A NEW TEST OF THE Church of ENGLAND's Loyalty.

IN all the unhappy Contentions among Parties and Factions in this brangling Nation, the Champions of the Church of England, as they would have them⯑ſelves call'd, have laid it down as the diſtinguiſhing Mark of their Hiearchy, that it is her Practice, and has been deriv'd from her very Conſtitution, as well as Doctrine, to ſix in all her Members Prin⯑ciples of unſhaken Loyalty to her Prince, entire and undiſ⯑puted Obedience to all her Commands, and an Abhorrence of the very Thoughts of thoſe Helliſh Principles, That it can be lawful on any Account whatſoever to reſiſt the Eſtablish'd Power of their Kings▪

'T wou'd be endleſs to quote the Reverend Dr. B—ge, who from the Text in the [...] Reſiſt not the Powers, &c. for whatſoever Powers are, be ordain'd of God; whoſoever there⯑fore reſiſteth the Power, reſiſteth the Ordinance of God; tells us,

To avoid Prolixity of Quotation, the Reader is deſir'd to accept of theſe as ſufficient Proofs of what I lay down upon this Condition; nevertheleſs, that beſides the general Appeal which I might make to the Memory of moſt Men, I oblige my ſelf upon Demand to produce Ten Thouſand fair Quo⯑tations out of the Writings of our late modern Authors ſince the Reſtauration; wherein the Doctrines of Non-reſiſtance of Princes, Paſſive Obedience, and the Divine Authority of the Kingly power, is own'd and declar'd to be an Eſſential part of the Profeſſion and Practice of the Church of England; and upon this Foot, which I hold to be ſufficient, I think I cannot be cenſured if I take it for granted.

Now, as this too much divided Nation has always been compos'd of two contending Parties, thoſe Parties have been [3] diſtinguiſh'd, as in like Caſes, by Names of Contempt; and tho' they have often chang'd them on either ſide, as Cava⯑lier and Roundhead, Royaliſts and Rebels, Malignants and Phanaticks, Tories and Whigs, yet the Diviſion has always been barely the Church and the Diſſenter, and there it continues to this Day.

As the Church of England Party have boaſted of their own Loyalty, ſo they have branded the Diſſenter with Rebellion and Faction, not only in their Nature, but in their very Principles; they have laid it down in their Writings and Sermons, and multitudes of their ignorant Hearers believe it, that the very Doctrine of the Diſſenter is made up of Principles in their own Nature, tending to Confuſion and Rebellion; they wont be content that we ſhould own there may be Men among all Parties of bad Deſigns, and who wou'd on all Occaſions em⯑broil their Native Country, but it muſt be woven with the very Articles of Faith, and that 'tis the Religion of a Diſſenter to diſturb Government, kill Kings, and oppoſe Laws.

‘'The Phanatical Enemies of our King and Church (ſays the Learned Dr. P—n) drink in Rebellion as Water; 'tis the very Subſtance of their Schiſmatical Doctrine to over⯑whelm and deſtroy; and Common-wealths and Confuſions are the Doctrines they preach.’

He that lays out one Groat with a Diſſenter (ſays the wor⯑thy Sir Roger in one of his famous Obſervators) contributes juſt ſo much as the Profits of that Groat amounts to in Trade towards the Subverſion of the Monarchy, and erecting a Common-wealth; for the very Nature and Tendency of their Profeſſion is deſtructive of Kingly power, and the Govern⯑ment of the Nation.

This has been the Opinion of the Church of England, both of themſelves on one Hand, and of the Diſſenters on the o⯑ther Hand. I ſhould be glad if I cou'd only ſay, It has been, for we find 'tis ſtill too much their Opinion.

Let no Man ſay that the Author of theſe Sheets is either widening or keeping unheal'd the Breaches of this Nation; for if I can make it appear that there is really no occaſion of ſuch [4] unnatural Diviſions; and that neither the extraordinary O⯑pinion of themſelves, nor the Contempt of their Neighbours, as to the matter of Loyalty, is a becoming Principle; no, nor a rational one neither: For that as to Loyalty, Paſſive O⯑bedience, Non-reſiſtance, &c. there is really no great Diffe⯑rence between one ſide or other. I go as far towards healing the Breach as any Man; for there can be no better way to end the Strife on both ſides, than to prove that neither ſide has any juſt cauſe to contend.

To examine the Matter on both ſides, ſeems very uſeful at this time, in order to reconcile Parties, and to ſettle the Univerſal Character of the Nation.

The Government of England is a limited Monarchy, com⯑poſed of King, Lords and Commons. Each have their ſe⯑veral, their ſeparate, and conjunctive Powers; which act⯑ing in concert, make the Harmony of the Conſtitution. I ſhall not invade the Province of thoſe Learned Gentlemen, who have undertaken to ſet forth the Branches of the Con⯑ſtitution in all their Powers, Limitations and Prerogatives: 'Tis enough to ſay the Conſtitution is known, the Govern⯑ment is confin'd by Laws, the Crown limited by Statutes, and the People's Right confirm'd by conceſſion of Ages.

To this Government, all Diſtinction of Names ſet apart, I am of the Opinion, all Parties have in their Turns been e⯑qually Loyal: I was going to ſay, equally Diſloyal: And if I were to uſe the Language of late Times, it wou'd be a very proper way of ſpeaking.

Affirming without demonſtrating is an abſurd way of Ar⯑guing, and therefore it will be needful to come to particulars, and to examine the ſeveral Acts and Deeds of both Parties when the Kingly Prerogative has ſhock'd or claſh'd with the People.

In order to this 'tis needful to examine the Date of the Difference, and ſo to enter a little into Hiſtory.

Our firſt Reformation from Popery was in the Days of King Edward the VI. I call it the firſt, becauſe 'twas under him that the whole Nation and the Government embrac'd the Proteſtant Reform'd Religion▪ this Proteſtant Religi⯑on [5] was eſtabliſh'd by that Zealous KING, and by his Parlia⯑ment, back'd with the force of Laws, and confirm'd by all the Sanction of Authority it was capable of, and here it be⯑gan to be call'd the Church of England.

Some enquiring Chriſtians were for making farther Steps, and carrying on the Reformation to a higher Degree; and if that good reforming King had liv'd, his Zeal and Integrity was ſuch, that there was no doubt he would have gone on to perfect every Thing he had begun, as new Light or more Knowledge had encreaſed; but the return of Popery under Queen Mary put a Stop to the Work in general, and went very far towards overturning the whole Structure of the Reformation.

Queen Elizabeth reſtor'd it again; but as ſhe was a zealous Proteſtant Queen, yet ſhe was not for ſubjecting the Refor⯑mation to any amendment. Not that ſhe believ'd it perfect; but ſhe was a Politick Princeſs, ſurrounded with Enemies that were not to be dally'd with, and ſhe was loth to ſup⯑poſe ſuch Defects in the Reformation as were alledg'd, be⯑cauſe 'twas to leſſen the Reputation of it, and conſequently her Intereſt in the World.

Thoſe who inſiſted upon the further Reformation were then call'd Puritans, becauſe they ſet up for greater Purity of Worſhip, and they ſeparated themſelves from the eſta⯑bliſh'd Church, becauſe, as they ſaid, their Conſciences in⯑form'd them that they could ſerve God more agreeable to his Will.

I ſhall not meddle with the Arguments made uſe of on both Sides, either to defend or expoſe this Principle; 'tis ſuffici⯑ent to acquaint my Reader that this is the true Original of the Diſſenters: We are now to examine a little further back. Before this Reformation there was no ſuch thing as Church of England; it was then the Church of Rome that was the e⯑ſtabliſh'd National Church.

The Proteſtants under the Titles of Lollards, Wickliffians, Huſſites, &c. what did they do? Did they, as our Modern People ſay every Body ſhou'd, confirm to what the Government [6] Commanded? No, the preſent Church of England Party were the Diſſenters, the Schiſmaticks and Phanaticks, in the Days of King Henry VIII. were perſecuted for not coming to Church; many of them put to Death, and always treated with Scorn and Contempt, as Enemies to the Government, Broachers of new Opinions, and Contemners of Authority; as in the caſe of that famous Proto-Martyr of Chriſt's Church, John Lambert, and others.

In the next Ages theſe come to have the Power in their Hands, and forgetting that they had found it righteous in the Sight of God to obey God rather than Man, they treat thoſe whoſe Conſciences oblige them to diſſent from them, with the ſame Contempt which themſelves had receiv'd from the Roman Government.

Thus far they are upon even Terms, as to Obedience to their Superiors.

The Diſſenters have the firſt Occaſion after this to ſhow their Submiſſion under extraordinary Preſſures. Queen Eli⯑zabeth diſcountenanc'd them continually; and as good a Queen as ſhe was, put ſome of them to Death. King James I. hun⯑ted them quite out of the Kingdom, made Thouſands of them fly into Holland and Germany, and at laſt to New-England.

During the long Reign of theſe two Princes, we find no Charge of Treaſon or Rebellion upon them; they bore the Diſpleaſure of their Princes with Patience and Paſſive Obe⯑dience; if I may be allow'd that Ridiculous Phraſe; being per⯑ſecuted in one City, they fled to another; they bore illegal Proſecutions, and things contrary to their Right, as English Men, but never took up Arms againſt their Prince.

Under the Reign of King Charles I. the Caſe alter'd, the King and Parliament fell out about Matters of Civil Right, and Invaſion of the Liberty and Properties of the People, the Puritans or Diſſenters, call them what we pleaſe, fell in unanimouſly with the Parliament.

And here 'tis worthy Remark, that the firſt Difference be⯑tween the King and the English Parliament did not reſpect Religion, but Civil Property; nor were the Majority of the [7] Houſe of Puritans, but true Church Proteſtants, and Engliſh Men; who ſtood upon the Rights of the People, as Engliſh Men; and none were more Zealous in the firſt Diſputes than the Lord Digby, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and ſuch as were after⯑wards deep Sufferers for the King.

But the Parliament finding the Puritan Party ſtuck cloſe to their Cauſe, they alſo came over to them when things came to a Rupture, and ſo the War begun on the Score of Right, Invaſion of Liberty, Breach of [...]he Laws, Private Leagues, and Male Adminiſtration; a Game we have ſeen play'd over again by the very ſame Church of England that have exclaim'd ſo much againſt it, ſo damn'd it, and ſo damn'd themſelves, by Oaths, Declarations, Teſts, and God knows what, againſt it.

'Tis allow'd here the Puritan broke thro' his Loyalty, and his former Obedience, and fought his Way to the Liberty he demanded. Well, the War ended to his Advantage, he ſubdued his Sovereign, and brought him to the Block, to the Aſtoniſhment of the whole World.

I wont diſpute here which or which Party did or did not do it, but to give the Enemy all juſt Advantage, I am wil⯑ling to grant it in the largeſt Senſe that the Diſſenters, or Phanaticks, or Whigs, call them as you pleaſe, did embrue their Hands in the Blood of the Lord's Anointed, put to Death that bleſſed Martyr, King Charles the I. whom a learned Divine, in a Sermon on the 30th of January, before the Parliament, compares both in the manner of his Suffe⯑rings, and the People by whom, to our Saviour and the Jews, and boldly runs on in the Blaſphemous Parallel, to ſhew that the Indignities and Sufferings of King Charles exceed thoſe of Jeſus Chriſt.

I think I have granted as largely as a fair Adverſary can deſire; for I have yielded for Peace-ſake to ſeveral things which I cou'd fairly diſprove.

Nor ſhall I return to a Repitition of the ill Uſage the Diſ⯑ſenters have receiv'd from the contrary Party on this Ac⯑count for above 30 Years; the conſtant Reproaches they and [8] their Children after them have met with from thoſe Gentle⯑men, who on all Occaſions have (as I hinted before) parti⯑cularly taken care to extol their own unſhaken Fidelity to their Prince, till at laſt an Occaſion preſents to touch them in the ſame moſt ſenſible Part, their Right and Property; and alas! their Loyalty, what became of it? Truly the Faith⯑ful, Paſſively Obedient, Ʋnſhakenly Loyal Church, return'd to the Original Nature of their Neighbours, and did the ſame thing exactly which the Whigs, the Factious Rebellious Whigs, had done before.

‘'No, that's falſe, (ſays a Diſciple of Dr. Sherlock's) we did not kill our King, we did not dip our Hands in Roy⯑al Blood, nor hurt the Lord's Anointed.’

No, that's true, but the Lord's Anointed may thank him⯑ſelf for that; for my part I think the Difference only lyes here; the Whigs in 41, to 48. took up Arms againſt their King; and having conquer'd him, and taken him Priſoner, cut off his Head, becauſe they had him: The Church of England took Arms againſt their King in 88. and did not cut off his Head, becauſe they had him not. King Charles loſt his Life, becauſe he did not run away; and his Son, King James, ſav'd his Life, becauſe he did run away.

'Tis ſuch a Jeſt, ſuch a Banter, to ſay, We did take up Arms, but we did not kill him: Bleſs us, kill our King, we wou'd not have hurt a Hair of his Head! Why, every Bullet ſhot at the Battle of the Boyne, was a killing the King; for if you did not, 'twas becauſe you cou'd not hit him.

If a Highway-man fires at you upon the Road, when he is taken, and brought upon his Trial, our learned Recor⯑der, before he pronounces Sentence of Death, barangues him in this manner: And beſides all this, Sir; you are plainly guilty of Murther; for you not only aſſaulted this honeſt Man, in order to take away his Money but you endeavour'd to murther him; for you ſhot at him, in order to kill him; and the Intention of Murther is Equally Criminal in the Eyes of God with the Act it ſelf.

Now who did we ſhoot at, at the Boyne? 'Tis true, King James generally ſtood out of the way; But who did we ſhoot at? What! was our Orders to ſight againſt both ſmall and great, [9] and not againſt the King of Iſrael? Had your Bullets Commiſ⯑ſion to ſhow their Loyalty, and not to touch the Lord's Anointed? If he had Charg'd in the firſt Squadrons of his Horſe, had you not kill'd him if you cou'd? I think this need no further Proof.

Nay, if Arguments may be allow'd to have equal Weight on both Sides, the Whigs have been the honeſter of the two; for they never profeſt any ſuch blind, abſolute and undiſpu⯑ted Obedience to Princes as the others have done.

It has always been their Opinion. That Government was originally contrived by the Conſent, and for the mutual Be⯑nefit of the Parties Govern'd, that the People have an Ori⯑ginal Native Right to their Property, the Liberty of their Perſons and Poſſeſſions, unleſs forefaulted to the Laws, that they cannot be diveſted of this Right but by their own Con⯑ſent, and that all Invaſion of this Right is deſtructive of the Conſtitution, and diſſolves the Compact of Government and Obedience.

They have always declar'd, That they underſtand their Allegiance to their Governors to be, ſuppoſing they Govern them according to the Laws of the Land; and that if Princes break this Bond of Government, the Nature of it is inverted, and the Conſtitution ceaſes of courſe.

Buchanan in Scotland, Algernoon Sidney in England, have ſet their Names, and the latter his Blood, to this Doctrine, and the Author of the True-born Englishman is worth quoting in the Caſe;

This has been the avow'd Doctrine of the Diſſenters, and is indeed the true Senſe of the Conſtitution it ſelf; purſuant to this Doctrine they thought they had a Right to oppoſe Violence with Force; believing that when Kings break Co⯑ronation Oaths, the Solemn Compact with their People, and encroach upon their Civil Rights, contrary to the Laws of the Land, by which they are ſworn to Rule, they ceaſe to be the Lord's Anointed any longer, the Sanction of their Office is vaniſh'd, and they become Tyrants and Enemies of Man⯑kind, and may be treated accordingly.

Now 'tis no wonder to find People of theſe Principles vi⯑gorouſly withſtanding their Governors, when they tread upon the tender fore places of the Conſtitution; 'tis nothing but what they all along pretended to, and declar'd to be their Opinion.

But to find the Church of England-Men, whoſe Loyalty has been the Subject of a Thouſand Learned Authors, and numberleſs Sermons, whoſe Character and Mark of Diſtin⯑ction has been choſen more for her ſteddy Adherence and Fidelity to her Prince than to God Almighty; whoſe Obe⯑dience to her Monarchs has been declar'd to be Inviolate and Immoveable; and who pretends to be Famous thro' the whole World for their Faithfulneſs to Kings; for her, as ſoon as ever the King did but, as it were, ſeem to aim at cruſhing her Authority, as ſoon as he did but begin to call her Clergy to an Account, and clap up her Golden Candleſticks for Diſobedience; for her to winch and kick, fly to foreign Princes for Pro⯑tection, and riſe in Arms againſt her Prince, O Pelin! O Bra⯑dy! O Sherlock! O Hominem! O Mores!

[11] Where's the worthy Dr. B—ge's Loyalty now? His Immoveable Loyalty, that after all his Abſolute Submiſſion is ſo far from being a Martyr to his own Doctrine, that he cou'd not loſe a ſmall Benefice for it?

VVhere is the Famous Dr. S—k? VVho having ſtood out long in his old antiquated Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience, and confirm'd the Faith of his Suff'ring Brethren, by ſtrong and wonderful Arguments, at laſt, at the powerful Inſtiga⯑tion of a VVife, and a good Sallary, has Sold all his Loyalty for a Meſs of Pottage, ſolving his Honeſty with the wretched Diſtinction of a Power De Facto, and a Power De Jure, as if the Church of England's Credit cou'd be ſav'd by ſuch an impotent Shift, or as if he cou'd make amends to the Pre⯑bendary for his helping him to Sacrifice his Brethren, to Fa⯑ther his Converſion upon reading honeſt Dr. Overall, whoſe Doctrine, 'tis well known the Doctor knew before; but that he was loath Dr. South ſhou'd have the Honour of bringing him over to ſuch Old Phanatick Principles?

Behold the Loyalty of the Church of England; now let's examine their Conſcience, as to taking Oaths; and if I do not bring them to be all VVhigs, and Forty-One-Men, or elſe prove them all Perjur'd, then I do nothing.

The Clergy, all the Magiſtrates and Officers of the Hou⯑ſhold, of the Civil or Military Government, were Mem⯑bers of the Church of England, otherwiſe they cou'd not be employ'd; the Sacramental Teſt has done the Diſſenters this Kindneſs, that 'tis plain all the Managing Hands in the King⯑dom were Diſciples of the Church; and as an additional Circumſtance, the Oath of Allegiance which they took, and which was (God be praiſed) of their own making, bound them to that ſame Abſolute Blind Obedience which they profeſt, and confin'd it to the King, his Heirs and Succeſ⯑ſors.

If this Oath be conſider'd literally, I am content to be ſi⯑lenc'd, when one fair Argument can be brought to evade it; the Declaration follow'd it, wherein they deteſt and abhor that deviliſh Doctrine, that 'tis lawful on any pretence what⯑ſoever, [12] (Mark the Emphaſis) to take up Arms againſt the King▪ this (equal to an Oath) is declar'd in the preſence of God; and the Particulars being material to our purpoſe, are as follows:

Notwithſtanding this, you have taken up Arms againſt, depoſed, and as far as you were able, put to Death your law⯑ful King, the very King you ſwore Allegiance to.

Now, pray Gentlemen, give Commiſſion to ſome worthy Cham⯑pion of your Church's Loyalty, to bring you fairly off of your Oath and Declaration if you can; and till you do, be not angry with us for making one of theſe Concluſions from the Premiſes, and you ſhall chuſe for your ſelves.

Firſt, That this Doctrine of Abſolute, Paſſive and Non⯑reſiſtant Obedience, is an Abſurdity in it ſelf, contradictory to the Nature of Government and Allegiance, and political⯑ly introduc'd by State Engines into the Church of England, to abuſe her, and betray her Members into unforeſeen Miſ⯑chiefs and Inconveniences.

Or, Secondly, That the Members of the Church of England are all Apoſtates from the very Fundamental Doctrine of their Church, Perjur'd in the Sight of God and Man, Noto⯑rious Hypocrites, and Deceivers; who having ſworn Obe⯑dience without Reſerve to their Prince, are become Traitors, Rebels, and Murtherers of the Lord's Anointed, and their Lawful Sovereign; and not having the Fear of God before their Eyes, have depos'd and traiterouſly dethron'd their Rightful King, God Almighty's Vicegerent, accountable to no Earthly Power, Supream under God, Abſolute, and from Divine Inſtitution, Undoubted Sole Lord of them and their Country.

[13] Or, Laſtly, That they only are the true Church of En⯑gland, who according to their avow'd Profeſſion, have firm⯑ly adher'd to their King in all his Sufferings and Solitude, have never blacken'd their Conſciences, nor gone back from their Obedience, forgotten their Oaths, nor fullied their Re⯑putation with the horrid Crimes of Treaſon and Rebellion, as they think it to be.

Now, as a fair Diſputant, I am willing the Reſpondent ſhall chuſe which of theſe Three Conſequences he will ſtand by in behalf of the Church of England's Loyalty; but if they wou'd take the Advice of a Friend to the honeſt Part of them, I wou'd recommend the firſt Concluſion to be fitteſt for them for the following Reaſon.

1. Becauſe ſince humane Infallibility is (and with good Rea⯑ſon) diſown'd by the Church of England, both for her Self and every Body elſe, it can be no Diminution to her Repu⯑tation, when ſhe has found her ſelf miſtaken, and impos'd upon, to acknowledge her Error; a wiſe Man will always own, rather than defend a miſtake.

2. Becauſe 'tis my Opinion that their Way is hedg'd up a⯑gainſt any other pretence, Evaſion, or Reſervation, and therefore 'tis with me the only thing that Charity can ſay for them, and muſt remain ſo, till I find ſomething elſe ſaid that is more to the Purpoſe.

But the Miſchief of all is, that if this be honeſtly acknow⯑ledg'd (as is doubtleſs moſt true) that the Church of England was miſtaken, and impos'd upon, to eſpouſe a Senſleſs Ab⯑ſurd Principle, contrary to the Nature of Government and Allegiance, &c. why then they come over to this Conſe⯑quence.

That Government and Allegiance are both Conditional, and Oaths of Subjects are always to be conſider'd in a Con⯑ſtructive Sence, with Conditions of Protection, and the like; a thing which is without queſtion the real Meaning of all Oaths of Allegiance; otherwiſe Subjects may be put under an ab⯑ſolute Neceſſity of Perjury, or State Martyrdom, by often ſwearing what may be impoſſible for them to perform.

[14] The Town of Aeth in Flanders has been about 6 times, and the Town of Rhinebergh in Gueldre about 12 times, ta⯑ken and retaken; and as often as new Maſters had Poſſeſſion of the Place, ſo often the poor Inhabitants have ſworn to their new Lords: What can the meaning of ſuch an Oath be, but that they will be faithful to them ſo long as they keep Poſſeſſion of the Place? 'Twou'd be ridiculous to ima⯑gine the Impoſers of the Oath requir'd any more.

If our Zealous Churchmen worded an Oath contrary to the very Nature of Swearing Allegiance, let them anſwer for it who firſt made it, then took it, then broke it. But the Nature of the thing can leave Room for no other Sug⯑geſtion that I know of.

Till then ſome further Argument is produc'd, it muſt reſt here, that the Church of England was Miſtaken, Impoſed upon, &c. that ſhe finds when the Laws are Broken, the Right of the People Invaded, the Root of the Government Struck at, Church and State Undermin'd, and Diſpotick Ty⯑ranny at the Door, the Native Right of the People is Supe⯑rior, and they may aſſume a Power to Right themſelves.

And ſo we are brought back to Whiggiſm, and 41; and, Gen⯑tlemen, there is no remedy for it, help it if you can.

Where now is the Difference between Church Loyalty, and Whiggiſh Loyalty, Roundhead or Cavalier, Church⯑man or Diſſenter, Whig or Tory? All are alike; they are pleas'd, when legally Govern'd; Quarrelſome and Unruly, if Oppreſt; and will Defend themſelves, if Aſſaulted; tho' it be by their Kings, or any Body elſe.

Why then is the Difference kept up? Methinks they might all be friends together, for they are all alike; the Diſſenters have been in their times as Loyal, and the Church of En⯑gland in their time as Diſloyal as one another. Vice verſa the Diſſenters have been as Diſloyal, and the Churchmen as Loy⯑al as one another upon the ſame Occaſion; they have been both Sufferers, and have ſubmited to the Government; ay, and to the Oppreſſions and Perſecutions of their Superiors and Sovereigns; and again, upon the like Occaſions, they [17] have both of them been Rebels, if their own Language may ſo far be us'd; they have both of them, in their Turn, taken Arms againſt, and depos'd their Rightful and Lawful Kings.

So that in my Opinion, with a Latitude to all that think other⯑wiſe to think as they pleaſe; the Church of England and their Neighbours the Diſſenters, have nothing to quarrel with one another about, as to Loyalty; as to other Matters I have nothing to ſay to them, nor ſhall not mingle it with this Diſcourſe.

Nor do I think I am writing a Satyr againſt the Church of En⯑gland, nor is it at all intended to be ſo; and to ſtop all Pre⯑tences that way, I take the Freedom to ſay here has been no Crime, the Church of England has been in the right of it; not in taking Arms, but the Error was in Eſpouſing, Cry⯑ing up, and Pretending to a Blind Abſolute Obedience to Princes, be their Commands never ſo Abſolute, Tyrannical or Illegal; this neither the Doctrine nor Practice of the Church of England, nor of any Church or People in the Chriſtian World, ever pretended to; and therefore the Fault lay in thoſe people, who being themſelves Members of the Church of England, ſuffer'd themſelves to be deluded by State-Miniſters, to foſter a Tenent upon the Church which her Original Conſtitution never pretended to, and then call it the Doctrine of the Church of England.

The firſt beginning of their pretended Doctrine was found in Manwaring's and Sibthorp's Libels, in the Days of King Charles I. cajoling the King; and then to pleaſe him, endea⯑vouring to wheedle the People into a Belief of the Divine Right of Kingly Government; and affirming, that the King was not oblig'd by the Laws in the Adminiſtration of the Government.

Upon this prepoſterous Foundation, they built the Illegi⯑timate Structure of Abſolute Undiſputed Obedience; for if Kingly power were once prov'd to be immediately deriv'd from Divine Authority, Abſolute Obedience wou'd be a Con⯑ſequence no body could diſpute, ſince the ſame Obedience without reſerve wou'd be due to the Delegated power, as to the Power delegating.

[8] And though this is a point eaſily enough confuted, yet be⯑ing willing to keep the preſent Diſpute within as ſmall a compaſs as we can, I think our Argument has nothing at all to do with it.

Whether Government be of Divine Original or not, ſeems not the Queſtion here; for if it be not ſo, then, as before, the Church of England have been miſtaken, and impoſed up⯑on; and if it be ſo, then the Church of England has tram⯑pled under-foot their own Doctrine, turn'd Rebels to God, and Apoſtates from the Faith they have profeſt, have Sacri⯑legiouſly and Traiterouſly taken up Arms againſt their Prince, aſſaulted the Lord's Anointed, Reſiſted the Powers which are the Ordinance of God, depoſed their lawful Sovereign, broken their Allegiance, and conſequently are a Parcel of Perjur'd Re⯑bels; every jot as bad as the worſt Roundhead Regicide, and Rebel of the Year Forty One.

What more or leſs can be ſaid, I profeſs I know not, and am in great Expectation of ſomething new in the Matter; for I cannot find in all the Writings I have met with, any thing to contradict it.

The bringing Government and Obedience to the proper Circumſtances of mutual Compact between King and People, ſeems to me to be the only Method to unravel this Skein of entangl'd Principles; the Nature of Government has made it the neceſſary Conſequence of all Argument relating to Po⯑wer; and I could give Inſtances in all the Nations in the World, that ſome time or other, even the Right of Succeſ⯑ſion to Government, which muſt be as ſacred as the Power, has been interrupted and limited by the People, in caſe of Ty⯑ranny and Illegal Governing; and every Nation; and this a⯑mong the reſt, have often times depos'd their Princes for the preſervation of the State, when either Incapacity for Govern⯑ment, Tyrannical Uſurpation, or other Male-Adminiſtration, has been the Caſe.

But this I think alſo needleſs here; every one that is vers'd in Hiſtory can read the numerous Examples in the Roman, Grecian and Perſian Hiſtories, even Sacred Hiſtories, where [9] Kings were more particularly of Divine Right than any where, are full of them; the Hiſtories of Spain, Portugal, France, Lom⯑bardy, the Empires of Germany and Muſcovy, even the Papal Chair, have ſuffer'd Convulſions and Revolutions, the De⯑poſing and Diſplacing their Sovereigns, when the People's Good, which is, and ever was, the Soul, the Center, the End, and the Cauſe of all Government, came to be in the Diſpute.

But to return to the Principles of the Two Parties we are now diſcourſing of; the Whigs, as before, have always aſ⯑ſerted this to be their Notion of Government and Governors, and the Church of England, however ſome among them have topt an empty Notion upon them, have all along, and now at laſt once for all, own'd it by their Practice.

The Act for the further Limitation of the Crown paſt in the laſt Parliament, and the Right of the People therein de⯑clar'd and recogniz'd, I would ask my Opponent whoſe Act and Deed it was? Will they ſay it was a Whiggiſh Act, made by a Phanatical Houſe of Commons? I dare ſay there was not Ten Diſſenters in the Houſe; let them deſcend with us into Par⯑ticulars, let them draw out a Black Liſt of Members, who in that Loyal Honeſt Engliſh Parliament gave their Hands to the laſt Settlement and Declaration of Right, and let us tell No [...]s, and put a Brand upon the Phanaticks among them.

Will they tell us it was a Phanatical Parliament that ſet the Crown upon the Queen's Head? I hope they will own Her Majeſty and their Lordſhips the Biſhops are part of the Church of England; for if the Head and the principle Members are not, we know not who are.

Will they tell us that Sir E. S. Sir B. S. Sir J. B. Mr. H—y, Sir C—r M— [...], and a hundred more of that Side, were Whigs and Common-wealth men?

[20] How comes it to paſs in England that no Papiſt can inherit? Divine Right ought to ſupercede all Precautions, and the young Prince of Savoy, not the Houſe of Hannover, ought to Reign with a Non Obſtante to all Humane Limitation, if all was from Heaven: Where are our Right-Line-Men now! Why, truly the Reaſon is plain, the Church of England, People of England, a Church of England Parliament of England, have thought fit to declare, that for the Good of the People, to which all Right of Succeſſion to Power muſt give way, becauſe from them all power it ſelf does derive, and by the Voice of that People (in which Autho⯑rity ſufficient is legally grounded) it is Unanimouſly agreed, that we will not have a Papiſt to Reign over us.

All this is too plain to admit of a Diſpute; and now to me it ſeems prepoſterous why any Men ſhou'd keep up the Di⯑ſtinction between Parties as to Loyalty, when indeed there is no manner of Difference in the Caſe.

I have talk'd ſeveral times of bearing, ſuffering, being per⯑ſecuted and oppreſs'd, as the Diſſenters in their time have been more than enough, and again in their Turn, the Church of England have been perſecuted too; for as I noted before, they were once the Schiſmaticks, the Whigs, and the Diſſenters. Now I think 'tis not very foreign to my Argument to exa⯑mine whether of the Two behav'd themſelves under their Sufferings with the greateſt Submiſſion, who ſhow'd moſt abſolute Obedience to their Superiors, and who firſt, or oft⯑neſt Rebell'd againſt their lawful Sovereign.

The Proteſtants under Henry VIII. were the firſt Diſſen⯑ters; they were kept under, perſecuted, and put to death as Rebels and Schiſmaticks. Now upon due ſearch, it will be ſound, that under the protection of two Proteſtant Queens, Wives of King Henry VIII. they had more than once form'd ſuch Intereſt at Court, and in the Kingdom, as to begin to be formidable to the Popiſh powers then reigning; and the Fall of the Lord Cromwell was thought a neceſſary Policy in King Henry, to prevent the Plots of the Phanatical Church of England Hereticks; a long Account of which may be read in the Life of that Prince.

[21] King Edward the VI. a zealous and pious Prince, made no ſcruple for the propagation of the Proteſtant Church of England, of which he was the Glorious founder, to ſet Aſide the Lawful and Undiſputed Succeſſion of his own Siſters, to Eſtabliſh the Crown in the Lady Jane Grey, who he knew wou'd carry on the Work of Reformation.

There's an Inſtance of the Zeal for Succeſſion in the Right Line, in the Firſt Proteſtant Head that ever the Church of England had.

After this, the Goſpellers, that is, the Church of England Proteſtants of Suffolk, having ſome ſenſe of Injury done to the Princeſs Mary, and willing to have the Succeſſion go on in the Right Line, provided they cou'd both preſerve their Re⯑ligion and Loyalty too, capitulate with her, and promiſe to ſtand by her, provided ſhe wou'd promiſe to preſerve, and make no Alteration in their Eſtabliſh'd Church of England.

Here the Church of England Men own'd the Liberty of their Religion to be ſuperior to their Loyalty to her; and that they had a Right to Submit, or not to Submit, as their Liberty was, or was not, ſecure; and accordingly Conditio⯑ned with her, before they wou'd Acknowledge her to be their Queen.

And we ſee how Heaven puniſh'd them for venturing on the Word of a Prince, when their Religion and Liberty was at Stake.

In this Queen's Time the Church having been again Sup⯑preſſed, and Popery Erected, Sir Thomas Wyatt, an Honeſt Church of England Proteſtant, with a very good Body of Men, took up Arms againſt their Lawful Prince, for brea⯑king her Word in Defence of their Dear Religion, Eſtablish'd by Bleſſed King Edward, which were the very Words of the Manifeſto they Publiſh'd: The Londoners, with 800 Men, ſent by the Queen againſt them, thought it no Treachery to Deſert their Lawful Popiſh Queen, and go over to their Proteſtant Church of England Brethren.

We have nothing to do with the juſtification of this Fact; 'tis ſufficient that ſo it was▪ and that theſe were Proteſtants [12] of the Church of England, in the firſt and pureſt Part of their Principles, and let them juſtifie the Fact, if they pleaſe.

Queen Elizabeth Succeeds, and then the Church of England ſhone in its Meridian Glory, and then grew up ſome, who aiming, as I ſaid before, at a further Reformation; and the Church refuſing to hearken to it, form'd a new party of Diſ⯑ſenters, and thoſe were call'd Puritans, and ſince that, Phana⯑ticks.

Now I Challenge the Defender of this Cauſe to tell me one Diſſoyal Act, one Plot againſt the Government, one Diſturbance of the Civil Peace, among theſe Diſſenters, from the begining of this Queen, which was their own begining, to the Reign of King Charles I. which was a continu'd Term of 80 Years, and yet, during this time, they ſuffer'd all man⯑ner of Indignities, Reproaches, Finings, Impriſonings, Ba⯑niſhment, Confiſcations, and Corporal Puniſhments.

So that hitherto the Paſſive Obedience of the Diſſenters hath far exceeded that of the Church of England. Theſe had but Five Years Oppreſſion under Queen Mary, and in that Five Years they once Capitulated with their Sovereign to make her Queen upon Conditions, and once took Arms againſt her after ſhe was Queen; and by that I muſt always underſtand, that if they did not Depoſe and Deſtroy her, it was becauſe they cou'd not; and if they had done it, no doubt they had cauſe ſufficient to juſtifie them before God and Man. The Puritans af⯑ter this ſuffered all that their too cruel Breth'en of the Church of England laid upon them during Three tedious Reigns, be⯑fore they ſo much as made the leaſt offer at doing themſelves Juſtice; and for 80 Years together exercis'd that Paſſive Obe⯑dience which they never pretended to.

A laſt they took Arms; and when they did, they did it to Purpoſe, carried all before them, ſubdued Monarchy, cut off their King's Head, and all that.

After the Reſtoration things began to return to their old Cha [...]e [...], and 30 Years more the Diſſenters endur'd a [...]other Egyptian Servitude; were Perſecuted, Plunder'd, Indicted, Impriſon'd, plagu'd with Impoſitions, Stigmatiz'd with a [13] Thouſand Reproaches; their Meeting-houſes Demoliſh'd, their Eſtates Confiſcated, their Perſons Excommunicated, and Anathamatis'd, Sworn into Plots they never heard of, and into Crimes they never Commited, Dragg'd to Goals, Gibbets and Scaffolds; Pand the like. All this while Paſſive Obedience, if there were any ſuch thing, was found among them more than any where elſe; for here was no Rebellions, no Inſurrection, nor breaking of the Peace by the Diſſenters, notwithſtanding all theſe Oppoſitions.

After this comes King James the Second to the Crown, and he turn'd the Scale, and, together with Invaſion of Li⯑berty, falls upon the Church, begins to Rifle her of her Tro⯑phies, for no Eſſentials had been touch'd, and how long did She bear it? Not 80 Years, not [...]0 Years, no, not ſo many Months.

What did ſhe do? Truly nothing but what ſhe ought to have done; Defend her Liberty and Religion by Force, a⯑gainſt unjuſt Invaſion and Tyranny; nothing but what all the Nations in the World have done, and wou'd do again, if they cou'd.

The only Error we Charge upon the Church of England, was ſetting up pretences of what they really wou'd not Pra⯑ctice; crying up themſelves for Fools, when we knew they were Wiſer Men; calling themſelves humble Slaves, but when the Tryal came, proving Stubborn, Refractory, Liberty-Mongers, even as bad as the worſt Whig or Phanatick of them all.

For the Future, then if a Humble Moderator might be permited to give Advice to the Gentlemen of the Church of England, it ſhou'd be in theſe ſhort and friendly Terms.

Pray Gentlemen never be Impoſed upon, to pretend to more Loyalty and more ſlaviſh Principles than you intend to Practice.

Never pretend to more Obedience than your Sovereign Requires. Our Late King, who I am not aſham'd to ſhow as a Patern for future Ages, requir'd; and Her preſent Ma⯑jeſty, without Affront to Her Majeſty's Authority, it may be ſaid, requires no further Obedience from the People of England, than the Laws of England requires.

[24] To Govern according to Law, is a full Satisfaction to the People, and to obey according to Law, is a full Satisfaction to the Sovereign. The Laws are the Teſt both of the Roy⯑al Authority, and of the Subjects Obedience, and to pretend to more Obedience than the Law requires, is abuſing your Prince, and abuſing your Selves.

Never be aſham'd to own with your Brethren, the Whigs, that you are willing to Submit to Authority, but that you ex⯑pect to be Govern'd according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm.

Let the Scotch Motto be ſet upon your Liberties, and ac⯑cording to your conſtant Practice, as well as ours: Let all Men know you deſign to make it Good. Nemo me Impune Laceſſit.

And as it really never was the Principle of the Church of England, nor were a hundreth Part of the Members of the Church tainted with it; ſo for the future 'tis hoped you will not ſuffer ſuch to Mingle themſelves among you, or to Act in the Name of the Church of England, who pretend to a Blind Abſolute Obedience to Princes.

And Laſtly, Gentlemen, a little more Modeſty to your Humble Servants you Proteſtant Brethren, the Diſſenters, or Whigs; I mean as to Matter of Loyalty: For in Truth, Gentlemen, we do not ſee any Reaſon you have to Reproach us in that Matter, you being in every Particular as faulty that way as your Neighbours.