first brought from another Country and is no way natural to our own tho the Infection hath been taken by too many who had an ill Temper prepared for it Cons Dr. Jackson's Works Tom. 3. l. 12. ch 8. p. 978. their Loyalty and Peaceableness may be the Fruits of their Education or their good temper but not of their Faith or as Dr. Sherlock says they may be loyal as Englishmen but they cannot be so as Papists Would we therefore judge of the Doctrine of our Church we must consult her Articles Canons publick Homilies publick Offices of Devotion General Orders of her Bishops Censures of her Universities and Writings of her greatest Men who have vindicated her Doctrine and explained her Belief and this Method I shall use to discover what hath been owned by the Church of England as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Thirty nine Articles THE Articles of our Church have been always looked upon as the stated Doctrine of our whole Church to which all her Priests are obliged to make their Subscriptions they are allowed a place in the Body of the Confessions of the Protestant Churches and are highly commended by Foreigners as well as by our own Writers for * Bishop Ridley's Farewel Letter apud Fox tom 3. p. 506. this Church hath in matters of Controversie Articles so penned and framed after the Holy Scriptures and grounded upon the true understanding of God's Word that in short time if they had been universally received says Bishop Ridley the Martyr they should have been able to have set in Christ's Church much concord and unity in Christ's true Religion and to have expelled many false Errors and Heresies wherewith this Church alas was almost overgone Nor is this that excellent Prelate's peculiar Opinion but of the whole Church which ordains †Can. 3. an 1604. That whosoever shall affirm that the Church of England by Law establish'd under the King's Majesty is not a true and Apostolical Church teaching and maintaining the Doctrine of the Apostles let him be excommunicated ipso facto And Can. 5. Whosoever shall affirm that any of the thirty nine Articles agreed in the Synod 1562 are in any part superstitious or erroneous let him be excommunicate ipso facto Anno 1552. In the Convocation held at London Articles of Religion were agreed upon of which the Thirty sixth runs thus The Civil Magistrate is ordained and allowed of God and therefore is to be obeyed not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake And expresly asserts That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England In the Articles of our Church under Queen Elisabeth anno 1562. it runs thus and so continues to this day The Queens Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England and other her Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Cases doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction And it is remarkable ‖ Rogers's Praef. to the 39th Artic. that these Articles of 1562. were published in the same year in which the Massacre at Vassey in France was committed by the Duke of Guise and when all the Protestants in the Country were sentenced to Death by the Parliament of Paris 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 deduc'd from it 1. Because if the Pope who pretended by a Divine Right had no power over Kings much less have the People any power who pretend to an inferior Right that of Compact 2. 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 themselves are 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 excommunicate deposed and murdered and when he usurps upon the Peoples Liberties then he ought to be deposed by the Peoples the Arguments on either side are the same and for the most part the Authorities for as * Moderat of the Church of England ann 17. §. 19. p. 481. Dr. Puller well observes both Papists and Dissenters deny the Supremacy of the King one attributes it to the Pope originally the other to the People and the same Arguments that the Pope useth for his Supremacy over Kings the Disciplinarians use for establishing their Sovereignty CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Injunctions and Canons IN the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry the Eighth for there I begin the Restoration of Religion to her Purity in this Kingdom as Dr. Burnet does †Burnet hist Reform l. 3. p. 226. tom 1. And Fox tom 2. p. 387. Anno 1536. Injunctions were issued out the first of which is That every Man that hath Cure of Souls shall for the Establishment and Confirmation of the King's Authority and Jurisdiction sincerely declare manifest and open for the space of one quarter of a year next ensuing once every Sunday and after that at the least wise twice every Quarter in their Sermons and other Collations that the Bishop of Rome 's usurp'd Power and Jurisdiction having no Establishment or Ground in the Law of God was of most just Causes taken away and abolish'd and that the King's Power is in his Dominions the highest Power and Potentate under God to whom all men within the same Dominions by God's Commandment owe most Loyalty and Obedience afore and above all other Potentates in Earth Now if a King be above all other Powers then he cannot be accountable to any other Power and so ought not to be resisted Anno * Burnet's Collect. of Records p. 181. 1538. came out the Lord Cromwel's Injunctions as they were called wherein the same Duty is injoyned in the same Words This also is the first of the Injunctions of Edw. the Sixth †Sparr Collect. p. 1 2. An. 1547. the Preface to which Injunctions acknowledges that part of them were formerly set out by Henry the Eighth and the rest added by King Edward the Sixth This also was the first of the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth with a very little variation and accordingly in the Articles of Enquiry of Archbishop Cranmer in the Diocess of Canterbury under Edward the Sixth the first is Whether all Persons c. have preach'd against the usurp'd Power of the Bishop of Rome Secondly Whether they have preach'd and
was call'd in which both the Universities most amicably agreed resolving only to give an account of the Proceedings at Oxford in the Years 1â—22 1647 and 1683 the Decree of 1622 was made the 25th of June in full Convocation on this occasion †Antiqu. Oxon. l. 1. p. 326 327 c. Mr. Knight of Broadgate Hall now Pembroke College preaching at S. Peter's in the East on Palm-Sunday upon 1 Kings 19.9 What dost thou here Elijah started this Question Whether it were lawful for Subjects in the defence of themselves when persecuted for Religion to take Arms against their Prince which he held in the Affirmative for which Doctrine when he was convened by the Vice-Chancellor he pleaded the Authority of Paraeus in his Commentary on the xiii to the Romans and the Example of King James who assisted the Rochellers against their King and was for that reason sent to Prison the Vice-Chancellor making the Bishop of St. David's Laud who in May of the same Year had his Conference with Fisher the Jesuit acquainted with it from whom the King was inform'd who ordered Knight and his Sermon to be sent up the Author being committed a Prisoner to the Gate-house in Westminster where he lay two Years and at last by the intercession of one of his Fellow Prisoners with Bishop Williams was releas'd and having ask'd the King's Pardon went into Holland where in a short time he died When Knight was complain'd of the King sent to the Vice-Chancellor to injoin the Students of Divinity to lay the Foundation of their Studies next to the holy Scriptures in the Fathers and Councils and to abstain from the Writings of either Jesuits or Puritans and accordingly the Heads of Colleges the Professors c. met in Convocation the Bishops that were then about the Court having condemn'd the Doctrine and the Books that contain'd it as seditious and contrary to the holy Scriptures the Decrees of Councils and Dictates of the Fathers and to the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Church of England and censur'd among others this Proposition * Proposit 2. v. Antiqu. Oxon. p. 327. That Subjects not private Persons but inferior Magistrates may take Arms to defend themselves the Commonwealth the Church and true Religion against their Sovereign or the superior Magistrate upon these Conditions If 1. The Prince turn Tyrant 2. If he compel his Subjects to commit Idolatry or to blaspheme 3. When any great injury is done 4. If they cannot otherwise be safe in their Fortunes their Lives and Consciences upon condition also 5. That under the pretext of Religion or Justice they do not seek their own advantage and 6. That their Arms be managed with much moderation Moderamine inculpatae tutelae These are the Terms of the Proposition and the Censure of the University runs thus This Proposition is false and seditious and so craftily restrain'd under such Conditions annex'd as every seditious Person may make use of to vindicate himself And the third Proposition which is of the same kind is alike condemn'd so that it is no wonder that Gillespy in the Preface to his Sermon calls this Doctrine the new Oxford Divinity and I wish no worse had been ever broach'd or owned there Nor did the University rest here but withal decreed and declared That according to the Canon of the holy Scriptures Subjects ought by no means forcibly to resist their Prince and that it is not lawful to take Arms either offensive or defensive against the King upon the account of Religion or any other Pretence requiring all the Members of the Convocation to subscribe the Censures and enjoyning all that should be admitted to any Degrees to take an Oath to consent to the determinations of that Convocation while the Commentary of Paraeus was burn'd in the Church-yard of St. Mary's at Oxford at Paul's Cross in London as it was likewise burn'd at Cambridge that University joyning with her Sister of Oxford in the Condemnation of those seditious Doctrines For as a * Doublet Ep. ad Gerh. Voss learned Foreigner who at that time was upon the spot informs that Knight citing for his Opinion the Authority not only of Paraeus but also of Bucanus and Junius Brutus affirming further that it was the Opinion of all the Reformed Divines and illustrating it by this instance that If the King of France should while his Army laid Siege to any Town of the Protestants his Subjects happen to fall by the hand of any of the besieged he was justly slain nor was he that killed him guilty of any crime both the Universities condemn'd the Doctrine and though at Oxford only Paraeus's Book was burn'd yet at Cambridge they also burn'd Bucanus's Common places and Junius Brutus or Hubert Languet's Vindiciae and damn'd the Authors to perpetual Infamy my Author adding that the Cambridge Doctors were the more fierce of the two whether because they hated the Puritans or were the Majority of them at least Remonstrants the Censure of that University Doublet saw when he was at the Commencement it being put into his Hands by him who drew it up upon his promise not to transcribe it What hinder'd it's publication I know not while the same year Dr. David Owen publish'd his Anti-Paraeus seu Determinat de Jure Regio adv David Paraeum at Cambridge anno sc 1622. Octavo in which the Doctrine of Resistance is throughly confuted This Censure and the Execution done upon his Book much troubled the old Paraeus And his Son * Append. in Comment ad Rom 13.5 vit Paraei says that his Father meant what he wrote not of Kings endowed with an absolute power but of such as were admitted to their Crowns upon condition while the illustrious Hugo Grotius thought so well of it that he hath inserted it at large in his Works †Vot pro pace ad Art. 16. p. 661. with a high commendation affirming That the Reverend Memory of King James the first the wisest King of Great Britain and the honor which he owed to the University of Oxford which at that time foresaw the Calamities which England afterward suffered and a just fear lest the pernicious Doctrine might do more mischief ingaged him to reprint the Censure To which Determination Dr. Prideaux Dr. Abbot and the other eminent Men of that time gave their suffrage Anno 1647 June 1. The same famous Academy met in Convocation and declared their Judgment concerning the Solemn League and Covenant and a few of their Reasons why they could not take that Covenant I shall transcribe * Ad calc vit Sanderson p. 174. as they were drawn up by Bishop Sanderson 1. We cannot take the Oath without acknowledging in the Imposers a greater power than for ought appeareth to us hath been in former times challenged †P. 181. 3. We cannot take the Oath without manifest danger of Perjury ‖ P. 182. the Oath being contrary to the Oath of Supremacy by us taken
☜ for if upon abuse of mdependent Authority they that have it lose and forfeit it ipso facto then authority and abuse of authority at least extreme abuse of it cannot stand together which is contrary to that of St. Augustine where he saith nee tyrannicae factionis perversitas laudabilis erit de bono consugali c. 14. si regiâ clementâ—â— tyrannus subditos tractet nec vituperabilis ordo regiae potestatis si rex crudelitate tyrannicâ saeviat aliud est namque injustâ porestate justè velle uti aliud est justâ potestate injustè velle uti i. e. â—â—ther shall the perversness of Tyrannical Usurpation ever be praise worthy ☞ though the Tyrant use his Subjects with all Kingly clemency nor the order of Kingly Power be ever subject to just reprehension thâ—ugh a King grow fierce and cruel like a Tyrant for it is one thing to use an unlawful Power lawfully and another thing to use a lawful Power unrighteously and unjustly SECT IV. After the happy discovery of the damnable Gun-powder Treason and the just execution of the wretched miscreants that were engaged in it the Parliament met at Westminster which had been first summoned Anno 1603. and with it a Convocation the Members of which reslecting upon the horrid design of Garnet and his Accomplices thought themselves in justice to their Sovereign and their own Principles obliged when they met to censure and condemn such Doctrins as led Men to such Rebellious Practices hereupon the Prolocutor of the lower house Dr. Overall then Dean of St. Pauls afterwards Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield then of Norwich whose vast learning gives him a character beyond all that can be said of him here drew up a Treatise which being reviewed by the Upper House of Convocation was mutually agreed on and declared to be the Sense of the Church of England in that very Svnod which made the Canons that as yet are lookt upon as the Code of our Church a Manuscript of which Acts This Book is since Printed by W. Kettilby an 1690. lib. 1. c. 2. and Canons having been happily put into my hands I cannot but think my self obliged to transcribe some Passages that discover the belief of our Church representative at that time They positively assert that God having created our first Parents and purposing to multiply their seed into many Generations for the replenishing of the World with their Posterity did give to Adam for his time and to the rest of the Patriarchs and chief Fathers successively before the Flood Authority Power and Dominion over their Children and Offspring to Rule and Govern them adding further Can. 2. if any Man shall affirm that Men at the first without all good Edacation or civility ran up and down in Woods and Fields as wild creatures resting themselves in Caves and Dens and acknowledging no Superiority one over another until they were taught by experience the necessity of Government and that thereupon they chose some among themselves to order and rule the rest giving them power and authority so to do and that consequently all civil Power Jurisdiction and Authority was first derived from the People and disorder'd Multitude or either is originally still in them or else is deduc'd by their consents naturally from them and is not God's Ordinance originally descending from him and depending upon him he doth greatly err Thus they account for the Government of the old World nor did the Flood alter the nature of Authority or alienate the Rights of Princes for say they If any Man shall affirm Can. 6.11 that the civil Power and Authority which Noah had before the Flood was by the deluge determin'd or that it was given unto him again by his Sons or Nephews or that he received from them the Sword of his Sovereignty or that the distribution of the World to his three Som did depend upon their consents or received from them any such authority as without the same it could not lawfully have been made or that this Power c. did not proceed from God or were not properly his Ordinance but that they had the same from the People their Offspring he doth greatly err Besides it is generally agreed upon cap. 16. that obedience to Kings and Civil Magistrates is prescrib'd to all Subjects in the 5th Commandment Ex 20.12 where we are enjoyn'd to Honour our Parents whereby it follows that subjection of Inferiors unto their Kings and Governors is founded upon the very law of Nature and consequently that the sentence of Death awarded by God himself against such as shewed themselves incorrigibly disobedient to their Parents or cursed them or struck them was likewise due unto those who committed any such offences against their Kings and Rulers being the Heads and Fathers of their Commonâ—ealths and Kingdoms which is not only apparent by way of consequence but likewise by example practice and precept as where Shimei is judged to die for cursing of David the Lords Anointed where David himself appointed by God to succeed King Saul would not be induced by any perswasions to lay violent hands upon his Master the King. If any Man therefore shall affirm Câ—n. 16. that it was lawful in the Old Testament either for Children or Nephews to have been disobedient to their Fathers being their chief Governâ—rs from the Creation till Moses 's time or afterward either for the Children of Israel either under Moses Joshua the Judges or their Kings to have been disobedient to them in their lawful commandments or to have murmured or rebelled against them or that it was in those times more lawful unto Subjects for any cause whatsoever either to curse their Princes Kings or civil Governors ☞ or to bear arms against them or to depose them from their Kingdoms or Principalities or to lay violent hands upon their Persons than it was in the said times lawful upon any occasion for Children either to have cursed their Parents or to have rebelled against them when they did reprove or correct them or to have withdrawn themselves from their subjection saying unto them they being private Men we will be no more your Children or you shall be no more our Fathers or bearing civil authority over them we will depose you from your Government over us and will be no longer ruled by you or to have offered any violence to them or to have beaten them and much less to have murder'd them he dâ—th greatly err After this they deduce the Scheme of Paternal and Regal Government through the several Ages of the Church down to the time of the Jewish Kings and when they considered the case of Uzziah who for offering to burn Incense on the Altar which was peculiarly the Priests Office was by God smitten with leprosie â— 1. Can 22 they aver if any Man shall affirm that Azariah and the other Priests used or that they lawfully might have used any violence or force against the
Doctrin of the Church and would fain defend it as the uniform belief of the Reformed much more to the same purpose may be found in the same Book which I recommend to the Reader 's perusal the Learned Author of which wrote after his Father's Copy and therefore I have joyned them together tho according to the exact rules of Chronology I should have given the junior du Moulin a place in the next Reign CHAP. VI. The History of Passive Obedience during the Reign of King Charles the Martyr SECT I. WEre we to judge of the righteousness of any Cause and of its being acceptable to God by the prosperity of its outward circumstances and to intitle Heaven to the owning of all the designs which providence promotes as some Divines both then and since have argued more consonant to the Doctrin of the Alcoran than the Holy Gospel then the most Excellent Prince Charles I. was a vile Malefactor and fell justly a sacrifice to the rage of his rebel Subjects but the true Sons of the Church were of a more Orthodox belief and chose rather to suffer with their Master the Lord 's Anointed than to enjoy the ease and preferments which then were the rewards of perfidiousness and disloyalty as the first part of this History hath amply proved And though Dr. Sybthorp's Sermon called Apostolical Obedience was severely censured nor is it fit to defend every Proposition in it yet the then Bishop of London Dr. George Mountain approved it publickly in Print as a Sermon learnedly and discreetly Preached Testim ante concion and agreeable to the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church both for faith and good manners and to the Doctrin established in the Church of England and therefore under his hand gave authority for the Printing of it Ma. 8. 1627. Mr. Hayes Could any thing privilege Loyalty toward Kings Serm. at St. Mary's Oxon. on Esth 1.15 1624. p. 3 21. Eminence and Alliance might be fair pretences but neither of these could yield Queen Vasthi advantage but what shall any dare to limit Sovereignty and prescribe Majesty it's duty shall he that enjoys the subjection of others by the Law be subject himself to the Law no in no other sense than that of Aquinas not that the Law should lead him by compulsion but lead him by directive persuasion if he conform his actions to the prescript of the Laws it is of his own accord if he do not is he lyable to account Yes but it is only to God against thee only have I sinned says King David Ps 51. those modest times had not the face to capitulate with their Sovereigns the pride of Faction had not yet hatch'd this rebellious Doctrin ☜ that if Kings obey not Laws Subjects have leave to disobey their Kings no let it glory in no Ancienter Author than New Rome and in no better success than confusion and seeing it owes it self to Jesuited Patrons let it be banish'd this Land together with their Persons Mr. Adams When Saul was in David 's hands In 2d ep of Peter pr. 1633. p. 755. his Men alledge God's promise and the advantage concurring and what was David 's charm to allay the fury of those raging Spirits he is the Lord 's Anointed Saul did not lend David so impenetrable an Armour when he ran to encounter Goliah as David lent him in the plea of his Unction not one of the discontented Out-laws durst put forth a hand of violence against him the image and impress of that Divine Ordinance strikes such an awe into the hearts of Men that it makes even Traytors cowards so that instead of smiting they tremble like those whose Office it is to suffer not to do fear God honour the King there was never Man that feared God but he also honored the Prince But let us hear P. 759 c what the Synod of Hell can plead for disobedience how if the Prince be bad an Enemy to truth and goodness a Ravisher a Persecutor raising powers for the extirpation of the Gospel here if ever a Subject may renounce all Allegiance for here is power against power Man against God and the Subject of both left to follow either Answ in this streight some for fear of the King Shipwrack their faith and these are Traytors to God others by a defensive sword in their hand Rebels to the King ☞ there is no question but God must be obeyed even against the King when the King commands things against God. what then shall we resist him with violence no God never Warrants that practice no not against a Prince that denies him there is an active Obedience and a passive I may not execute his impious commands I must suffer his unjust punishments the vices of Men cannot frustrate the institution of God peruse Mat. 5.44 and Rom 12.17 this will tye the Hands of Christian Subjects Samuel offer'd not to depose Saul though the express Sentence of God had cast him off and he was Excommunicated by a higher power than ever came from Rome Saul lived and dyed a King this he illustrates by the examples of the Jews and Primitive Christians and adds what resistance did those Primitive Christians make to those barbarous outrages but praying for the Emperor's life when under the Emperor's command they were bleeding to death neither did they suffer because they were not able to resist but it was their Doctrin c. Christians never prove losers but when they unjustly sight for their own preservation provide we the buckler of patience not a sword when the decree was gone out by Ahasuerus this was their refuge preces lacrymae the Apostles could work miracles yet they resisted not the ordinate powers this charge St. Paul gives the Romans even while Nero was their Emperor a Monster whom divers held to be Antichrist that Religion then cannot be right that pulls down Princes seeing neither Moses in the Old Testament nor Christ in the New nor Levite nor Prophet Apostle nor Disciple either counsell'd or practised against Government which should decide the point that hath cost the Lives of so many Christians and still threatens more Tragedies P. 763. there was never Prince to whom some Belialist took not some exceptions it were ill with Princes if their state depended on the good liking of their Subjects Subjects unfaithful at the heart may be without the suspicion of their Prince but they beheld Rebels in the Court of Heaven we be bound to be subject not only for wrath but for conscience sake In all the time of David 's prosperity there was no news of Shimei he looks like a fair Subject but he that smiles on David in his Throne P. 821. curs'd him in his Flight there is no security in that Subjects Allegiance that hath not God in his Conscience he that poysons the People with the male opinion of their Prince is the most dangerous Traytor to rip up the faults of Kings is bold
1. That those Serm. at St. Mary's Oxf Jan. 30. 1660. and before the King Jan. 30. 1661. who promise Obedience to the King only so far as he preserves the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom withal reckoning themselves Judges of what Religion is true what false and when these Liberties are invaded and when not do by this put it within their own Power to judge when Religion Faith and Liberties are Invaded as they think convenient and from such judgment to absolve themselves from their Allegiance 2. That those very Persons who thus covenanted had already from Pulpit and Press declared the Religion establish'd in the Church of England and then maintain'd by the King to be Popish and Idolatrous and withal that the King had actually Invaded their Liberties was there any thing in the Book of God to warrant this Rebellion Why yes Daniet dreamed a Dream and there is also somthing in the Revelation concerning a Beast and a little horn and a fifth Viol and therefore the King ought undoubtedly to dye ☜ others plead providential dispensations God's work it seems must be regarded before his Word as if when we have a Man's Hand-writing we should endeavour to take his meaning by the measure of his foot we have lived under that model of Religion in which nothing hath been counted impious but Loyalty nothing absurd but restitution the Church of England is the only Church in Christendom we read of whose avowed Practices and Principles disown all resistance of the Civil Power and with the saddest experience and truest Policy and reason will evince it self to be the only one that is durably consistent with the English Monarchy let Men look back into its Primitive Doctrin and it's History and they will find neither the Calvin's nor the Knox's the Junius Brutus's the Synods nor the Holy Common-wealths on the one side nor yet the Bellarmin's nor the Mariana's on the other SECT IX And here it is necessary to mention the several Addresses that own the same Doctrin and I shall begin with that of the two Universities that of Oxford runs thus being according to an Act of Convocation dated Febr. 21. 1685. May it please your Majesty c. We your Majesty's most dutiful c. as we can never swerve from the Principles of our Institution in this place and our Religion by Law establish'd in the Church of England which indispensibly binds us to bear all Faith and true Obedience to our Sovereign without any restrictions or limitations so we presume to assure your Majesty that no consideration whatsoever shall be able to shake that stedfast Loyalty and Allegiance which in the days of your Blessed Father that Glorious Martyr and in the late times of discrimination stood here firm and unalterable to your Royal Brother and your Self under the sharpest trials and that we shall constantly by God's assistance with our utmost zeal and sidelity improve all those advantages wherewith God and your Majesty have intrusted us in this ancient nursery of Learning to promote the quiet happiness and security of your Majesties Reign over us Thus also the University of Cambridge in their Address tendred by the Vice-Chancellor Gaznum 2019. c. Mar. 23. 1684. We do with all humble submission present to your Sacred Majesty our unfeigned Loyalty the most valuable Tribute that we can give or your Majesty receive from us this is a Debt which we shall be always paying and always owing it being a Duty naturally flowing from the very Principles of our Holy Religion by which we have been enabled in the worst of times to breed as true and stedy Subjects as the World can shew as well in the Doctrine as Practice of Loyalty from which we can never depart Many other Addresses Gaz num 2008. 2012. 2013. 2016. 2018 c. of the same kind were made by the University of Dublin by the Bishop and Clergy of the City of London the Bishop and Clergy of Chester the Bishops of Bath and Wells and of Hereford and in truth of all the Dioceses I think in England Scotland and Ireland besides such as were tendred by Lords Lieutenants Grand Juries and particular Societies For which Sense of the Nation in those days I must refer the Reader to the Prints while I only subjoin the memorable Close of the Address tendered by the Bishop Vicar-General and the Clergy of the Cathedral and City of Bristol The Church of England is peculiarly indeared to us for that above all that is called Religion in the World it twists Piety with Loyalty and without Reserve Recognizeth your Sacred Majesty as the Sovereign and Supreme Power within your Majesties Realms and Dominions against whom there is no rising up and only less than God himself According to the Dictates of that most excellent Religion we abhor all those Antimonarchical Persons and Principles which would either exclude Princes from their just Rights or disturb the peaceable enjoyment of them And we earnestly beseech the King of Kings that your Majesties Throne may not only be Established but raised still higher upon the ruins of those that shall endeavour to Subvert or Supplant it SECT X. Dr. Stillingfleet Origin Brit. c. 5. p. 319. inquiring into the Reasons why the Saxons were called into Britain by Vortigern quotes Gildas who affirms That after the Britains found themselves deserted by the Romans they set up Kings of their own and soon after put them down again and made Choice of worse in their room Adding it is plain that he supposes that the Britains in that Confusion they were in took upon them without regard to their Duty to place and displace them But withal he observes that then the Britains were left to their full liberty by the Roman Empire that there was no Line remaining to succeed in the Government nor so much as to determine their Choice which made them so easily to make and unmake their Kings who lost their Purple and their Lives together This must needs breed insinite confusions among them and every one who came to be King lived in perpetual fear of being served as others had been before him And the natural Consequence of this jealousie of their own Subjects was looking out for assistance from abroad which I doubt not was one great reason of Vortigern 's sending for the Saxons hoping to secure himself by their means against his own People although it proved at last the ruin both of himself and his People And whereas Cressy in his answer to my Lord of Clarendon's Vindicaon of the Dean of S. Pauls had objected That days of Thanksgiving were kept for the discovery and prevention of such personal Treasons as the Gunpowder Treason but none for the Deliverance of the whole Kingdoms from almost an Universal Rebellion as if their were no necessity of requiring from any a retraction of the Principles of Rebellion or a promise that they shall not be renewed Answ to the
Strength hath made it possible and so at length the Robbers Sword and Pistol will come to be the only Standard of Justice all other Power must be cancell'd and we must come at last to make the Power of doing wrong to be the only measure of Equity and Right All these things are at least true pag. 28. when there is any Person in being to whom the Title or Succession of the Supremacy does belong which blessed be God is our Case at present And therefore that great Argument which was brought to vindicate the Usurpation of the successful Rebels in the late Wars namely that the People were not bound to adhere to their Prince when the Prince was disabled to defend the People supposes no other Obligation upon Subjects than mere Interest and so evacuates and makes null all Obligations of Conscience We shall therefore before we part from this Inference fix it as a certain Rule by which every conscientious Subject may and ought to guide his Practice That so long as there is any Person of the Royal Race ☜ to whom by the Course of Succession according to the Tenor of the Law of the Land the Crown does belong so long we have a lawful Supremacy and so long we shall be bound in Conscience to be in Subjection 3. Are we bound to be subject to the Higher Powers for Conscience sake and does the Obligation of Conscience come only from God Then I do infer that to bind the People to be in Subjection to their Prince there is no necessity of any Bargain or Contract between them and the reason is because that Obligation that binds the Subject to Obedience in this Case is founded immediately and directly upon the Law of God. Lastly Are we obliged to be subject to the Higher Powers out of Conscience pag. 31. and is this Obligation â—id upon our Conscience by God Then I do infer That no worldly Inconventence that we can possibly suffer by such our Subjection can be a sufficient warrant for our Resistance And the Reason is plain and easie because our secular Interest be it what it will can never be a sufficient Counterpoise to our Duty and he that will break God's Commands because it is for his secular Advantage can at best but make that foolish Bargain in the Gospel that is to gain the whole world and in exchange for his Purchâ—se to lose his own Soul. Mr. Wake is also of the same mind Answ to the B. of Oxâ—â—'s Reasons l. 34 c. for when the Bishop of Oxon charges the Church of England as if she set up the Charge of Idolatry as a Standard against Monarchy he replies That it is a Calumny upon the whole Body of the Reformed and that he might dare venture to say that there is not the least reason to be apprehensive of Violence he knows very well how free the Christians of the Three first Centuries were in laying the very same Charge against the Gentile World and yet we do not find that ever they shewed themselves the less obedient to their Emperors upon the account of it And tho I am verily perswaded that the Romanists are guilty of Idolatry yet I thank God I am not conscious to my self of one Disloyal Thought to my King. And what I can thus truly profess in my own behalf I doubt not but I may do for all others the true and genuine Members of the Church ☞ and who by being such must I am sure by Principle be obedient Subjects As for this Author he has made a broad Sign that he intends to leave us by insinuating that the Charge of Idolatry ought to be followed by Blowes We who do protest against certain Practices as idolatrous do also protest against violating Loyalty upon the account of Religion Did we indeed profess that of Idolatry which some others do of Heresie that it is a sufficient ground for the Excommunicating of a King and the absolving his Subjects of their Allegiance had we ever been caught not in Oatesian Conspiracies but in real Plots against our Sovereign upon this account there might then have been just cause for such an insinuation But whilst our Principles are so loyal that we have even been laught at for our asserting them it was a very unreasonable apprehension to think that the Charge of Idolatry should in the bottom have been the design against the Monarchy which we have so often declared and in the Person of our present King have shewn we think our selves obliged to support whatever his Religion be who is to sit upon the Throne The truth is when I consider how heinous a Suggestion this is and what little Foundation there is either from our Principles or our Practices to support it I am under some temptation to reply to this Author Nemo hoc potest credere nisi qui possit audere and this I hope may serve for my excuse if I have at this time appear'd in defence of a Charge in which every true Member of the Church of England is so highly concern'd Let the same Mind be in us pag. 15 16. which was also in those Primitive Christians before mention'd Let us still be careful to maintain the Character of the best Subjects as we have long asserted the most Loyal Principles that as the Prosperity of our King makes up a considerable part of our daily Prayers so by a sincere discharge of all humble Obedience towards him he may effectually see that excepting only our Duty towards God we are much more forward and ready to do his Majesty effectual Service than any Man can be whose Loyalty is not supported by Religion We set before our People the Examples of the Primitive Christians with what an humble Obedience they submitted themselves to their idolatrous Emperors and underwent the most cruel Persecutions for their Religion sake even when they had Power sufficient to have asserted their Faith and to have destroyed both the Idolaters and their Idols together and by these Maxims we exhort them to walk God be thanked Id. 2d Def. against the Bish of Condem est Part. p. 75 76. the Pulpits Zeal hath ever been employed to keep up in the Subjects that Duty which by God's Command they owe to their Prince and nothing is at this day next to our Zeal for our Religion more our desire and endeavour than to make Men Loyal to their Sovereign Our Pulpits still speak the same Principles of Subjection ☞ they ever did We are neither asham'd of the Doctrin of Passive Obedience nor afraid of its Practice tho some of your accquaintance have endavoured to laugh both that and us out of countenance Our steadiness to our Religion shall never make us fail in our Duty to our King. In one word We will both by our Preaching and Actions make it our business to fulfil that great Evangelical Precept of rendering unto Cesar the things that are Cesar 's and unto
Rulers and it is no News to hear it of them Elias had such measure measured unto him Micheas all of them faithful to Princes ever were so accused We say the Doctrine of Rome is no Friend to Princes and here he instances in the treasonable Books and rebellious Insurrections of the Papists and adds shew the Princes the Gospel hath deposed shew the Princes that Popery hath not wronged It is our Doctrine that we firmly hold and they fully defie That he that taketh the Sword shall perish with the Sword i. e. he that taketh it without the bounds of a calling warranting him and that calling he afterward says is only the Prince's Order as all Rebels ever do that he which resisteth the Superior Powers resisteth the Ordinance of God and to his own Damnation that we ought to obey and be subject not for Fear but for Conscience sake that the Weapons of Subjects be but Prayers and Tears c. See then whether Popery or God's holy Gospel which we hold stand better with the safety of Princes and flourishing Estates of Kingdoms c. SECT IV. Among the Works of Dr. Lawrence Humfreys Preached at Oxford 1588. which he published against the Romanists his seven Sermons on 1 Sam. 26.8 9 c. To persuade Obedience to Princes c. are not the least considerable In which having in the Epistle Dedicatory commended that Saying of S. Ambrose Rogamus Auguste non pugnamus We beseech O Emperor P. 22 23. we fight not and in the first Sermon mentioned the many Rebellions of the Papists he says Such a Catholick Faith must be maintain'd by such Catholick Means namely by open Rebellions privy Practices in a Catholick and Universal Manner that is by all unlawful Means P. 24. That when Scruples arise against such traiterous Enterprises then the Pope hath this Religion and Omnipotency P. 32. that he can dispense with any Oath In the second Sermon he teacheth every one his Duty It is lawful for a Magistrate to put to death a Malefactor otherwise no Spirit no Reason no Friend no carnal Respect can authorise any Man of his own Head or his private affection to draw weapon against any man much less against a double and compound person P. 34. c. as the Prince established by Law and publick Authority If Christ found fault with his Servant Peter fighting in his own quarrel ☜ host much more will he be angry with them that take weapon against his anointed Prince his Lieutenant in the Earth What do these Giants and Tyrants of the World think Or what do they esteem of the Blood of a Prince Or what do they imagine of the Ordinance or Institution of Princes Are they Upstarts by themselves c. No it is only the Ordinance of our living God. P. 36 37 By Office he representeth God he is God by name Saul himself is named here the anointed of the Lord so are all other Potentates that are by their Vices evil Men yet by Office the Ordinance of God Prov. 8. Job 34. By me rulers reign the Hypocrites rule not without him And why are the bad as well as the good advanced Austin gives two Reasons hereof It is not unjust that wicked men receive power to hurt both that the patience of the good may be tryed and the wickedness of the evil punished And if they are set up by God they cannot fall but by God. P. 43. What were the Magistrates in the time of Peter and Paul but Heathen and Tyrants as Nero and such others and yet Paul exhorts every soul to be subject to the higher powers and whosoever resisteth c. Even Nebuchadnezzar a Tyrant and Infidel was to be prayed for Chrisostome amplifyeth the excellent Integrity and Faithfulness of David toward Saul the anointed Serm 3. p. 56. in that David did this in the Old Testament where some revenge was in a sort permitted c. But to kill him or any the anointed of the Lord is contrary to the Law of Nature and all Laws Those that are disloyal and Rebels are not good Christians P. 63. P. 78. P. 106. We of this Land do swear and protest in the name of Christ a fidelity to God to the Prince and to our Country this Oath must be kept Many Laws have been made against Treason and Rebellion yet the unbridled and cruel Subjects have always unkindly and unnaturally conspired against their Prince and against their own Country Our King Ethelred complains in an Oration in this sort We are overcome of the Danes not with Weapon or force of Arms but with Treason wrought by our own People Anno 1593 Reprinted 〈◊〉 1640 c. Doctor Richard Bancroft afterward Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury published his Dangerous Positions c. the whole Design of which Treatise is to expose and ' condemn the Republican Principles then newly broached in England by the Lovers of the Geneva Platform I have already in the Reign of Queen Mary given his Sentiments of the Proceedings of the English Exiles at Francfort against Knox whose Principles were so infective that they inflamed his own native Country and threw it into a most unnatural Rebellion of which their Ministers were the prime cause and shall add his sense of those seditious Doctrines and Practices * Lib. 1. cap 3. But because some peradventure will labor to excuse these Proceedings and to color the same with some pretence of zeal and great desire they had to be delivered from Popish Idolatry and Superstition I have thought it convenient to let you understand how far they are from making any such pretences in their own behalf and with what new Divinity Positions Mr. Knox and Mr. Buchanan have amplified the Geneva Resolution ☞ viz. That if Princes refuse to reform Religion the Magistrates and People may lawfully do it by force of Arms to the Justification not only of their said Attempts and Actions but also many others of the like nature Ch. 4. And afterward he mentions their Positions That Princes for just causes may be deposed That it is not Birthright only nor Propinquity of Blood that makes a King lawfully reign above a People professing Jesus Christ If Princes be Tyrants against God and his Truth their Subjects are freed from their Oaths of Obedience The People are better than the King and of greater Authority c. Of all which and many the like Propositions he averrs that they tend to the disturbance and utter overthrow of the freest and most absolute Monarchies that are or can be in Christendom and that they are contrary he was sure both to the Word of God and to all the Laws and Customs of this Realm But I must transcribe the greatest part of the Book should I cite all that is to my purpose in it while I leave to the Reader 's private Consideration that and his other excellent Treatise called a Survey
make the Case parallel he must suppose our Houses of Convocation to have several times declared these damnable Doctrins and given encouragement to Rebels to proceed against their Kings and the University of Oxford to have condemn'd them how come the Principles of the Regicides among us to be parallel'd with this Doctrin when the Principles of our Church are so directly contrary to them and our Houses of Convocation would as readily condemn any such damnable Doctrins as the University of Oxford and all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England And none can be Rebels to their Prince but they must be false to our Church The same Author in his accurate Preface to the Jesuits Loyalty says P. 1 2. that tho the Jesuits walk in darkness and do mischief his intention was to set such marks and characters upon them that when others see them they might take the wind of them and avoid the infection and that he publish'd the Jesuits Treatises because some poysons lose their force when they are exposed to the open air and thereupon addressing himself to the Jesuits he endeavours to prove two things P. 3. 1. That if you do not renounce the Popes power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance you can give no real security to the Government 2. That if you do renounce it you have no reason to stick at the Oath of Allegiance to prove the first he says it is allowed by all Friends to our King and his Government ☞ that the Commonwealth Principles are destructive to it and that none who do own them can give sufficient security for their Allegiance I shall therefore prove that all the mischievous consequences of the Republican Principles do follow upon the owning the Pope's Power of deposing Princes P. 4. Now the mischief of the Commonwealth Principles lay in these things 1. Setting up a Court of Judicature over Sovereign Princes ☞ 2. Breaking the Oaths and Bonds of Allegiance Men had enter'd into 3. Justifying Rebellion on the account of Religion As to the first of setting up a Spiritual High-Court of Justice at Rome it is no satisfaction in this case to distinguish of a direct and indirect power for however the Power comes the effect and consequence of it is the same The question is whether the Pope hath any such Sovereignty over Princes as to be able by virtue thereof to depose them and the Commonwealth's Men do herein agree with you for they do not say that the People have a direct Power over their Princes which were a contradiction in it self for Subjects to command their Sovereigns but only that in case of breach of Trust the People have an indirect power to call their Princes to an account and to deprive them of their Authority but are the Commonwealth Principles the less mischievous to Government because they only assert an indirect Power in the People the main thing to be debated is P. 5. whether Sovereign Princes have a Supreme and Independent Authority Inherent in their Persons or no or whether they are so accountable to others that upon male-administration they may be deprived of their Government the Republicans and Assertors of the Pope's deposing Power are agreed in the Affirmative of the later Question and only differ whether the Power be in the Pope or the People to call Princes to an account and even in this they do not differ so much as Men may at first imagine for however the Primitive Christians thought it no flattery to Princes ☜ to derive their Power immediatly from God and to make them accountable to him alone as being superior to all below him as might be easily proved by multitudes of testimonies yet after the Pope's deposing Power came into request the Commonwealth Principles did so too and the Power of Princes was said to be of another Original and therefore they were accountable to the People Thus Gregory VII not only took upon him to depose the Emperor and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance but he makes the first constitution of Monarchical Government to be a mere Usurpation upon the Rights and Liberties of the People and did ever any Remonstrance Declaration of the Army P. 6. or agreement of the People give a worse account of the beginning of Monarchy than this Infallible Head of the Church doth What follows from hence but the justifying all Rebellion against Princes which upon these Principles would be nothing else but the Peoples recovering their just Rights against intolerable Usurpations the very worst of our Fanaticks never talk'd so reproachfully of Civil Government ☜ as your Canonized Saint doth their Principles and Practices we of the Church of England profess to detest and abhor I pray Gentlemen tell me what divine assistance this good Pope had when he gave this admirable account of the Original of Civil Government and whether it be not very possible upon his Principles for Men to be Saints and Rebels at the same time I have had the curiosity to inquire into the Principles of Civil Government P. 7. among the fierce contenders for the Pope's deposing Power and I have found those Hypotheses avowed and maintained which justifie all the Practices of our late Regicides Parson's Book of the Succession to the making of which Cardinal Allen Sir Francis Inglefield and other Principal Persons of our Nation concurred being shred into so many Speeches to justifie their Proceedings against our Late Sovereign of Glorious Memory the Book being design'd to exclude King James and thus we see P. 8. the Pope's deposing Power was maintain'd here in England by such who saw how necessary it was for their purpose to defend the Power of Commonwealths over their Princes ☜ either to exclude them from Succession to the Crown or to deprive them of the possession of it The same we shall find in France in the time of the solemn League and Covenant there in the Reigns of Henry III. and IV. for those who were engaged so deep in Rebellion against their Lawful Princes found it necessary for them to insist on the Pope's Power to depose and the People's to deprive their Sovereigns thus Boucher affirms the fundamental and radical Power to be so in the People that they may call Princes to account for Treason against the People and that in such cases they are not to stand upon the niceties and forms of Law but that the necessities of State do supercede all those things If this Man had been of Council for the late Regicides he could not more effectually have Pleaded their Cause our Countryman William Reynolds also Vindicating the Murther of Henry III. says that Obedience to Princes is so far conditional that if they do not their duty their Subjects are free from their obligation to obey them the contrary opinion being against the Law of Nations and the Common reason of Mankind and this is
mischief common to this deposing Power of the Pope and Commonwealth Principles Is the justifying of Rebellion on the account of Religion which is done to purpose in Boucher and Reynolds whom he cites at large and then proceeds to his second Proposition that whosoever does renounce the deposing Power hath no reason to refuse the Oath of Allegiance and then adds P. 29. it is very true this hath been the effect of this Blessed Doctrin in the Christian World Seditions Wars Bloodshed Rebellions what not But I ought to transcribe all that excellent Preface were I strictly to do the Author or the Cause justice while I refer the Reader to it at his leisure SECT II. Dr. Tennison in his Epistle Dedicatory to his Examination of Hobbs's Creed says Hobbs's Creed examin'd Lond. 1670. that Hobbs hath framed a model of Government pernicious in its consequence to all Nations and Injurious to the right of his present Majesty for he taught the People soon after the Martyrdom of his Royal Father that his Title was extinguish'd when his adherents were subdued and that the Parliament had the right ☜ because it had possession he hath subjected the Canon of Scripture to the Civil Powers and taught them the way of turning the Alcoran into Gospel and for these and the like Tenets he calls him an insolent and pernicious Writer P. 2. and when Mr. Hobbs had asserted that Nature had made all Men equal so that no Man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit P. 129 130 131. to which another may not pretend as well as he that from equality of condition competition arises fomented by equality of hope and from thence a War of every Man against every Man c. he rejoins that it is a very absurd and unsecure course to lay the groundwork of all Civil Polity and Reformed Religion upon such a supposed state of Nature as hath no firmer support than the contrivance of your own fancy let Philosophers discourse and make different Hypotheses of the motion of the Stars but when the temporal and eternal safety of Mankind is concern'd as in the Doctrins of Civil and Moral and Christian Philosophy then are Hypothesis framed by imagination as exceedingly dangerous as they are absurd wherefore such Persons who trouble the World with fansied Schemes and Models of Polity in Oceana's and Leviathans ☞ ought to have in their minds an usual saying of the most excellent Lord Bacon concerning a Philosophy advanced upon the History of Nature that such a work is the World as God made it and not as Men have made it for that it hath nothing of imagination for the faithful accounts of time give us another account of the Origin of Nations P. 13â— our Parents being before the Institution of Commonwealths absolute Sovereignâ—s in their own Families P. 141 142. after which he confesses that prejudice and self interest doth usually blind the understanding and cause it to put evil for good and humour and education and profit for reason and adds P. 147. if Men be lawless in a State of Nature and for the mere sake of temporal security do enter into Covenants and are obliged to justice and modesty and gratitude and other such like sociable Virtues only because they conduce to our Peace and to the keeping of us from the deplorable condition of a War of every Man against every Man then when any Subject shall have fair hopes of advancing himself by treading down Authority and trampling upon the Laws in a prosperous Rebellion what is It according to your Principles which can oblige him to refuse the opportunity If it be said that one Covenant is this that we must keep the rest It will be again inquired what Law engageth Men to keep that past seeing there is no Law of more ancient descent except it be that of Self-preservation for the sake of which we suppose the Covenants to be broken so that without the obligation laid upon us by Fidelity the Law of God Almighty in our nature antecedent to all humane Covenants P. 148 such Pacts will become but so many loose materials without the main binder in the fence of the Commonwealth which will therefore be trodden down or broken through by every herd of unruly Men Men are apt to violate what they esteem most just and sacred for the sake of Reigning and they will be much more encouraged to break all Oaths of Duty and Allegiance ☞ when they once believe that their ascent into the Throne and possession of the Supreme Power like the coming of the reputed Heir unto the Crown * Lord 〈◊〉 Hen. 7. p. 13. as in the case of Henry VII doth immediatly clear a Man of all former Attaindors this Doctrin is of the same strain with that pernicious Book Intitled Nature's Dowry Printed the year after the Leviathan that Rebeilion is not iniquity P. 149. if upon probable grounds it becomes prosperous that he who usurps not like a Politician is therefore a Villain because he is a Fool that all Usurpers in the World stepping up into the Throne by means likely to further their ascent pursue the Fundamental Law of Nature and are rightful and undoubted Sovereigns that the Earl of Essex in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth when he miscarried was a Rebel and a Traytor because he was a weak and unfortunate Politician but that Oliver who was sure of being Protector by the inclination of the Soldiery and possession of the Militia was a Lawful Prince after this he with justice taxes Mr. White as the †p. 93. first part of this History gives an account and then shews that Bishop Bramhal fled from England rather than submit to the Usurpation and that the other Bishops that staid at home P. 153 154. promoted the Cause of their Sovereign which if all zealous Loyalists had withdrawn themselves would by degrees have dyed away and because they refused the Oaths imposed at the Peril of their Lives and of their Fortunes ☜ they therefore are not to be judg'd treacherous in undermining the Usurp'd Government or disloyal to the King in injoying protection under Oliver whom they neither arm'd nor own'd in Power P. 156. It is not for you to pretend to Loyalty who place right in force and teach the People to assist the Usurper with active compliance against a dispossest Prince and not merely to live at all adventure in his Territories without owning the Protection by unlawful Oaths or by running into Arms against their Dethroned Sovereign P. 157. thus you give encouragement to Usurpers and also when Civil discords are set on foot as it happens too frequently in all States you hereby move such People as are yet on the side of their Lawful Prince whose Affairs they see declining to adjoin themselves to the more prosperous Party and to help to overturn those Thrones of Sovereignty at which a while before they