A VINDICATION Of the present Great Revolution IN ENGLAND; IN FIVE LETTERS Passed betwixt james Welwood, M. D. and Mr. john March, Vicar of Newcastle upon Tyne. Occasioned by a SERMON Preached by him on january 30. 1688/ 9 before the Mayor and Aldermen, for Passive Obedience and Nonresistance.  
Licenced, April 8. 1689.  
London Printed, and sold by R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall, 1689.   

THE PREFACE.  
READER,  
NOthing can excuse me, even to myself, for thus appearing in Print, but the occasion of it, backed with a Command I could not disobey. Not many Months ago the posture of Affairs in Europe threatened no less than the utter extirpation of the Reformed Religion, and Re-establishment of a Yoke, so happily thrown off, the Age before. The French King, more from the weakness of his Contemporary Princes, and a fatal Friendship packs up with the Two last Kings of England, than either by his own Strength or Money, had rendered himself so formidable abroad▪ and absolute at home, as enabled him to fall on his Protestant Subjects, in a Path untrodden by the worst of the Primitive Persecutors themselves, seeing in this, even the favour of Dying was denied them: And neither the mighty Services they had done that King in preserving the Crown upon his Head in his Minority, nor the solemnest Sanctions ratified by Oath▪ could secure these poor Victims from the Villainy and Cruelty of Popish Counsels. The on-looking Protestant States stood amazed at this Tragic Scene; and all the Assistance they were able to give their distressed Brethren, was that of Prayers and Tears; they themselves expecting to appear next upon the mournful Theatre. The Accession of a Popish Prince to the Throne, the barefaced Invasions of Liberty and Property, the palpable Encroachments on Laws and Fundamental Constitutions, with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Popish Confidence, a Prince of Wales, were Events too great and important, not to awaken England out of a Lethargy, the reiterated Promises of preserving the Protestant Religion as by Law established, had cast her into. And as some Diseases are not known till past cure, all the effect of her awakening was to see her Case desperate and her Ruin inevitable. Things were in this deplorable State, when his present Majesty, led by the Hand of Heaven, and swayed by the glorious Motives of Honour and Religion, to save us from the precipice of Ruin, ventured on an Enterprise unexampled in the Records of Time. This stupendious Attempt including in its Womb the Fate of this, and all other Reformed Churches of Christendom, was seconded with the Prayers, and alternate Hopes and Fears of all good Men, who justly considered the then Prince of Orange's Interest, with that of our Religion, Lives and Liberties, were embarked in one and the same Bottom.  
The Almighty was pleased beyond the ordinary Tracts of Providence, to meet the Nations pressing Misery, and to bring our Deliverer to the Capital City, there to be addressed with the just thanks of a People he had saved from Destruction, and the humble offer of the Government Military and Civil, for that juncture. It was at this very time, that I had the unhappiness to be hearer of a Sermon preached by Mr. March; in which his now Majesty's Glorious Enterprise and the Concurrence and Actings of the Nobility and Gentry of England were scandalised with the name of Rebellion▪ and the now Lord Bishop of Salisbury, treated in the rudest manner, for a Papen said to be his, viz. An Enquiry into the Measures of Obedience, etc. which Mr. Vicar undertook in his Sermon to refute. To hear such a Discourse, so timed, and to find its approbation echoed by the Gentleman's Admirers, was a thing very unpleasant to me; to see a Prince condemned in the Pulpit by the very Men he came to save, and the People cajoled by Plausible Insinuations into a bad Opinion of so great a Deliverance, were too pressing Motives to break Silence. And if I may add one particular Swasive to these of a more public Nature, the friendship betwixt the Learned Doctor Thomas Burnet, Physician, and me, and the Obligations I have to him, could not permit me without a breach of Gratitude, to bear his Brother, My Lord Bishop of Salisbury, (the honour of our Country) so scurrilously treated, without taking some notice of it. These were the Inducements that extorted my First Letter, and that occasioned the rest.  
And what Consequents these Lines have produced, if thou be acquainted in the Country where they were writ, thou canst not but know, and if a Stranger, though I should tell thee, thou canst scarce believe. I designed an Answer to his Sermon, if I had been allowed a Copy, which to oblige Mr. Vicar to send me, I wrote the First; so that the many Digressions in the other two, will, I hope, meet with thy favourable Construction, since I was necessitated to them by tracing of his. I have done when I have told thee, Thou canst not be more a loser in reading this, than I in writing, and exposing it to the Censure of the World, contrary to my Inclination, and perhaps to my Interest.  
J. W. London, April 1. 1689.   

To the REVEREND Mr. John March, Vicar of NEWCASTLE. Newcastle, Feb. 1. 1688/ 9  
LEST your narrow Acquaintance in the World, and the Retirement your Humour obliges you to, should occasion your Ignorance of the Sentiments the most thinking part of your Hearers have of your other days Sermon, I have given myself the trouble to write these few Animadversions upon it, which be pleased to take in good part, as coming from a Person, who as he scorns to flatter you, so he hates to treat you any otherwise, but as a Gown-man, and a Gentleman.  
The first thing which occurs to me in your Discourse, is of such a nature as the Learned World, and Men of Breeding, have ever disdained; I mean your unmannerly way of treating a Gentleman, whose Reputation is uncapable of being in the least tainted by any such waspish Expressions as yours. Dr. Burnet has made a Figure in the World of no contemptible Magnitude, and such an one as obliges the Roman Catholics themselves (whom none ever more disobliged,) to treat him in their Writings, with the just Character a Person of his vast Learning deserves. If in France, amidst the heat of Persecution against those of his own Religion; if in Italy, yea, in Rome itself, Dr. Burnet has been carrest by all the Learned of the Romish Persuasion, notwithstanding his immortal Writings against them, could it be dreamt, that in so Noble and Ancient a Corporation as this of Newcastle, and in presence of so many Worthy Gentlemen, the Magistrates thereof, any of the Black-Robe would venture to treat this Dr. Burnet with the scurrilous and indecent Epithets of [a Man that has made a great bustle in the World, an Apostate from the Church of England, a seditious Inquirer, a scandalous Pamphleteer, and the like,] and to repeat such Expressions seventen times in less than three quarters of an hour? Was this due from a Minister of the Church of England to the Learned Dr. Burnet, who to his Immortal Glory has vindicated the Reformation of that Church from the Aspersions of its Enemies, by a History admired by all the World, and done already into several Foreign Languages? I might say more to oblige you to a blush, but sure I am, its punishment enough in itself that you did so.  
The next thing I take notice of in your Sermon is your Endeavours to prove Passive Obedience and Nonresistance, a Principle founded on the Word of God, and asserted by all the Protestants in the World. Pray Sir, what new thing have you discovered from the Sacred Text, but what has been a thousand times said, and as many times convincingly answered, and particularly by the great Grotius, a Man not much inferior to you in Learning and Judgement. I confess it's a matter of no great difficulty to talk bigly of Arguments for any Opinion, in a place where there is none to answer. But as to your asserting, That to resist Magistrates in any case, is disallowed by all the Protestants in the World, I would have you to talk this in some place where Protestant Books are forbid, but not where we have the Greatest and Learnedest of that Religion expressly allowing of it in many cases, as among many others, Calvin, Beza, Du Plessis, Luther, Melancton, Zuinglius, Dumoulin, etc. And to evince that their Practice goes equal pace with their Opinion, I must tell you, That you cannot instance me any Protestant Church in Europe (England alone excepted,) that was not necessitated to wrestle thro' its Reformation from Popery and Slavery, by resisting the Power that would have perpetuated both. None acquainted with Modern History, but knows, That France, Germany, Switzerland, the Grisons, the Low Countries, Swedland, Scotland, Denmark, and Poland, forced their way to Reformation by Resistance, and the most of them thro' Rivers of Blood. I confess it could have been wished, That calmer Methods had been used, but the than Juncture of Affairs in Europe, and concurring Providences of God, seemed not then to allow them. I know that many Divines of late, among others the Excellent Claud has thought fit to lay the grounds of all these Wars (in the preceding Age) upon the account of Civil Interest, viz. Oppression, and breach of Laws▪ and if it be so, it meets too patly with our case in England: So that if we be not allowed to vindicate our Religion, at least we may vindicate our Civil Liberties, by resisting a Power that would trample upon them. And I here positively challenge you to instance one Protestant Writer of any Fame that disapproves the grounds of the Civil Wars of France, Low Countries, Switzerland, and Germany, because they were either upon a Civil or a Religious Account. And upon the other hand, among a great many in better Libraries, I'll produce you out of that small one I have in this place, ten or twelve expressly proving the lawfulness of these Wars upon both these grounds, and yet in them all there were the very same Steps made that appear in the great Revolution of England, at this day. And that this was the Unanimous Sentiment of this very Nation England in the last Age, appears by its mighty protection of, and influence upon the Reformations abroad, under the happy Conduct of the Glorious Queen Elizabeth; so that in disapproving of Resistance upon the account of Religion and Liberties, you throw a black Aspersion upon the Sacred Ashes of a Princess, who at the expense of a vast Treasure and many Lives, assisted afflicted Subjects against their Tyrannising Princes: And who knows but the Almighty God may raise up in our Age another Princess to act over again the part of her Triumphant Predecessor, and make her a glorious Instrument to perfect that Reformation which the other did so happily begin?  
I might enlarge upon a great many things in your Sermon, which this short Letter cannot allow of; but I admire what bad Genius prompted you to style Self-Defence, even in a general Notion, an old Fanatic Principle. Were the Authors of the Roman Tables, their Codex, Pandects, and Institutions, and all the Famous Lawyers that commented upon them fanatics? Is not Moderamen inculpatae turelae, looked upon by them and by all Mankind, as an indelible Impression fixed upon our Nature by the Hand of our Maker? If you had been at the pains to distinguish betwixt the Kind's of this Self-Defence, and wherein it was allowed and wherein not; you might have informed the Judgements of your Hearers; but to give it such a Name without any distinction, I'll be bold to say, you are the first that did it in a Pulpit.  
There is but one thing more that I shall at present take notice of in your Discourse; and really I cannot do it without horror! Your saying, That whoever meddled with the King's Forts, Castles, Militia, and Revenue, were in the sense of your Text, guilty of Damnation. Pray Sir, do you consider upon whom you pass this uncharitable Censure? Is it not upon a Prince, that to rescue us from Popery and Slavery has ventured his All, and who seems to have been given us of Heaven, a Restorer of our Breaches? Does not this your Thunder fall upon a mighty Protestant State, who gave him the means to accomplish this glorious Enterprise? In this you cast a Blot upon all the Protestant Princes in Europe, who have concurred with him in it, as the last cast of the die for our Religion. In short, you throw an indelible Blot upon the most considerable Nobility and Gentry of the Nation that assisted him in this great Action: And above all your Censure lies heavy upon the present Convention, who have committed unanimously the Government into the Prince's Hands for this Juncture: And allow me to say, That a greater Scandalum Magnatum was never tried at a Bar, than this of yours.  
In fine, Let any one of sound Judgement consider, if this Discourse of yours be well Timed, and if it had not been more Prudence to have locked up such Notions in your own Breast, than by giving them vent in a Pulpit, expose a Noble Corporation to the Misapprehensions of those at the Helm upon your account, and amuse the People with bad impressions of a stupendious Deliverance, scarcely equalled in History.  
Sir, I have transgressed the Limits of a Letter, but if you will allow me the Favour of a Copy of your Sermon, you shall have an Answer of it at full length, by  
SIR, Your Humble Servant JAMES WELWOOD.  
Let me know if I may expect your Answer, or a Copy of your Sermon.   

To Mr JAMES WELWOOD. Newcastle, February 11th. 1688/9.  
IT's certain I never knew till this Morning that you had given yourself the trouble, and my meanness the honour and satisfaction of a Letter, and to make the earliest acknowledgements I could, of so particular a favour, I set myself to the Writing an Answer assoon as I had leave from the Company, your Messenger found me engaged in: You are pleased in the first place to accuse me of treating Dr. Burnet in a very rude manner, to which accusation I return you this Answer,  
First, That I knew not that Doctor Burnet was the Author of that Pamphlet.  
Secondly, I have been Informed that he disowns it.  
Thirdly, I am willing to believe this Information for the Doctor's honour, because it is well known he hath in his Learned Writings, stiffly asserted the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, insomuch that some have been pleased to tell the World in Print, that he hath asserted it even to a fault.  
Fourthly, If Doctor Burnet be the Author of the said Pamphlet, I have not treated him so ill as he hath done a Crowned Head, and his own Sovereign Prince, and this I hope will pass for a just Apology with a Person of your Loyalty.  
In the second place, you quarrel with those Epithets I bestowed on the Anonymus Author of the said Pamphlet, but it had been a more substantial Vindication of his Innocence to have refuted the reasons on which the imputation was grounded.  
In the third place, You take notice that I affirmed in my Sermon, that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, etc. was a Principle asserted by all the Protestants in the World, but as to this part of my Sermon, either your great memory, or great understanding failed you▪ for that which I asserted was this, That all the Protestant Churches own the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners, and for a proof of this, I do now refer you, as I did then, to the Corpus Confessionum, and thus you have spent a third part of your Letter in chase your own shadow; if my Sermon had concerned me in the Controversy, I would also make it appear that you injure some of those great names you mention in your Letter, such as Luther, Calvin, Melancton and others, by making them Patrons of Resistance, which is but another name for Rebellion. But Doctor Burnet was better informed by a Learned Divine of Frankford, as you may see in his Travels, where you find the Government of the Empire differs from this of England, so far that what would be unlawful Resistance here, would be but a just and legal defence there, but my Sermon is not concerned in this matter, and therefore I shall wave it.  
In the fourth place▪ you say that I asserted Passive Obedience and Nonresistance of the higher Powers, as a Principle founded in the Word of God, this I confess I must own, and it is not only my private opinion, but also the Doctrine of our Church, as you may see in her excellent Homilies against Rebellion. When you shall give yourself the trouble to prove these Texts are misapplyed by our Church, you shall hear farther from me, and I assure you, I urged no other Texts than what you'll find there, and this will save me the labour of copying out that part of my Sermon.  
In the fifth place, you admire what bad Genius prompted me, to style self defence even in the general notion of it an old Fanatic Principle, Sir I find you are very subject to make misrepresentations, I was not obliged by my Text to treat of self defence in the general notions of it, and I do assure you 'tis lawful to defend ourselves against Robbers and private Aggressors, as it would have been for the late Archbishop of St. Andrews against Balfour and his other barbarous Assassins. This I easily grant you, but I inveighed in my Sermon as the Text did warrant me against such as resisted the Higher Powers, and to tell you the truth, the bad Genius that prompted me to style such resistance▪ an old Fanatic Principle came out of Scotland, for I have in my little Library, Buchanan, Douglas, Rutherford, Nephthali▪ and other Scotch fanatics, who maintained Rebellion under the disguise of such self defence, and because you pretend to great skill in the Civil Law, I must tell you I have in my little Library the Roman Tables, the Codex, Pandects, Institutes, and several Famous Civilians that have commented upon them, and I do not find that they allow self defence against the Higher Powers. I desire you therefore to tell me whether the Lex Regia, or what part of the Codex, Pandects, etc. doth allow self defence against the Higher Powers; and I would also know whether St. Paul did not understand the Roman Tables, and the Constitution of that Oecomenical Empire, and whether he chose rather to Preach, as I did the Doctrine of Nonresistance, than that of Self-defence: I hope you will not say as a wretched Socinian once did, Paulo majora canamus. Whereas you add I should have given some distinctions of the several kinds of self defence, I think with Submission, the Text made it needless to distinguish, seeing there is express mention of Resisting the Higher Powers, which, had your zeal given you leave to have attended to, I'm so charitable as to believe you would have reserved your complaint for a fitter occasion.  
In the sixth place, you tell me you cannot recount without horror the passage of my Sermon, Whosoever meddleth with the King's Forts, Militia, etc. were guilty of Damnation, the passage fairly represented was thus, Our Saviour commands Subjects to render unto Caesar the things that▪ are Caesars▪ now since by the undoubted Laws of the Land, all Forts, Customs, Militia, etc. are the things that belong to our English Caesar, our Saviour were he now upon Earth, would command the Subjects of this Kingdom at this time to render those things unto Caesar, and not to seize them, etc. Is this such terrible Doctrine that you could not mention it without horror? but in England we bring solid Arguments, not puerile Exclamations to prove a Doctrine to be false. If then it be a sin for Subjects to seize the King's Revenues, etc. as I shall presume it to be, till I see the contrary proved, it will no doubt without repentance expose the sinner to Damnation, unless you believe it to be but a venial sin; you seem a little malicious, when you make me reflect upon the Prince of Orange, but you can't but know, that I am discoursing of the duty of Subjects, and I hope you do not believe the Prince to be one. As therefore I had no occasion to mention him, so I can assure you he was far from my thoughts. You show little skill in our Laws, when you call Preaching up Passive Obedience (which your Friend Doctor Burnet will inform you is the avowed Doctrine of our Church) Scandalum Magnatum▪ your rash censure sounds more like a Scandalum Ecclesiae, you are mightily concerned for the Protestant States and Princes of Europe, but I know no injury done them by my Sermon, I am confident there is not a Protestant Prince, who understands his own Interest that will be offended at the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, you are much more guilty of casting an indelible blot upon the Noble Progenitors of the Prince of Orange, the High and Mighty States of Holland, etc. who will have a Reformation introduced amongst them by a Rebellion? I am not at leisure to vindicate all the Protestant Countries, but it will be a sufficient answer to your bold challenge, to inform you that the States of Holland give another account of their revolt from the King of Spain, assuring us that the constitution of the Government of the Netherlands, was such as allowed them to defend themselves against the Encroachments of their Prince, but the Constitution of the English Monarchy is different, for the 12 and 13 Statutes Car. 2. forbid the Subjects to Levy any War offensive or defensive.  
In the close, you question my prudence in timing my discourse no better, this perhaps may be a compliment in Scotland, and therefore let it pass, but Sir I must tell you I have always Preached this Doctrine on january the 30th, ever since I came to Town, and formerly it hath not been thought improper for that sad occasion, but received with good approbation: If the times be changed, Truth is not, and English Ministers of all Men ought not to be time servers; In that Sermon I followed the dictates of my own Conscience, and though I have read as much Politics as my Neighbours, yet I have always thought, and do still think, that honesty is the best Policy: You desire a Copy of my Sermon, and with great modesty threaten me with a full Answer, but, Sir, from the little Specimen you have given me of your skill in Divinity, I find you are one of another Profession, and therefore I question whether it will quit cost to trouble you, but since you tell me that Doctor Burnet is the Author of that Pamphlet, I took notice of in my Sermon, and I hear that you have some acquaintance with that great Man, to show my just veneration for that Learning he is master of, I shall not refuse to send him a copy of it, in case you can prevail with him to vindicate those positions he lays down there, I do assure you I should be very well content to be honestly rid of an error, I can promise myself no great advantage by. If you are in love with scribbling, and think fit to communicate your thoughts, concerning those two points which are more agreeable to your Profession, viz. An succus Pancreaticus sit causa principalis morborum, & an clarissimus Harveius fuerit primus inventor circulationis sanguinis, both of which I deny, though affirmed by several of your Learned tribe, I may possible gain more by your Learning in Physic, than I have by your skill in Divinity. Be pleased to take in good part this hasty scribble, and pardon the faults thereof, by which you'll oblige,  
SIR, Your humble Servant John March.   

To the Reverend Mr. JOHN MARCH Vicar of Newcastle. Newcastle, February 13th. 1688/9.  
SIR,  
I Expected the Copy of your Sermon, but I have received a Letter, and that of such a strain as bespeaks you no Apathist. I take no notice of your direction, but to tell you, that if you had taken the degree of Doctor in any University of England, you would have found the good manners in any civilised Nation of Europe, to be designed as such, and albeit no Man has a greater Veneration for the two great Luminaries of Oxford and Cambridge then I, yet the University where I commenced Doctor, would take it ill to be placed in a much lower degree. Letting this pass among a great many expressions, that smells of a redundancy of Choler, be pleased to take this Answer to your Letter, as it lies divided in your Numerical Paragraphs.  
First, You are pleased to say, you knew not that Doctor Burnet was the Author of that Pamphlet, the inquiry into the measures of Obedience; and though you had, yet you have not treated him so ill, as he has treated his Sovereign Prince. To which I answer, that whether it be his or not, it matters not in this case, since common fame makes it so, and every body in this place believes it; And that you likewise thought so, would appear from that expression in your Sermon; yea, Doctor Burnet himself cannot instance above three hundred Martyrs in Q. Mary's days, the word [himself] being emphatic enough to oblige your Hearers to believe you took him for the Author of that Pamphlet, as you call it: That you designed that great Man in your kind Epithets, and the Person unknown, appears plainly by your calling the inquirer a Man that has made a great bustle in the World, giving so scurril a term to the Doctors justly acquired fame: And if it was not he, pray be pleased to condescend whom else you meant.  
And I must tell you, this is not the first time you have spoken unkindly of him. When you talk of the Doctor his ill treating of his Sovereign Prince, I doubt not but you incline that others should share in this imputation, since the Nobility and Gentry of the Nation, have treated the King worse by their actions, in your sense, than ever Dr. Burnet himself was capable to do by his Pen. And I assure myself, that as Conscience and Love to Religion, obliged these Noble Patriots to what they have acted, so the same Principle did actuate the Doctor to what he has wrote.  
Secondly, You quarrel me for minding you of the scurrilous Epithets you gave the Inquirer, and tell me, I ought rather to have refuted the Reasons against him. The truth is, I was in the wrong to quarrel with such Epithets, since they seem to be congeneal with your Nature; But as to the Refuting of your Reasons, as my Memory is not the worst, so I confess 'tis none of the best, which makes me loath to trust it with any Methodick Systeme of the slender arguments you used, so as to satisfy myself in a Categorick Answer to them; But if you had wished for a Refutation, you might have occasioned it, by a Copy of them; And if I had not at least endeavoured to Answer them, I would have been to blame for breach of promise.  
Thirdly, You tax me with a mistake in saying, that you maintained Passive Obedience to be the Sentiment of all the Protestants in Europe, To this I answer, that if I had not evinced to you, that it was not their opinion, perhaps your charity would have permitted me to lie under that mistake still: And if it be a mistake, I am not in it alone, for a great many of your Hearers persuade themselves you said so. But I cannot but take notice, how unwilling you are, that the Protestants abroad should share in your darling Tenet of Passive Obedience, and your unkindness to them herein supprises me the less, seeing it is not the first time you have unchurched them, upon the account they were not so constitute as the Church of England. But the value I have of them, from a more intimate acquaintance, than your narrow Theatre could allow you, obliges me to do that Justice to the Protestants abroad as to affirm, That notwithstanding all the Resistance they made to their Tyrannising Princes, they are as much for Passive Obedience in its true and rational sense, as the Church of England itself, that is, where the Commands of the Sovereign are incompatible with their duty, they hold themselves obliged to suffer for their disobedience, rather than to sin. In all their Confessions of Faith, they own Magistracy as the Ordinance of God, and disapprove opposition to it in execution of Law; But they never so far divested themselves of Reason, as to yield up their Throats to be cut by their Princes turned absolute Tyrants, when it was in their power to vindicate their Religion and Liberties by their Sword. That England concurred with them in this opinion appears (as I told you in my Letter) by the mighty protection they vouchsafed them in this their Resistance. Moreover, which I forgot to tell you, in all the Convocations of the Clergy of England at that time, there were vast sums given to carry it on, and the preamble of every Act does fairly insinuate the lawfulness of that resistance made by the Protestants abroad against their Princes; so that resistance was not only allowed by the Nation, but likewise by the Church of England in a full Convocation of its Fathers. And if the Church of England assisted so generously in the support of the Protestants abroad, at a time when their Religion was Heresy by the Laws of their Country; How much rather would these excellent Fathers of the Church have done it, if their Religion had been settled by positive and fundamental Laws, as it was after by several Edicts and Treaties. What you say of the difference of the Government of the Empire and that of England I know, but let me tell you, as the Golden Bull is the great Barrer against Slavery there, the same is the Coronation Oath here, and consequently if the Germans may lawfully resist the Emperor, or the Rex Romanorum upon breach of that Bull, the same may the Representatives and Nobility of England do upon palpable breaches of the Coronation Oath, for as the Golden Bull is the great security of the Germane aggregate Body against the encroachments of the Emperor, the same is the Coronation Oath in England against the encroachments of the King.  
Fourthly, You tell me, you hold Passive Obedience to be founded on the word of God, and maintained by the Church of England, and contained in her Homilies. To this I Answer, 1. Tell me what opinion was ever broached in the Church, without a pretence of Scripture to back it? And what gloss can you put upon any Text of Holy Writ to prove your position, but what has been a thousand times said and as many times refelled. Yet if you had allowed me a Copy of your Sermon, I would have endeavoured to clear the sense of the Texts you make use of (which I do not exactly remember) so as to make nothing for your purpose; And in your doing the one, and I the other, neither of us would have reason to value ourselves upon that score, since I fear none of us could outdo, what has been again and again done already on that Subject: In the mean time let me tell you, that the simple stating of the Question, solves all the Arguments you can bring from Scripture, as I shall make appear in one word anon. 2. As to Passive Obedience its being the Doctrine of the Church of England, I have told you already that the Fathers of the Church of England contradicted it in Queen Elizabeth's Reign. And where can we find more authentic records of their Opinion and Doctrine, than in the Printed Manifesto's, and Acts made in Convocation. As to the 39 Articles, which is in place of a Confession of Faith, and the Homilies wherein you say that Doctrine is maintained, I'll make bold to say, that Passive Obedience in the narrow sense you take it, was not so much as thought on at the time of their Publishing: And albeit you should find a way to make them seem to speak for you, the simple right stating of them question answers them sufficiently. It would seem to me, that the Mitred Clergy, and particularly that excellent Prelate My Lord Bishop of London, should be at least as well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church of England, as any private Minister in a corner of the Nation, and how far they have refelled your fond Principle, appears with a Witness in their committing the Government to the Prince in this juncture, and a great many other public actings. If your Passive Obedience be the Principle of the Church of England, how few Church of England-men are there in both Houses of Convention at present, since they act so diametrically opposite to it? And yet I persuade myself these Worthy Patriots would take it ill to be called of any other Church. 3. To refel your Tenet of Passive Obedience in one word, I need no more, but to state the case fair, and without equivocation thus. whate'er can be said from Scripture or the acknowledgement of Protestant Churches, Centres all in this, viz. That it is unlawful to resist the Magistrate while he is lawfully such, because he is God's Vicegerent within his own jurisdistion; But when by his maleversations he divests himself of that Office, and assumes a contradictory Character, by trampling upon Laws, and endeavouring to subvert the fundamental constitutions of the State, contrary to his Coronation Oath, in this case, in my humble opinion, He is no more justly a Magistrate nor the object of our Obedience, and sua culpa amittit Imperium; Upon which the Primores Regni and the Representatives of the People, may lawfully fill up the Throne vacated by such palpable encroachments. This being the State of the case, all the Texts of Scripture you can produce for Obedience to Magistrates, are to be natively understood and in a Logical propriety of predication asserted, of Obedience to Magistrates when they are justly and lawfully such, but the Relatives do not meet, when the Magistrate by his own fault becomes dispossessed of the Office. There is one thing more I would have you to take notice of to clear this head; and it's this. There is a great difference betwixt resisting the Magistrate when he tramples upon the Religion and Liberty of any part of his Subjects, in the execution of the Laws made against them, and his doing of it, in contradiction to Fundamental Laws already made in their Favours. As for example, albeit I should acknowledge that in Nero's time it had been unlawful for the Christians to resist him, because Christianity was at that time contradictory to the Laws of the Empire; Yet I cannot persuade myself, but in case the Laws at that time, had not only established the Christian Religion as the Religion of the Empire, but had expressly disallowed any other, under the severest penalties, if the Roman Senate, and the whole almost of the People had been Christians, I cannot persuade myself, I say, but they might have lawfully resisted Nero; Neither have we the least tract in the History of that age, that the Christians disallowed the Senate of Rome's declaring that Monster, an Enemy of Mankind and of the Roman Empire. I would fain know, can Magistracy lodged in any particular Person at this day, pretend to any more Divine Right, than the Patris-familial Power; And yet by the Concession of Lawyers notwithstanding, I owe entire Obedience to my Father in this, if my Father divesting himself of all paternal affection should conspire my death, and endeavour my destruction, in this Hypothesis, the Lawyers say, ei debetur Reverentia, sed non Obedientia. And pray what seems more inconsequential to reason, and the Oeconomy of the World, yea, to the Goodness and Wisdom of Almighty God, than that some Millions of People should be so despotically subjected to the Power of one Man, of the same infirmities with themselves, as in case he should command all their Throats to be cut at once, they are obliged under the pain of no less than Damnation, by a thing called Passive Obedience, to submit their Necks tamely to the blow, since in no case you say they may resist. And to use the words of a Worthy Gentleman in the late Parliament, that one Man should die for the whole People, we have heard, but that the whole People should perish for the pleasure of one Man, is an unaccountable piece of folly. I have read some Champions of Regal Prerogative, and among others, the Learned Barclay (who though a Scotchman, yet as bitter an Antifanatick as yourself) and they all agree, that at least in these three cases, the Subjects may not only resist, but wage War against their Prince. 1. They say, it may be done so as to Dethrone him, Si imperium abdicavit aut habet pro derelicto: And this to be Parallel with our case in England, the Votes of both Houses of Convention declare. 2. They say, he forfeits the Crown, if he either alienate it or subject it to the Power of another. And how far a Prince bigoted in the Romish Religion may stretch his Zeal, England found by sad experience in King John's days; And you that are so well acquainted with Law, cannot be ignorant of that Maxim, quod semel datur Deo & Ecclesiae non auferendum: and so sweet a morsel given to Pope Innocent III may be challenged by Innocent XI. conform to that Maxim of the Court of Rome. And how far he that endeavours to subject a Protestant State to the See of Rome in Spirituals, may fall under this Category, I leave it to them to judge, who are acquainted with the Policies and necessary encroachments of the Court of Rome, even in Temporals. 3. These Lawyers acknowledge, That a Prince forfeits the Crown, Si hostili animo in populi exitium feratur. And how far a Prince may be guilty of this, when he endeavours to bring in a Religion inconsistent with the People's eternal Happiness, I leave it to you the Gentlemen of the Black Robe, who know best how preferable the Safety and Health of the Soul is to that of the Body, or to the Goods of Fortune. And thus Sir, I presume I have cleared the Controversy betwixt us, by a fair stating the Question, and these necessary Glosses upon it.  
Fifthly, You are offended at my Saying; What bad Genius prompted you to call Self-Defence an Old Fanatic Principle, and you tell me, You was not obliged from your Text to distinguish betwixt the Kind's of it. I refer it to any rational Man, if it was not absolutely needful to distinguish the Kind's of it, since many things may be said of the Species, that in propriety of Speech cannot be said of the Genus and vice versa, many things agree to the Genus that cannot be said properly of the Species. As for Example, Would it be proper for me to say in general, The Sea ebbs and flows ten or twelve times in the natural Day, without telling what Sea I mean, because forsooth the Euripus does so? And consequently it's as improper to say in general, Self-Defence is an old Fanatic Principle, without distinguishing what kind of it deserves that Name. But I'm willing your Zeal in the Delivery should excuse this mistake. You skip strangely out of the Road to meet the Murderers of the Archbishop of St. Andrews, and lose your Pains; for I abhor the Action as much as you. As to your saying, That Self-Defence came out of Scotland, I hope their Neighbour Nation of England has sufficiently vindicated them in it, by so fairly following their Copy in this Juncture. You add, That you have many Civil Law Books, and none of them allows Self-Defence. I find having of Books without reading them does no great Feats. That they disallow Resistance to Magistrates acting as such, I acknowledge. But that there are not a great many Senatus-consulta, Plebiscita, Responsa jurisprudentium, etc. through the whole Tract of the Corpus juris, fixing Boundaries to the Magistrates Power, against the breaches of which, they often made Resistance worthy of the Roman Name, none can be ignorant, who know any thing of that Law. Must I tell you, That in all the Changes of the Roman Government to that of Emperor exclusiuè, there was still a Tribunitia potestas lodged among the Plebeians, of mere design to set Bounds to the Supreme Magistrates? Hence it was, That after the Government became Imperial and more Despotic, the Emperors were obliged in Policy to unite the Tribunitial Power to the perpetual Dictatorship and Imperial Dignity. Was there ever a People in the World more jealous of Liberty and impatient of Slavery, as the Romans? Witness the dethroning of Tarquin, the Plebeians Insurrection against the Patritii, the bloody Wars of Sylla and Marius, Caesar and Pompey, the unparallelled Battle of Munda, etc. Yea, after that Rome had submitted its Neck to the Imperial Yoke, there still was left them considerable Vestiges of the People's and Senate's Power, which in many Emergents they were obliged to make use of; and must I mind you of the famous Saying of one of the greatest of the Emperors, in giving the Praetor the Sword, Pro me si mereor in me, mentioned with mighty Applause by Pliny the Younger, in his Panegyric?  
Sixthly, You are displeased at my Saying, I could not recount without horror your affirming, That whoever meddled with the King's Forts, Revenue, etc. were guilty of Damnation, And yet with the same breath you say it over again, in expressing yourself in your Letter thus: [If it be a Sin for Subjects to seize the King's Revenues, etc. (as I shall presume it to be, till the contrary be proved) it will no doubt without Repentance, expose the Sinner to Damnation.] In truth, I must acknowledge my Judgement fails me in making any material Difference betwixt what I said, was expressed in your Sermon, and what you say yourself in your Letter, for still in both, meddling with the King's Forts, etc. is a sin exposes to Damnation. Then you tell me, You had no design against the Prince of Orange in your Discourse; and in my taxing you with a Scandalum Magnatum, you accuse me of a Scandalum Ecclesiae. To this I answer, First, What can reflect more upon the Illustrious Prince of Orange, than that the meddling with the King's Forts, etc. exposes to Damnation. Since albeit his Highness be a Sovereign Prince, and no Subject of England; yet in heading and assisting these Subjects that seizes the King's Forts, etc. he must necessarily incur the Gild of a mighty Sin in your sense: For he that so far assists another in a sinful Act as without his assistance, it could not have been acted, is certainly guilty before God of the sinful Act itself. So, if the Nobility and Gentry of England seized the King's Forts, etc. and thereby in your sense exposed themselves to Damnation, it follows necessarily, that the Prince of Orange who so far assisted them as to render them capable to do it, must in the same sense of yours share in the Gild of so doing. And that this Darling Prince of all the Protestants of Europe, is none of yours, appears too clearly, by your refusing either to preach yourself or allowing others to do it, and by your Curate's leaving out the Prayer for him on this happy day of Commemoration of that mighty Deliverance, whereof God has made him the glorious Instrument. Secondly, It Scandalum Magnatum be not properly in its self a Reflection upon the Honour of a Peer of England, I am mistaken, and am willing to be corrected by those who have had more occasion to know the Laws of England than I have had; And if it be so, What greater blemish to their Honour and blot upon their Scutcheon can there be, than to be accused of Rebellion, which you say is the same with Resistance, and of Actions that necessarily without Repentance, expose them to Damnation. Thirdly, I knew not before that the giving a Check to a private Minister of England enveighing against the Nobility of England, was a Scandalum Ecclesiae; neither did I dream that your single Opinion was to be estimate, that of a whole Church. The Roman Catholics on this side the Alps, scorn to lodge the Infallibility in one single Person; and that a private Protestant Minister here, should so far fix it upon himself, as the least Reflection upon him, must be estimate a Scandal done to the whole Church, is a thing very new to me. In the end of this Paragraph, you would fain fix upon me the putting a blot upon the Predecessors of the Prince of Orange: A strange Inference indeed from any thing in my Letter. The Revolt of the States of Holland under the blessed Conduct of that Illustrious Hero William of Nassaw, was in my sense no Rebellion, but a just Vindication of Religion and Civil Liberties, while in your sense it must merit no better Name than Rebellion, since Rebellion and Resistance in your Opinion are convertible Terms. And if you will turn over the Authors that have written in favour of that Revolt, and the most exact model of the present Government of the States, I know, called Commentariolus de Statu Belgii, thought to be Grotius', you will find a very near Parallel betwixt the Coronation Oath of England and that of the House of Burgundy, and their Privileges to have been little or nothing above ours.  
In the last Paragraph, You are angry at my blaming you for wrong timing your Sermon, and tell me, You use always to preach such Doctrine upon the 30 th'. of January, and if Times be changed, Truth is not. In answer to this, I refer you to what I wrote in my Letter upon this Head: Only this I must say; I find it's hard to eradicate a bad Custom. You mind me of the Fate of those that have been Sea-sick, even when the Storm is past, and themselves on firm ground, their Giddiness continues. You have been so used to thunder out your little Bolts against the poor Dissenters, and to cry up Passive Obedience in order to their Ruin, when the edge of the Laws were pointed against them; That now when the Horizon begins to clear up, and the Cheat of setting Protestants by the Ears discovered, you cannot wean yourself from the old beloved way of railing. About the middle of this Paragraph, You seem to scorn me for an Antagonist, because of my being of another Profession, and my small skill in Divinity: And are pleased to promise Dr. Burnet a Copy of your Sermon; if so be, I can prevail with him to vindicate these Positions contained in the Inquiry you would refute.▪ To this I answer, First, I cannot but commend you in desiring such an Antagonist as Dr. Burnet; it were honour enough for you to be overcome by so great a hand: But forgive me to tell you, I am not so far as yet bereavest of Common Sense, (although I had the honour to have such Power with him) as to desire him to stoop to so unequal a Combat. Secondly, As to my want of Skill in Divinity, I am not so impudent as to deny it: But I hope no body will blame me to love the light of the Sun, though I cannot attain the Eagles Fortune to look that bright Planet in the Face. I am heartily sorry, That that Noble Study should be monopolised to the Clergy; for I was still in the mistake, That our Religion allowed us a share in it, pro nostro modulo, and was so foolish as to think, That a Physician whose proper Study is the search of Nature, might very lawfully employ some part of his Hours in that sacred Science whose immediate Subject is the God of Nature. I am happy in this, That neither in my other Letter nor in this, I have had any occasion of demonstrating my Skill in Divinity, or the want of it: And if you will not be angry, I'll tell you, You seem to me to do with your vast Treasure of Divinity, as some sordid Misers with their Money; they hoard it up so close in their Cabinets, as it's impossible for others to say certainly they have any. Thirdly, As to my want of Judgement, Memory, Skill in Divinity, and a great many other such Expressions all along your Letter, which I here take notice of once for all; I would have thought that a Man of your great Parts and Character, would have rather in your Christian Charity have pitied me, than upbraid me with a defect of Nature; For those who know us both, may tell you, That if my Spirit had not been so utterly incapable of Letters, I might have attained to some small Scantlings of Knowledge: My Education both at home and abroad, and the Charges of it being at least nothing inferior to yours. I am glad to find your Paroxysm over in the end of your Letter, and you inclinable to a little Sport in proposing to me Two Questions in Physic; I might laugh them over if your Skill in Physic were not greater than mine in Divinity: And to show myself all Obedience, I answer to the first, That under your Correction a redundancy in Choler, with a little mixture of adust Melancholy, has produced more Tragedies in the Body of Man, than the Juice of the Pancreas is capable to do; and these Affections seldom hit the Body without allowing a large share to the Mind. As to the second Question, I was almost going to compliment you, by giving the credit of the Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood to a Clergyman, the great Padro Paulo as Bishop Bedel insinuates; but I am as loath to part with the Honour of that Discovery from my own Profession, as you are to allow mine that of knowing Divinity. And if I should affirm, That the 12 th'. Chapter of Ecclesiastes contains a true Systeme of the Circulation of the Blood, you might have a large Field to show your Skill of Physic and Divinity at once, by demonstrating the contrary.  
Now I hope my Obedience to you will oblige you to a jus talionis, and instead of two Questions, I'll presume but to propose one, Viz. Whether or not he that pays the stipend should jure Divino, present to the Church? This is a Question may concern you, and I am positively for the affirmative, till you convince me of the contrary.  
SIR, Your humble Servant, JAMES WELWOOD.  
P. S. I must add one thing more: How kindly would your Principle of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance relish with the poor Protestants of Ireland at this day? And indeed if they be all of your Opinion, we are like to have many thousands of Martyrs, if the goodness of God, and the Princes Conduct prevent it not.  
Thus Sir, I have answered your Letter in a Strain somewhat different from yours; for your Heat and Bitterness shall not Authorise mine. If you have any further Commands for me, you shall find me ready to serve you, being that I am   

To Doctor WELWOOD. Newcastle, Feb. 19 1688/ 9  
Good Doctor,  
YOU were it seems in some danger of losing the honour of being an Apathist, because you found not in the Superscription of my Letter, the glorious Title of Dr. Medicinae; but if you will be at the charge of consulting the Herald's Office, you may soon satisfy yourself, That though perhaps you may have commenced Doctor in some Foreign Academy, yet you have no claim to the Privileges of the same degree in England, till you are admitted ad cundem in one of our Famous Universities; if this Apology will not allay the effervence of your Choler, I have nothing to plead besides the Ignorance of your Quality. You are in a much greater ferment, by reason of that rude Answer you say I sent you; but others that saw it, thought it more modest than you deserved, considering these Provocations you had given me, a Person that never injured you in my life. But I fancy you expected from me some such mighty Compliments as Dr. Burnet met with in his Travels, for charging me with false Doctrine, waspish Expressions, want of Breeding, scurrilous and indecent Epithets, black Aspersions, bad Genius, horrible Positions, Scandalum Magnatum, want of Prudence, Choler, narrow Theatre, having Books and not reading them: For these and many more are the Flowers and Embellishments of your Style; and yet good Man, you are not capable of any Impressions of Heat and Bitterness, but more cool than the Alps, and a greater Adeptus in Stoicism, than Old Zeno was, who yet, say some, did at last swing himself out of the World in a pleasant Paroxysm of Apathy. But in lieu of your charging me with Choleric Strains, I shall return you two known Sayings, Turpe est Doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum, Et, Medice cura teipsum. Before I come to examine what you may think material in your second Letter, I shall premise something concerning the Doctrine of the Church of England, which I think may be better gathered out of her own Authentic Monuments, than out of your Countrymen barely; and this will bring us to the truest State of the Controversy. In order thereunto I shall begin with the necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man, set forth by the Authority of Henry the Eighth, and composed by Cranmer, Ridley, Redman, and other glorious Martyrs. On the fifth Commandment they deliver themselves thus, Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty, Truth, Love and Obedience towards their Prince, for any Cause, whatsoever it be, neither for any Cause they may conspire against his Person, nor do any thing towards the hindrance nor hurt thereof, nor of his Estate; and they prove this from Rom. 13. Whosoever resisteth the Powers, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist them get to themselves Damnation. And upon the sixth Commandment, No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for whatsoever Cause it be; and though Princes which be the Supreme Heads of their Realms, do otherwise than they ought to do, yet God hath assigned no Judges over them in this World, but will have the Judgement of them reserved to himself, and will punish them when he seeth it time. In the Second Part of the Sermon of Obedience in the Book of Homilies, our Church declareth, That it is not lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any case to resist and stand against the higher Powers: For St. Paul's Words are plain, Whosoever withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation. In the Second Part of the Homily against Rebellion, we have these Words, David was fain to save his Life not by Rebellion or any Resistance, but by flight and hiding himself from the King's sight; Shall we not rise and rebel against our known mortal and deadly Enemy that seeks our Lives? No, saith godly David, What shall we do then to a Saul an evil, unkind Prince, an Enemy to us, hated of God, hurtful and pernicious to the Commonwealth? Lay no violent hand upon him (saith good David,) but let him live until God appoint or work his end. It is most plain from these Passages, That the Church of England forbids all Resistance of the Higher Powers in all Causes whatsoever. And though you and your Countryman Barclay, were pleased to trouble the World with nice Distinctions, our Church thinks it more advisable to follow St. Paul's Example, and use none at all.  
Having premised thus much to state the Controversy aright, I shall now examine your Letter.  
First, You will have Dr. Burnet the Author of that Pamphlet whether I will or no, and bring such silly Arguments to prove it, as are not worth the mentioning: But since you will have it so, I wish you had taken more pains to vindicate his Reputation, seeing he has subscribed the Homilies and asserted Passive Obedience to the height; but this was too hot for your Fingers, and therefore you thought fit to drop it.  
Secondly, In your Second Paragraph I find nothing material, for having referred you to the Homilies of our Church for Scripture Proofs of Passive Obedience; you are it seems afraid to look into that excellent Book, lest you should be found guilty of a Scandalum Ecclesiae; and in truth, I must commend your Wisdom, for its much safer writing against a private Minister, than against so glorious a Church; but believe it, you must not expect to go Scot-free, since I have now proved the Doctrine of Passive Obedience in my narrow sense, (as you call it very improperly, seeing it is the largest sense any takes it in,) to be the Doctrine of the Church of England.  
Thirdly, You say that I am unwilling the Protestants abroad should share with the Church of England in her darling Doctrine of Passive Obedience, which is a Story as true as many you use to tell in the Coffee-house; for if you look into the third Paragraph of my former Letter, you'll find me reproving your Learned Ignorance for abusing several of those great Names you mention, such as Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Grotius, and others, whom you represent as Patrons of Resistance, which is but another name for Rebellion. You are now forced to own, That the Government of the Empire differs so far from ours in England, that what would be unlawful Resistance here, would be but a legal Defence there; and this alone is sufficient to vindicate most of those Foreign Divines you mention. But because you are very hard to please, I shall add further out of sleidan's Comment. Lib. XVII. where he tells us, That the Elector of Saxony who was the chief Person engaged in the Germane Wars against Charles the Fifth, did openly declare, That if the said Charles was owned to be a proper Sovereign with respect to the Princes of the Empire, it must then be granted, That it was not lawful to wage War with him. I hope you will not be so injurious to the Prince of Orange as to affirm, That he is no Sovereign Prince, because he is proclaimed King of England. Luther indeed at first was ignorant (as you were) of the Constitution of the Empire, and therefore was altogether for resisting Charles the Fifth, but afterwards he was better informed by Learned Lawyers, as Sleidan and Melchar Adam Report. Melancthon, you'll find Orthodox in this matter, if you consult his Loc. Com. de Vindicat. Magistrate. Indeed some have thought Calvin (as you do) a favourer of resisting Sovereign Princes, because Lib. 4. Institut. he has this Passage, Si qui nunc sint populares Magistratus, ad moderandum Regum libidinem constituti, quales olim erant qui Lacaedemoniis Regibus oppositi erant Ephori. If (saith he,) there be any such Magistrates as the Ephori were among the Lacaedemonians, they may oppose and resist Kings, but in other cases he denies it. Now because you are ignorant of the Power of the Ephori among the Spartans', and that their two Kings were not proper Sovereigns; but the one Admiral by Sea, and the other Generalissimo of Land Forces: I shall for your better instruction remit you to Arist. Polit. Lib. 2. Plutarch in Pausan, or Keckerman de Repub. Sparta a Book perhaps more easy to be got in Scotland. You are pleased to triumph, because Grotius, as you say, is of your Opinion, and tell me, He is not inferior to me either for Learning or Judgement; It's well that you can speak a little truth at any time, but whether it be your gross Ignorance or the liberty Travellers use to take, it's very seldom that you speak all the Truth; for the Learned Grotius, though in his Book de jure Belli & pacis, and in another written in his Younger Time, he did drop some unmeet Expressions and unfound Arguments; yet when he had weighed Matters better, he retracted his former Opinions, and in his last Works is as much for Nonresistance, as I was in my Sermon. For proof of this Vid. Anot. on Rom. 13. Mat. 26.52. Vot. pro pace; where he approves of the Proceedings of the University of Oxford about Paraeus on the Romans, and allows of this their Determination, viz. That Subjects ought by no means to resist their King by force, nor ought they to take either offensive or defensive Arms against the King, for the cause of Religion or any other thing whatsoever. But you (no doubt) will despise the Determination of our famous University, though applauded by your own Grotius, and imitate your Countryman Gillispie, who in scorn called Prayers and Tears Oxford Divinity. By these few instances, it will I hope, be evident to all unprejudiced Persons, how much you have abused these great Names, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Grotius.  
Fourthly, In the next place, you have the confidence to tell me, That the Church of England is for the Principle of Resistance, and that the Homilies cannot be for Passive Obedience. Now this is not only to contradict me, but also to contradict yourself, having in your former Paragraph called it the darling Doctrine of our Church. You might have received full satisfaction in this matter, had you according to my Advice consulted the Book of Homilies; but instead of doing this, and to have an opportunity to show your great Talon of wrangling, you labour to evince your impudent Assertion by these impertinent Arguments.  
First, Because Queen Elizabeth protected the Hollanders in the Revolt from Spain; but this I have answered in my former Letter, and obliged you to acknowledge, That the Government of the Netherlands was vastly different from this of England; so that theirs was not properly Resistance, but a warrantable Defence: This I say, you were told before, and owned the matter, and yet think fit to serve up your twice sodden Coleworts, that you may seem to say something.  
Secondly, You tell me as a great Secret, That the Convocation of the Clergy of England gave vast Sums towards the Protection of the Hollanders; and the Preamble of every Act insinuates the lawfulness of their Resisting the King of Spain. This is a Secret with a Witness; for I dare be bold to say, That the Learnedest Lawyer in England never heard of an Act of Parliament for Money, made by a Convocation: But suppose the Bishops or any of the Clergy did contribute such vast Sums, it will not prove, That our Church did not own Passive Obedience in Queen Elizabeth's time, as you assert; But pray Sir, were not the Homilies in her time? And that the Fathers of our Church did then take them in the same sense as I did in my Sermon, will appear beyond all contradiction from the Testimonies of Bishop Bilson and jewel. I begin with Bishop Bilson, who speaks thus in his Book of Christian Subjection: Deliverance, if you would have it, obtain it by Prayer, and expect it in Peace: These be the Weapons for Christians; the Subjects have no Refuge against their Sovereign, but only to God by Prayer and Patience. Bishop jewel in his Defence of the Apology, speaks thus, We teach the People as St. Paul doth, to be subject to the Higher Powers, not only for fear, but also for Conscience sake; We teach 'em, That whoso striketh with the Sword by private Authority, shall perish with the Sword. If the Prince happen to be wicked, or cruel, or burdensome, we teach 'em to say with St. Ambrose, Tears and Prayers be our Weapons.  
This I hope will be sufficient to evince, That Passive Obedience was owned by our Church in the Days of Queen Elizabeth of Blessed Memory, and that in the same sense, I did assert in my Sermon.  
Fifthly, In the next place, you attempt to prove the lawfulness of Resisting the Kings of England from the Coronation Oath, which you say, is of the same import with the Bulla Aurea in Germany; but for this we have no other proof than your own ipse dixit, as if the Soul of Pythagoras by a Metempsychosis, had at last taken up its Lodging in a Scots Tenement: But I assure you Sir, your bare word is of no such Authority with me. Besides, I have already proved, That the Emperor by reason of the Bulla Aurea, is no proper Sovereign. And if you should say, the Prince of Orange is no proper Sovereign now that he is proclaimed King of England, it would be as bad or worse than to drink a Health to the Success of King James' Forces against all Invaders whatsoever, at that very time when the Prince of Orange was coming over to rescue the Nation from Popery and Slavery; and yet this you merrily did in a certain House at the lower end of Westgate; so that for all your pretended Zeal, you are a sneaking Proteus; and it would be as easy to shape a Coat for the Moon as for your Latitudinarian Conscience. But I must instruct you, That the King of England is a Sovereign Prince before his Coronation; nor is his Oath necessary to make him so, seeing Henry the Sixth Reigned divers Years in England before he was Crowned, and yet was owned by his Parliaments for their dread Sovereign: Nay further, our Chronicles inform us, That some of our Kings were never Crowned; and besides all this, I desire you and those of your Cabal, to show any thing in the Coronation Oath that allows Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince.  
In the next place, you pretend to give such an exact State of the Controversy, as you say, will in one word, refute the Tenet of Passive Obedience; and in order hereunto, you offer four Cases out of Barclay and others, in which as you tell me, They all agree, that it's lawful for Subjects, to resist and wage War against their Sovereign Princes. Had you read your Countryman Barclay, as you pretend, you would have found that he allows only two Cases in which a Prince may be divested of his Royal Dignity; and when you come to propose these four Cases, you mention only three: Such is the great Excellence of your Memory, notwithstanding that according to the Proverb, Some stand in need of a very good one.  
First, Your first Case is, When a Prince does voluntarily and freely relinquish his Crown and Dignity, as did Charles the Fifth, Christiana of Sweden, and to name no more, nine Saxon Kings mentioned in Fuller's Church History. Now in this Case the Prince who voluntarily resigns the Crown, becomes for the future a private Person; and should he afterwards by force, endeavour to recover his Dignity, which by his own consent is vested in the next Heir, he may no doubt be resisted: But sure this is not resisting a King or the Higher Powers, but a private Person in defence of a lawful King, and so is nothing to your purpose; and pray look your Barclay again, and see if this Case (as you say) is there.  
Secondly, If a Prince alienates his Crown and Subjects to another, you say, he may be resisted; this without any harm may be granted too: For as I own no Allegiance to a Foreign Prince, so my own Prince has voluntarily divested himself, and thrust himself into a private Capacity; and in this case we do not resist the Higher Powers, but a private Person. And this instance does also fall short of the mark.  
Thirdly, The third Case is more pertinent, for you say a King may be deposed or resisted, Si hostili animo in populi exitium feratur. This you have transcribed from Grotius, and the meaning of it is this, Whether a Sovereign Prince may be resisted in case he undertakes to destroy his whole Kingdom, or any considerable part thereof. If we may take your honest word, Grotius, and all that you have read, resolve this Point in the Affirmative: To which I answer, First, That Grotius with due submission to your vast reading, did as I showed above, retract in his riper Years this dangerous Opinion, which Erasmus in Luke 22. styles a most pernicious Heresy. Secondly, Bishop Taylor calls it deservedly a Wild Tenet; and Grotius as well as he, acknowledges it can scarce seem possible to happen. It is certain, that we have not one single instance of it in the whole Race of our British Kings. Thirdly, More sober Casuists condemn the starting such speculative Cases, as Princes cutting the Throats of their Subjects, because they have been found the Incentives of Rebellion. They were such Fears and Outcries as these, that brought King Charles the Martyr to the Block, and have stained your Scotch Chronicles with the Murders of above sixty Sovereign Princes; So that King William and Queen Mary will have cause to thank you for giving such early Demonstrations of your Loyalty; in the very beginning of their Reign, teaching their Subjects in how many cases they may resist, when the Laws of the Land say expressly, That it's unlawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever.  
Fourthly, Put the case that Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius or Nero be the King, and your Countryman Barclay instances such Monsters as these, as being the greatest he could find in all History, you and he both affirm they may be lawfully resisted; it is not for me to oppose such Learned Gentlemen, but I will assure you once more, Grotius is against you, and I hope he is not very much inferior to your Doctorship in Learning and Judgement: And must I tell you again what I told you from the Pulpit, viz. That those Prohibitions against Resistance, which are given in the New Testament by our Saviour, St. Paul and St. Peter, were remarkably given at such a time, when these greatest Monsters of Cruelty sat on the Throne; and pray ask my Parishioners whether they do not believe our Saviour, St. Paul and St. Peter to be as good Casuists as your Doctorship and Countryman Barclay. Having thus destroyed the very Foundations, your State of the Controversy stood on, your slender superstructure and puerile flourishes will tumble with them.  
In the next place, you still seem very angry because I did not distinguish the several kinds of Resistance, I have told you already that it's lawful to resist private Persons that offer violence to us, as your Countryman Balfour, or any Scotch Doctor, if you should offer to pull me by the nose, but it's not lawful to resist public Authority of the Higher Powers. Now since the Text confined my discourse to the resistance which relates to the Higher Powers, I had no leisure to consult Duns Scotus, or your Countryman Barclay, that I might puzzle the Cause, and perplex the Auditory with impertinent distinctions. But how comes your great confidence did not quarrel with St. Paul? For he uses no more distinctions at all, than I did. If they had been needful and it had been lawful to resist the Higher Powers, upon any pretence whatsoever, St. Paul who needed not your directions to State Controversies, would doubtless have brought his distinctions along with him, seeing therefore he uses none, I'm not to blame for following his Example, for it's a known Maxim Nefas est distinguere ubi Lex non distinguit. But had you not made this Cavil, you had lost an opportunity of telling a pleasant Story about the Euripus, which you say ebbs and flows ten or twelve times every day. What happy Men are you Travellers? Alas I could never have discovered these wonderful motions in my narrow Theatre, as you call it; simple Man as I was, I thought it had only flowed twice in a day as our River Tyne does, being deceived by the Learned Gassendus and Petrus Gellius, who was told of no more by those Millers who resorted daily to that Sea.  
In the next place, I expected, not without trembling, a long account of the Lex Regia, and numerous citations out of the Corpus juris; For really, Learned Dr. when you told me that the Roman Tables, the Codex, and Pandects, the Institutes, nay even no fewer than all the famous Civilians were for resisting the Higher Powers, you put me into such a bold fright, that I was resolved to have sworn the Peace against you, had not Horace revived me with a pair of Verses, Quid tanto feret his promissor hiatu? parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus, which I shall crave leave to put in English meeter for the benefit of those you exposed my Letters and yourself to, 
What will this mighty boaster say  
That can be worth a Louse?  
When even Mountains do bring forth  
The birth's some silly Mouse.   
For I do not find in your second Letter one single testimony out of any of those Books, but notwithstanding all your noise before, you are now as silent as the Moon in the Eclipse. What a powerful Argument for resistance is trajan's compliment to the People? It might indeed do well enough in Plinys Panegyric, but it will never pass muster in polemics.  
Your two last Paragraphs are such an Augean stable of unkind falsities as will tyre even Hercules himself to cleanse, and because they contain no matter of argument, but are only a bundle of malicious reflections, I shall vouchsafe them no other answer, than, Get thee behind me Satan.  
I come now to the close of your tedious Letter, and since you admonish me, that I ought of Christian Charity to pity your ignorance, I shall be more favourable to you than you have been to several of the Clergy of this Town. However you must allow me to wonder a while, that you who were so brisk in citing Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and others, that you are unacquainted with; yea were also so courageous, as to appeal to the Roman Tables, Codex, the Pandects, Institutes, and all the famous Civilians, notwithstanding you are so great a stranger to them; you should lose all your confidence when you come to questions relating to your own Profession: I shall be more civil than to inquire into the cause of this unusual modesty. But had the old Philosopher been alive, he would have certainly got a perfect cure for his adust Melancholy, if not have burst his spleen, to see a Learned Animal once more nibbling at the Thistles; For all your answer to my first question is this, viz. That a redundancy of Choler with a little mixture of adust Melancholy is the principal cause of Distempers; but had you said a redundancy in Choler incorporating with the juice of the Pancreas, and vitiating the ferment of the Stomach, you would have had the renowned Silvius, his ingenious Scholar Regenerus de Graaf, and other great Physicians for your Seconds. Your answer to the other Question is, That Harvey, and not Father Paul was the discoverer of the Circulation of the blood; and this you affirm, for no Authority you do, or can produce, but merely out of spite to the honour of the Clergy. But Sir, it's well known, that Father Paul was a student at Milan, at the same time that Harvey was there, and discovered to Aquapendens the Valves of the Veins, which discovery that great Anatomist appropriated to himself, and so Harvey is thought by some of the Learned Tribe to have also abused that Father. But to deal more generously with you, than you will with the Clergy, this Laurel I will stick in the bosom of Aesculapius, But than you must allow me to pass by Harvey, as well as Padre Paulo, and give it to Andrea's Cisalpinus; and if ever you happen to travel as far as Pisa, where he was Professor Medicinae, or go to Oxford, that you may be admitted ad eundem, inquire for Andreae Cisalpini, Quest. Med. 4. edit Ven. Anno 1593., and if you do not find as perfect a Discovery of the Circulation of the Blood, as is any where to be met with in Harvey, I'll be bound to answer another of your impertinent Letters as long as this, and certainly I cannot do greater Penance for my Confidence. As to your Question, Whether he that pays the stipend ought not jure Divino, present to the Church: I'm positively for the negative; for the incomparable Stillingfleet after a most diligent search, declares in his Mischiefs of Separation, That he could not find a vola or vestigium of a jus divinum for it in all the Bible; and if you will not believe him, try what you can do. I will add further, That there is a Ruled Case in our Law Books, called the Case of the Vicar of Hallifax, where it's determined, That every Vicar has the right of nominating his own Curate, though the Inhabitants of the Parish pay the stipend; and if you dare to say, The Law of the Land is contrary to the Law of God, I shall leave you to be chastised by the Gentleman of the Long Robe. And now Sir, that I have undergone all this Drudgery, if for the future you trouble me with your Choleric Impertinences, I shall commit them to the Flames, & sic extinguere ignibus ignes; but if you are willing to be civil and peaceable, I shall remain,  
SIR, Your Humble Servant, JOHN MARCH. Feb. 19 1688/ 9   

For the Reverend Mr. JOHN MARCH, Vicar of Newcastle. Newcastle, March 3. 1688/ 9  
SIR,  
AFTER your so unusual method of exposing your Second Letter at your Stationer's Shop, and thereby to most of the Town, I might have expected it myself, especially considering my so often sending for it; but your delaying it from day to day, and at last absolute Refusal, put me upon the necessity of getting a Copy of it another way. I cannot much blame you for this Conduct; the writing and dispersing such a Letter required indeed the Denial of it, to the Person for whom it was designed. I find you are liable to the fate of him, of whom it was said, If he had held his Peace, he might have been thought a Philosopher; and I was nothing unwilling you should continue such in the Opinion of the Mobile. I might well spare myself the trouble of a Rejoinder, there being nothing in your Letter that requires one; for they must have clearer Eyes than mine, that can discover any thing material or to the purpose in it; but instead thereof, a continued shuffling and waving of the Question, mixed with so mean Sarcasms, that for your own Honour I could have wished you had omitted them: So that to give you an Answer I am at a great loss, being unacquainted with Billingsgate Oratory, and obliged at every turn to repeat my own words in my former Letters; which you have been pleased to wrest so far, as I cannot say, you have given a fair repetition of one single Sentence of mine all along yours. But to evince to the unbiass'd and knowing Persons of the place, That you are not infallible, as your admiring Mobile would have you; I have put myself upon a nauseating Task of writing you these few Lines, in answer to so indigested and immethodick a Letter.  
You begin it with bantering my taking notice of the Direction of your first, and tell me, That the Herald's Office will inform me, that a Doctor of a Foreign University has no Privilege in England. I pretend to no great Privileges any where; but I had reason to expect a designation you refuse not to some who scarce ever saw an University. Neither have I lived so obscure, or been so little employed, as not to be known for what I am, by most of the Gentry and People of Quality in the place; and you notably contradict yourself in saying, You was ignorant of my Quality, since you name expressly my Profession in your first Letter. But we shall not fall out upon that Head, since the Herald's Office is not like to be much troubled with either of our Escutcheons. Next you would fix upon me a great ferment of Choler and Rudeness in many of my Expressions you enumerate, and tell me, I deserved not so modest an Answer as you vouchsafed me, considering the Provocations I gave you, a Person that never disobliged me. I submit both my first and second to any neutral Person, who perhaps will allow them a better Construction; and if any thing of Heat has slipped from my Pen, I hope the occasion of it will do more than procure me a pardon. It's true, you never disobliged me; but no Personal Injury could have affected me more, than the hearing a glorious and unparallelled Deliverance branded in the Pulpit, with the infamous Names of Rebellion, Damnation, and the like, and the being a Witness to a Series of Actings consequential to such Expressions. You seemed to me in inveighing against a Revolution wherein the Finger of God was so visible, to act much in parallel with those of old, who dared to attribute the stupendious Effects of Omnipotence to a base Influence: And for me to have been an Apathist on such an occasion, would have been but another name for Stupidity. In your accusing me of Passion, you must needs have a fling at poor Zeno, and Two thousand Years rest in his Grave, must not shelter him from your accusation of a felo de se, albeit, his manner of Death is not agreed upon by Authors, whereof not a few allow him a natural one.  
Before you come to answer my Letter, you will needs premise something concerning the Doctrine of the Church of England; and this you say, will bring us to the true State of the Question: Whereupon you are at the pains to cite several Passages out of the Book of Homilies against Resistance and for Passive Obedience, and then you subsume, Having premised thus much to state the Question, you come to examine my Letter. Sir, I thought every Schoolboy knew better what it was to state a Question, than to cite Authorities to prove the thing questioned; and what gentiel Name to give your thus stating it, I am at a loss. The stating of a Question is properly the removing all Equivocation of Terms or Amphibologies of Speech (as the Schools speak,) whereby both the Opponent and Defendant may agree in the same sense and meaning of the words. And pray Sir, how came you to imagine, That the Authorities produced, removed any Difficulty arising from a wrong understanding of the words Passive Obedience and Resistance, etc. that are the Subjects of our Debate? If you had been at pains to cast your Eyes upon my Letter so as to read it, I presume you would have found me stating the Question betwixt us, thus upon the matter, viz. That to resist the Magistrate, when he is lawfully such, and acting in execution of Laws, is one thing; but to resist the same Person, when he divests himself of that Sacred Character by trampling on Fundamental Laws, is quite another: The first is certainly unlawful, but not the second. And to elucidate this, I told you, there was a great Difference betwixt a Princes trampling upon a part of his Subjects in execution of Laws made against them, and his doing of the same in downright contradiction of Fundamental Laws made in their Favours: And albeit, in the first case it were disallowable to Resist, yet in the second, reason and common sense, in my Opinion, does warrant it. And upon my thus stating of the Question, I did then, as now once for all, tell you, That all places of the Homilies, yea, of Holy Scripture itself, disproving Resistance of Magistrates, are to be understood in a natural sense, and with Analogy of Reason, to be meant of Magistrates when lawfully such, and acting conform to Laws, and not of Princes divesting themselves of that Office by their own Faults and Mismanagement. And in my giving so necessary and natural a Gloss upon the Homilies, I do but Justice to those worthy Reformers that compiled them; whereas on the contrary; you by endeavouring to wrest their Words to your notion of Passive Obedience, derogate from the Reason and Learning of those Excellent Men▪ And thus you have lost your pains and time in citing them.  
At length you come to examine my Letter, and in the first place you tell me, I will have Dr. Burnet to be Author of that Pamphlet whether you will or not; and in so doing, you say, I derogate from his Credit, since he subscribed the Book of Homilies, and has asserted Passive Obedience. A strange shuffle indeed, and of a piece with the rest of your Letter. I never so much as insinuated any such thing; and whether it be his or not, I know not: But sure I am, all your Hearers thought, and I have evinced it, as much as the matter can bear, That in the scurrilous Epithets you gave the Author of that Pamphet as you call it, you designed Dr. Burnet; and this you wisely pass over without an Answer. I was willing to think you were now ashamed of these Expressions; but the whole Tenor of your Letter forbids me to think, that blushing is your greatest fault. It were a piece of odd presumption, to suppose that Great Man needed any Man's Vindication, especially mine: And sure I am, in his subscribing the Homilies, and asserting Passive Obedience, he sufficiently understood the sense of the Words; and his Reason and Learning is too great to have been cheated into your Notion of them. But you know the Sun loses none of his Rays by being barked at.  
In your second Paragraph, I find nothing but a Repetition of the Homilies yet once more to prove Passive Obedience, a Principle of the Church of England's; and this requires no other Answer, but what I have already given you in stating the Question, and clearing the sense of the Words.  
You begin your third Paragraph with another shuffle, in making me call Passive Obedience the darling Principle of the Church of England, than which nothing was farther from my thoughts; and to call it yours, meaning Mr. Vicars, was not in my Opinion, to father it upon the Church of England. Then you tell me, I am forced to own, That the Government of the Empire is so far different from that of England, that what would be Rebellion here, would be but a legal Defence there. This requires indeed, a considerable Talon of Confidence; for I acknowledge no such thing: Yea, upon the contrary I asserted, That the Bulla Aurea of the Empire, and the Coronation Oath in England, were so▪ far parallel, that they were both Barriers against the Encroachments of the Sovereign. One would have thought, that instead of mis-citing my Expressions, a Man of your Character would rather have endeavoured to give a fair Answer, by evincing, That the Bulla Aurea warrants Resistance, and the Coronation Oath disallows it. You are as unjust to Sleidan as to me; for the Duke of Saxony is mentioned by him, to use no such Expressions as these you mentioned; but instead of saying, The Emperor was not a proper Sovereign; his words are, He is not an absolute and despotic Monarch, and so may be resisted. When you aver, That Luther at first understood not the Government of the Empire when he was for Resistance, I cannot but regret his misfortune in the want of your acquaintance, seeing he might have been better instructed by you at Newcastle, than either by his Reading, or Converse with the Greatest Men upon the place: And I have as little reason to believe his Ignorance on that Head, as his recanting his Opinion; for both are equally true. As to what you say of Calvin and Melancthon's being for Passive Obedience, if I had their Works besides me (as I have not,) I could evince the contrary from their Writings. But who knows not that the first did vindicate the Genevans their throwing off the Jurisdiction both of the Bishop of Geneva and Duke of Savoy, whereof one of them behoved to be their Sovereign; and the last did allow of the Famous Smalcalde League, against Charles V. Next you are so kind as to instruct me a little of the power of the Ephori, whereof you suppose I am utterly ignorant; I cannot in good manners but thank you for this condescendance; And yet it's somewhat strange, how you come to have so intuitive acknowledge of me, as without search, to find me ignorant of what every School Boy may know. I never dreamed, that Keckerman, Aristotle, or Plutarch's works were so rare in Scotland as you insinuate; perhaps the Books we have under these Names, are spurious, and you by a vast charge of enquiry, have found out the Genuine ones, that have not yet come our length; I am hopeful your charity will oblige you to bestow one true Copy of these great men's Works, upon a whole Nation you have so great a kindness for. And yet Sir, if what we have of Plutarch be true, you are as ignorant of the Spartan Kings, as I of the Ephori, for if you will consult his Lives of Agesilaus, Agis and Lysander, you may find, that albeit Lycurgus found the Government lodged in two Kings, and left it so, yet both before his time and afterwards, the Spartans' were ruled but by one King, and particularly from Archidamus to Agis the last of the Heraclidae, including six Kings one after another.  
Thereafter, you are pleased very obligingly to accuse me of a downright Lie, in saying, Grotius allows of Resistance, and yet with the same breath, you confess he dropped in his younger years some unmeet expressions, and unsound arguments in his Book de jure Belli & Pacis, which afterwards you confidently affirm he retracted. I can hardly be persuaded to take with a Lie, in saying, Grotius allows of Resistance, since in my second Letter, I gave you his own words for it, and you yourself acknowledge he did so; But I am fully convinced you are guilty of a thing called a mistake, in saying, he retracted his Opinion, for Bleaw's Edition of that Book, with the addition of Notes written by himself a little before his death (as the very title bears) not only repeats all he had formerly said upon that Head, but confirms it with new Additions; to which I refer you. Your Reflection upon Gillespy, I am willing to impute to your love to his Country, and yet I persuade myself, it will meet with no better name among the most of Men, than that of a groundless calumny.  
In your fourth Paragraph, you would fain fix upon me a contradiction in first asserting Passive Obedience, to be the darling Principle of the Church of England, and then denying it. Certainly, this is to try how far you can push forward an untruth without lying, I did indeed call Passive Obedience your darling, meaning Mr. john Marches, but that it's the Principle of the Church of England, I have evinced the contrary. The next time I have occasion to name any thing that belongs to you, I find I must play the Quaker, and use the word Thine; otherwise you will Father it upon the whole Church. Next with the same ingenuity, you say, I confessed the Government of Holland to be so far different from that of England, that what were Lawful Resistance there, would be Rebellion here. I need not tell you I said no such thing; upon the contrary, I told you that the Coronation Oath in England, ran parallel with that of the Family of Burgundy, in whose right Philip of Spain was Lord of Belgium: And this you skip over as all the rest that's material. You use your old way of shuffling, in fixing on me the mentioning only the Hollanders, in the Protection given by Queen Elizabeth; Whereas I named the Protestants abroad in general, whereof these of the Low Countries were but a part; yet by this little trick of skill, you wisely pass over the assistance that Great Princess gave the Protestants of France, who never could lay claim to any such privileges, as either the Low Countries or England justly pretend to, that Government being as absolute as any in Christendom, ever since Lewis XI. Notwithstanding of which, She protected them at a vast charge, in the Reigns of Charles IX. and Henry III. Yea, it was not only in Q. Elizabeth's time, that England assisted the Protestant Subjects of France against their encroaching Princes; but in King Charles I. Reign, the Expedition of Rochel was carried on by King and Parliament, and cordially agreed to by the Fathers of the Church. What a poor shift are you forced to use, to evite my argument from the concurrence of the Clergy in Convocation, when you play upon the word Act of Parliament, as if I had named the act of Convocation thus, which I did not. All the World knows they gave considerable sums for managing that assistance given by the Queen, and thereby allowed of the action itself. Your Citations of Bilson and Jewel are to no purpose, the stating of the Question clears sufficiently their meaning.  
You begin your Rhapsody of a fifth Paragraph, with a snarl at my saying, there was a Parallel betwixt the Coronation Oath of England, and the Golden Bull of the Empire, and yet you are not able to evince the discrepancy betwixt them. If you cast your eyes upon that Bull, you may find that by it, the Emperor is to swear observance of the Laws and Liberties of the Empire, and so does the King of England swear at his Coronation, the observance of the Laws and Liberties of England: And I would have you to take notice, that neither in the Golden Bull, nor our Coronation Oath, there is any irritant clause, expressing power to resist in case of violation of either, for the nature of the Contract warrants it, without the necessity of any such express clause. As to that Calumny, of my drinking to the success of King James' Arms against all Invaders, I'll give you this advice; The first time you Preach upon the ninth Commandment, allow yourself a Reflection upon that place of Scripture, Romans 2.22, 23. Thou that sayest, a Man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking of the Law dishonourest thou God? You have been so unhappy in this Calumny, that it's the only one, neither my Friends nor Enemies will believe, and even in laying the Scheme of it, you show your good nature, in insinuating His present Majesty came to England as an Invader, whereas none but such as you, denied him the quality of a Deliverer. What a needless pother do you make about the Coronation Oath, because forsooth, the King of England is a Sovereign before his Coronation? This every body knows, and yet I would have you likewise to know, that a Prince's acceptance and exercise of the Regal Power before Coronation, is in itself an Homologation of the Coronation Oath, and he becomes virtually obliged by it, as a necessary condition of the Original Contract, betwixt him and his Subjects: And in case a King should contradict the whole tenor of that Oath by Maladministration, it were no rational excuse, to allege, he had not actually taken the Coronation Oath, seeing it's presumed in Law, he knew the terms on which he attained that dignity. In the end of this Paragraph, you desire me to show you any thing in the Coronation Oath that allows Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince. I have told you before that it's not Lawful for Subjects to rise up against their Princes, acting as lawful Magistrates, and there is no necessity of an express clause in the Coronation Oath, to warrant Resistance in case of a Princes overturning all Laws; Because the Nature of the thing enforces it. And moreover you will find no such express clause in the Golden Bull, nor in the Plan of the Government of the Netherlands, nor of any Monarchick Government in Europe, Poland alone excepted: So that if the nature of the Government, do not allow Resistance without any such express clause, you will be as little able to vindicate the Hollanders and the Princes of the Empire, from the imputation of Rebellion, as I, the Subjects of England.  
In the beginning of your sixth Paragraph, you are heavy upon the poor Transcriber of my Letter, for the mistake of the Figure 4 instead of 3, and I am displeased at him too, for angering you. Then after your usual manner of calling me a liar, for what reason I know not, you come to answer my three cases, which I cited both out of Grotius and Barclay with your good leave. And the first case you would answer is none of mine; for instead of saying, a Prince may be Dethroned, when he voluntarily and freely relinquishes his Crown, as you would have me to say; My words out of Grotius were these, si imperium abdicavit vel habet pro derelicto, which are as far distant from yours as East and West: And the case (as you word it) will not admit of sense, for he that Dethrones himself by a voluntary Renunciation as Charles V. needs not to be Dethroned by others: An office may be truly and properly abdicate, when there is no solemn formal Renouncing it, and to evince this I'll give you but two instances of Offices, that have a near analogy with Monarchy. If a General in the Field of Battle, would either absent himself, or by a supine negligence, refuse to give the word of Command, or lead on the Army; In this case, there is no formal Resignation of his Office: And yet how unreasonable were it to debar the Soldiers from making choice of another General in so urgent a juncture. Secondly, What office seems more despotic, than that of a Master of a Ship? Now in case, amidst an imminent hazard of death, the Master cannot be prevailed with to use his skill, to prevent Shipwreck, and yet will not voluntarily Resign his place to another: Who can justly blame the Seamen to appoint one in his place to direct them to a safe Harbour? And how near a Parallel there is betwixt these two examples, and our late juncture in England, the Votes of both Houses have evinced in the word Abdicated. The second case wherein you acknowledge Resistance is lawful, is this, if the Prince either alienate his Kingdom or subject it to another. But the reason you give for it, is wide from the purpose; For a Prince may Subject his Crown to another, and yet not [thrust himself into a private capacity] as you call it. When King john subjected his Crown to the Pope, he ceased not thereby to be King of England, and the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily are true Monarchies in the Family of Spain, and yet Feudatory and Subject to the Pope. One would have thought, that you might have taken some notice of what I said upon this case, in relation to the Native encroachments of the Sea and Court of Rome, and how far a subjection in Spirituals may usher in, a dependence even in Temporals; But yourself denial, will not allow you to be thought too knowing, in what relates to your own Profession. When you come to my third Case, though you at first confess it a pertinent Case, yet you bring four pretty Answers against it. The case being thus, a King may be dethroned, si in populi exitium feratur, you answer, 1. Grotius retracted this opinion; how true this is, I refer you to that Edition of his Works I formerly mentioned, wherein, instead of retracting this Case, he confirms it by his Notes upon it; you are as far in the wrong to Erasmus, as to Grotius, for having looked upon the place cited, there is not one word there relating to this case, 2ly. you tell me B. Taylor calls it, a wild Case, which is nothing to the purpose, for none but wild Men, can be capable of it; than you say, Grotius calls it a Case that scarce seems possible to happen. That there have been such Monsters in the World, appears by Nero's Firing the City of Rome, and Caligula's wishing the Roman People had but one single Neck; yea in the late Age, have we not seen a Northern Prince invite his whole Nobles aboard his Ship, and order them all to be murdered before his Eyes. It's true, we have been blessed with a better Race of Kings in England, than to find any such Monsters in our Annals. But how proper it was for a Divine to take notice of what I told you upon this Head, How far a Prince may fall under this Category, who endeavours to introduce a Religion inconsistent with his People's Eternal Happiness, I am willing (as well as you,) to appeal to your Parishioners. Thirdly, In answer to this Case, you tell me, More sober Casuists condemn the starting of such Speculative Cases, and would fix upon me ill Service done to their Majesties, in teaching their Subjects in what Cases they may Resist. For the first part of this Answer, you are pleased to instance no particular Casuist; and I presume you are not able to do it, unless you wrest their words as much as you use to do mine, that is, make them say what you please. But when you so positively assert that in no case a Prince may be Resisted, give me leave to think, I refel sufficiently your assertion, by instancing a case wherein you acknowledge you self Resistance is warrantable, though that case be very rare. As to the second part of your answer, I hope I shall be found to do no bad service to their Majesties, in vindicating a Revolution wherein they have acted so glorious a part, from the aspersions you have cast upon it; And they have given the World so many and great demonstrations of a Sublim Virtue, and of their abhorrence of Arbitrary Power, as none but such as refuse to pray for them, will dare to imagine, they can possibly fall under any of the Cases I have mentioned; And I heartily agree with you, so far in point of Resistance, that I firmly believe, he who Resists such two darling Princes, falls under the inevitable hazard of Damnation in the sense of your Text, unless he repent.  
Among a great deal of Rubbish of gentle Expressions, I find nothing in your Fourth answer, merits any notice, but one thing that has been canted a thousands times over by your sort of Men; Viz, that the Precepts for Obedience given by our Saviour, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, were given at a time when the greatest Monsters of Cruelty were upon the Throne, for so your express words are. Sir, even in this matter of Fact, you commit a gross mistake, for though probably the two Apostles named, wrote their Epistles in the Reigns of Caligula, Domitian and Nero, yet every Body knows, that our Saviour's preaching, was from the fifteenth till the eighteenth of Tiberius inclusiuè, who was none of the worst of Princes, especially before that time of his Reign. But as to that of the Apostles commanding subjection at a time when Monsters were upon the Throne to answer this, I shall take occasion to give you my gloss upon that Text, Romans 13.1.2. which has occasioned all our debate; and in so doing, perhaps I obviate all you have preached from it for Passive obedience and nonresistance. The subjection there commanded to be given to the Higher Powers, is in a proper sense, (a standing in order under them) as on the contrary, the Resistance prohibit is (a Contraordinatness to them) and so the very Etymology of the Greek words bears. This being the genuine Critic of the words, the meaning of them does fairly resolve into these two Corollaries. First, That the Gospel destroys not Magistracy, nor exempts Christians from the Oeconomy of Subjection, as some Heretics at that time vainly imagined; to which fond opinion it's very probable, the Apostle had an eye, as many learned Men have thought, particularly Gerhardus de Magist. polit. n. 34.38. Secondly, That Christianity exempts not the Professors of it from subjection to Heathen Magistrates, as some Christians of that Age did maintain, having imbibed that principle, from the Gaulonites among the jews, who held subjection to the Romans or any other Strangers, unlawful; and that likewise this heresy or error was in the Apostles view▪ the same learned Author and a great many others do agree. Now Resistance of open and notorious Violations of Magistracy (in which case only I say Resistance is lawful) contradicts not the subjection enjoined in the Text, being thus explained: That subjection, being nothing more, but an acknowledgement of Magistrates, as a Lawful Power ordained of God for the good of Mankind. And that even at that time, this was the Christians sense of this precept, would appear by what I told you of the Senate's declaring Nero an Enemy of Mankind, and adjudging him to Death, approved by the Christians of old, and by the best of Lawyers and Casuists of late; as for instance, Bodinus de Republica. Lib. 2. Cap. 5. And further, That the Subjection here required, is not to Princes abusing their Power by trampling upon all that's Sacred, (as you would have it in naming of Nero,) is evincible from these Reasons: First, Such Princes are not the Ordinance of God, the Relative of Subjection, being they act in opposition to God. Secondly, they are not a terror to evil doers; nor Ministers of God for our Good, except in the sense that afflictions and plagues are, and so they are defective in the necessary Qualities of these higher powers to whom Subjection is enjoined in the Text.  
In your seventh paragraph after some expressions becoming the gravity of a Divine, you will needs vindicate once more, your not making any distinction, when you termed self defence an old Fanatic principle, and the reason you give, is, because the Apostle made none in your Text. By the same reason, you would make but a sorry comment upon many places of Scripture: to instance one for all, our Saviour commands us to swear not at all; Now would it be here impertinent to distinguish betwixt the kinds of Oaths, in order to explain, what Oaths are lawful and what not, because our Saviour made no distinction. You have unluckily stumbled upon the Euripus, in contradicting me for saying, that it flowed and ebbed ten or twelve times in the natural day, and you very confidently allow it no frequenter tides than the River Tyne. This in any other, would be called an unaccountable mistake; the fewest motions any Author allows it, being five Tides in the four and twenty hours. And that my account is true, I refer you to Sir George Wheelers Travels, where that ingenious Gentleman gives you an exact Scheme of the ebbing and flowing of this Straight, as he had it upon the place, from Father Babin and the Millers thereabouts. When upon this score, you satirically envy the happiness of Travellers, I think such men as you, are much more happy than they, if Claudians' description of the happy man of Verona be good: For it seems, he took Benacus lake for the Ocean, and you take measures of all the Seas of the World, by the River of Tyne. Next you tell me you expected from me a great many Citations out of the Roman Law, for resistance of higher powers, and because of your dissapointment you charm me with four Heroic Lines. Sir, I did indeed tell you, the Roman Laws fixed a great many boundaries to the Magistrates power, and that the Tribunitial Office was lodged in the Plebeians for that very cause; I also told you the Romans were of all People the most impatient of Slavery, and gave you a hint, why after the Government of Rome became more despotic, the Emperors were obliged to confound the Tribunitial power with the Imperial dignity; and all this you wisely pass over. It were to transcribe too great a part of the civil Roman Law, to instance all the Laws and Sentences against Arbitrary Government; But let these two suffice at present: The first is of Theodosius the younger. Cod. justin. lib. 1. tit. 24. Princeps tenetur. The Prince is bound to the Laws, on the Authority whereof his Authority depends, and to the Laws he ought to submit. The second is of Constantinus Leo in Bizantin. pro communi. The end of a King is the general good, which he not performing, he is but the counterfeit of a King. These two I rather instance, because the first is a more ample commentary upon Trajan's expression to the Praetor, than I can myself agree to; And the second a clear cofirmation of what I said, in stating of the question, that Princes divest themselves of that sacred Character by their trampling upon Laws. As to your Rhyming, albeit you have aped Cleveland in a great many expressions of kindness to my Country, and have copied verbatim out of one of his Letters, that raillery of the Mares eating Thistles; yet you come not altogether up to the Style of that ingenious Poet in your lofty Verses.  
In the end of this Paragraph, you tell me, that my two last Paragraphs are such an Augean Stable of unkind falsities as will tyre Hercules to clear; and because they contain no Argument, you vouchsafe them no other answer, but get thee behind me Satan. I acknowledge that in these Paragraphs I take notice of more than one single Augean Stable; but you know with whose furniture Replenished. And pray Sir, is't a falsity, that you entailed no less than damnation upon these that meddled with the King's Forts, Army, Revenue etc. Seeing not only in that Sermon, but in your first Letter you repeat it in express words. Was there no matter of Argument in what I told you, of your rash Censures being leveled no lower than a Crowned Head? Was it not proper for you to answer what I said in relation to you charging me with Scandalum Ecclesiae, for checking your inveighing against the Nobility of England? Is it a falsity, that you neither preached yourself, not would allow your Pulpit to others, on the Thanksgiving day appointed for the late mighty Deliverance? When you cannot but know, that all honest Men of the Place exclaimed against you for it; And you know best what it meant, instead of a Sermon on that day, to have read in one of the Churches, the Homily against Rebellion. I am loath to rake up any more of the dung of this your Augean Stable, since the naming of Particulars, might occasion such Consequences as I do not wish you: And my silence herein should oblige you to a blush for your manner of treating me. But when you call all these things falsities, you put me in mind of the Nature or rather Epologue of that Animal, who darkening his own Sight by shutting his head into a hole, fancies himself invisible to others. Above all things, I cannot dream how you came by the Office of an Exorcist. I took it for one of the Orders of the Romish, and not of the Reformed Church; but I confess I'm obliged to you for a great many things, I never knew before.  
Now because your heavy charge of Rebellion was so clearly levelled against the Nobility and Gentry of England, for their meddling with the late King's Forts, Castles, etc. And by their Resisting his Forces, which more than once you say, is but an other name for Rebellion: It were easy to demonstrate that the Nobles and People of England, have not only done so before, in former ages, but deposed their Tyrannising Princes, and altered the direct and Lineal Succession of the Crown, though they justly adhered to the Royal Blood: I shall only give you one instance of each of these. As to their Resistance and meddling with Forts, etc. We have the famous instance in King Henry the III. from whom the Magna Charta was obtained by the Nobles and People of England, by the edge of their Swords. Of the second, Richard II. was a memorable Example, where neither the fresh remembrance of his excellent Father, nor his own promises of amendment, could save him from having fourteen Articles of Maleversation exhibited against him, and then deposed. Of the altering the direct Lineal Succession, we have a paramount instance in Cook 4. inst. p. 36.39. where notwithstanding john de Beaufort, Son to john of Gaunt, was in his Legitimation formally and expressly excluded from the Crown of England, yet the Parliament entailed the Crown upon Henry VII. heir of Line, to this john of Beaufort, and to the heirs of King Henry's Body, and that even before his Marriage with Princess Elizabeth of the Family of York, who in Cook's opinion had the nearest right to the Crown in her own Person.  
As to your last Paragraph, I deserved to be laughed at, if I had troubled myself with a formal answer to your Physical questions, as you call them. Yet methinks I should have had more thanks for giving you a hint of your Distemper without a Fee, then to have my words repeated otherwise then I wrote them: For I spoke nothing of the principal Cause of diseases, but told you that a Redundancy of Choler with a little of adust Melancholy, produces more Tragedies in the Body of Man, than the juice of the Pancreas is capable to do: and perhaps you find it so, to your own cost. Let us not quarrel for the honour of the discovery of the Circulation of the Blood. If you be pleased to compare Andrea's Cisalpinus and Harvey together, I hope you will alter your opinion, and if you send to me for the former, it may ease you of a Pisa or Oxford journey. Before I leave this, I cannot but admire your skill in the Bell's Letters, for I have often read, that Laurels were wreathed about the Victor's head, but that they were stuck in their bosoms, I owe it to your discovery. I expected you would rather have bestowed it on Solomon then on Cisalpinus, which I gave you a fair opportunity to do; but when any thing of Divinity comes in the Play, you are as silent as the Moon in an Eclipse, to use your own words, though I knew not before, she was more silent at time then any other, and would be gladly informed what Language, at other times she Speaks. As to our Law Question, I am not much concerned on either side, being in no great hazard of being either a Vicar or his Curate. You know the reason why I proposed it, and you may do in it, as your Christian Wisdom shall dictate to you. But what a wretched notion have you of the term jure Divino, when you confound it with (not being contrary to the Law of God▪) And that you fall not into so gross a mistake a second time, I refer you to the excellent and learned Author you named, his Irenicon, where you may learn a better definition of it. After so Learned an Answer to my Letter, I expected one to my Postscript, and thought, you might perhaps teach the World some middle way betwixt the poor Protestants of Ireland's Resisting King james, and their tamely yielding up their Throats to be cut, but this so seasonable a Secret you keep to yourself.  
Thus I have done with you and your Letter, and never any of Loyolla's Sect enjoined a more nauseous Penance on their Votaries, than I on myself in giving you an Answer. Take it as the last you shall be troubled with, from,  
SIR, Your humble Servant, James Welwood.   

ERRATA.  
Page 11. Line 14. for in this, read in Thesi. p. 16. l. 27. for Barley, r. Barclay. p. 22. l. 27. for bold fright, r. bodily fright.