Vindication of the Letter Concerning Bishop Lakes Declaration, Letter

Vindication of the Letter Concerning Bishop Lakes Declaration · Letter

A VINDICATION OF THE LETTER out of the North, Concerning Biſhop LAKE's Declaration of his dying in the Belief of the Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience, &c. In Anſwer to a late PAMPHLET, called, The Defence of the Profeſſion, &c. of the ſaid Biſhop. As far as it concerns the Perſon of Quality.

LICENS'D, Jan. 27. 1689/90.

LONDON; Printed for Awnſham Churchill, at the Sign of the Black Swan, near Amen-Corner. 1690.

p. 3A VINDICATION OF THE LETTER out of the North, &c.

DEAR SIR,

I Deferred my Thanks for your Laſt, till I could tell you I had received the little Pamphlet, wherein you thought I had ſome concern, therefore if this appear a ſlow Return to yours, you are to blame the Carrier's pace, which was not like to mend in ſo bad Weather and Ways. But this is to own that I yeſterday received it; and being at preſent from my own Houſe, and wanting the convenience of my Books and Papers here, I thought it better to give you an account of thoſe things which a firſt and ſecond Reading ſuggeſted, than to take a longer time to conſider of it, and thereby raiſe your Expectations beyond what I can come up to. But beſides, the Letter you ſent me being both without Date and Licence, I know not how long I may have been in this worthy Author's Debt, and therefore make all the haſte I can to get out of it. For altho I did not intend to have troubled either him or the World with any more of my Pamphlets, yet the Reſpect that he is pleaſed to ſhew to my Quality, is ſo particular and obliging, that I was afraid I ſhould have diſperaged my Breeding, if I had not made my Acknowledgments for it. I might indeed have returned his Complement, and begg'd your Pardon for giving you a trouble for which there is ſo little occaſion; for I believe there are ſome that think his Letter does as little need an p. 4Anſwer as mine did. But I'le aſſure you I am very ſenſible of his Favour in taking notice of ſuch a Trifle, when ſo many learned and weighty Treatiſes lie by him unanſwered; therefore ſhall not ſuppoſe he pick'd mine out becauſe it was the weakeſt, but becauſe there was ſomething in it that deſerved an Anſwer. But yet I muſt not be ſo vain as to aſſume all the good Language in the Book to my ſelf; for, to ſpeak the Truth, he has pretty equally diſpenced his Favours between three of us; but mine being the largeſt Part, I ſhall leave the other two to anſwer for themſelves, while I admire the Author's dexterity in knocking down three at one blow; I have indeed heard of killing two Birds with one ſtone before, but three at a time, beſides routing a whole Party, is ſo extraordinary, that I begin to fear Bombs will come in faſhion in this kind of War alſo, for one ſingle Bullet could never have made ſuch Deſtruction: But if there be ſuch Execution by the by, alas, what will become of me, againſt whom the murderous Engine was directly levelled? But you will ſuppoſe that I have a little too much buſineſs on my hands to make a long Preamble, therefore ſhall proceed to the Letter, and take it as it riſes.

And in the firſt place, he preſents us with a ſhort, and ſo very ſhort an Account of the good Biſhop's Life, from his Cradle to his laſt Sickneſs, that I have nothing to except againſt it, but that it is no longer; and to beg leave to inform the Author a little better in one Paſſage of it,Page 4. which I muſt confeſs I did a little wonder to ſee inſiſted on, becauſe that of his expoſing himſelf to the Rabble was not by his Friends look'd on as the moſt prudent Act of his Life. But the Truth as well as the Short of the Story, is this: They have for a long time at York had a Cuſtom (which now challenges the Priviledg of a Preſcription) that all the Apprentices, Journy-men, and other Servants of the Town, had the liberty to go into the Cathedral, and ring the Pancake-Bell (as we call it in the Country) on Shrove-Tueſday; and that being a time that a great many came out of the Country to ſee the City, (if not their Friends) and Church; to oblige the ordinary People, the Minſter uſed to be left open that day, to let them go up to ſee the Lanthorn and Bells, which were ſure to be pretty well exerciſed, and was thought a p. 5more innocent Divertiſement than being at the Alehouſe. But Dr. Lake, when he came firſt to reſide there, was very much ſcandaliz'd at this Cuſtom, and was reſolved he would break it at firſt daſh, altho all his Brethren of the Clergy did diſſwade him from it. For altho they had as much Zeal both for the Honour of God and the Church as he could have, yet being better acquainted with the Temper of the People than he was, they knew it would be a vain, as well as hazardous thing to attempt it: but all their Arguments could not prevail, for he was reſolved to make the Experiment, for which he had like to have paid very dear, for I'le aſſure you 'twas very near coſting him his Life, and others too, that in kindneſs came at firſt to diſſwade him, but had much ado to ſecure themſelves. But however he did make ſuch a Combuſtion and Mutiny, that I dare ſay York never remembred nor ſaw the like, as many yet living can teſtify. But how well ſoever the good Man deſigned in the thing, (as I verily believe he did) yet his Zeal was ſo indiſcreetly managed, that it had like to have produced the worſt of Miſchiefs; and therefore in ſome Peoples Opinion, that were better Judges of the Fact than I was, he did not deſerve any Encomium for it. But however at this time it would not be very reaſonable to follow ſuch an Example, which was all I took notice of it for.

The other memorable Thing he relates,Page 2. of his entring into Epiſcopal Orders in the time of the late Diſtractions, is truly praiſe-worthy, altho he is not the only Man that did it; for I know one that now fills as eminent a Place in the Church as Bp Lake ever did, that did the ſame thing, and that under more diſcouraging Circumſtances, for he had not only the Danger of the Times to contend with, but was to reject the Importunity of his Friends alſo, nay more than that, to overcome himſelf, and root out all thoſe Prejudices that a contrary Education (for he was brought up a ſtrict Presbyterian) and Prepoſſeſſion had implanted in him, which were indeed ſuch Difficulties as might have diſcouraged any body but himſelf, but by God's Grace he overcame them all, and is now as uſeful, as eminent in that Church, to which he dedicated himſelf ſix years before K. Charles the 2d's Reſtoration. But I do not ſay this to derogate from Bp Lake, p. 6for the more Inſtances the better, of ſuch heroick Vertue; therefore could have wiſh'd that our Author had given us a larger Account of that excellent Biſhop, whoſe Life I dare ſay might have furniſhed him with a great many more remarkable Paſſages; however I think there is nothing more that I need inſiſt upon in the firſt Part, for I do not know that I ever queſtioned either the Biſhop's making of the Profeſſion, or the Solemnity of the Circumſtances with which it was done, therefore muſt crave leave to tell my Author, that he has a little miſtaken the Point, for 'twas not the making, but the publiſhing of it that I excepted againſt: for to another body it would be pretty evident that it was only the publiſhing of it that ſeemed ſo unaccountable to me, although indeed it's a Parentheſis, and only in that, is ſaid, That there ſeemed no greater occaſion for the making of it, than there was for my Lord Archbiſhop to put out Manifeſto's to tell the People he is ſuſpended on the ſame account. (for theſe are the very Words of the Letter:) and where the great offence of them lies, or the angry Objection againſt the making of the Proteſtation, I muſt confeſs I do not yet ſee. For I hope the putting him in the ſame form with his Grace of Canterbury, could be no Affront or Diſparagement; however I dare ſay the good Biſhop would not have thought it ſo. But the Perſon of Quality is upon all occaſions ſo extreamly obliged to this worthy Author, that 'tis all one what I ſay, for even my own Encomiums meet with this Return; for theſe are his Words, His Civility and due Reſpect for the Memory of the late Reverend Biſhop,Page 13. I ſhould with all Thankfulneſs moſt readily acknowledg, if I could think it not deſigned, with the better Grace and more Ceremony, to caſt a blemiſh upon one of the laſt and moſt ſolemn Acts of his Life. But I wonder how long he and the Perſon of Quality have been ſo intimately acquainted; for although I am ſure he does not know my Face, yet he pretends to know my Heart a great deal better than I do my ſelf, (if the Inferences he is pleaſed to make in this and ſome other Places are true) for I can aſſure you he tells me of Deſigns I never thought on. But ſince he makes ſuch Objections▪ I hope he will take care to anſwer them, for I thank God I am not at all concerned to do it. But in the mean p. 7time he did very well to ſlip his own Neck out of the Collar; and though he pretends to anſwer my Letter, yet waves the main Point, which was the Deſign of publiſhing the Proteſtation; which he tells us does not at all concern his Friends, who had no hand in it. But truly that would hardly be credible, if he did not affirm it; for not many lines before, the Perſon of Quality is accuſed for deſigning to caſt a Blemiſh on the laſt and moſt ſolemn Act of his Life. Upon which, if this be true, it ſeems his Friends ſet no very great Value; for methinks 'tis pretty odd that what was ſigned and aſſerted ſo ſolemnly, ſhould be immediately ſo expoſed, that the Witneſſes and Friends, ſhould neither know how, nor why it was made publick; but that was a Query that I believe it was not convenient to anſwer, and ſo did very well to ſtart a new Queſtion; and although he will not tell you why the Profeſſion was publiſh'd (though he knows it as well as moſt Men in England) yet he will tell you as good a thing, and that is, the reaſon why the Biſhop made it. But before he can do that, he muſt have t'other fling at the Perſon of Quality, in whom he has made ſuch Diſcoveries, as I dare ſay, you in ſo many Years Acquaintance have never made. But Quality indeed, were a very deſirable thing, if it would make one more ſagacious than other People; but poor I, am like to loſe my Gentility, becauſe I am not ſo quick-ſighted, as to ſee what is ſo obvious to Perſons of leſs Rank and Quality, than I would be thought of; for ſtill he will be divining my Thoughts, but has hitherto been ſo much out, that I would not adviſe him to ſet up for a Fortune-Teller, of all things, unleſs he can make better Gueſſes at other Peoples Hands, than he has from my Writing: for although I do extreamly value the Eſteem of good Men, yet I never deſired either to be, or to be thought a great Man. So that without any Offence, he may believe me a Chimney-Sweeper, or a Cobler, if he pleaſes.

But now he tells us,Page 14. That all Men of Reaſon, knew that the Reaſons for the Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience could not be contained in ſo ſmall a Compaſs, and are not well conſiſtent with the Deſign of a Profeſſion. But if the Deſign of it was to give the World Satisfaction, and that in a Controverted Point, which was no Fundamental of the Faith, nor any p. 8way eſſential either to the Being or Well-being of the Church; then I cannot think it would have been ſuperfluous to have ſubjoined the Reaſons that made him of that Opinion, rather than of the other. For there being as many great and good Men too, of the other Side, Biſhop Lake's bare Name and Opinion is not of Weight enough to turn the Scales, and ſo we of the Laity muſt ſtill remain in Suſpence: For we muſt diſſent from ſome of our Reverend Fathers in God, let us take which ſide we pleaſe; and being willing to hear both, ſhould have been very glad to have ſeen the Biſhop's Reaſons for his adhering ſo ſtifly to that Doctrine. For, with Submiſſion to the Reverend Author, what Satisfaction ſoever it might give the good Biſhop in the making, the publiſhing has not given the World very much, for it only tells us, That he lived and died in that Opinion: For really, I cannot yet ſee any great Weight in that Argument of his having been bred and born in it; Nay, indeed, I think it is no Argument at all; for it being common to all Religions, cannot be a Proof of the Truth of any. And thoſe which do lay any great Weight upon that, I ſhould ſuſpect had but very little to ſay for that Religion, or Opinion, that muſt be adhered to only on that account. But to prove the Properneſs of the Argument, the Author is pleaſed to cite the ſaying of St. Polycarp, Who when,Page 24. at his Martyrdom, he was offered his Life if he would revile our Saviour, anſwered, That he had now ſerved him 86 Years, and he never did me, ſays he, any Injury, and how can I blaſpheme my King and my Saviour? This was (adds my Author) thought ſo conſiderable, as to be recorded in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory, and delivered down to Poſterity. Though I ſuppoſe it can be no more imagined that Chriſtians only lived then to 86 Years of Age, than that only Men of the Church of England now are bred and born in their Religion. But what then? for really he would have obliged ſuch a dull Creature as the Perſon of Quality is mightily, if he would have told him the Inference that he is to make from this extraordinary Compariſon: For all that I can make of it is this, In Polycarp's Days, other People beſides himſelf lived to be 86 Years old. Ergo, Biſhop Lake's being bred and born in the p. 9Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience, is an undeniable Proof of the Truth of it. And in his next Paragraph he brings another Evidence for the Antiquity of it, that I think is not much ſhort of this, as to the end it was deſigned for; for he tells us,Page 25. The Biſhop had lived to hear it affirmed, that Paſſive Obedience was a Doctrine of but 40 or 50 Years ſtanding. But his Teſtimony alone being ſufficient to confute that Error, it was moſt proper and requiſite for him to aver, that he was educated in that Doctrine, and that it was not only as old as he could remember, who was now 65 Years of Age, but that it was taught him as an ancient Doctrine. And this, Sir (ſays he) was the way of maintaining the Truth of old, by pleading againſt Hereticks. What? by bringing a Youth of 15 Years old (for Biſhop Lake was no more 50 Years ago) to depoſe for the Antiquity of a Doctrine, and by the ſingle Inſtance of his being brought up in it, prove the Univerſality of it. And if this be ſuch convincing Evidence of his ſide, and if he would pleaſe to give us leave to bring in our Witneſſes, 'tis poſſible we might produce as ancient and authentick Perſons, who would tell us another Story. Although truly for my own part, I can eaſily believe the Doctrine to be of a much ancienter date than fifty Years, and 'tis poſſible might be taught by ſome from the Reformation. For there was ſome reaſon to cajole Henry the Eighth, and ſo to make him more favourable to them, they might tell him what good Paſſive Subjects they were like to make; which was a thing he liked very well, and therefore it might be a prevalent Argument with him to encourage them as much as he could; but for all that, I am very far from believing it was the Faith of the whole Clergy, either then, or at any time ſince; but yet believe it gained more ground ſince King Charles's Reſtauration, and was more generally received than ever it was before; but yet for all that, Sir, I am ſure that both you and I know ſome of the eminent Fathers of our Church, who never owned it in that Latitude that Biſhop Lake and ſome others preach'd it up at. But after all, the Truth is, no Doctrine ought to be valued for the Antiquity, but the Truth of it. For at that rate Heatheniſm might claim the Preference to Chriſtianity, becauſe 'tis certain it had the Precedence of it; but Truth is p. 10Truth, though reveal'd but yeſterday, and Error not the leſs Error (but the more to be avoided) for being of ſome hundred of Years ſtanding. But for all thoſe weighty Reaſons for the Biſhop's making this Profeſſion, I cannot ſay that I yet ſee any Reaſon to change my Opinion. For I do ſtill believe that his ſubmitting to a Suſpenſion, was a more convincing Proof of his Opinion, than a thouſand Volumns; nay, I will ſay, than a thouſand ſuch Proteſtations: For I dare appeal to the Author himſelf, whether if Biſhop Lake had not ſubmitted to Suſpenſion, he would have believed this or any other Proteſtation of that Nature that he could have made; ſo that it ſtill ſeems very evident to me, that though he made it to pleaſe himſelf, yet there was no Neceſſity on the Biſhop's Account to make it publick; the World being as much ſatisfied of his Opinion as they could be. But although the Author does not think fit to tell us what were the Deſigns of publiſhing it, yet he is pleaſed to quarrel with the Inferences I make from it, but how juſtly, you ſhall ſee preſently: For I thank him, inſtead of confuting, he has confirm'd my firſt Inference, ſo that truly I have no Reaſon to be offended, although he ſays he has now found out the Cauſe why I am ſo. But at this time the Perſon of Quality is not a Community, but ſpeaks only for himſelf in his private Capacity; ſo that I dare not undertake for others, to whom perhaps he has given Provocation enough: but they being to be Judges in that Matter, I have nothing more to ſay to that, only to obſerve, that inſtead of denying what I charged the Profeſſion with, the cutting off the Clergy in Queen Elizabeth's Days, he does now abſolutely cut off the greateſt part of our Clergy now, that is, I am ſure the major part of the Biſhops of this Kingdom, from being true Sons of the Church of England; for which, if you pleaſe, you may read his own Words;Page 25. where repeating my firſt Inference, which was to ſuppoſe that the Proteſtation did inſinuate that from the beginning of the Reformation, ever ſince the Church of England was reſtored to its Purity, Paſſive Obedience was the Corner-ſtone of it, for 'tis call'd (though he omits that Clauſe, which perhaps is the Reaſon he does not underſtand the Epithite) the diſtinguiſhing p. 11Character of the Church of England. To which he replies, That whatever my meaning may be in calling it the Corner-Stone, he muſt tell me plainly, That Paſſive Obedience has been ever the Doctrine of the Church of England. And when I ſay afterwards, So that it ſeems none were accounted her true Sons, that did not hold it; if he means, that none beſides were accounted to hold her Doctrines whole and entire, or to hold all the Truth which ſhe teaches, the Deſign of the Paper is to aſſert it too.

But here I muſt admire the Author's Cunning extreamly, though I cannot much commend either his Ingenuity or good Nature; for although he does very peremptorily in his own Name tell the Perſon of Quality plainly, That Paſſive Obedience has been ever the Doctrine of the Church of England, yet he is ſo kind to Biſhop Lake as to allow him the Honour of condemning all that did not receive it: For he owns it was the Deſign of the Paper to aſſert they were not true Sons that did not. But, firſt, I would know by what particular Priviledg it is, that Biſhop does take upon him to cenſure ſo many of his Brethren; and in the next Place I would be willing to be informed what Authority the Author had to pronounce ſuch a Sentence againſt ſo many of his Superiours. But whether he will think fit to anſwer theſe two Queries or no, we have got a good Experiment by the by; for although at firſt he pretended Ignorance as to the Deſign of publiſhing the Paper, he now owns it with a Witneſs, by which it ſeems the Perſon of Quality was not ſo very much out in his Gueſs; but however, he did very wiſely to lay all the Blame on the poor Biſhop.

But by the Treatment the Living Clergy receive from him, you may ſuppoſe the Dead had not fared much better; for they had all certainly been cut off at one ſlap, but that, by good Fortune for them, he can bring them over to his Party. But that is the thing now to be examined; though having not at preſent the command of my Books, (as I told you at the beginning) I ſhall take the Gentleman's Quotations, hoping he has dealt a little more faithfully with his Authors, than he has with the Perſon of Quality in ſome places, as I ſhall ſhew hereafter.

p. 12And ſince for Expedition-ſake I allow all his Citations; all that remains for me to conſider, is, Whether his Inferences from them will hold or no. And in anſwer to what I urged of the Clergies giving Queen Elizabeth three ſuch conſiderable Subſidies on the account of her aſſiſting and protecting the Scotiſh and French Proteſtants, &c. he is pleaſed to undertake to prove two things: Firſt, That Queen Elizabeth did not aſſiſt the Scots or French in any Rebellion, but always declared the contrary. But before he comes to that, he is to premiſe two things, which I ſhall very willingly yield him; The Firſt is, that for Soveraign Princes in War to ſerve themſelves of the Treachery and Revolt of another Prince's Subjects, is no more than what is always done, and is by the Law of Nations held lawful, and the neceſſity of Affairs ſeems to require it. Secondly, That it is lawful for Princes to make the beſt Terms they can, for Subjects that have been ſerviceable to their Intereſt in a juſt War, tho by Rebellion againſt their own Prince.

And now it may not be amiſs to collect the Obſervations theſe two Poſitions will afford us: for the Premiſſes being granted on both ſides, I hope the Concluſions will not be denied by either. And from the firſt we may infer that 'tis not only lawful, but ſometimes neceſſary, to encourage Rebellion in a neighbouring Prince's Kingdom; or elſe I cannot very eaſily imagine what he means by ſaying, The neceſſity of Affairs ſeems to require it. For it ſeems the Good and Preſervation of a Nation is a thing of ſuch vaſt Concern, that Princes are diſpenſed with, and not obliged by the Rules of common Juſtice (as he himſelf tells us in the ſame page.) And ſince he is pleaſed to grant this, I know not why he ſhould ſtick at the further Conſequence, which he is ſenſible does naturally enough flow from the former, and therefore would prevent the Objection: And ſays, 'tis no good Conſequence that Subjects may rebel, becauſe foreign Princes may take advantage by their Rebellion to recover their own Rights, or to ſecure their Dominions. But if it be lawful for a King, for the Security of his own People, to raiſe or foment a Rebellion in his Neighbour's Country, I cannot ſee but it may be as lawful for Subjects to aſſert their own Rights againſt their own Prince, as it is to ſecure themſelves p. 13by ſetting others Subjects againſt their King, unleſs he will pleaſe to ſay that Subjects have no Intereſt nor Concern in the common Safety, but are obliged to ſtand ſtill to have their Throats cut, which would be a pretty odd Superſtructure upon the Foundation he juſt now laid. For ſurely the Diſpenſation that he ſays is given to Princes, by which they are exempt from following the Rules of Common Juſtice, was not given on their own but the Peoples account. And if a petty Prince may lawfully engage all the great Kingdoms of Europe in War and Confuſion for the Security of his own Subjects, ſhall the Rights of thoſe Subjects be ſo inconſiderable to them, that they muſt loſe them tamely, if their Prince ſhould miſtake his Office, or miſemploy his Power, and ſubvert thoſe Rights he is obliged to maintain? For although, by our Author's own Poſition, Kings may lawfully do unjuſt things for the Preſervation of the Rights and Liberties of their Subjects; yet neither this Author, nor any I have yet met with, will ſay that it is lawful for a King to deſtroy his Subjects, or ſubvert the Government, although indeed ſome have ſaid that we ought to ſubmit and be paſſive if they will do it. But truly our Author has given us too high a value of our Priviledges (which it ſeems are to be preferr'd before our King's Virtue and Juſtice) to make us part with them ſo eaſily. But perhaps we may be a little miſtaken in the Nature of Rebellion, and it may not be ſo great a Sin in ſome Countries as others; and ſo we may lawfully excite them to that which we are not to commit our ſelves: But beſides that, this is a little too much encroaching upon the Devil's Office, who was firſt known by the name of Tempter among Men, (and truly much upon the ſame ſcore that he allows Princes to do it for the Preſervation and Enlargement of their own Dominions) but beſides this, I ſay, if it be but a ſmall Sin in compariſon in other Countries to what it would be here; yet ſince our Saviour hath told us, Mat. 5. 19. That he that teacheth Men to break one of the leaſt Commandments, ſhall be the leaſt in the Kingdom of Heaven; I thought this had been as ſtanding a Rule of the Church of England as Paſſive Obedience it ſelf. For to make another body ſin, I always thought not a leſſer, but a higher Guilt, than to commit it my ſelf, having p. 14his Fact, as well as my own Contrivance, to anſwer for. For I think I may as lawfully be drunk my ſelf, as deſignedly make another ſo. And in another Vice, the Procurer is thought more inexcuſable and odious too, than the Party that employed them, who may perhaps be under a greater Temptation. But however, this is evident, that 'tis not the doing of the thing, but the taking pleaſure in them that do it, that is by the Apoſtle, Rom. 1. 32. ſet down for the higheſt pitch of Sin and Wickedneſs. Therefore if, as our Auther has obſerved, the neceſſity of Affairs ſhould require us to become Tempters, let us not aſſume the other part of the Devil's Title, and turn Accuſers of our Brethren alſo, and condemn them for that to which we have betrayed them, but find ſome gentler Name for that which our Author grants may not be only uſeful, but ſometimes neceſſary, for the Preſervation of a Nation. But although I have been longer on this than I deſigned, yet I muſt not wholly balk the ſecond Poſition, for that will afford us ſome very uſeful Obſervations, for he tells us, 'Tis lawful for Princes to make the beſt Terms they can for Subjects that have been ſerviceable to their Intereſts in a juſt War, though by Rebellion againſt their own Prince. From which we may gather, that our Author thinks it poſſible for Subjects to be engaged in a juſt War againſt their own Prince: And if they may with Juſtice fight againſt their King for another Prince's Right, I cannot at all underſtand why they may not for their own. For ſurely the Safety of my own Country ought to be dearer to me than all the World beſides; and I have more Reaſon to defend the Rights and Priviledges of that, than all the Princes Titles in the World. But if our Author ſhould not allow all the Inferences I have made from his Conceſſions, yet I have a great deal of Reaſon to thank him for them, becauſe they will not only be of uſe to me hereafter, but do at preſent in great meaſure ſupercede what I ſhould elſe have ſaid to his Hiſtory. For 'tis perfectly indifferent to me, whether Queen Elizabeth did aſſiſt the French and Scotiſh Proteſtants or no, ſince by his firſt Poſition he grants, She might have ſerv'd her ſelf of the Treachery and Revolt of other Princes Subjects. For 'twas the lawfulneſs of the Action, and not the p. 15Fact it ſelf, that was the great point in queſtion: and ſince he allows ſhe might have aſſiſted them, though they had been Rebels, we will never quarrel about it, whether they were ſo or no. For truly, the Perſon of Quality is very well pleaſed that he has ſo learned an Author of his ſide, that proves all he deſires ſhould be aſſerted in the point: For ſince he will allow the French Proteſtants were not Rebels, becauſe they had the Law of their ſide: Nor were the Netherlands guilty of Rebellion againſt the King of Spain, becauſe he firſt acted contrary to the Laetus Introitus, Page 33.and diſengaged them from their Obedience, when he had broke the Condition of it. If he will but pleaſe to be as gracious to his own Country-men, and allow them the benefit of their own Laws, and ſuffer the Oaths of Princes to be as binding in England, as it ſeems they then were in Spain, I know no body that will deſire any more of him. Nay, I will go farther than this; for if he can name any one Perſon that was a Rebel to King James after the Allowances above are granted him; rather than he ſhould go unpuniſh'd, I think I ſhould be his Executioner; for I hate thoſe that rebel againſt, and break the Laws, as much as the Author can do: And ſince Rebellion is ſo horrid a Sin, I would not have England to have the Encloſure of it; but only deſire that we may be allowed to fight for our Laws and Liberties, as other Nations do, without being thought Rebels for ſo doing. But if our Author will not allow us the ſame Priviledges he gives to all the World beſide, there would be ſome reaſon to ſuſpect that he deſigns us the Monopoly of that he ſo exclaims againſt; and is ſo particularly kind to his own Country, as ſometimes to lay them under the unhappy neceſſity of being either Rebels or Slaves. And I have ſomething the more Reaſon to fear this, becauſe I find he is not ſo ſollicitous to clear the Scots from the imputation of Rebels, as he is the French and Dutch. But let them be what they will, you ſee 'tis evident Queen Elizabeth did not aſſiſt them; ſhe only furniſh'd them with Men, Money, and Ammunition. And when the Queen of Scots came and flung her ſelf into her Protection, and implored her Aid for reſtoring her to her Crown, ſhe then aſſerted her Cauſe with a witneſs. For had that unhappy Princeſs truſted to the Mercy of her Subjects, p. 16as great Rebels as they were, I am ſure they could not have treated her worſe than ſhe was uſed by that Queen, who our Author tells us, always declared againſt any Protection of Subjects in their Reſiſtance, which ſhe always called Rebellion. But I ſuppoſe Princes are no more obliged to ſpeak Truth, than they are tied to do Juſtice; for which our Author gave them a Diſpenſation before.

But I think it now time to proceed to the 2d thing he undertook to prove, which is, That it was the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time, that it is unlawful for Subjects to reſiſt, and that therefore our Divines juſtified the French and Dutch no otherwiſe than upon Principles which are conſiſtent with this Doctrine. And truly if our Author hold in the ſame mind he was when he promiſed the two Poſitions (before enlarged on) and acquitted the French from Rebellion, becauſe they had the Law of their Side; and the Dutch, becauſe their King had forfeited his Right to their Obedience by breaking his part of the Pact and Stipulation between them; I do not ſee but he and I ſhall agree in this, as well as the Divines of this Age do with thoſe in Queen Elizabeth's Days. For I ſuppoſe the Convocation at that time did approve of Biſhop Bilſon his Sentiments as to that matter; for the Author tells us the Book was peruſed and allowed by publick Authority, and alſo dedicated to the Queen; ſo that it ſeems to be that which they were all willing to ſtand by. And I heartily wiſh that all our Biſhops would do ſo too, and make that very Paſſage he cites out of Biſhop Bilſon the Judg of the Controverſy; for then I think it would be pretty ſoon decided; and therefore I ſhall tranſcribe the Place in the very ſame words he has done, page 33.

In France, the King of Navar and the Prince of Conde might lawfully defend themſelves from Injuſtice and Violence, and be aided by other Princes their Neighbours. If the King, as too mighty for them, ſought to oppreſs them, to whom they owe not ſimple Subjection, but reſpective Homage, as Scotland did to England, and Normandy to France, when the Kings notwithſtanding had bitter Wars each with other. The reſt of the Nobles p. 17that did aſſiſt them, if it were the King's Act that did oppreſs them and not the Guiſes, except the Laws do permit them means to ſave the State from open Tyranny, I will not excuſe; and yet the Circumſtances muſt be fully known before the Fact can be rightly diſcerned, with which I confeſs I am not ſo exactly acquainted. Now in this Paſſage here are three ſeveral things obſervable.

Firſt, He abſolutely acquits the King of Navar and Prince of Conde, but their Aſſociates only upon Suppoſition, that the Law permitted them to oppoſe the King's Tyranny; but the Guiſes Oppreſſion they might without Law. But although the Biſhop ſays, he will not excuſe thoſe that reſiſt the King without Law, yet it is pretty remarkable that he ſeems to ſuppoſe that even in ſuch a Caſe, there may be Circumſtances which may render them excuſable, and which ought to be fully known before the Fact can be diſcerned, and therefore he does forbear paſſing his Judgment on them, becauſe he is not thorowly acquainted with the Circumſtances. And now were all our Divines of this good Biſhop's Faith in this Point, or at leaſt had they but his Charity, and would not condemn their Brethren before they underſtood the Cauſe, they would certainly underſtand one another a little better than they do, or however there would be no Diviſions nor Schiſmes about it, which God grant they do not now make in the Church. But whatever others do, we are I hope ſure of our Reverend Author, for he has proved that the Clergy in Q. Elizabeth were of his Faith as to this Queſtion, therefore ſhould have thought it unneceſſary to have ſaid any thing more, but that for the Authors Information, I muſt anſwer an Objection or two about David, whoſe Example though ſo much recommended, might perhaps carry us farther, and give greater Liberties than the Perſon of Quality ever deſired; for I'le aſſure you, defenſive Arms will at any time content him.Page 39. But our Author is pleaſed to ask how it appears, David took up defenſive Arms, for the Homily tells us of no ſuch thing. But I can tell him of as Authentick a Book that does; nay that tells us a little more of David: for if he will pleaſe to p. 18read 1 Sam. 28. 2. and 29. 8. he will find it was not David's Fault that he did not uſe offenſive Weapons againſt Saul, if fighting againſt him be to be called ſo; for if we may believe his own Words, he certainly intended that as you may ſee, 1 Sam. 28. And it came to paſs in thoſe Days, that the Philiſtines gathered their Armies together for Warfare, to fight with Iſrael: and Achiſh ſaid anto David, Know thou aſſuredly, that thou ſhalt go out with me to battel, thou and thy Men. And David ſaid to Achiſh, Surely thou ſhalt know what thy Servant can do. And Achiſh ſaid to David, therefore will I make thee Keeper of mine Head for ever. And in Purſuance of this we find David and his Men attending Achiſh (the very Day before the Battel) as his particular Guard, which perhaps might be one thing that diſguſted the Lords of the Philiſtins ſo, that they would not let him go to fight with them; and Achiſh againſt his Will is forced to diſmiſs David, whoſe Expoſtulation, Chap. 29. 8. is very remarkable, for I think 'tis one of the moſt paſſionate things of the kind I have met with; And David ſaid unto Achiſh; But what have I done? and what haſt thou found in thy Servant ſo long as I have been with thee unto this Day? that I may not go fight againſt the Enemies of my Lord the King. And Achiſh was forced to command him a ſecond time, for you ſee he diſputed the firſt; which ſatisfies me that he was in earneſt, and was unwilling to return. And now what can be ſaid againſt ſo plain a Text? For my own part I can foreſee but two things: the Firſt, That David did diſſemble with Achiſh, and did not intend to fight: but that I think is a very unworthy Thought, for David had been a very baſe and ungrateful Man to have either deceived or betrayed Achiſh, who had given him Protection, and was ſo truly kind to him. The ſecond thing is, That a Subject may liſt himſelf under a Forreign Prince, and in his quarrel lawfully fight againſt their own King; and if ſo, then all that liſted themſelves under the Prince of Orange, might ſtill be as good Subjects to King James as David at that time was to Saul: And as to the proof of his taking up defenſive Arms, he may find that 1 Sam. 22. 2. And every one that was in Diſtreſs, and every one that was in Debt, and every one that was diſcontented, gathered themſelves p. 19unto him, and he became Captain over them. And here is as formal levying of War, as I think can be deſired, and if it was not to defend himſelf, I know not to what purpoſe it was; for if he deſired only Flight, he might have done that ſafer as well as privater by himſelf than with an Army. Nor was that Army of any uſe as to the gaining of the Crown after Saul's Death; for God commanded him to go and live at Hebron; where the Men of Judah of their own Accord went down and made him King, as he will find 2 Sam. 2. So that ſo many hundred Men from the beginning to the ending were of no uſe unleſs it were to defend him againſt Saul; and that he did deſign to have gariſon'd Keilah, but that God told him the Men of the Place would betray him: I think nothing can be more evident from any Text, in Spight of all the Author's Comments. But now he refers me to the laſt Homily againſt Rebellion, as I did him to the ſecond;Page 42. and asks me, whether King John's Subjects took up only defenſive Arms? But by Biſhop Bilſon's excellent Rule above cited, neither he nor I ought to judg them becauſe we do not, nor cannot know all their Circumſtances: For Hiſtorians are ſeldom ſo impartial as to give us all things in their true Colours. But the Deſign of that Homily was only to ſhew the Intolerableneſs of the Romiſh Yoke, and how impoſſible it was for them that depended on and obeyed the Pope to be good Subjects. But as for King John himſelf, he had been as great a Traitor, and uſed him that ſhould have been his Soveraign, as ill as his Subjects could do him; for all the World knows that he firſt uſurp'd the Crown, and then killed Prince Arthur that was the true Heir. And truly if their preſent Majeſties would have purſued King John's Method, they might before this have had as indiſputable a Title, and had as much Right to have been called Natural Soveraign Lord, as King John had. But ſhall they have the leſs Reſpect, and be the worſe thought on, becauſe they ſpared the Life of our late unfortunate King, and ſuffered him to eſcape when he was in their Power, nay would not abridg him of his Liberty, although they knew he would uſe it againſt their Intereſt? If this be the Quarrel that the Clergy have againſt King William, I ſhall admire their Politicks a great p. 20deal more than their Divinity. But to return to King John: What Cauſe our Anceſtors might have to repent them of their Wars againſt him I know not, but I believe their Poſterity think they have not much, for it produced thoſe great Priviledges wherein the Engliſh Subjects glory. The Charter obtained from him being the firſt part, or firſt Draught if you pleaſe, of the famous Magna Charta, confirmed afterwards by Henry the 3d. whom the Homily might have cited as well as King John, if it had been the Subjects Rebellion, and not the Pope's Uſurpation that they deſigned to declaim againſt. But although I am very far from juſtifying all that was done in thoſe two King's Reigns, yet I think verily the Author would have a harder Task to perſwade the People of England to give up the Advantages they hold from it. And I think I may undertake to call back both King James and Popery (for they deceive themſelves that think they are to be ſeparated, for could they have been divided he need never to have forſaken his Crown and Kingdom) when he ſhall prevail with the People of this Nation to give up their Magna Charta: For if the former never return (as I pray God they may not) till we are willing to part with the latter; both the Author and I may have Reaſon to ſay as Hezekiah does, Iſaiah 39. Good is the Word of the Lord, for Peace and Truth ſhall be in my Days. But although 'tis a very true Rule that we muſt not do Evil, that Good may come of it, yet when Evil is done (eſpecially if without our Conſent) it is certainly very lawful both to enjoy and rejoice in that Good which God Almighty by his infinite Wiſdom ſhall bring out of it; and if our Author is ſo tender conſcienced, that he is of another Mind, and will not receive Advantage from any thing which ſprings from other Peoples Sins, he muſt not only deny the Priviledges of his Birth-Right as an Engliſh-Man, but even his Chriſtianity alſo: For was there ever ſo horrid a Sin as crucifying the Son of God? And yet what a loſt undone World has this been, if that had not happened? And although for ten thouſand Worlds I would not be the Traytor Judas, nor any of the impenitent Jews, yet with what Hallelujahs ought we to celebrate that Divine Goodneſs, that from Man's p. 21greateſt Sin, and the Devil's higheſt Malice could thus work out Mans Salvation. And indeed Events of this Nature ſeem to be the great Abyſs of God's Wiſdom, as well as Goodneſs, which Man's ſhallow Reaſon muſt never pretend to ſound: but however we may adore what we cannot comprehend, and with the Apoſtle cry out, O Altitudo, Rom. 11. 33. Oh the Height and the Depth of the Riches, both of the Wiſdom and Knowledg of God! How unſearchable are his Judgments, and his Ways paſt finding out! And perhaps this might be a better Employment for all our Thoughts than to cenſure and quarrel with our Brethren, becauſe they are not of our Sentiments in all Points, and if they think themſelves ſo much in the Right, yet pray let them remember the Apoſtle's Rules, That they which are ſtrong ought to bear with the Infirmities of the weak, and not to pleaſe themſelves, Rom. 15. 1. And he alſo commands the Galatians, that they bear one anothers Burdens, and ſo to fulfil the Law of Chriſt. But alas, inſtead of following this Method, we rather chuſe to imitate the Scribes and Phariſees, who by laying heavy Burdens on other Mens Shoulders, thought to diſcharge their own Duty. But for all they ſat in Moſes's Seat, yet all their Comments on the Law were not true, nor were all Conjectures falſe that contradicted their received Opinions and Infallibility; which being no more intailed on the Chair now, than it was then, it would be very happy if all ſides would remember and obſerve Gamaliel's Advice to the Jews, who ſaid very well when he told them, Acts 5. 38. If this Counſel and Work be of Men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, leſt happily ye be found to fight againſt God. Therefore it would be Piety as well as Diſcretion for both ſides to attend a little, and not divide from, much leſs fall foul upon one another, till they are ſure that by ſo doing they ſhall not oppoſe God alſo. Although I muſt confeſs I have ſome Temptation to believe from what has already happened, that it is the Lords Doing; and that upon this Conſideration, that all the ways of returning to King James, are guarded by the blackeſt and fouleſt Sins that a Nation can poſſibly be guilty of; and you muſt break thorow, that is commit all of them before you can open p. 22any one Door for his Return. For 1ſt. There would be the greateſt Falſeneſs, and higheſt Ingratitude in the World, againſt a Prince that put his Life in his Hand, and expoſed his own Perſon to the greateſt Hazard to reſcue a periſhing Church and ſinking Nation. 2dly. No Perſon can ſo much as treat of ſuch a thing without incurring the Guilt of Treaſon, for by the ancient Laws of the Land 'tis Treaſon to conſpire againſt the King de facto. Then 3dly. There would be the ſame Guilt of Perjury in breaking an Oath to him as to King James. 4thly. They muſt betray God's Church, and the true Religion, and give up their Country to Ruin and Devaſtation; and conſequently have all the Blood to anſwer for, that ſhould be ſhed in ſuch an unhappy Revolution: So that were King James's Return a good Worth projecting for on other Accounts, yet that ſtanding Rule of St. Paul's, That you muſt not do Evil that Good may come of it, ought to deter any body from attempting it; but when the thing it ſelf, if compaſs'd, would be the greateſt Miſchief, it would then be the greateſt Height of Madneſs as well as Sin to go about it. For can any body think that the deſtroying a Church and Nation, nay extirpating the true Faith out of the World (that is, as far as we can go towards it) is ſo meritorious a thing, that it will legitimate the uſe of thoſe means, which it was not lawful to uſe, no not for the planting of the Goſpel; and if any Man can think this but a Jeſuit (for a good honeſt moral Papiſt I believe will not) I ſhould indeed think it a great Infatuation; but however that would not alter the Nature of things, but my Rule would ſtill remain unſhaken; for the way to Duty always lies plain and open, ſo that he that runs may read. And although ſometimes it may be attended with Sufferings, yet I am confident never any Perſon had the fatal Neceſſity of ſining laid on him, to enable him to diſcharge any Part of his Duty to God or Man. But I beg Pardon for this Digreſſion which proved longer than I at firſt deſigned it, but yet I ſhall not think it impertinent if it proves uſeful to the undeceiving of any that have been carried out of the way by the ſpecious Pretence of Loyalty. But to return to my Author.

p. 23And the next thing we are to conſider, is the Epithet of the diſtinguiſhing Character of the Church of England; and you may remember that I ask'd you whether you thought it neceſſary for particular Churches to have particular diſtinguiſhing Doctrines; for that to me it appear'd ſo far from neceſſary, that I thought it very inconvenient. But he tells us as to that, Whether diſtinguiſhing Doctrines be convenient or inconvenient, it is according as the Doctrines are good or bad. No doubt it is inconvenient to have bad diſtinguiſhing Doctrines, but it is as certain that it is very convenient for a Church to have diſtinguiſhing Doctrines, provided they be good ones, unleſs a Church can be obliged to err for Company, and to avoid Diſtinction. But I would be very glad to know upon what Theſis it is he grounds this dogmatical Concluſion, That a Church muſt needs err that holds only the Catholick Faith, and has not ſome particular Doctrine of its own to diſtinguiſh it from other Churches by. This did not ſeem to be the Rule of the Apoſtles, who when they were to preach to all the World, were ſo afraid of Diſtinction and Diviſions in their Churches, that before they parted, it is generally ſuppoſed they agreed of a common form of Words; which they all delivered to their Converts, and was not to be the diſtinguiſhing Doctrine of any particular Church, but the common Badg of their Chriſtianity, and is I ſuppoſe that to which St. Paul refers, when he charges his Son Timothy, to hold faſt the form of ſound Words, which thou haſt heard of me, 2 Tim. 1. 13. and he alſo tells us, that the Deſign of his leaving him at Epheſus was, that thou mighteſt charge ſome that they teach no other Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1. 3. And the firſt Requeſt that St. Paul makes to his Corinthians, is, That you all ſpeak the ſame things, and there be no Diviſions among you, but that you be perfectly joyn'd together in the ſame Mind, and in the ſame Judgment, 1 Cor. 1. 10. And this being a thing of ſuch extraordinary Concern, he does not only make uſe of his own Authority, but as it was the Cuſtom of the Jews to adjure by the Name of God when they would oblige any Perſon to anſwer truly, as the High Prieſt did to our Saviour, Mat. 22. 63. So how the Apoſtle uſhers in his Requeſt with the ſame Solemnity, p. 24Now I beſeech you, Brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt: thereby to oblige them the more carefully to obſerve what he ſays, from which you may gueſs how far he was from thinking diſtinguiſhing Doctrines neceſſary, that he would not tolerate them. And if Unity were ſo neceſſary among Chriſtians then, is it leſs ſo now? Or what Neceſſity is there of being ſo uncharitable as to ſuppoſe all the Churches erroneous in their Creeds but our ſelves? That 'tis now convenient for particular Churches to make new Articles of Faith, and have their diſtinguiſhing Doctrines, unleſs they will be obliged to err for Company. I thought it had been all along one of the great Charges againſt the Church of Rome their making ſuch large Addenda's to our Creed, and making the Belief of ſome Points neceſſary to Salvation, which neither our Saviour nor his Apoſtles taught: and that Churches abounding ſo with diſtinguiſhing Doctrines, and impoſing them upon others for Catholick Truths, has formerly been look'd upon as one of their great Errors; but I perceive, Sir, that was a great Miſtake, for this Learned Author tells me, That although the avoiding Diſtinction does not very well agree with the Practice of the Primitive Chriſtians; yet it agrees admirably with the Principles of Popery thus to avoid Diſtinction, which has its Numbers to boaſt on, when nothing elſe can be ſaid. But if their Unity and Number is the only thing that the Author has to object againſt the Papiſts, I could as ſoon be reconciled to their Uncharitableneſs as his; for Heaven I perceive is to be the Encloſure of his diſtinguiſhing Doctrines, or at leaſt no body is to be thought a Member of the true Church, unleſs they hold that, and this ſtrange Uncharitableneſs is that which does convince me of the great Inconvenience of diſtinguiſhing Doctrines; for generally ſpeaking all ſides are ſo apt to value themſelves upon them, that they are ready with the Men in the Prophet Iſaiah 65. 5. to cry, Stand by thy ſelf, come not near me, for I am holier than thou. And did we preſs our ſelves only for doing our Duty, and adhering to our Common Creed, it might be the more pardonable: But alas, 'Tis not the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. that we thus earneſtly contend for; for a Man may hold all that, and yet be pronounced a Heretick, p. 25unleſs he chance to agree with them in all their Opinions, which are now to be the Standard of our Faith. But whether the breach of Charity and Unity among our ſelves, is the readieſt way to build us up in our moſt holy Faith, our ſad Experience will I doubt too ſoon ſhew. But however, ſure I am it does not agree very well with Saint Jude's Method, ver. 21. who bids us keep our ſelves in the Love of God, and then we may look for the Mercy of Chriſt unto Eternal Life. But becauſe it is ſo poſſible to deceive our ſelves, Saint John has given us an infallible Criterion, whereby we may know whether we love God or no, for he tells us, 1 Epiſt. 4. 20. If a Man ſay he loveth God, and hateth his Brother, he is a Liar: for he that loveth not his Brother whom he hath ſeen, how can he love God whom he hath not ſeen? Therefore this Commandment have we from him, that he that loveth God, loveth his Brother alſo. Therefore ſince God has made our Brother, as it were, his Proxy to receive the Proofs of our Love to him; and our Saviour has made it the Badg of our Diſcipleſhip, By this ſhall all Men know that you are my Diſciples, if ye love one another: It is very unhappy that thoſe that pretend to be ſo, ſhould ſet up another Touch-ſtone for the Trial of their Sincerity, and think to approve their Love to God by their Zeal againſt their Brethren, if they chance to diſſent from them in a bare Opinion. Although our Saviour did not ſay, by their Faith and diſtinguiſhing Doctrines, but by their Love to one another, Men ſhall know whether you are my Diſciples or no. Therefore I think it is not ſtrange if no Church be fond of thoſe Opinions that will engage them to depoſit their Charity; and if they are, 'tis certainly their Failing, not their Excellence.

But now it ſeems I am to beg the Author's Pardon, for thinking that the diſtinguiſhing Doctrine of ſuch a Church had been that which was peculiar to it; for it ſeems a diſtinguiſhing Doctrine is that which they held in common with other Churches, which truly I did not underſtand before. And if this Doctrine be ſo, yet the appropriating p. 26of it to one, looks as if they had a mind to have the Encloſure of it.

But I skipped one ſhort Paragraph, wherein our Author, according to his fair way of treating the Perſon of Quality, has jumbled two Texts together, which were cited on different Accounts, as will be apparent to any body that conſults the Paper. For when from our having but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, I was willing to infer the reaſonableneſs of being (or at leaſt endeavouring to be) all of one Mind. I did not think that had been ſuch an Error as ſtood in need of a Confutation. But now he asks, And muſt not then thoſe, that held one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, neceſſarily diſtinguiſh themſelves from all that held more than one? But I think there is diſtinction enough made to our Hands, for thoſe Hereticks that firſt ſet up thoſe Errors, and ſeparated from the Church on their account, I hope were diſtinguiſhable enough from the true Church; and if others hold two Gods, or firſt Principles, with the Manichees, muſt I therefore have a particular Doctrine to diſtinguiſh me from that Church that holds but one? And becauſe ſome are to blame in making Factions, and crying up Apollos, or Cephas, muſt I for fear of mixing with them, diſtinguiſh my ſelf from thoſe that are of Christ? For, God be thanked, there never yet was a time that Truth was left ſo without witneſs, but that there was a true Church, to which if we adhered, we need not ſet up diſtinguiſhing Doctrines for our ſelves, the Inconvenience of which I am now more than ever ſatisfied of.

And now he ſhould come to my ſecond Inference, but he paſſes it over very gently, only denies the Conſequence, for he ſaith,Page 45. This doth not imply that all who have taken the Oath, have thereby renounced the Church of England. And in this I muſt own the Author's Candor, for I believe, Sir, you know ſome that are of another Mind, and that have urged this very Profeſſion of Biſhop Lake's to prove it. Although I never ſaid it was Biſhop Lake's Opinion, as he very unjuſtly accuſes me, and although the Charge is ſome pages off, yet belonging to this Point, I think I may under it, take the opportunity of clearing my ſelf. His p. 27Words are theſe,Page 50. But when this Gentleman muſt needs know that his Lordſhip at the ſame time received the Holy Sacrament at the Hand of a Reverend Divine who has taken the Oath, to inſinuate that he would hardly allow thoſe who have taken the new Oath, to be ſo much as out-Liers of the Church of England, is a thing I confeſs I can ſcarce reconcile to any degree of Charity. But yet I do not queſtion but that all I there ſaid is full as conſiſtent with the great Doctrine of Charity, as firſt the making a Falſity, and then charging the malicious Inferences of it on their Brother. But I muſt confeſs this is a ſort of dealing that I did not at all expect from ſo ingenious an Adverſary; for I know there were weak Places enow in my Paper, that he needed not have been reduced to thoſe pitiful ſhifts: but the confuting of the Paper would not ſatisfy, unleſs he alſo laid an Odium on the Perſon, whom I am ſure he does not know, but has the good Fortune to have a beter Character from them that do. But the Paſſage to which he refers, and does ſo falſly render, is this: After the Story of the dying Papiſt, I ſay, That I am confident the Biſhop would not have approved of the Argument, had I turned Papiſt on that dying Man's Declaration. But it ſeems ſome think it no great matter what we turn now; for I hear ſome are ſo exceeding fierce, that they will hardly allow thoſe which have taken the new Oaths, to be ſo much as Out-Liers of the Church of England: And then I add immediately after, But although the indiſcreet Zeal of ſome have made them ſo uncharitable, I am far from ſuppoſing it the Temper of all the worthy Men of that Party. Now I'le be judg'd by all the World, what there is in this Clauſe that refers to Biſhop Lake, or does ſo much as inſinuate that he was one of thoſe fierce ones: nay, any one may ſee that I take particular care to free the worthy Men of it; and if our Author will take Biſhop Lake out of that Liſt, and number him with the indiſcreetly zealous, (who are the only People I charge) I cannot help that; but be it known to the World, that is his doing, and not mine. But although he accuſes me for want of Charity, I think I ſhall ſhew that I have a great deal, ſince I p. 28can forgive this. For as I thank God I am (whatever my Quality is) above ſuch mean Tricks, ſo I am above revenging of them too, for ſuch Crimes are commonly their own Lictors. For I am confident he will ſuffer more by it than I ſhall, therefore 'tis generally my Pity and not my Anger that it excites on ſuch occaſions. But now to return, if this be a Digreſſion, I am glad to find our Author think that there are ſo many accounts on which the Oaths may lawfully be taken, but it is not my Task to examine any Man on which of thoſe different Hypotheſes they took it; for having ſatisfied the Law, and I am ſo charitable as to believe their own Conſciences alſo, I have nothing to object againſt it. For I am ſo far from diſapproving a tender Conſcience, that I would have all the liberty in the World allowed to thoſe who are truly ſo; ſo that his Queſtion was a little ſuperfluous as to me, And muſt thoſe of the Church of England only not be allowed to have tender Conſciences? But I am really ſorry to find that any of the Church of England ſhould think they are abridged of the liberty of theirs, if they may not declaim againſt all thoſe that diſſent from them; for as I think the Author is very free, ſo I think 'tis very fit every body ſhould enjoy their own Sentiments, and I hope I ſhall not be denied the Liberty I grant, but that is only in private; for I know no neceſſity of impoſing them on others, nor condemning all that do not approve of them. And that is the main, and indeed the only Exception I have to Biſhop Lake's Profeſſion; for I did ſuſpect, and the Author himſelf is ſo ingenuous as to own, that the deſign of the Paper was to aſſert that none were true Sons of the Church of England, (that is, as he himſelf explains it, did not hold her Doctrine whole and entire) that did not hold the Doctrine of Paſſive Obedience in the ſame ſenſe Biſhop Lake did. And now I cannot but ſay this looks aſſuming enough, but however our Author aſſures us, that the making this Profeſſion, was the moſt proper, and the moſt ſeaſonable and charitable thing a dying Biſhop could do, to declare that nothing but Conſcience was the Cauſe of his Refuſal. And although I do verily believe it might be ſo in the good Man's Intentions, yet I cannot p. 29not ſay it was ſo, or was likely to be ſo in the Effects, although we are told it was an Action that did naturally tend to our Peace. For a Surgeon may wiſh very well to his Patient, and yet miſtake in his Applications; for if he uſe Corroſives, where Oil and Balſam were needful, he will be more like to feſter than heal the Sore. And truly I muſt needs ſay, that a dying Man's entring a Proteſtation againſt a whole Party, looks as it were deſigned to perpetuate, not compoſe a Diſpute: However I am ſure it is much properer for the former than the latter. For the ſhortning of this, (which much exceeds the Bulk I deſigned) I have been forced to skip whole Pages, to lay thoſe things together that belonged to one Head, but having all along cited the Author's own Words, I hope I have done neither him nor the Reader much injury. But now we will go a little back, and pick up what may be of uſe in the way. And in the firſt place, I am very well pleaſed to find him ſo much concerned for any thing that reflects on their preſent Majeſties, but I am half afraid leſt ſome that ſhould have more Wit, teach us of the Laity the ill-breeding he talks on; for I could tell him of one, that in the Convocation ſaid, the King had ſent them a bantring Meſſage, and they had ſent him a bantring Addreſs: But I ſuppoſe the Gentleman does not value himſelf ſo much on his Jeſt, but that he is willing enough to have his Name conceal'd. But however, it would be well if the Clergy would ſet us better Example, although I cannot juſtify any body for following their ill.

I do not at all queſtion what he ſays of the Diſſenting Biſhops, for did they but once own themſelves to be their Majeſties Subjects, I do verily believe they would be as good, if not better Subjects than any they have; and I am confident one might take their Words in the point, and not exact an Oath from them, if that be all they ſcruple at, with which they might long ago, I believe, have been diſpenſed, had they offered any other Security. For I believe their Majeſties have as great Reſpect and Inclination too for the Biſhops, as the Biſhops can have for them, p. 30and particularly to him that he mentions, to whom the whole Nation muſt ever own a great Obligation, for his Care and Diligence in ſo well principling the two Royal Siſters; and 'tis a great deal of pity he ſhould deny them the Satisfaction they would take in repaying his great Service.

There now follow ſome Pages, with which I think I have little to do, he that is concerned in them being ſo able to anſwer for himſelf; but yet rather than have nothing to ſay to the Perſon of Quality, he will quarrel with him on his Friend Julian's account. But had the Author obſerved the Rule he impoſes, and not made uſe of any Arguments that had been urged before, I believe the Perſon of Quality's part would have been much ſhorter in his laſt Pamphlet than it is. But however of all things I thought the Laws and Statutes of a Nation had been in common, and not like a Terra Incognita, only to be appropriated to the uſe of the firſt Diſcoverer, that is in this caſe the firſt Citer. But that he may not fear that I ſhould hereafter make any Encroachments on the Prerogatives of ſo good a Friend, I ſhall (and I am ſure with Truth) declare that I am not only a Stranger to his Perſon, but alſo ſo much to his Writings, that I never heard of the conceit of grinning Honour before, but from Sir John Falſtaff in the Play; but however I do believe 'tis a very good Jeſt, becauſe ſo ingenuous an Author repeats it ſo often. But for any thing more, I ſhall ſay as the Parents of the blind Man did, Ask him, he is of Age, let him ſpeak for himſelf.

But it is well if I can do ſo for my ſelf, for my hardeſt Task is yet to come, for alas, I am to anſwer for a whole Community; for at laſt our ſagacious Author has diſcovered that the Perſon of Quality is ſo: though to tell you truly, I never knew before that I had Pigs in my Belly, much leſs that I was with Child of a whole Corporation. But although 'tis againſt the Canon, I doubt I muſt anſwer for them all my ſelf, for I fear the Author will not be ſo kind as to be Godfather to any of my Productions, ſo I muſt provide for them as well p. 31as I can. But ſince Charity begins at home, I muſt firſt conſider my ſelf in my private Capacity, and in that am reſolved (as he ſees) to be as paſſive as he himſelf can deſire: And altho 'tis poſſible I may have more than one Title to be diſtinguiſhed by, yet truly I will not vie with the Author in that point, to which purpoſe I will tell him a Story: An unlucky Fellow met with Doctor Harding on the Road, and knowing that he had divers Preferments, he rides before to the Inn, and told the Hoſt there was a great deal of Company to come to his Houſe that Night, and therefore bid him get all the good things he could provide for Supper; for, ſays he, there is the Parſon of St. Martins, the Dean of ſuch a Place, the Prebendary of another, and ſo reckoned up all his Places. And at this rate 'tis poſſible the Author may much better deſerve to be thought a Community than poor Me; but however I ſhall anſwer his jocund Diſcourſe a little more ſeriouſly. And I am ſure I need not tell him that a new Relation does alſo lay a new Obligation and Duty, and that ſometimes ſo contrary to the former, that what was a Vertue and commendable in one State, may be really a Fault in another. As for Inſtance, for a ſingle Man to give all his Goods and Poſſeſſions to charitable Uſes, is counted a great and heroick piece of Charity; but ſhould the ſame Perſon marry and have a great many Children, ſhould he by his Charity diſenable himſelf from providing for his Family, if he will take St. Paul's Word, That Man has denied the Faith, and is worſe than an Infidel, for thoſe are the Words of the Cenſure that he paſſes, 1 Tim. 5. 8. on him that provides not for his own, eſpecially thoſe of his own Houſe. So that we may ſee what a vaſt difference an additional Relation makes in the ſelf-ſame Action. And me-thinks I ſhould not need to apply this to the Point in hand; but becauſe he is ſo apt to miſtake the Perſon of Quality's meaning, I ſhall tell him that when there is nothing but my own Right in queſtion, I will quietly ſacrifice that to my King's Pleaſure, and for my Countries Peace. But if I am in a Publick Office, and made p. 32it were a Truſtee for my Country, to look after and maintain its Rights and Priviledges, neither Fear nor Favour ſhould ever prevail with me to part with one Tittle of it. Therefore I think the Houſe of Commons have propoſed very well to lay a Brand on them who did voluntarily deliver up their Charters, and thereby betray thoſe Liberties they were ſworn to maintain: for, for my part I cannot underſtand why I am not as much obliged by the Oath that I take for the Defence of my Country, and the maintaining of the Rights and Franchiſes of ſuch a Town, as I am by the Oaths of Allegiance to the King; for if the King break his Oath, and infringe thoſe Liberties he has ſworn to protect, yet I do not ſee how he can abſolve or diſpence with mine, unleſs we make him Pope as well as King. But however, if that Doctrine of Paſſive, or if you pleaſe we will call it Implicit Obedience to the King is binding, I cannot ſee how 'tis poſſible for the Subjects to avoid Perjury under ſuch a Reign as our late King James; for was it not as downright Perjury for a Mayor of a Town to deliver up the Charter he was ſo ſolemnly ſworn to maintain, as it would have been to have reſiſted the King in the Defence of it? But this of being perjured, take which ſide you will, is ſuch an unhappy Neceſſity, as I believe God never laid on any one; therefore ſuppoſe that in ſuch Exigencies there is yet a way to extricate ones ſelf without committing the Sin. And truly to do the Author right, I have not met with a better Reſolution of the Law, than what he himſelf thinks fit to urge in the behalf of the Netherlands, when they flung off their Subjection to the King of Spain; and if he will pleaſe to apply that to his own Scruples, I think he need not go any further for a Solution, therefore ſuppoſe it ſuperfluous for me to ſay any more on that Point, for if he will not be his own Convert, I cannot hope he ſhould ever be mine.

And now, at laſt, SIR, we are come to the concluding, and, as he calls it, ſtabbing Queſtion of London-Derry. p. 33But really, Sir, the Perſon of Quality had no ſuch murderous Intention, but ſince the Weapon was ſo in its own Nature, it was very happy it fell into ſuch unskilful Hands, for elſe no body knows what Execution it might have done. But how ill ſoever I managed my Dagger, I perceive he is a little afraid of it, and will not come near the Queſtion; but that he may be ſure to be out of my reach, he is ſending me as far as Troy. But methinks I need not go ſo far for the Anſwer of one poor Queſtion. But here our Author is forced to his old ſhifts of ſhuffling and packing the Cards; for he has really the beſt Faculty of ſingling out one Line out of a Sentence; and leſt it ſhould not appear ridiculous enough by it ſelf, joins it to another I know not how far off, to which it had no Coherence, as he has done in ſeveral others as well as this place: for my Query is in theſe very words; Whether they did not both wiſh and pray, that London-Derry ſhould be delivered out of the Hands of thoſe mercileſs Butchers? And this the Excellency of their Temper, as well as their Chriſtianity, obliging to, I cannot at all queſtion but they did; nay, I verily believe they would have gone farther, and aſſiſted them with their Purſes, if they had known how to have conveyed them Relief. And how faithfully he renders it, and how fully he anſwers it, you ſhall gueſs from his own Words, which I'le aſſure you are tranſcribed a little exacter than he does mine: It is, ſays he, the Duty of Chriſtians to pray for Righteouſneſs, and Truth, and Peace to all Mankind: How ſtrange a Queſtion is it therefore to ask, Whether the ſuſpended Clergy did no… both wiſh and pray that London-Derry ſhould be delivered out of the Hands of mercileſs Butchers? (for thoſe is to be left out in that place for ſome Reaſons beſt known to himſelf.) He believes they did, becauſe there were many thouſand innocent Perſons whom they never ſaw, and who never did them any wrong. And now I will appeal to my Reader if here is not a Paſſage as faithfully cited, and as well applied as ever he ſaw. For let the Queſtion be what it will, it would be pretty much if it be ſtranger than the Anſwer: So that I think the ſuſpended Clergy are not much more obliged to him, for bringing them in ſo needleſly, and uſing p. 34ſuch weighty Arguments in their behalf, than the Derry-Men, as he ſays, are to me. There is only this Difference, that by his own Confeſſion mine may be urged for any Place, but truly I know not for what Place or Subject his was calculated. But if what I ſaid of Derry may be applied to any other City in their Circumſtances, I ſee not where the Injury would be to them by it; nor do I very well diſcern how the Bigneſs or Diſtance of the City ſhould add weight to the Argument, tho to tell him truly, I am very glad I had no occaſion to inſtance nearer home, tho I care not how ſoon I may in all the Cities in Ireland, provided they conclude as happily. But now was it not very kindly done of our Author, who had ſo little to ſay for his own Tribe, to furniſh the Inhabitants of Derry with an Apology in Law, when they did not know what to ſay for themſelves? for his Inſtance in the Netherlands is as pat to their purpoſe as if it had been made for them. Altho I think their having ſo many thouſand innocent Perſons among them that muſt certainly have periſhed, if they had not taken up Arms for their Preſervation, was no ill Argument, nor can I believe diſapproved by the Diſſenting Clergy, if they would be once ſo ingenuous and kind as to own their Thoughts in the Point: but I ſuppoſe they might be committed to the Author under the Seal of Confeſſion, and ſo are not to be made publick. For elſe methinks he ſhould not ſo induſtriouſly have avoided the Queſtion, if he had had any thing to have ſaid to it: for I know he has ſo great Kindneſs for the Perſon of Quality that he would ſhew him all his Errors and weak Places; therefore I look upon my two Inferences as irrefragable, ſince he dare not undertake their Confutation. For either they did pray for the Deliverance of London-Derry, and would have contributed to their Relief; or they would not: If they would, then they are in the ſame Predicament with them, for 'tis with Rebellion as in Murder, there are no Acceſſaries, but all are Principals: A Maxim of our Law, for which ſome poor People in the Weſt paid pretty dear after Monmouth's Defeat, as I think the Lady Liſle's Execution will ſufficiently convince any body, who did no more than I believe all our diſſenting Biſhops would have done for them in London-Derry, that is, have kept them from ſtarving if they could: but if they p. 35would not, (I muſt then repeat what I ſaid before) It would give me a greater Prejudice againſt the Doctrine than ever yet I had, ſince it not only made them put off thoſe Bowels of Mercies which Chriſtians ought to have for one another, but even diveſted them of Common Humanity. And whether it would not be a greater Crime to ſin againſt Nature, than to break ſome nice Bands of our own (not the Laws) impoſing in an Oath of Allegiance? I ſhould at another time truſt our Author to judg.

And thus, SIR, I have in haſte run over that part of the Pamphlet, wherein I thought I had any Concern, for I do not pretend to anſwer for, or juſtify other People. But if I have not acquitted my ſelf ſo well as you expected, yet conſidering my diſadvantage of having nothing but my Bible, and a very bad Memory to conſult, I hope you will wink at ſmall Faults. I ſhall not enlarge your Trouble by a needleſs Apology for the length of this, but conclude with the Complement of the Seaſon, this, and many happy New Years being heartily wiſh'd You, by

January 9. 1689. Your moſt affectionate Friend, and humble Servant.

FINIS.

End of the text · William Eyre, Vindication of the Letter Concerning Bishop Lakes Declaration (1690)