but this was too hot for your Fingers and therefore you thought fit to drop it Secondly In your Second Paragraph I find nothing material for having referr'd you to the Homilies of our Church for Scripture Proofs of Passive Obedience you are it seems afraid to look into that excellent Book lest you should be found guilty of a Scandalum Ecclesiae and in truth I must commend your Wisdom for its much safer writing against a private Minister than against so glorious a Church but believe it you must not expect to go Scot-free since I have now prov'd the Doctrin of Passive Obedience in my narrow sense as you call it very improperly seeing it is the largest sense any takes it in to be the Doctrin of the Church of England Thirdly You say that I am unwilling the Protestants abroad should share with the Church of England in her darling Doctrin of Passive Obedience which is a Story as true as many you use to tell in the Coffee-house for if you look into the third Paragraph of my former Letter you 'll find me reproving your Learned Ignorance for abusing several of those great Names you mention such as Luther Melancthon Calvin Grotius and others whom you represent as Patrons of Resistance which is but another name for Rebellion You are now forc'd to own That the Government of the Empire differs so far from ours in England that what would be unlawful Resistance here would be but a legal Defence there and this alone is sufficient to vindicate most of those Foreign Divines you mention But because you are very hard to please I shall add further out of Sleidans Comment Lib. XVII where he tells us That the Elector of Saxony who was the chief Person engaged in the German Wars against Charles the Fifth did openly declare That if the said Charles was own'd to be a proper Sovereign with respect to the Princes of the Empire it must then be granted That it was not lawful to wage War with him I hope you will not be so injurious to the Prince of Orange as to affirm That he is no Sovereign Prince because he is proclaimed King of England Luther indeed at first was ignorant as you were of the Constitution of the Empire and therefore was altogether for resisting Charles the Fifth but afterwards he was better inform'd by Learned Lawyers as Sleidan and Melchar Adam Report Melancthon you 'll find Orthodox in this matter if you consult his Loc. Com. de Vindicat. Magistrat Indeed some have thought Calvin as you do a favourer of resisting Sovereign Princes because Lib. 4. Institut he has this Passage Si qui nunc sint populares Magistratus ad moderandum Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacaedemoniis Regibus oppositi erant Ephori If saith he there be any such Magistrates as the Ephori were among the Lacaedemonians they may oppose and resist Kings but in other cases he denies it Now because you are ignorant of the Power of the Ephori among the Spartans and that their two Kings were not proper Sovereigns but the one Admiral by Sea and the other Generalissimo of Land Forces I shall for your better instruction remit you to Arist. Polit. Lib. 2. Plutarch in Pausan or Keckerman de Repub. Spart a Book perhaps more easie to be got in Scotland You are pleas'd to triumph because Grotius as you say is of your Opinion and tell me He is not inferiour to me either for Learning or Judgment It 's well that you can speak a little truth at any time but whether it be your gross Ignorance or the liberty Travellers use to take it s very seldom that you speak all the Truth for the Learned Grotius though in his Book de Iure Belli pacis and in another written in his Younger Time he did drop some unmeet Expressions and unfound Arguments yet when he had weighed Matters better he retracted his former Opinions and in his last Works is as much for Non-Resistance as I was in my Sermon For proof of this Vid. Anot. on Rom. 13. Mat. 26.52 Vot pro pace where he approves of the Proceedings of the University of Oxford about Paraeus on the Romans and allows of this their Determination viz. That Subjects ought by no means to resist their King by force nor ought they to take either offensive or defensive Arms against the King for the cause of Religion or any other thing whatsoever But you no doubt will despise the Determination of our famous University though applauded by your own Grotius and imitate your Country-man Gillispie who in scorn called Prayers and Tears Oxford Divinity By these few instances it will I hope be evident to all unprejudic'd Persons how much you have abus'd these great Names Luther Melancthon Calvin and Grotius Fourthly In the next place you have the confidence to tell me That the Church of England is for the Principle of Resistance and that the Homilies cannot be for Passive Obedience Now this is not only to contradict me but also to contradict your self having in your former Paragraph call'd it the darling Doctrin of our Church You might have receiv'd full satisfaction in this matter had you according to my Advice consulted the Book of Homilies but instead of doing this and to have an opportunity to shew your great Talent of wrangling you labour to evince your impudent Assertion by these impertinent Arguments First Because Queen Elizabeth protected the Hollanders in the Revolt from Spain but this I have answer'd in my former Letter and obliged you to acknowledge That the Government of the Netherlands was vastly different from this of England so that theirs was not properly Resistance but a warrantable Defence This I say you were told before and own'd the matter and yet think fit to serve up your twice sodden Coleworts that you may seem to say something Secondly You tell me as a great Secret That the Convocation of the Clergy of England gave vast Sums towards the Protection of the Hollanders and the Preamble of every Act insinuates the lawfulness of their Resisting the King of Spain This is a Secret with a Witness for I dare be bold to say That the Learnedst Lawyer in England never heard of an Act of Parliament for Mony made by a Convocation But suppose the Bishops or any of the Clergy did contribute such vast Sums it will not prove That our Church did not own Passive Obedience in Queen Elizabeths time as you assert But pray Sir were not the Homilies in her time And that the Fathers of our Church did then take them in the same sense as I did in my Sermon will appear beyond all contradiction from the Testimonies of Bishop Bilson and Iewell I begin with Bishop Bilson who speaks thus in his Book of Christian Subjection Deliverance if you would have it obtain it by Prayer and expect it in Peace These be the Weapons for Christians the Subjects have no Refuge against their
from a more intimate acquaintance than your narrow Theatre could allow you obliges me to do that Justice to the Protestants abroad as to affirm That notwithstanding all the Resistance they made to their Tyrannizing Princes they are as much for Passive Obedience in its true and rational sense as the Church of England it self that is where the Commands of the Sovereign are incompatible with their duty they hold themselves oblig'd to suffer for their disobedience rather than to sin In all their Confessions of Faith they own Magistracy as the Ordinance of God and disapprove opposition to it in execution of Law But they never so far divested themselves of Reason as to yield up their Throats to be cut by their Princes turn'd absolute Tyrants when it was in their power to vindicate their Religion and Liberties by their Sword. That England concurr'd with them in this opinion appears as I told you in my Letter by the mighty protection they vouchsaft them in this their Resistance Moreover which I forgot to tell you in all the Convocations of the Clergy of England at that time there were vast sums given to carry it on and the preamble of ev'ry Act does fairly insinuate the lawfulness of that resistance made by the Protestants abroad against their Princes so that resistance was not only allowed by the Nation but likewise by the Church of England in a full Convocation of its Fathers And if the Church of England assisted so generously in the support of the Protestants abroad at a time when their Religion was Heresie by the Laws of their Country How much rather would these excellent Fathers of the Church have done it if their Religion had been settled by positive and fundamental Laws as it was after by several Edicts and Treaties What you say of the difference of the Government of the Empire and that of England I know but let me tell you as the Golden Bull is the great Barrer against Slavery there the same is the Coronation Oath here and consequently if the Germans may lawfully resist the Emperor or the Rex Romanorum upon breach of that Bull the same may the Representatives and Nobility of England do upon palpable breaches of the Coronation Oath for as the Golden Bull is the great security of the German aggregate Body against the incroachments of the Emperor the same is the Coronation Oath in England against the incroachments of the King. Fourthly You tell me you hold Passive Obedience to be founded on the word of God and maintain'd by the Church of England and contain'd in her Homilies To this I Answer 1. Tell me what opinion was ever broached in the Church without a pretence of Scripture to back it And what gloss can you put upon any Text of Holy Writ to prove your position but what has been a thousand times said and as many times refell'd Yet if you had allowed me a Copy of your Sermon I would have endeavoured to clear the sense of the Texts you make use of which I do not exactly remember so as to make nothing for your purpose And in your doing the one and I the other neither of us would have reason to value our selves upon that score since I fear none of us could outdo what has been again and again done already on that Subject In the mean time let me tell you that the simple stating of the Question solves all the Arguments you can bring from Scripture as I shall make appear in one word anon 2. As to Passive Obedience its being the Doctrine of the Church of England I have told you already that the Fathers of the Church of England contradicted it in Queen Elizabeths Reign And where can we find more authentick records of their Opinion and Doctrine than in the Printed Manifesto's and Acts made in Convocation As to the 39 Articles which is in place of a Confession of Faith and the Homilies wherein you say that Doctrine is maintain'd I 'll make bold to say that Passive Obedience in the narrow sense you take it was not so much as thought on at the time of their Publishing And albeit you should find a way to make them seem to speak for you the simple right stating of thē question answers them sufficiently It would seem to me that the Mitred Clergy and particularly that excellent Prelate My Lord Bishop of London should be at least as well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church of England as any private Minister in a corner of the Nation and how far they have refell'd your fond Principle appears with a Witness in their committing the Government to the Prince in this juncture and a great many other publick actings If your Passive Obedience be the Principle of the Church of England how few Church of England-men are there in both Houses of Convention at present since they act so diametrically opposite to it And yet I perswade my self these Worthy Patriots would take it ill to be call'd of any other Church 3. To refell your Tenet of Passive Obedience in one word I need no more but to state the case fair and without equivocation thus Whate're can be said from Scripture or the acknowledgment of Protestant Churches Centers all in this viz. That it is unlawful to resist the Magistrate while he is lawfully such because he is Gods Vicegerent within his own Iurisdistion But when by his maleversations he divests himself of that Office and assumes a contradictory Character by trampling upon Laws and endeavouring to subvert the fundamental constitutions of the State contrary to his Coronation Oath in this case in my humble opinion He is no more justly a Magistrate nor the object of our Obedience and sua culpa amittit Imperium Upon which the Primores Regni and the Representatives of the People may lawfully fill up the Throne vacated by such palpable incroachments This being the State of the case all the Texts of Scripture you can produce for Obedience to Magistrates are to be natively understood and in a Logical propriety of predication asserted of Obedience to Magistrates when they are justly and lawfully such but the Relatives do not meet when the Magistrate by his own fault becomes dispossest of the Office. There is one thing more I would have you to take notice of to clear this head and it 's this There is a great difference betwixt resisting the Magistrate when he tramples upon the Religion and Liberty of any part of his Subjects in the execution of the Laws made against them and his doing of it in contradiction to Fundamental Laws already made in their Favours As for example albeit I should acknowledge that in Nero's time it had been unlawful for the Christians to resist him because Christianity was at that time contradictory to the Laws of the Empire Yet I cannot perswade my self but in case the Laws at that time had not only established the Christian Religion as the Religion of the Empire but had
the Company your Messenger found me engaged in You are pleased in the first place to accuse me of treating Dr. Burnet in a very rude manner to which accusation I return you this Answer First That I knew not that Doctor Burnet was the Author of that Pamphlet Secondly I have been Informed that he disowns it Thirdly I am willing to believe this Information for the Doctors honour because it is well known he hath in his Learned Writings stiffly asserted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience insomuch that some have been pleased to tell the World in Print that he hath asserted it even to a fault Fourthly If Doctor Burnet be the Author of the said Pamphlet I have not treated him so ill as he hath done a Crowned Head and his own Sovereign Prince and this I hope will pass for a just Apology with a Person of your Loyalty In the second place you quarrel with those Epithets I bestowed on the Anonymus Author of the said Pamphlet but it had been a more substantial Vindication of his Innocence to have refuted the reasons on which the imputation was grounded In the third place You take notice that I affirm'd in my Sermon that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience c. was a Principle asserted by all the Protestants in the World but as to this part of my Sermon either your great memory or great understanding failed you for that which I asserted was this That all the Protestant Churches own the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners and for a proof of this I do now refer you as I did then to the Corpus Confessionum and thus you have spent a third part of your Letter in chasing your own shadow if my Sermon had concerned me in the Controversie I would also make it appear that you injure some of those great names you mention in your Letter such as Luther Calvin Melancton and others by making them Patrons of Resistance which is but another name for Rebellion But Doctor Burnet was better informed by a Learned Divine of Franckford as you may see in his Travels where you find the Government of the Empire differs from this of England so far that what would be unlawful Resistance here would be but a just and legal defence there but my Sermon is not concern'd in this matter and therefore I shall wave it In the fourth place you say that I asserted Passive Obedience and Non-resistance of the higher Powers as a Principle founded in the Word of God this I confess I must own and it is not only my private opinion but also the Doctrine of our Church as you may see in her excellent Homilies against Rebellion When you shall give your self the trouble to prove these Texts are misapply'd by our Church you shall hear farther from me and I assure you I urged no other Texts than what you 'l find there and this will save me the labour of copying out that part of my Sermon In the fifth place you admire what bad Genius prompted me to stile self defence even in the general notion of it an old Phanatick Principle Sir I find you are very subject to make misrepresentations I was not obliged by my Text to treat of self defence in the general notions of it and I do assure you 't is lawful to defend our selves against Robbers and private Aggressors as it would have been for the late Archbishop of St. Andrews against Balfour and his other barbarous Assassines This I easily grant you but I inveigh'd in my Sermon as the Text did warrant me against such as resisted the Higher Powers and to tell you the truth the bad Genius that prompted me to stile such resistance an old Fanatick Principle came out of Scotland for I have in my little Library Buchanan Douglas Rutherford Nephthali and other Scotch Fanaticks who maintained Rebellion under the disguise of such self defence and because you pretend to great skill in the Civil Law I must tell you I have in my little Library the Roman Tables the Codex Pandects Institutes and several Famous Civilians that have commented upon them and I do not find that they allow self defence against the Higher Powers I desire you therefore to tell me whether the Lex Regia or what part of the Codex Pandects c. doth allow self defence against the Higher Powers and I would also know whether St. Paul did not understand the Roman Tables and the Constitution of that Oecomenical Empire and whether he chose rather to Preach as I did the Doctrine of Non-resistance than that of Self-defence I hope you will not say as a wretched Socinian once did Paulo majora canamus Whereas you add I should have given some distinctions of the several kinds of self defence I think with Submission the Text made it needless to distinguish seeing there is express mention of Resisting the Higher Powers which had your zeal given you leave to have attended to I 'm so charitable as to believe you would have reserved your complaint for a fitter occasion In the sixth place you tell me you cannot recount without horror the passage of my Sermon Whosoever medleth with the Kings Forts Militia c. were guilty of Damnation the passage fairly represented was thus Our Saviour commands Subjects to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars now since by the undoubted Laws of the Land all Forts Customs Militia c. are the things that belong to our English Caesar our Saviour were he now upon Earth would command the Subjects of this Kingdom at this time to render those things unto Caesar and not to seize them c. Is this such terrible Doctrine that you could not mention it without horror but in England we bring solid Arguments not puerile Exclamations to prove a Doctrine to be false If then it be a sin for Subjects to seize the Kings Revenues c. as I shall presume it to be till I see the contrary proved it will no doubt without repentance expose the sinner to Damnation unless you believe it to be but a venial sin you seem a little malicious when you make me reflect upon the Prince of Orange but you can't but know that I am discoursing of the duty of Subjects and I hope you do not believe the Prince to be one As therefore I had no occasion to mention him so I can assure you he was far from my thoughts You shew little skill in our Laws when you call Preaching up Passive Obedience which your Friend Doctor Burnet will inform you is the avowed Doctrine of our Church Scandalum Magnatum your rash censure sounds more like a Scandalum Ecclesiae you are mightily concern'd for the Protestant States and Princes of Europe but I know no injury done them by my Sermon I am confident there is not a Protestant Prince who understands his own Interest that will be offended at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience you
making any material Difference betwixt what I said was exprest in your Sermon and what you say your self in your Letter for still in both medling with the Kings Forts c. is a sin exposes to Damnation Then you tell me You had no design against the Prince of Orange in your Discourse and in my taxing you with a Scandalum Magnatum you accuse me of a Scandalum Ecclesiae To this I answer First What can reflect more upon the Illustrious Prince of Orange than that the meddling with the Kings Forts c. exposes to Damnation Since albeit his Highness be a Sovereign Prince and no Subject of England yet in heading and assisting these Subjects that seizes the Kings Forts c. he must necessarily incur the Guilt of a mighty Sin in your sense For he that so far assists another in a sinful Act as without his assistance it could not have been acted is certainly guilty before God of the sinful Act it self So if the Nobility and Gentry of England seiz'd the Kings Forts c. and thereby in your sense expos'd themselves to Damnation it follows necessarily that the Prince of Orange who so far assisted them as to render them capable to do it must in the same sense of yours share in the Guilt of so doing And that this Darling Prince of all the Protestants of Europe is none of yours appears too clearly by your refusing either to preach your self or allowing others to do it and by your Curats leaving out the Prayer for him on this happy day of Commemoration of that mighty Deliverance whereof God has made him the glorious Instrument Secondly It Scandalum Magnatum be not properly in its self a Reflection upon the Honour of a Peer of England I am mistaken and am willing to be corrected by those who have had more occasion to know the Laws of England than I have had And if it be so What greater blemish to their Honour and blot upon their Scutcheon can there be than to be accus'd of Rebellion which you say is the same with Resistance and of Actions that necessarily without Repentance expose them to Damnation Thirdly I knew not before that the giving a Check to a private Minister of England enveighing against the Nobility of England was a Scandalum Ecclesiae neither did I dream that your single Opinion was to be estimate that of a whole Church The Roman Catholicks on this side the Alpes scorn to lodge the Infallibility in one single Person and that a private Protestant Minister here should so far fix it upon himself as the least Reflection upon him must be estimate a Scandal done to the whole Church is a thing very new to me In the end of this Paragraph you would fain fix upon me the putting a blot upon the Predecessors of the Prince of Orange A strange Inference indeed from any thing in my Letter The Revolt of the States of Holland under the blest Conduct of that Illustrious Heroe William of Nassaw was in my sense no Rebellion but a just Vindication of Religion and Civil Liberties while in your sense it must merit no better Name than Rebellion since Rebellion and Resistance in your Opinion are convertible Terms And if you will turn over the Authors that have written in favor of that Revolt and the most exact model of the present Government of the States I know called Commentariolus de Statu Belgii thought to be Grotius's you will find a very neer Parallel betwixt the Coronation Oath of England and that of the House of Burgundy and their Priviledges to have been little or nothing above ours In the last Paragraph You are angry at my blaming you for wrong timing your Sermon and tell me You use always to preach such Doctrin upon the 30 th of January and if Times be changed Truth is not In answer to this I refer you to what I wrote in my Letter upon this Head Only this I must say I find it 's hard to eradicate a bad Custom You mind me of the Fate of those that have been Sea-sick even when the Storm is past and themselves on firm ground their Giddiness continues You have been so us'd to thunder out your little Bolts against the poor Dissenters and to cry up Passive Obedience in order to their Ruine when the edge of the Laws were pointed against them That now when the Horizon begins to clear up and the Cheat of setting Protestants by the Ears discovered you cannot wean your self from the old beloved way of railing About the middle of this Paragraph You seem to scorn me for an Antagonist because of my being of another Profession and my small skill in Divinity And are pleased to promise Dr. Burnet a Copy of your Sermon if so be I can prevail with him to vindicate these Positions contain'd in the Inquiry you would refute To this I answer First I cannot but commend you in desiring such an Antagonist as Dr. Burnet it were honour enough for you to be overcome by so great a hand But forgive me to tell you I am not so far as yet berest of Common Sense although I had the honour to have such Power with him as to desire him to stoop to so unequal a Combat Secondly As to my want of Skill in Divinity I am not so impudent as to deny it But I hope no body will blame me to love the light of the Sun tho I cannot attain the Eagles Fortune to look that bright Planet in the Face I am heartily sorry That that Noble Study should be monopolized to the Clergy for I was still in the mistake That our Religion allowed us a share in it pro nostro modulo and was so foolish as to think That a Physician whose proper Study is the search of Nature might very lawfully imploy some part of his Hours in that sacred Science whose immediate Subject is the God of Nature I am happy in this That neither in my other Letter nor in this I have had any occasion of demonstrating my Skill in Divinity or the want of it And if you will not be angry I 'll tell you You seem to me to do with your vast Treasure of Divinity as some sordid Misers with their Money they hoard it up so close in their Cabinets as it 's impossible for others to say certainly they have any Thirdly As to my want of Judgment Memory Skill in Divinity and a great many other such Expressions all along your Letter which I here take notice of once for all I would have thought that a Man of your great Parts and Character would have rather in your Christian Charity have pitied me than upbraid me with a defect of Nature For those who know us both may tell you That if my Spirit had not been so utterly incapable of Letters I might have attain'd to some small Scantlings of Knowledge My Education both at home and abroad and the Charges of it being at least nothing inferiour
to yours I am glad to find your Paroxism over in the end of your Letter and you inclinable to a little Sport in proposing to me Two Questions in Physick I might laugh them over if your Skill in Physick were not greater than mine in Divinity And to shew my self all Obedience I answer to the first That under your Correction a redundancy in Choler with a little mixture of adust Melancholy has produced more Tragedies in the Body of Man than the Juice of the Pancreas is capable to do and these Affections seldom hit the Body without allowing a large share to the Mind As to the second Question I was almost going to complement you by giving the credit of the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood to a Clergy-man the great Padro Paulo as Bishop Bedel insinuates but I am as loath to part with the Honour of that Discovery from my own Profession as you are to allow mine that of knowing Divinity And if I should affirm That the 12 th Chapter of Ecclesiastes contains a true Systeme of the Circulation of the Blood you might have a large Field to shew your Skill of Physick and Divinity at once by demonstrating the contrary Now I hope my Obedience to you will oblige you to a jus talionis and instead of two Questions I 'le presume but to propose one Viz. Whether or not he that pays the stipend should jure Divino present to the Church This is a Question may concern you and I am positively for the affirmative till you convince me of the contrary SIR Your humble Servant JAMES WELWOOD P. S. I must add one thing more How kindly would your Principle of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance relish with the poor Protestants of Ireland at this day And indeed if they be all of your Opinion we are like to have many thousands of Martyrs if the goodness of God and the Princes Conduct prevent it not Thus Sir I have answered your Letter in a Strain somewhat different from yours for your Heat and Bitterness shall not Authorize mine If you have any further Commands for me you shall find me ready to serve you being that I am To Doctor WELWOOD Newcastle Feb. 19. 1688 9. Good Doctor YOU were it seems in some danger of losing the honour of being an Apathist because you found not in the Superscription of my Letter the glorious Title of Dr. Medicinae but if you will be at the charge of consulting the Heralds Office you may soon satisfie your self That tho perhaps you may have commenc'd Doctor in some Foreign Academy yet you have no claim to the Priviledges of the same degree in England till you are admitted ad cundem in one of our Famous Universities if this Apology will not allay the effervence of your Choler I have nothing to plead besides the Ignorance of your Quality You are in a much greater ferment by reason of that rude Answer you say I sent you but others that saw it thought it more modest than you deserved considering these Provocations you had given me a Person that never injur'd you in my life But I fancy you expected from me some such mighty Complements as Dr. Burnet met with in his Travels for charging me with false Doctrin waspish Expressions want of Breeding scurrilous and indecent Epithets black Aspersions bad Genius horrible Positions Scandalum Magnatum want of Prudence Choller narrow Theatre having Books and not reading them For these and many more are the Flowers and Embellishments of your Stile and yet good Man you are not capable of any Impressions of Heat and Bitterness but more cool than the Alpes and a greater Adeptus in Stoicism than Old Zeno was who yet say some did at last swing himself out of the World in a pleasant Paroxism of Apathy But in lieu of your charging me with Cholerick Strains I shall return you two known Sayings Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum Et Medice cura teipsum Before I come to examine what you may think material in your second Letter I shall premise something concerning the Doctrin of the Church of England which I think may be better gathered out of her own Authentick Monuments than out of your Country-men barely and this will bring us to the truest State of the Controversie In order thereunto I shall begin with the necessary Doctrin and Erudition of a Christian Man set forth by the Authority of Henry the Eighth and compos'd by Cranmer Ridley Redman and other glorious Martyrs On the fifth Commandment they deliver themselves thus Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty Truth Love and Obedience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be neither for any Cause they may conspire against his Person nor do any thing towards the hindrance nor hurt thereof nor of his Estate and they prove this from Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Powers resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist them get to themselves Damnation And upon the sixth Commandment No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for whatsoever Cause it be and tho Princes which be the Supreme Heads of their Realms do otherwise than they ought to do yet God hath assign'd no Judges over them in this World but will have the Judgment of them reserv'd to himself and will punish them when he seeth it time In the Second Part of the Sermon of Obedience in the Book of Homilies our Church declareth That it is not lawful for Inferiours and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the higher Powers For St. Pauls Words are plain Whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation In the Second Part of the Homily against Rebellion we have these Words David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance but by flight and hiding himself from the Kings sight Shall we not rise and rebel against our known mortal and deadly Enemy that seeks our Lives No saith godly David What shall we do then to a Saul an evil unkind Prince an Enemy to us hated of God hurtful and pernicious to the Common-Wealth Lay no violent hand upon him saith good David but let him live until God appoint or work his end It is most plain from these Passages That the Church of England forbids all Resistance of the Higher Powers in all Causes whatsoever And tho you and your Country-man Barclay were pleased to trouble the World with nice Distinctions our Church thinks it more advisable to follow St. Paul's Example and use none at all Having premis'd thus much to state the Controversie aright I shall now examine your Letter First You will have Dr. Burnet the Author of that Pamphlet whether I will or no and bring such silly Arguments to prove it as are not worth the mentioning But since you will have it so I wish you had taken more pains to vindicate his Reputation seeing he has subscribed the Homilies and asserted Passive Obedience to the heighth