Ships if ours would not do the business And though I will not affirm that there is any private League with France for the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion yet this much I think may be sufficiently made out that long ago the King was wholly in the power and interest of France as appears by Coleman's Letters whilst he was his Secretary when Duke of York The first passage is to Sir William Throgmorton Feb. 1. 1673 4. You well know that when the Duke comes to be Master of our Affairs the King of France will have reason to promise himself all things that he can desire The next is to Father La Chaise the French Kings Confessor in these words That his Royal Highness was Convinced that his interest and the King of France's were the same and whether the Duke by his Accession to the Crown has shewed any alteration in his Inclinations to France either in respect of Religion or Interest I appeal to the World Nor is your next Supposition less out of the way that the King could have made use of no Forces but French to settle Popery and Arbitrary Government here as if He had not Scotch and Irish Papists enough in his Dominions for this occasion and as for Arbitrary Government we have found to our grief that there are too many Mercenary Souldiers in the Kings Army who fought only for pay and would have Assisted the King to have Raised Money without the Parliament nay to pull the very Parliament out of Doors if he had bid them and if some of them were Discontented when the Prince came over I do not so much impute it to their Honest Principles as fear lest they themselves should be Cashierd and Scotch and Irish to be listed in their rooms so that upon the whole matter considering the temper the King was in ever since his last coming to Town and that as soon as he Arrived the Priests and Jesuits flocked about him as thick as ever that they and the French Envoy were his chief if not his only Cabinet Councellors I cannot see unless he had taken new measures how we could have been secure or could have relied on any thing he could have farther promised nay swore to perform since no Oath could be more Sacred than that at his Coronation when he Swore to maintain the Church that is the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Laws of the Kingdom if that be a true account of the form of it which we have in print M. At this rate of Arguing I know not what to say to you since this Argument amounts to no more than this that the King could upon no account be trusted and therefore was not any more to be Treated with if this were so to what purpose did the Prince of Orange declare that he came not to Conquer the Kingdom but only to procure a Free and Legal Parliament which could not be called without the Kings Consent and owning his Authority neither could they have done the least Act for the Amendment of our Grievances without his Majesties Consent or to what purpose did the Prince enter into a Treaty with the Kings Commissioners at Hungerford if his Royal Word and Promises were not to be believed But if his Majesty could ever be trusted I see no reason why he could not have been so as well since his last coming to Town as before since he came voluntarily and as I have great reason to believe with Real Intentions to grant and perform what ever the Nation could reasonably expect for the Redress of their Grievances and would have given any reasonable Security of his performance for the future without Devesting himself of his Royal Power of making Laws and Protecting his Subjects But as for the former part of your Speech whereby you would prove it lawful to Resist the King because you say it conduced to the Common good and Interest of the Nation both as to the Protestant Religion and Civil Liberties this is no more than the Old Common-wealths Maxim in other words which I grant is so far true as when the safety and preservation of the King or other Supream Powers of a Common-Wealth who according to your own principles are the Representatives of the people and consequently part of it are likewise comprehended and maintained as they ought to be in their due power and authority for Bishop Sanderson in his Learned Lectures hath very well proved that those cannot be separated from each other without destroying the Civil Government which is all the Security we have for our Civil Properties and Liberties and we see in those few days in which his Majesties Person was withdrawn when that there was no Civil Government exercised that there was greater infringment of them both by plundering and destroying of Houses and spoiling of Parks and Forests in three or four days time by the violence and fury of the Mob than have been committed by the most Arbitrary Kings from the Conquest to this day F. You very much mistake me if you think I maintain that there was never any time after the Princes Landing that the King might not have been Treated withal and likewise trusted with the Administration of the Government but then it must have been upon such Terms as should have secured us for the future from his Acting the like or worse things over again as in the first place he should have renounced his Dispensing Power and that of Levying Chimny mony upon small Cottages and Ovens directly contrary to Law Next he should have Disbanded his standing Army and kept up no Forces in time of Peace besides the necessary Guardâ— of his Person the Number of which should have been agreed upon by Parliament which should also have Sâ—te once every year or two years at least and lastly that in respect of the Church as long as he or his Successors continued of the Roman Catholick Religion the Nomination of all Bishops Arch-Bishops Deans with other Ecclesiastical preferments which are not in the immediate Disposal of the Lord Chancellor should have been in the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of each Province they choosing two out of