Something of this sort, I grant you, but not in the degree you put it,
might have an influence on the political reasonings of the clergy.
But their zeal for reformation was what prevailed with them most, and
carried them furthest into these notions. It is something curious to
see how this happened.
HENRY’S usurpation of the supremacy, as it was called at _Rome_,
appeared so prodigious a crime to all good Catholics, that no
severities were great enough to inflict upon him for it. Their writers
proceeded to strange lengths. Even our cardinal POLE so far forgot the
greatness of his quality, and the natural mildness of his temper, as to
exceed the bounds of decency, in his invectives against him. And when
afterwards, in right of this assumed headship, the crown went so far as
to reject the authority of the church as well as court of Rome, all
the thunders of the Vatican were employed against this invader of the
church’s prerogative. The pope, in his extreme indignation, threatened
to depose EDWARD. He did put his threat in execution against ELIZABETH.
Yet, in spite of religious prejudices, this was esteemed so monstrous
a stretch of power, and so odious to all Christian princes, that the
jesuits thought it expedient, by all means, to soften the appearance
of it. One of their contrivances was, by searching into the origin
of civil power; which they brought rightly, though for this wicked
purpose, from the people. For they concluded, that, if the regal power
could be shewn to have no divine right, but to be of human and even
popular institution, the liberty, which the pope took in deposing
kings, would be less invidious. Thus the jesuits reasoned on the
matter. The argument was pushed with great vigour by HARDING and his
brethren in ELIZABETH’S reign, but afterwards with more learning and
address by BELLARMINE, MARIANA, and others[26].
To combat this dangerous position, so prejudicial to the power of
kings, and which was meant to justify all attempts of violence on the
lives of heretical princes, the Protestant divines went into the other
extreme; and, to save the person of their sovereign, preached up the
doctrine of DIVINE RIGHT. HOOKER, superior to every prejudice, followed
the truth. But the rest of our reforming and reformed divines stuck to
the other opinion; which, as appears from the HOMILIES, the INSTITUTION
OF A CHRISTIAN MAN, and the general stream of writings in those
days, became the opinion of the church, and was indeed the received
Protestant doctrine.
And thus unhappily arose in the church of England that pernicious
system of divine indefeasible right of kings: broached indeed by the
clergy, but not from those corrupt and temporizing views to which it
has been imputed. The authority of those venerable men, from whom
it was derived, gave it a firm and lasting hold on the minds of the
clergy: And being thought to receive a countenance from the general
terms, in which obedience to the civil magistrate is ordained in
scripture, it has continued to our days, and may, it is feared, still
continue, to perplex and mislead the judgments of too many amongst us.
Yet it could hardly have kept its ground against so much light and
evidence as has been thrown at different times on this subject[27],
but for an unlucky circumstance attending the days of reformation.
This was, the growth of puritanism and the republican spirit; which,
in order to justify its attack on the legal constitutional rights of
the crown, adopted the very same principles with the jesuited party.
And under these circumstances it is not to be thought strange that
a principle, however true, which was disgraced by coming through
such hands, should be generally condemned and execrated. The crown
and mitre had reason to look upon both these sorts of men as their
mortal enemies. What wonder then they should unite in reprobating
the political tenets, on which their common enmity was justified and
supported?
This I take to be the true account of what the friends of liberty so
often object to us, “That the despotism of our later princes has been
owing to the slavish doctrines of the clergy.” The charge, so far as
there is any colour for it, is not denied: and yet I should hope to
see it urged against us with less acrimony, if it were once understood
on what grounds these doctrines were taken up, and for what purposes
they were maintained by the clergy.