I will not Swear that the Proverb is not fulfilled â—â—â—â—re quod fiâ— ingrato Having thus deduc'd the History of Self-Defence from the very first King of the Israelites and shewed by Instances that as it began with Kings there so it continued as long as the Jewish Government lasted and adduced several instances of it in the Primitive Times but more especially in the time of the Reformation I shall conclude with a few Remarks upon the Authors Preface where he is principally concerned he having done nothing in the rest but brought in some far fetcht Consequences He begins his Preface with telling you that he always thought that the Doctrine of Non-resistance had been a Doctrine founded in the Holy Scriptures Page 1. c. Which is much the same with the Dying Testimony of a late Reverend Prelate of the Church of England who had sucked it in with his Mothers Milk So that by his own words he seems never to have impartially weighed the strength of Argumentsion both sides but has taken it upon trust so that it can have little weight with any considering Man But what he says as to its being maintained in the first Ages of the Reformation is easilier said than proved That the first Reformers of the Church of England acknowledged all due subjection to Authority in the same some as all other Churches and every honest Man does viz. to Princes acting Legally and those who are true Fathers of their Countrey is beyond â—â—l doubt But that the first Reformers of the Church of England did maintain Non-resistance to the same heighth that this Author and his Party does is more than he can evince since there is nothing of it in the 39 Articles and the Citations which he brings out of the Homilies seem to affect private Persons and not a Community But if this was always the professed Doctrine of the Church of England that it was in no case Lawful for Subjects to resist of defend themselves against the Tyrannical Invasions of their Princes how came she to approve of and contribute to the assisting of Protestants actually in Arms against their Kings particularly those of the Seven Provinces those of Scotland and of later days the Protestants of Rochel I believe that Author will scarce venture to say that she did not approve it And therefore it must either be granted that she did not maintain Non-resistance in that heighth as our Author and his Party do or that she acted very dissonantly to her Principles which would be a great Reflection on so great and pious Divines as lived then For had she been of Opinion that it was unlawful for Subjects upon any account to defend themselves against the unjust Oppressions of their Soveraigns she must needs at the same time see that it was unlawful for her to be Aider and Abettor with them and partake of their sin And so instead of approving or sending of supplies to them she should have sent them over that Christian Exhortation that it was their indispensable Duty to submit their Neeks to whatever their Soveraigns should impose upon them and suffer it patiently and by no means to resist their Superior Powers But we have nothing upon Record that any of her Divines at that time living objected any thing against it And therefore we may with all the reason of the World conclude that had it been her own case she would have taken the same Methods of defending her self as other Protestants did For she had but a little before been under the same Trials her self and therefore she knew experience than our Author and his Party to whom we may truely apply that of our Saviour to his Disciples which they have so often applyed to others That they know not what manner of Spirit they are of As to what he says after ward of her Loyalty during Queen Maries Reign It may be answered that in King Edward the Sixth Days she was but in her Infancy and 't is probable that the Protestants at that time were not so strong in England but that the Papists clothed with Authority would have been too hard for them Besides that the Protestant Party was at that time weakned by the Factions and Animosities of some great Men which no doubt as it was promoted by the Papal Faction so gave great advantage to their Enemies As by the heats of our present Non-resistance Men great advantage is now given to the common Enemy so as they are become very insolent who otherwise were there no Fowds amongst us durst not so much as mutter As to her being so active in bringing Queen Mary to the Throne I think it may deserve enquiry whether she might not have done as well if she had excluded Queen Mary and set up Queen Elizabeth immediately upon King Edward VI. Death Since she could have sufficiently justified her self in so doing in as much as King Henry VIII Marriage with her Mother was declared unlawful by the most Earned Divines and Casuists in Europe as being not only forbidden in the Old Testament but likewise in the New by John the Baptist when he told Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his Brothers Wife which being true Queen Mary had no Right to succeed since she was Illegitimate more than the late Duke of Monmouth had so that the Loyalty during the Marian Persecution will not be very much to his purpose And whereas that Author seems to obviate an Objection viz. That Adversaries pretend that there is something of self in the case that makes them stand up so much for Non-resistance Page 1. I do not see nothwithstanding all he has said for the Vindication of his Party but it is still unanswered since there hath never been a time since the Church of England was in her most flourishing state that she had occasion to discover her Loyalty towards persecuting Princes And since I know this Gentleman reckons only those of his own size the True Churchmen they having sufficiently discovered this to the World when they branded the most Learned most Religious most Moderate and numerous Party of the Church with the opprobrious Name of Timmer I would desire him to pause a little and consider upon what ground it is that they found their Non-resistance upon There are two great commands upon which the whole Duty of Man hangs viz. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and Thou shalt love by Neighbour at thy self They cannot say it depends on the former at least immediately tho' there are not wanting Instances of too many of that sort of Men who both by their Doctrine and Practice shewed much more Zeal to the Earthly God than to the Heavenly as could be made appear both from their so much insisting upon their Non-resistance at a time when it might not have been thought so seasonable and thereby shuffling out those Exhortations which immediately concerned the Salvation of Souls and by the Immoral
the Massacre in Ireland did stir up the Spirits of many in England out of a fear lest they should suffer the same things here and the advice of some high flown men given to that King of introducing new Ceremonies into the Church of Scotland stirred up the Spirits of that Kingdom all which jumping together made way to his ruine Which was afterwards effected by some bloody self-designing men that made a party in the Army But our Author needs not wonder so much as he does to see her Sons disown that which he calls her Doctrine since he might have known that many of her Sons were in the Parliament Army a great part of King Charles I. Army being Roman Catholicks so that they were but the smallest Number of the Church of England that joyned him But as I said before this Gentleman reckons none true Sons of the Church but those of his own size As for the rest I doubt not but he includes them with those Enemies who make a fasting day of our Saviours Nativity as if they were sorry that he came into the World and perhaps with reason because their Actions were so contrary both to his Precepts and Example By which we may see that this Gentleman has been so intent in conning the 13 of the Romans that he had no time to spare for the 14th Otherwise he would have been more sparing in rash judging for he might have read in Verse 4 of that Chapter Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not let not him that eateth not dispise him that eateth and in v. 6. He that keepeth a day to the Lord be keepeth it and he that keepeth not a day to the Lord he keepeth it not Or it may be our Author has past his courses of smaller Duties such as this is and minds only the Topping and most difficult such as Non resistance c. And so the old Proverb may be applied to him Aquila non captat muscas But I must take the Liberty to tell him that the Generality of our high Non-resistance mens practice is as contrary to the Precepts and Example of our Lord as the worst of those that he says make a fasting day for our Saviours Nativity He tells us next Did we seriously study the Laws of Providence Pag. 3. and consider the Indispensable Obligations laid on us of taking up the Cross c. Very true but because we are ordered to take up the Cross when called to it must we therefore make one for our selves as if we were as ambitious of it as the Primitive Christians were of Martyrdom I think our Author himself if he be of that Church he professes will not therefore justifie the Papists making a Rod to chastise themselves with on good Friday or think that God is pleased therewith since he never desired them to take up that Cross many crosses are laid upon us by God which yet we may use lawful means to get rid of particularly sickness and he would be thought a fool that would not apply himself to Physicians to get free of it but would expect to be cured by a Miracle And till our Author has given better Arguments for Non-resistance than we have yet seen we must take the Liberty to say that in order to the preserving of our Lives against a Tyrant that would take them away we may as warrantably make use of Self-Defence as of Physicians when sickness threatens us with Death His Instance of the Gnosticks is very far from the purpose for as the Author he quotes upon that Subject says Ibid. they reckoned all Governments to be nothing else but the contrivance of some evil Spirits whereas there are none of those that are for Self-defence if we except those of the Fifth Monarchy Principle but have as great a veneration for Government as any of his Party and would hazard as much for the supporting thereof as any of them but as for Tyranny when people are much in the same case if not worse than if there were no Government at all the case is quite altered That other Citation of Machiavel is much to the same purpose and therefore I pass it He next reflects upon Hobbs but I suppose designed to wound another through his sides Page 4. for in other points I believe they needed no Reconciliation and his Conscience is mightily startled if he has any at the dangerous Tenets which he revived viz. That Power is originally in the people that the Foundation of all Government is laid in Compact and that the Breach of Conditions by one Party justifies that of the other But I would gladly hear his Proofs that Power was not Originally in the people and how Kings came first by their Power For all that ever this Author or any of his party have said about it is a meer Chimaera viz. That Kings as they derived their Lives so they received their Power from Adam and Noah by virtue of their Primogeniture as the first had it immediately from God without any consent of the People But first then it would follow that Mankind should be born as great slaves as Beasts since a King in such a case should have as much Propriety over them as any Countrey-man has over his Horse Cows or Sheep than which nothing can be more repugnant to reason 2. It would follow that there should have been but one Universal King over the whole Earth viz. the Eldest Son of Noah who undoubtedly must have that Power over all his Younger Brethren and consequently his Posterity in the right line must have had the same Power over their Posterity and there could not have been any other Kings unless he or his Posterity in the right line had made them their Vicegerents but this is altogether Inhistorical And therefore their position must be false For it is certain that the great Monarchies that have been in the World were but small Kingdoms at the first and that for a considerable time and were afterward enlarged by Conquest 3. If this Conjecture had been true it would follow that God himself contradicted his own Order without any reason for it For upon the Israelites desiring a King should not he rather have made choice of the chief of the first Tribe than of one of the meanest families of the Youngest Tribe viz. Saul who was not master of such Vertues as to recommend him to the Crown before all the rest of the Children of Israel The like may be said of David who was not of the Eldest Family of Judah and tho' he was a Man after Gods own heart yet according to those Gentlemens opinion another should not have been deprived of his Right And since this Opinion has not the least ground for it it must necessarily follow that it was by Election and consequently that the Power of Election resided in the People and as the People did elect them so it is most rational to suppose that Articles were drawn up
betwixt them and the People which were to be mutually observed for 't is very improbable that People would give up themselves as Bondslaves to that Prince but entrusted him with the Government meerly that they might under him lead quiet and peaceable Lives and since he had no right to Tyrannize over People his Successors could have no more right than he and if he or they did endeavour to oppress the Subjects encroach upon their Liberties and Priviledges they might lawfully defend themselves But this Subject is too large to insist upon and therefore I must leave it tho' in our Gentlemans opinion one of the Fundamental Points of Christianity Another Damnable Doctrine that makes this good Mans hairs stand an end is That when Religion is a part of our Property it may be defended Ibid. But why should this be such a Bugbear For what has been more dear to all Nations in the World than Religion If Civil Priviledges may be maintained and if we enjoy as them helps to us in our Religion or serving God then it will follow that we may much more maintain our religious Priviledges Nothing can be more dear or more worth the preserving in a Land than the freedom of our Religion Has not the Scripture it self reckoned it the greatest of Priviledges when it said Blessed are they that hear the Joyful sound And if it be such a Mercy may we not at least use all the means for maintaining of it that we may do for a Mercy of an Inferiour Nature But I would fain know if a King should go about to put down the Hierarchy and Ceremonies of the Church of England what our Author and his Party would do whether or no they would defend their Religion He that would think they would patiently sit with it would I doubt not be mightily mistaken Nay have we not sufficiently seen of late what they would do by the practice of their Brethren in Scotland and their publick Approbation of it here in most Coffee-houses For none have been so Industrious of late and that with a mischievous Design to stir up people against the Government as those very Men in buzzing it about here that the turning out of the Bishops in Scotland was the only occasion of Dundee's Rebellion there And why have so many of them Vindicated them for so doing Of all men of the World it least became them had they considered how contradictory that behaviour is to the Doctrine of Non-resistance they would have had more prudence whatever they thought than to have said so So that by this we may see however Heterodox this Opinion is That Religion when it is a part of our Property may be defended yet those Gentlemen would maintain it when it makes for their Turn He concludes this Paragraph with telling you that he speaks this God knows to confute the Calumny Page 5. and with the deepest sence of the Interests of a poor despised Church which is still and will be the best the most Orthodox and most Primitive of all Christendom Magisterially spoken But why despised I know no Man despises her but it would seem our Author by his despised Church means only those persons that have refused to take the Oaths And it is no wonder if that party of it be despised that out of a humour or some sinister Arbitrary design advance such Doctrines in the World as have such a tendency to the enslaving and Oppression of Mankind in General But this Gentleman talks more like a Son of Infallibility than one that acknowledges a Church to be fallible For why should he thus extol the Church of England so highly beyond all other Churches That she is a famous Church none will deny and also that she has as Learned and Pious men in her Communion as any other Church But it is always a sign both of Prudence and Modesty not to run out too much in our own Praise The Proverb holds still Laus proprio fordescit in ore I could wish it were more minded by those men when they thus claim to themselves an Excellence beyond all other Churches This more becomes a Church that pretends to Infallibility than any other We have heard of a Church that said she was rich and well clothed and stood in need of nothing when yet she wanted every thing I do not say this as If I thought that her case were the same with that of that Church but only that she and every other Church should not think of themselves so as to despise all others But he not only says that she is but that she will be which yet savours more of Infallibity Could our Author spare so much time from reading those places in the Scripture which he thinks make most for Non-resistance I would desire him to read the second and third Chapter of the Revelation and there he would find that the Seven Churches of Asia which the Spirit of God called the Seven Golden Candlesticks were once as famous Churches as ever the Church of England or any other Church was and yet many years ago there has been little resemblance of a Church there And the same may befal her or any other Church But if it do not I am sure she need not thank this Author or any of his Party for it for could they bring about their designs she would quickly be brought to that pass when we had the Romish Crew again brought in amongst us That Citation he quotes out of Cressy is as little to his purpose and he mentions it only to make us believe that Mr. Calvin and other Protestants abroad were Champions for Non-resistance Ibid. but if so how came so many Pulpits to thunder out against Calvin and other Foreign Protestants as the Broachers of Sedition And why were several of their Works burnt at Oxford An. 1683. when Non-resistance was culminant However it seems he is a very good-natured Gentleman and would make Mr. Calvin some redress for the Injury that has been done to his Reputation But to let you know the sincerity of his Undertaking he tells you that he intends no Disturbance by it Ibid. since he only does the Office of an Historian in barely citing his Authors and so he excuses himself from making good every Argument therein since the Authors most of them being alive are obliged to manage that wherein he is to be commended for his Prudence for I am afraid it would have been too difficult a Task for him But I thought that the Evidence of Scripture and Reason was to be a Protestants Rule and not blindly to believe as the Church or generality of her Fathers believe And therefore he would have done much more for his Cause had he himself demonstrated the Necessity of Non-resistance by solid Arguments taken from Scripture and Reason and the universal practice of all sober men than by thus setting down a multitude of it may be not a few of them wrested expressions
practices of several of them We know there is a Church where more honour is shewed to Christs Vicar than to himself I wish it be not so with many of our Non-resistance Men to his Vicegerent But since it must needs be granted that it depends on the latter the sincerity of those men in this particular may be tryed by their observance of other parallel Duties injoined in that same General Precept and if they be sound tardy in those we have the more reason to suspect them in this I have several times wondred why of all men in the World most of our Non-resistance Champions should have the confidence to pretend to the Observation of so self-denying a Precept as that seems to be since none are readier to resent the least Injuries than they are yea when they will look upon that to be an Injury which is really none and if so be they cannot put up the least supposed injury in the smallest things and from which they can receive the least prejudice how can it be supposed they would do it if it should come to the loss of Lives and Liberties None that I know of except the Romanists have so far vented their Spleen and used such rigour and severity against those that differ from them none have defamed and misrepresented them more than those men who especially plead for Non-resistance and how that great Christian principle of Love which they so much pretend to is exercised therein I cannot conceive Now if there be such a failure in that so Obvious and Necessary a Duty I think that without any great breach of Charity a man may conclude that their Doctrine of Non-resistance is no other than the Doctrine of the Bow-string For if their Loyalty which they so much pretend to proceeded from an unfeigned respect to the Command of God a respect to the same Command would likewise inspire them with Christian Love and Charity towards all men tho' never so much dissenting from them much more towards those who differ only from them in smaller Matters So that while they thus boast that they have fulfilled the Commandment of the Lord in destroying those Amalekites I mean those sinful Passions that are so prejudicial to Societies as well as particular Men the bleatings of the Sheep testify against them that they are not such as they would make the World believe notwithstanding all their specious pretences to Loyalty And since they used to inveigh so much against other persons when they exprest their dislike against some Arbitrary Proceedings in the Reign of King Charles II. as those that spoke evil of Dignities and so reckoned them as the worst of men when those that but espoused their darling Non-resistance tho' otherwise the stain of Humanity itself much more of Christianity were good honest men I only would desire them to reflect upon their Invectives against the late King James for near the last 2 years of his Reign and how kindly they entertained the severest Lampoons against him There is none that converst with them but can testify to the Truth of this and I doubt not but this Author had his share in it Nay may we not remember how highly many of them resented King Charles II. His pardoning the late Duke of Monmouth and could not forbear saying What! has His Majesty served us thus So that we may see that either they must be above the King and have him at their beck or nothing will satisfy them And notwithstanding all our Author has said in his Parties Vindication that saying of the Father of lies will be a Truth when applyed to them viz. Does Job serve God for nought For if they be but dis-satisfied in the least none would curse the King more than they would do As for what he says that the Doctrine cannot be unseasonable since no Governmâ—nt can be safe without it Pag. 2. it is manifestly false for if a King keeps himself within the due bounds that God and the Laws of the Land set him he needs not fear any hurt from his Subjects tho' there were not a Man in the world that maintained Non-resistance And on the other hand if this Principle were generally maintained I would fain know how the World could be preserved from Tyranny and all manner of Oppression and Injustice I hope this Author will acknowledge that we must not always expect Miracles Now were this Doctrine generally held we could never he safe but under good Princes and scarce under them could but such Gentlemen as this Author get the Ascendant over them and if we peruse Histories of former times we shall find several bad Kings to one Good Now if this Doctrine were become Universal there would be no restrain upon a King the Laws would prove but like Samsons Cords which he without fear would snap asunder at his pleasure since he knew that whatever he did all would be patiently taken May we not then justly apply that of our Saviour to the Pharisees to those men that advance such dangerous Opinions That they would bind heavy Burdens on other Mens Shoulders but would not touch them with one of their little Fingers And put the same Question to them which the Apostle did to Judaizing Christians Acts. 15.10 Why tempt you God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear And is there any Yoke more grievous than that People and Nations must be all their life long in Bondage and that without any hopes of Redress except by a Miracle Did not the wisest of Men and Princes say Oppression maketh a wise man mad But to apply this Doctrine to our Constitution here would not this Doctrine at one blow cut off all the Rights of Parliament And then we should have no Laws but the Kings Pleasure For were this Doctrine in force he might lay on a Tax at his pleasure and send out Booted Apostles to force the People to pay whatever the imposed upon them and if they would not pay it willingly take it perforce from them and all the while they must patiently sit still and not make the least Opposition against those that are sent out by him whatever Outrages they should commit And is not this a Doctrine highly advantageous to Humane Societies I am afraid our Author and his party were they touched in the quick with this would be as ready to kick as those men they so much rail at But we may generally observe that the greatest Cowards boast most of their Courage before it come to be tryed in Battel and therefore we shall excuse them for once As for his Instance of King Charles I. Tho' there is no good Man but abhors the barbarous Murdering of that Prince Ibid. yet I think our Author cannot but acknowledge that he tho' of a very good nature was drawn aside no doubt by such Gentlemen as he to act several Illegal things It is certainly known that