AN ANSWER To A Printed Letter TO Dr. W. P. Concerning NON-RESISTANCE And other REASONS for not taking the OATHES With some Queries to the Non-swearers in a POSTSCRIPT LONDON Printed by J. R. for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhil over-against the Royal Exchange 1690. Licensed September 16. 1690. AN ANSWER To A Printed Letter TO Dr. W. P. SIR IT was too great a Favour that you should present me particularly with those Reasons which our dissatisfied Clergy may have to offer for themselves for their not taking the Oaths when you were pleased to lay the chiefest stress of their not doing so upon the Doctrine of Non-Resistance that you should single me out among all my Brethren who were as much Preachers of it as my self and put me upon the hard Task as you thought no doubt of reconciling that with the present Government and the present Oaths or of renouncing the one or the other The Pains which some of you have taken in the History of Passive Obedience shows that this is not the singular Doctrine of some few men but of Most if not All Divines so that if it were a mistake and a man had bin i' the wrong he has a great deal of good Company with him and need not be much ashamed of being call'd out to do Penance alone or be taken to task for such a General Error But however some of late are pleased to be very Angry or very Pleasant with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance Rediculing and Exposing it as the flattering Heresie of the late Clergy and talking against it at such a rate as if they would have St. Paul's words quite blotted out of the Bible They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation and when they are Friends to the present Government yet do so far discredit it as to be of their mind to think it inconsistent with that Principle yet I am perfectly of another Opinion and think that as true a Doctrine now as it was in St. Paul's time and that we are no way bound to recant it in order to our taking the Oaths and joyning with the present Government or that it is necessary to give up either the one or the other That this is a Christian Doctrine in the general as much as not Revenging or not Killing St. Pauls words set it beyond all dispute though there may be Limitations and Exceptions to them all in extraordinary Cases and it requires great Prudence and Caution when we come to the particular stating of this and run into nice Discourses about Government which many a good Divine may no more understand than Matters of Trade and therefore may be apt to mistake in some Cases of both and commit great oversights in going out of his Province and applying general Rules to some particular Cases that will not bear them The way of rightly stating this Doctrine I have always thought was according to the Form and Constitution of our Laws and Government whatever they are we are to be passive to them and ought not to resist that Legal Power and Constitution which is the Ordinance of God which he has set over us But to make it an Instrument to destroy our Laws and our Constitution by advancing Prerogative above Law and setting up I know not what Imperial Power above the Political and requiring such a Loyalty to the Prince in Conscience as is no way due by the Law of the Land which is the true Rule and Measure of our Duty this is to state it wrong and to squeeze and wring a great Error and Mischeif out of a Real Truth and whether this hath not bin done by a great many who have thereby brought an Odium and Discredit upon the Doctrine it self I leave you to judge but there is not the least colour of charging this upon any of my Sermons where I lay the matter very much upon our own Constitution and allow expresly the other Provision in the German Empire and in the Capitulation of Spain and the Low Countries pag. 25. Serm. 2. But if the Unlawfulness of Resisting upon any pretence whatsoever was a slavish Doctrine in England as some inconsidering Men throw out against the Clergy 't was more owing to the two Houses of Parliament who made that a Legal Declaration then to any of the Clergy who Preached it up I doubt not but that as general and absolute as it was carried in it the Supposition of the Legal Constitution and was not designed to alter or overthrow that but there may some extraordinary Cases happen which no positive Laws can provide against or ought indeed to suppose but when they do happen the plain Reason and Necessity of things will provide against them and there cannot be certain and standing Rules made for them but they fall under the Equity and Reason though not the Letter of the Constitution I am fully of the mind that it is more for Publick Good and the Peace of the World to teach People the Doctrines of Obedience to Governors and Non-Resistance Generally and Absolutely then to open a door to unquiet Spirits to disturb the Government they live under upon all occasions but yet the greatest Divines who have Conscientiously done this and particularly Dr. Falkner among our own when they have bin unwilling to allow any particular and practical Cases of doing otherwise because they do but seldom and extraordinarily fall out yet when they do must and cannot but allow an exception to a general Duty as he particularly mentions the case of Antiochus and of a Princes design to destroy and ruin a considerable part of his People contrary to the establish'd Laws to which some think ours comes up under King James and yet he still vindicates that General Declaration of not Resisting upon any pretence whatsoever because that is ordinarily and generally true and the exception to it is so rare and extraordinary as ought not to be taken in and supposed and as no way hinders the Truth of such a general saying as when holy Scripture declare that Wives and Children must obey their Husbands and Parents in all things and whom God hath joyned together no man must put asunder These Declarations how general soever and how Exclusive they may seem of doing otherwise upon any pretence whatsoever yet still are not without some Exceptions in extraordinary Cases which all Divines do allow Some Cases may fall out in Government though they ought not to be supposed nor can well be provided against As if a King shall endeavor to destroy his People to change the Constitution to turn a Legal Government into an Absolute Empire if he shall put a stop to Justice and shut up Westminster-Hall and give out no Commissions to Judges and Sheriffs and appoint either none or other Officers then the Law knows if he shall fall into Lunacy and Madness or the like incapacity if he shall voluntarily Desert and Leave the Kingdom without any Government if the
whole Royal Family shall be extinct and there be no Lineal Heirs to the Crown if the right Heir be dubious or there be a reasonable ground to believe a suppositious Child put in the place of the right Heir In these and such like Cases there is no ordinary Provision made by our Law nor indeed can there well or possibly be in all of them but when they do happen the plain Necessity and Reason of the thing must direct to some provision or other and it is very unreasonable to quarrel with that because it is not in every thing agreeable with ordinary and standing Rules and the exact Measures that the Laws do at other times require but cannot then be observed This Sir answers all that is objected in the latter part of your Letter which is the most considerable thing in it concerning the Convention and House of Commons whither they had as you say any Authority to Act as an House of Parliament in imposing these Oaths pag. 4. Let. Because First Our Law owns no Parliaments but what are called by the Kings Writs Secondly Nor doth it know any Member of the lower House but who are chosen for a Parliament Thirdly Nor doth it give right to any to Act in the House till they have taken the Test Fourthly And if any one enter and take their place there before they have taken the Oath of Supremacy their Place is void and they are not at Liberty to take it afterwards new Election is to be made 5 Eliz. cap. 1. Fifthly and Lastly The former Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy have bin so imposed by divers Statutes and are so expresly required of all Members of Parliament that none could possibly have a power of Substituting others in their stead till they had taken those and had swore if not that they believed King James yet at least that they believed King William to be rightful King of this Land i. e. The Members of Parliament were before their Sitting to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King Now because this is true in all ordinary Cases must it be so in all extraordinary ones too Were all these things observed by the Convention in 1660 which brought in King Charles the Second And are we therefore to be dissatisfied about the Laws they made and the proceedings done by them because some of you may think that by our Constitution a Convention hath no power at all in Law And because they observed not all the ordinary Rules required at other times by our Laws If we do we shall call in question the Legality at least of that Revolution and that Convention as well as of this The Truth is Positive Laws cannot always be observed but must give way to the greater Law of Necessity and of notorious greater good and even the Laws of God himself have often done so as we find in Scripture When therefore you urge on your side some particular Laws of the Kingdom which you cannot wholly reconcile with the present Government and this I believe is the great Difficulty that sticks with you we on the other side think it such an extraordinary Case as dispenses with those and that the plainness and notoriety of the thing may satisfie any mans Conscience about it and did so when the Prince of Orange came even these who now dissent not only wisht well to the Prince and went over to him in their Hearts and Affections but denied their Assistance to King James and did several other things which the Law would not warrant them in had it not bin an extraordinary Case and most if not all of you have to my knowledge owned you did go in with the Prince so far as his Declaration which was not altogether strictly Legal I suppose by any of our Laws in bringing a King by such a manner to good Terms so that we must leave God to judge whither it was not in the whole such an extraordinary and extralegal Case as justifies whatever was done though not altogether according to express Laws and whither we have not acted sincerely in thinking so all along and you unreasonably and perversly in thinking otherwise at one time though not at another As to what you urge out of the Statute of 1. James 1. which declares the Right to the Monarchy to have lineally descended to the Prince and by Proximity of Blood and that hereupon he was recognized and submitted to by the whole Nation and not upon any Choice or Election of the People Who will not own this to be a common and rightful way of coming to the Crown in such an Hereditary Monarchy as ours is But does that Statute say that no other King of England who-ever came to the Crown or ever should without such a Lineal Descent and Proximity of Bloud was rightful King Or does it say that King and Parliament have not a power to limit and settle the descent of the Crown according to the Thirteenth of Elizabeth Does it take away that Act by express Words without which I think our Lawyers say no former Act is nulled or abrogated What is it then to the purpose Have not King William and Queen Mary a right of Blood and Lineal Descent if King James his Right be ceased Do they or the Kingdom ever own or declare that they hold the Crown by the Choice or Election of the People Have not half of the Kings of England before the Conquest and after bin as much or more chosen by the people according to all our Historians Is there not a great difference between the Peoples Choosing and Electing of a King and the States and Representatives of a Kingdom Recognizing and Declaring them to be King and Queen by whatever unnamed Right When you have satisfied me in these Questions you will fully satisfie your self about that Matter You tell me there is another Statute of the same King that enjoyns the Oath of Allegiance to him as the true and Rightful King and which deserves well to be considered makes it Treason to go about to perswade one to take the Oath to any else Now is it any wonder or does it deserve any mighty Consideration that the Law should make it Treason to go about to perswade one to take the Oath of Allegiance to him that is not King this sure if any thing tends to the Kings Disherison and Destruction and Parsons I suppose and some of the Popish Party in the beginning of King James I. Reign had such a design against which that Statute is levelled but that which you bring it for is upon the account of the Rightful King so that you would have it meant against those who are for a King de facto only that is not Rightful Now though this does not in the least concern me but those who are of that Opinion to answer yet I believe this Statute had no Eye to any such thing nor is any way concerned about it nor does it
be any way serviceable to K. James if he be not This is the great Point which you have not hit but may if you please make it the Subject of the next loving Letter between us All that is in this I have answered with that kindness and openness that becomes a Friend and with that seriousness that becomes a point of Conscience and such as I fear not to be ashamed of at the last day And I am still Sir Yours and Non-Resistances Faithful Friend and Humble Servant W. P. POSTSCRIPT SInce the Writing but before I had the opportunity of sending this to you a few Scrupulous Quaeries came into my Thoughts which seem to me to have more weight in them to incline a Conscientious Man to take the Oaths and come in to the Government then the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance can have to keep him out and make him forbear and therefore with the same Freedom and Civility you have used to me in desiring an Answer to those Scruples on the one side I beg the favour of you to give a fair and plain Resolution of the other First then I would ask whether it be or were a full judgment and perswasion of the downright Sinfulness and Unlawfulness of taking the Oathes or only some doubts and scruples and dissatisfaction in your Minds about it that does or did hinder you I have reason to think it is or was only the latter because several of you have expresly owned this and have therefore judged more charitably of your Brethren than to believe so many ventured upon an action that carried a downright Sinfulness and Unlawfulness in it but if others could satisfie themselves about it and could do it you thought they might and did no way blame or condemn them for it This I am sure was the judgment and the words too of many of you nay the best and greatest of your Dissenting Brethren did not say any thing to their Friends or so much as admonish their young Chaplains and others who were under their immediate care against taking the Oathes when they knew they were inclined and disposed so to do Now if they instead of some lesser doubts and private scruples had made a full judgment about the Sinfulness and Unlawfulness of this how could they be excused for thus suffering sin upon others who were under their Charge and not giving warning as Watchmen to those who belonged to their inspection who dwelt in your houses and were within your gates whose Souls they were to take care of lest their bloud should be required at their hands and their Sin should be charged upon their neglect Nay how could any of the Bishops satisfie themselves in not doing this to their whole Diocesses and immediate Cures whatever Worldly Perils and Inconveniencies they had hereby ran that so at least they might have delivered their own Souls I take it therefore for granted that it was not a full judgment and perswasion of the downright Sinfulness and Unlawfulness of taking the Oaths but only some lesser doubts and private scruples which hindered them and many of you from so doing if any of you have since come to a greater Plerophory and your Convictions have risen with your Resentments God and your own Consciencies must judge of that but whilst ye were only under those Doubts and so thought it safer not to do the thing than do it whilst ye thus doubted about it and had some Scruples concerning it remaining in your Minds I ask whether these doubts and scruples of yours should not have bin over-ruled by the many Reasons on the other side by the great and evident Mischiefs of your standing out both to the Church and Kingdom and the no less great good to the Protestant Religion both at home and abroad by this Revolution And whether it were not or had not bin Lawful in this Case to have Acted even with a Doubting Conscience I am sure we have often told the other Dissenters so in the Case of Church-Conformity and I question not but it is a true Principle that a man may and often ought to act with a doubting Conscience where there are only some scruples and dissatisfactions that he cannot perfectly get rid off on one side and such great Reasons as the Peace and Unity of the Church or Kingdom on the other tho' never against an Erronious one where he has formed a full and complete tho' wrong judgment of the sinfulness and unlawfulness of an Action and here by the way I would recommend to you to consider over again and apply to your selves what ye have formerly said and written against those Dissenters in the matter of Schisme and in the Matter of a Doubting Conscience Secondly I Query Whether most if not all of the Dissenting Clergy were not once well satisfied in their Consciences about the Prince of Orange 's coming over and rejoiced in it as their only Deliverance under God from their Ruin they saw coming upon the Church and Nation when they wish'd well to him and pray'd for him and went over to him with their Hearts and Affections if not more overtly by Addresses and other Applications Why should they then think themselves now so indispensably obliged to King James and so inseparably bound to him by their Oathes of Allegiance which they then thought they were in great measure discharged and released from For who then thought himself bound in Conscience to defend King James in all his Rights Priviledges and Preheminencies whatsoever according to the Oath of Allegiance and to assist him to the utmost of their power against one who seemed and was declared by him to be an open Enemy and Invader What Minister of the Church of England encouraged the Souldiers to Fight against him and did not rather declare it unlawful so to do when it was so plainly fighting against their Religion and their Country which were then thought sufficient Considerations to supersede an otherwise necessary Duty I ask therefore whither the same reasons which then satisfied us all and which ye then thought released you from part of your Oath of Allegiance and from giving King James that Assistance which had bin otherwise due to him had it not manifestly tended to the utter Ruin of your selves and your Religion and the whole Kingdom may not as well and much better discharge you now from that Allegiance which ye pretend is still owing to him and why they who were for taking away his Authority and Dispossessing him of his Government by a Regency during his Life and without his Consent as the only expedient to secure the Church and Nation from Ruin under him should think they were under such a strict and unalterable Obligation to him by their former Oaths and the Laws of the Land Whither those were not more irreconcilable with such a method than with a New King Farther Whether those who sate in the Convention and in the Parliament too when it was made such