THE Vanity and Falsity OF THE HISTORY OF Passive Obedience DETECTED Wherein is briefly Demonstrated That the First Reformers were far from Maintaining it in the Author of that History and his Party's Sence AS ALSO It is plainly Evinced that it cannot be deduced from the Homilies Articles Injunctions or Canons Liturgy and Bishops of the Primitive English Church And all the specious Pretences he makes for it are fully Answered By Tim. Wilson M. A. and Rector of Kings Noth in Kent Licens'd according to Order Prov. XXIII 23. Buy the Truth and Sell it not Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the World 1 St. John IV. 1. LONDON Printed by George Croom at the Blew-Ball in Thames-street near Baynard's Castle 1690. THE Vanity and Falsity OF THE HISTORY OF Passive Obedience c. THE History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation tells us That it was the Doctrine of all Ages To which I return this plain Answer Our Noble and Blessed Reformers and all Protestant Divines as we who oppose Passive Obedience do at this day declare that the King's Power is of God yea that all Power is of God that Kings are God's Ministers and Vice-gerents that they are God's Ordinance and are not to be Resisted but Obeyed not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake That God is the only Ruler of Princes that neither Heresie nor Infidelity absolve Subjects from their Allegiance and Duty to Kings This and the like is granted on all hands And this is all that I could ever Collect from the Homilies Articles Injunctions or Canons Liturgy and first Bishops of the Protestant English Church So that I shall premise these General Rules for the understanding of the Judgment of the first Reformers and of other later Divines by him mentioned First Either they speak against Faction Sedition and Rebellion in very large and general Terms as all Divines even those of our Perswasion do as a most heinous and unnatural wickedness without stating any particular Case Or Secondly They speak of Kings Ruling according to the Laws of their Country Suppose I should say in a Sermon Good Christian People ye must in no case or for no cause Resist King William for he that Resisteth shall receive to himself Damnation Would any Man who knows my judgment from such words conclude that I am for Passive Obedience Would they not rather conclude that I am zealous for obedience to the King and harbour no jealousie of my Governors but have a strong presumption that he will Rule according to Law do what is Right and that his Subjects may lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty And doing their Duty may assure themselves of all the benefits of good Government The Apostle saith Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that Resist shall receive to themselves Damnation The Homilies â—â—y We must in no case resist and that it 〈◊〉 not Lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any â—â—se to resist and stand against the Superior Powâ—â—s I hope this Author will acknowledge that â—â—e Homilies speak in the same sence with St. â—aul We say so too But the Question is whether Paul calls Defenâ—â—ve Arms against Illegal Proceedings and Univerâ—â—l Oppression Damnable Resistance We say â—hat it is not the Resistance of which St. Paul â—peaks And the Author brings no Reason to â—rove it is But we give Reasons for our Interâ—retation And this is one Neither God nor Man gives Authority to Governors to Oppress Hear what a Learned Man and a grave Divine saith The Apostle doth not say expresly Whosoever resisteth the Highest Men shall receive Damnation but whosoever shall resist the Power Let every one be subject not to the will of the Highest Men but to the Higher Powers There is a great deal of difference between these two The Higher Powers that is that Authority that God and man hath put upon such a Man It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that must be Subjected to and not Resisted We profess against resisting Power Authority though abused If they who have power to make Laws shall make sinful Laws and so give Authority to any to force Obedience we say here there must be either Flying or Passive Obedience But if one that is in Authority commands out of his own will and not by Law I Resist no Power no Authority at all if I neither Actively nor Passively Obey No I do not so much as resist abused Authority This may seem strange at first but if you think of it you will believe it We distinguish between the Man that hath the Power and the Power of that Man and say though the Power must not be Resisted according to the letter and sense of the Text yet the Illegal Will and Ways of the Man may be Resisted without the least Offence against the Text. But of the Homilies I shall speak in due place Or Thirdly They speak of Personal Infirmities and Crimes of Princes of which God alone is the Avenger and Judge Or Fourthly They speak of Tyranny in Exercise when Laws enable Princes to Execute cruel Edicts or when wicked Laws are made and put in Execution which is called the Abuse of Power In which case we own Passive Obedience in Imitation of the Primitive Christians And so it was in Queen Mary's days Or Fifthly They hyperbolize in zealous Expressions from an abhorrence of â—ebellion and due Reverence of Sacred Majesty and Crowned Heads God's Anointed and Princes of greatest Merit and Renown As if I should say of His present Majesty in an Extasie of Joy upon Meditation of our great Deliverance He is the Earthly God and Saviour of England Could any from hence rationally infer that I denâ— Defensive Arms in some case Or Sixthly They Write in times wherein Arbitrary power and Innovations got footing And so out of blind Zeal and as I may say Superstitious Devotion to Princes or out of Prejudice or they were Court-parasites and Flatterers as Mountague Manwaring Sibthorp Parker Cartwright c. or possessed with some other evil Affection Or they wrote zealously against the Pope's Supremacy and his pretended power of Excommunicating and Deposing Kings and against the Assassination and Murdering of Princes justified by some Jesuits most Audaciously Or Lastly They have spoken their own Sentiments and private Opinions not the Doctrine of the Church of England and have been opposed by others in all times sometimes Secretly sometimes Openly of the same Communion and Church and by Men of as great Knowledge Piety and Loyalty both to King and Country And these have been both of the Clergy and Laity as far as with due Reverence to their Superiors they could But surely no man in his Senses can think that a whole Kingdom is to be made a Sacrifice to the perverse Will and Lust of a Tyrant who dispenseth
first Reformers of our Church had more Wisdom and Moderation than to Condemn their Brethren of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas when both Luther and Calvin justified Defensive Arms. And surely every wise and considerate Reader must needs Laugh at the palpable Folly and Weakness of this Author to infer from these Injunctions and Canons that Passive Obedience was the Characteristical Mark of the Church of England in those days He is Pur-blind with Prejudice and so now the Sun shines bright and clear he is better pleased with the Owl-light of his own Imagination Surely we receive these Injunctions and Canons as the beginning of Reformation with Hearts full of Joy And I am fully of Opinion that Henry VIII began at the Root when he renounced the Pope's Supremacy But let us hear the Doctrine of the Injunctions and Canons In the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry VIII for there I begin the Restoration of Religion to her purity in this Kingdom as Dr. Burnet doth Anno 1536. Injunctions were Issued out The first of which is That every Man that hath Cure of Souls shall for the Establishing 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 least wise twice every Quarter in their Sermons and other Collations That the Bishop of Rome's Vsurped Power and Jurisdiction having no Establishment or Ground in the Law of God was of most just cause taken away and Abolished And that the King's Power in his Dominions is the Highest Power and Potentate under God to whom all Men within the same Dominions by Gods Command owe most Loyalty and Obedience afore and above all other Potentates on Earth I am so far from disowning any of this that I wish it had been every Week published in every Market Town in the Reign of King James II. We always abhorred the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome And we always owned the King's Lawful Power and Authority But we say that if a King is resolved to Subject us to a Forreign Power and to Dispense with all Laws made for our Security Liberty and Property and the Established Religion we may hinder him from Cutting our Throats and Defend our selves And this is neither Râ—bellion nor Resistance properly so called but Natural Self preservation against the Freaks and prodigious Melancholy Fits of a raging and beastly Tyrant who with greatest Ingratitude would devour Friends as well as Foes But let us see his Inference p. 5. Now if the King be above all other Powers then he cannot be Accountable to any other Power and so ought not to be Resisted Answ He that resists the Lust of a Tyrant resists no Power as hath been said often because neither God nor Man gave him such Power And though the King is above all Power and it is not for me to meddle with the King's Prerogatives or the Parliaments Priviledges yet I may safely say He is not above Law which makes him King as I shall shew anon out of the Fragments of Mr. Hooker's Eighth Book And it is a Sentence worthy to be written in Letters of Gold which I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 5. p. 31. with me King Charles the First mentioned More than the Law gives me I would not have and less the meanest Subject should not And let me remind the Author that he saith in the Preface that he only doth the office of an Historian and intended not to promote any Disturbance But here and elsewhere he cannot forbear his own Inferences how unreasonable so ever they be Again he saith The Injunctions of the Lord Cromwell Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth plainly distinguish the Claim of the Pope from other Claims implying That our Church always believed that her Princes Power was derived immediately from God and that they were Superior to all their Subjects either Singly or Collectively and so were not accountable to them but only to God Answ No Mans private inferences and Opinions are the Doctrines of the Church The Injunctions and Canons have left such a Latitude that both Sides approve Likeas the 17th Article is of such a latitude that both Calvinists and Arminians subscribe with Cheerfulness and a good Conscience And this I take to be great Wisdom in our first Reformers I wish those Bishops that Succeeded them had been as wise at all times For let this Author imagine what he pleaseth private Opinions when urged as Doctrines of the Church or made Characteristical Marks of the Church have been the cause of all Disturbances in the Christian World We all believe that the King's Power is of God but that any one form of Regiment is derived immediately from God is no Doctrine of our Church nor of any Church and is the first falshood in political Government as I have shewed elsewhere All Kings receive their power Mediately by the People And Mr. Hooker faith tho he is singulis Major yet he is universis Minor But my opinion is this is according to the Constitution of every Kingdom though no People can give away the right of Self-preservation I am weary of this Cuckow tune always the same thing In short the Canons of the Church of England are Innocent in this matter And I would justifie our Church but the Guilt of some and the Peevishness of others will not suffer me And such as these may call me an Apostate and Presbyterian perhaps only because they are ashamed to confess their own Guilt I profess my self as true a Son of the Church of England as any Man in England And I always was and am at this day for Monarchy Epscopacy and Liturgy as Established by Law And I humbly submit in all things of Order Decency and Government to the Fathers of the Church and to the King and Parliament And let Men sunk in Prejudice say what they will this was always the Judgment of the Protestant English Church If our Governors think fit to change things in their own nature changeable every Subject is bound in Conscience to Obey If they think not fit be things as they are I am contented Now as for the Canons of the year 1640 I confess they have a spice of Innovation And I say I hope without offence to any Impartial considerer of those days That Arbitrary Power began to creep upon us And Arch-bishop Laud and his Party nor the Puritans and their Party are not to be justified in all things And here I make my Appeal to Rushworth's Collections or any other impartial Record of those times But I think the Author had better have buried these things in Silence For how they tend to the Credit of the Church of England I do not understand and I need not descant upon them Let us go on to Chap. III. which contains the Doctrine of the Homilies Here I shall not say with Mr. Mountague Appeal p. 260. I will admit the
the Author about the Interpretation of the Counsel of our Holy Saviour St. Matt. 7.15 16. who when he bids us to Beware of false Prophets who come in Sheeps Clothing but inwardly are ravening Wolves cautions us that we shall know them by their Fruits That is not by the Fruits of their Lives but of their Doctrine Now we say the natural consequences of Passive Obedience when we have a willful or wicked Prince are Arbitrary Power Oppression Tyranny Popery Slavery Invalidating of Laws Obstructions of publick Justice and any Grievance that can befall a Nation I wish we had not seen these Evils with our own Eyes But then perhaps we should have been hard put to it to make this Author and men of his Perswasion to believe the many horrid Mischiefs which plainly follow such flattering Doctrine Likewise I acknowledge that if we would judge of the Doctrines 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 Great Men who have Vindicated her Doctrine and explained her Belief I proceed to the First Chapter according to this method which contains the Doctrine of the 39 Articles 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 Elizabeth 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 Answ Surely no man who bears the name of a Protestant ever denied this But I imagine that if Passive Obedience had been such a peculiar and Characteristical Doctrine of the Church of England as we have been perswaded of late to believe we should have had an Article against Defensive Arms in any case and it would have been condemned as a factious seditious and rebellious Principle if it deserved Damnation as this Author speaks often times I expected plain right down English to condemn such wicked and dangerous Doctrine but I find not one word about it in the Articles nor can this Author Which is to me a strong presumption that the first Reformers medled not with this as an Article of Religion And this Author confesseth pag. 4. That this Doctrine is not limited to the particular case of Subjects taking up Arms. Well but it seems to him by two necessary Consequences to be deduced from it Let us hear them First Because if the Pope who pretends by Divine Right had no power over Kings much less have the People any Power who pretend to an Inferior Right that of Compact As if by the way the People had not a Divine right to Defend themselves Which Law of Nature is certainly the Law of God unwritten and is only in Man's Heart Secondly Because the Article makes no Distinction but Excludes all other Power as well as that of the Pope Answ All that the Article Disclaims is the Usurped Power of the Pope And all that it declares is the Supream Power of the King over all Persons in his Dominions But the first Reformers were not so senseless as to speak a word against the Peoples power of Self-preservation And who among us saith that the People have Power or Jurisdiction over their Prince when we say that they are not Rulers or in Office but they have a Power of Self-preservation And if a Prince seeks their Ruine causelessly they may Defend themselves by the Law of Nature and compel him to keep his Covenant and Oath the good of the whole Kingdom being the end of all Government And if they can no longer trust him with their Safety because he hath willfully broken his Promises they may Elect one whom they can Trust and they are not bound to be Passive under Illegal Oppressions God Rest the Soul of this Author for his honest simplicity and well-meaning but I would gladly see his Logick in Mood and Figure For verily I conceive that no Consciencious and Wise Man who is for Passive Obedience did ever dream that this Article denied Defensive Arms. And for me it shall go for the peculiar Fancy of the Author We say that the Power of the King is of God but we say also that Originally they were Elected by the People And Dr. Fern acknowledgeth That it was probably so at first in this Nation But we say that it was certainly so not only in this but in all the Kingdoms of the World See Polydore Virgil the Book called the Mirror Bracton Fortescue c. And for 2970 years or thereabouts as Chronologers compute that is from Adam to Rehoboam there was no Lineal Descent or Hereditary Succession among God's own People And it must be confessed by all That if the Royal Line should fail in any Kingdom there must be Election for God doth not now work Miracles nor send extraordinary Prophets to Anoint Kings but he whom the People in such case would chuse is God's Anointed and to him all owe Obedience I shall say no more at this time about this first Chapter Only I cannot but observe that though this Author pretends to the Meekness and Spirit of Christ Jesus yet he is very prone to Calumniate his Antagonists For who ever of our side in his Wits said that the People are the Interpreters of the meaning of the Laws as he speaks p. 4. And if any ever said that the Parliament the Representatives of the People and the Highest Court of the Kingdom are the Interpreters of the meaning of the Laws it must be understood with such Exceptions as these That they have not Arbitrary Power That they are not Infallible That they must be guided by right Reason c. But there needs no great Consultation in case of Universal Oppression In which case alone we justifie Defensive Arms for it is a thing sensible and we have Experience of it or feel it and cannot deny our Senses but are forced as sensible Creatures to complain and desire the Redress of our Grievances I go on to Chapter II. which contains the Injunctions and Canons Nothing but blind Zeal to maintain a Party that a Man hath espoused could move the Author to produce the Injunctions and Canons made in the time of Edward the VI. and Queen Elizabeth as asserting Passive Obedience or condemning Defensive Arms in some case for all Orthodox Divines acknowledge every tittle to be true and they overthrow the Pope's Supremacy in England and all Foreign Jurisdiction But the
Homilies as containing certain Godly and wholsom Exhortations but not as publick Dogmatical Resolutions Confirmed of the Church of England They have not Dogmatical Positions or Doctrines to be propugned and subscribed in all and every point They may seem to speak somewhat too hard and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England But with this Author I will account them admirable Sermons made by our first Reformers as the Body of practical Divinity and the Confutations of the Errors and Idolatries of the Church of Rome c. And by the way I am Glad that the Homilies are allowed to confute the Idolatries of the Church of Rome Because not long since divers for Passive Obedience and Non-resistance denied that there was any Idolatry in the Church of Rome to the great Scandal of our Mother the Church of England This premised I affirm that if Mens thoughts may be known by their words Dr. Welw Letter to Mr. March p. 10. might well say That Passive Obedience in the narrow sense we take it in was not so much as thought on at the time of publishing the Homilies First Because the words Passive Obedience are not in the Homilies Secondly Because they do not state our Case which is this If a King is resolved to destroy the Religion by Law Established and Liberty and Property and will rule by the Sword contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom whether in this case Defensive Arms are not Lawful Now we say the Compilers of the Homilies never condemned this Neither are the words Defensive Arms are Vnlawful in the Homilies Thirdly because in those days the Writings of many Divines of the Foreign Reformed Churches in which Defensive Arms were Justified were approved and publickly printed and owned by the Universities or at least not publickly Censured As Calvin's Institutions all Luther's Works and the Writings of Peter Martyr c. And we say that in popular Sermons fitted to the Capacities of the Common people many zealous and hyperbolical Expressions may be allowed and favourably Interpreted especially against those horrid Crimes of Sedition and Rebellion which yet would scarce pass in Dogmatical Decisions For these latter require dry Reason and plain Scripture without Rhetorications or Metaphorical Expressions Allusions or Illustrations I will put a Case Suppose the Late King should have sent three or four Officers of his standing Army to a Nobleman's House with a Commission or Command to cut the Throats of his Children Wife and his Own and these Officers should have such wicked Hearts as to endeavour to accomplish this Villany If in this case the Nobleman may defend himself by force of Arms against these Cut-throats and call in his Neighbours to help him then those phrases in the Homilies In no case to Resist In any case it is not Lawful we may not in any wise withstand Violently c. must admit of the sense that I put upon them And most assuredly those Blessed Authors of Reformation abhorred such bruitish Tyranny And if this Author will not recant this disinal Doctrine in the vast extent thereof he must be in a deep Melancholy and fitter for Dark Rooms than to Converse with Humane Society Again I must confess that the most barbarous impudent and brazen-fac'd Murder of our Royal Martyr King Charles the First a Prince of most excellent Virtues and of ever blessed Memory could do no less than provoke every Loyal Subject in Parliament to make a most Severe and Zealous Declaration about taking Arms against the King But I believe in my Conscience this Declaration never intended to Enslave us or never affirmed that if the King will cut our Throats we may not defend our selves by the Law of Nature So that my Interpretation must take place that the Phrases are not meant absolutely in the utmost Extremity For this would be to suppose that the People of England had chosen for their Representatives in Parliament men resolved to make them Slaves and not to preserve Liberty and Property This with the Distinctions before used is a sufficient Answer to any Man who hath no mind to be Obstinate and Cavil but contends for Truth not for Victory Not to say that Bishop Jews and without pretence of Contradiction Dr. Bilson acknowledged Defensive Arms Lawful in some case in those very days and when he purposely handled the Subject or Controversie Observe also the time when the Homilies were made They were composed in the happy Reigns of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth in whose days there was no fear of Popery or Arbitrary Power on their parts though some Besorted Priests and People that hated to be Reformed might Rebel against Moses and Aaron and desire to return back into Aegyptian Bondage and Slavery And the Homilies were made chiefly to perswade such to Peace and Obedience to their Lawful Superiors whom God had set over them and to shew them the Heinousness of Rebelling against them And may now with much profit be read to perswade all good Christian people of England to Honour Reverence and Obey King William and Queen Mary whom God's most Gracious providence hath placed on the Throne I descend to Chapter IV. which contains the Doctrine of the Liturgy Though I do not equal the Liturgy with the Word of God nor take it to be absolutely unalterable nor doth the Church yet I am of this Author's mind That it is the most excellent Body of publick prayers that the World owns Or as I have elsewhere expressed my self It I should say that there is no Church on Earth which Worships god and Christ with greater Purity Majesty Reverence and expressions of Devotion than the English Protestant no Man could confute me Particularly no Church in the World Prays more Zealously for Kings and Governors And what this Author produceth out of the Liturgy was never disputed by any of us We profess that God is the only Ruler of Princes we pray that God would deliver us from all Sedition privy Conspiracy and Rebellion we say that King William and Queen Mary are God's Minisâ—ers and we beg of God that all their Subjects duly considering that they have God's Authority may faithfully Serve Honour and humbly Obey them according to God's blessed Word and Ordinance and we pray God that the King may cut off all such workers of Iniquity as turn Religion into Rebellion and Faith into Faction and we beseech God to accept of our unfeigned Oblation of our selves vowing all Holy obedience in thought word and work unto the Divine Majesty and promising in him and for him all Dutiful Allegiance to his Anointed Servants and to their Heirs for ever But what is all this to Passive Obedience This Author cannot be so Ignorant as not to know that all Learned Divines of what Perswasion soever own this Insomuch that I must needs say that as greatly as he pretends to the meekness and peaceableness of a Christian Spirit he hath foully transgressed the Rule