THE HISTORY OF Passive Obedience Since the REFORMATION.
INTRODUCTION.
WHen Judicious Men undertake to determine what are the Doctrines of any Church, they do not guide themselves by the Practices, nor the Writings of some of her Members, but by the Positions which she hath publickly owned and asserted, and the Practices that are consonant thereunto; this being agreeable to the Counsel of our holy Saviour, who when he bids us Mat. 7.15, 16. To beware of false Prophets, who came in Sheeps Cloathing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves, cautions us, that we shall know them by their fruits, i.e. Not by the Fruits of their Lives, but of their Doctrines. So does Serm.Bishop Sanderson interpret the Words, and so also does the Dean Serm. on Nov. 5.1673. p. 28, 29.of S. Paul's: We think it most convenient to follow our Saviour's Rules to judge of Mens Pretences, [Page 2]how great, and haughty soever, by the Fruits they produce, which Rule is not to be understood concerning the particular Actions of Men, which have no respect to their Doctrines; for as S. Chrysostom observes, many Hereticks have been Men of excellent Lives,' and so on the contrary—but we are to understand it of those Fruits which their Doctrines have a direct influence upon; and therefore the Rule hath a particular respect to two things, by which we are to examine the fairest Pretences: 1. The Design they end to. 2. The Means made use of for the accomplishing this Design. If therefore the Design be quite of another Nature from that of the Gospel, if the means be such as are directly contrary to it, we may from thence justly infer, that how plausible soever the pretences are, how fine and soft soever the Sheeps cloathing be, that inwardly they are ravening wolves. Thus that great Man determines it against the Jesuits in the very case of resisting, excommunicating, deposing and murdering Princes; and so do we all judge concerning the Church of Rome, many of her Members are doubtless loyal and peaceable, but their Church teaches them otherwise in the famous Lateran Council; M. Payn's Sermon, Sept. 9.1683. pag. 20. Treason in Papists is like original sin to mankind, they all have it in their Natures, tho many may deny it, or not know it. — But in Protestants it is like the Italian Distemper, it was first brought from another Country, and is no way natural to our own, tho the Infection hath been taken by too many, who had an ill Temper prepared for it. Cons. Dr. Jackson's Works, Tom. 3. l. 12. ch. 8. p. 978.their Loyalty and Peaceableness may be the Fruits of their Education, or their good temper, but not of their Faith, or as Dr. Sherlock says, they may be loyal, as Englishmen, but they cannot be so, as Papists.
Would we therefore judge of the Doctrine of our Church, we must consult her Articles, Canons, publick Homilies, publick Offices of Devotion, General Orders of her Bishops, Censures of her Universities, and Writings of her greatest Men, who have vindicated her Doctrine, and explained her Belief; and this Method I shall use to discover what hath been owned by the Church of England, as to the Doctrine of Non-resistance, or Passive Obedience.
CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Thirty nine Articles.
THE Articles of our Church have been always looked upon as the stated Doctrine of our whole Church, to which all her Priests are obliged to make their Subscriptions, they are allowed a place in the Body of the Confessions of the Protestant Churches, and are highly commended by Foreigners, as well as by our own Writers; for Bishop Ridley's Farewel Letter apud Fox, tom. 3. p. 506. this Church hath in matters of Controversie Articles so penned and framed after the Holy Scriptures, and grounded upon the true understanding of God's Word, that in short time, if they had been universally received, says Bishop Ridley the Martyr, they should have been able to have set in Christ's Church much concord and unity in Christ's true Religion, and to have expelled many false Errors and Heresies, wherewith this Church, alas! was almost overgone. Nor is this that excellent Prelate's peculiar Opinion, but of the whole Church, which ordains, Can. 3. an. 1604. That whosoever shall affirm, that the Church of England by Law establish'd under the King's Majesty is not a true and Apostolical Church, teaching and maintaining the Doctrine of the Apostles, let him be excommunicated ipso facto. And Can. 5. Whosoever shall affirm, that any of the thirty nine Articles agreed in the Synod, 1562 — are in any part superstitious, or erroneous, let him be excommunicate ipso facto.
Anno 1552. In the Convocation held at London, Articles of Religion were agreed upon, of which the Thirty sixth runs thus,
‘The Civil Magistrate is ordained, and allowed of God — and therefore is to be obeyed not only for wrath, but also for Conscience sake’ — And expresly asserts, ‘That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England.’
In the Articles of our Church under Queen Elisabeth, anno. 1562. it runs thus, and so continues to this day.
‘The Queens Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of England, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical, or Civil, in all Cases doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction.’
And it is remarkable, Rogers's Praef. to the 39th. Artic. that these Articles of 1562. were published in the same year, in which the Massacre at Vassey in France [Page 4]was committed by the Duke of Guise, and when all the Protestants in the Country were sentenced to Death by the Parliament of Paris.
It is true, this Doctrine is not limited to the particular Case of Subjects taking up Arms, but it seems to me by two necessary Consequences to be deduc'd from it. 1. Because if the Pope, who pretended by a Divine Right, had no power over Kings, much less have the People any power, who pretend to an inferior Right, that of Compact. 2. Because the Article makes no distinction, but excludes all other Power, as well as that of the Pope. And in truth, the Plea is the same on either side; the Pope says, as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of God, and the Church (of which he is the Interpreter) so long the Censures of the Church do not reach him; and say the People, as long as the Prince governs according to the Laws of the Land (and of the meaning of those Laws themselves are the Interpreters) so long are they bound to be obedient; but as soon as the King doth any thing that may contradict the Pope, then he is (deservedly, say the Romanists) excommunicate, deposed and murdered; and when he usurps upon the Peoples Liberties, then he ought to be deposed by the Peoples; the Arguments on either side are the same, and for the most part the Authorities; for (as Moderat. of the Church of England, ann. 17. §. 19. p. 481. Dr. Puller well observes) both Papists and Dissenters deny the Supremacy of the King, one attributes it to the Pope originally; the other to the People: and the same Arguments that the Pope useth for his Supremacy over Kings, the Disciplinarians use for establishing their Sovereignty.
CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Injunctions and Canons.
IN the Infancy of the Reformation under Henry the Eighth, (for there I begin the Restoration of Religion to her Purity in this Kingdom, as Dr. Burnet does.) Burnet hist. Reform. l. 3. p. 226. tom. 1. And Fox. tom. 2. p. 387. Anno 1536. Injunctions were issued out, the first of which is, That every Man that hath Cure of Souls, shall for the Establishment and Confirmation of the King's Authority and Jurisdiction — sincerely declare, manifest, and open for the space of one quarter of a year next ensuing once every [Page 5]Sunday, and after that at the least wise twice every Quarter in their Sermons and other Collations, that the Bishop of Rome's usurp'd Power and Jurisdiction having no Establishment or Ground in the Law of God, was of most just Causes taken away and abolish'd,—and that the King's Power is in his Dominions the highest Power and Potentate under God, to whom all men within the same Dominions, by God's Commandment, owe most Loyalty and Obedience, afore and above all other Potentates in Earth. Now if a King be above all other Powers, then he cannot be accountable to any other Power, and so ought not to be resisted.
Anno Burnet's Collect. of Records, p. 181. 1538. came out the Lord Cromwel's Injunctions, as they were called, wherein the same Duty is injoyned in the same Words. This also is the first of the Injunctions of Edw. the Sixth Sparr. Collect. p. 1, 2. An. 1547. (the Preface to which Injunctions acknowledges that part of them were formerly set out by Henry the Eighth, and the rest added by King Edward the Sixth.) This also was the first of the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, with a very little variation: and accordingly in the Articles of Enquiry of Archbishop Cranmer in the Diocess of Canterbury, under Edward the Sixth, the first is, Whether all Persons, &c. have preach'd against the usurp'd Power of the Bishop of Rome? Secondly, Whether they have preach'd, and declared at the least four times in the year, That the King's Majesties Power, Authority, and Preheminence within his Realms and Dominions is the highest Power under God? Here the Injunction plainly distinguishes the claim of the Pope from other claims, implying, that our Church always believed that her Prince's Power was derived immediately from God, and that they were superior to all their Subjects, either singly or collectively, and so were not accountable to them, but only to God: and among Bishop Ridley's Articles of Visitation An. 1550. one is, Whether any do preach, or defend, that private persons may make Insurrection, stir Sedition, or compel Men to give them their Goods? Anno 1564. being the seventh Year of Queen Elizabeth, in the Sparr. Collect. p. 123. Articles for Preaching it is injoyn'd, That the Minister move all People to Obedience, as well in observation of the Orders appointed in the Book of Common Service, as in the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions; as also of all other civil Duties due for Subjects to do: and that all Preachers, Preaching Matters tending to Dissention, &c. shall be complained.
At last the Injunctions were called Canons, and the first Canon An. 1603. in the first Year of King James, is the same in substance [Page 6]with the Injunction of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth; and for this reason, Can. 55. it is ordained, That every Minister should before his Sermon acknowledge the King to be in all Causes, and over all Persons, supreme Head and Governor, in more express terms than were formerly used.
But particularly I look upon the Canons of the Year 1640. to be a full Explanation of the belief of our Church in this point. ‘Now Can. 1. injoyns all former Laws, Ordinances, and Constitutions formerly made for the acknowledgment and profession of the most lawful and independent Authority of our dread Sovereign Lord the King's most excellent Majesty, to be carefully observed, and then descends to give an Explanation of the Royal Power and Authority; That the most sacred Order of Kings is of divine Right, being the Ordinance of God himself, founded in the prime Laws of Nature, and clearly establish'd by express Texts both of the Old and New Testament: and for any Person or Persons to set up, maintain, or allow, in any their said Realms or Territories respectively, under any pretence whatsoever, any independent coactive Power, either Papal or Popular, (whether directly or indirectly) is to undermine their great Royal Office, and cunningly to overthrow that most Sacred Offfice, which God himself hath establish'd, and so is treasonable against God, as well as against the King. For Subjects to bear Arms against their Kings, See the Doctrine of these Canons vindicated in Dr. Puller's Moderat. of the Ch. of Engl. c. 12. §. 6. p. 34. offensive or defensive, upon any Pretence whatsoever, is at least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God; and though they do not invade, but only resist,’ St. Paul tells them plainly, They shall receive to themselves Damnation: while in the next Paragraph they shew, that this Doctrine does not intitle the King to every Man's Estate.
But against the Synod, that made these Canons, lies a great Objection (tho I should have thought, that the hard Censures of it might have been spar'd, because no Synod of our Church, and perhaps none of any other Protestant Church hath so expresly condemn'd Popery, and Socinianism, the great Enemies of true Reformed Christianity, as this Synod hath done V. Art. 3.4. that it was not a Lawful Synod, because it was continued, and sat after the Parliament was Dissolved, and was by another Parliament Condemn'd; not to answer, that that very Parliament, that first Condemn'd this Synod, ruin'd even the Monarchy it self, nor that the Synods of old Provincial, or General were not [Page 7]dependent on the meeting of the States at the same time. I answer; First, that these Canons were made, and confirm'd in full Convocation of both Provinces of Canterbury, and York, and the making of Canons being a work properly Ecclesiastical, these Canons were made by the Representatives of the whole Clergy of this Kingdom. 2. The Canons were confirm'd by the King (which was all that was of old required in such Cases) and tho the Convocation sat after the Dissolution of the Parliament, yet, 1. This is not without President even in the happy Days of Queen Elizabeth, not to look back into Henry VIII. or the primitive Times. And 2. the Persons, who condemn'd this Synod are well known to have done it to justifie their own Proceedings, being resolved to ruine Episcopacy (and with it the Monarchy) and afterward by their own power they called an Assembly of Divines, and What a Confession of Faith, what Discipline, Rites, and Methods did they Establish? a Directory among other things, out of which they left the Lord's Prayer (perhaps because it 'twas a Form) the Apostles Creed (because themselves thought they could make a better) and the Ten Commandments (because the fifth plainly accused them of Rebellion against their Lawful Prince). And it is worth the observing that Sr. Edward Deering's Speeches that were spoken with so much Virulence against this Synod (and afterwards Printed) were by the Order of the same House, who first applauded them, decreed to be Burnt by the hand of the Common Hang-man. And if it be still objected, that the Canons were Reprobated since the Restitution of Charles II. I say, that I quote them, not as a Law, that obliges the Church, but as the known Sense of the Church of England at that time.
CHAP. III. The Doctrine of the Homilies.
THough the name of Homily hath been look'd upon, and censured by unthinking People, as ridiculous, yet those admirable Sermons made by our first Reformers, as a body of practical [Page 8]Divinity, and a Confutation of the Errors and Idolatries of the Church of Rome, are, as Bishop Ridley said of the first Tome of them, Apud Fox To. 3. p. 506. Holy and wholsome Homilies, Recommendations of the principal Virtues, which are commended in Scripture, and against the most pernicious and capital Vices, that so, alas! do reign in this Realm of England. These we subscribe to, as containing wholsome Doctrine; Dr. Stanley's Faith and Pract. c. 7. p. 192. and every Man hereby sees what Opinions the Clergy are of, for they subscribe and assent to the Book of Articles and Homilies, and to the Book of Common Prayer. Many also have some regard to the Articles of An: 1640. They take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and the Test, &c. and Johnson says, That the Book of Homilies is the best Book in the World, next the Bible. And since a D. Welw. Letter to M. March, p. 10. late Author is so bold to say, that Passive Obedience, in the narrow sense we take it in, was not so much as thought on at the time of the publishing the Homilies, I must first ask him, How he came to be so well acquainted with the Thoughts of those venerable Men who wrote the Homilies, at this distance of time? What Communication hath he with the other World? or what peculiar Memoirs, that have scap'd all the wise Men of our Church, who have been conversant with her Records, have fallen into his hands? And then I will shew, that the Expressions of the Homilies are very full and plain, and exclusive of all Pretences to take up Arms against our lawful Superiors.
The Homily or Exhortation to Obedience, Burnet's Hist. Ref. part 2. l. 1. c. 6. was made An. 1547. in the Reign of K. Edward the Sixth; in the second part of which Sermon of Obedience we are told, that it is the calling of God's People to be patient, and on the suffering side, and to render Obedience to Governors, although they be wicked, and wrong doers, and in no case to resist, and stand against them. Subjects are bound to obey them (i. e. Governors) as God's Ministers, although they be evil, not only for fear, but also for conscience sake: and here, good People, let us mark diligently, that it is not lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any case to resist, and stand against the superior Powers; for St. Paul's words be plain, That whoso withstandeth shall get to themselves Damnation. Our Saviour Christ and his Apostles received many and divers Injuries of the unfaithful and wicked men in Authority; yet we never read, that they, or any of them, caused any Sedition or Rebellion against Authority: we read oftne, that they patiently suffer'd all Troubles, Vexations, Slanders, Pangs, Pains, and Death it self obediently, without Tumult or Resistance. Christ taught us plainly, that even the wicked [Page 9]Rulers have their Power and Authority from God; and therefore it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them, although they abuse their Power. Let us believe undoubtedly (good Christian People) that we may not obey Kings,—if they command us to do any thing contrary to God's Commandments, in such a case we ought to say with the Apostle, We must rather obey God than Man; but nevertheless, in that case we may not in any wise withstand violently, or rebel against Rulers, or make any Insurrection, Sedition, or Tumults, either by force of Arms, or otherwise, against the Anointed of the Lord, or any of his appointed Officers; but we must in such case patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries, referring the judgment of our Cause only to God: and Part 3. of the same Homily. Ye have heard before of this Sermon of good Order and Obedience, manifestly proved both by Scriptures and Examples, that all Subjects are bound to obey their Magistrates, and for no cause to resist, or withstand, or rebel, or make any Sedition against them, yea, although they be wicked men.
The second Book of Homilies was compiled in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; and among them, the Homily against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion, is full to this purpose; Part. 1. In reading the holy Scriptures we shall find in very many, and almost infinite places, as well of the Old Testament as of the New, that Kings and Princes, as well the evil as the good, do reign by God's Ordinance, and that Subjects are bounden to obey them. The further and further any Earthly Prince doth swerve from the Example of the Heavenly Government, the greater plague he is of God's Wrath and Punishment, by God's Justice unto the Country and People over whom God for their Sins hath placed such a Prince and Governor. What shall Subjects do then? What a perillous thing were it to commit to Subjects the Judgment, which Prince is wise and godly, and his Government good, and which otherwise? as though the Foot must judge of the Head; an Enterprize very heinous, and which must needs breed Rebellion; — and is not Rebellion the greatest of all mischiefs?—A Rebel is worse than the worst Prince, and Rebellion worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto hath been.—If we will have an evil Prince, when God shall send such a one, taken away, and a good one in his place, let us take away our Wickedness, which provoketh God to place such a one over us. — Shall the Subjects both by their Wickedness provoke God for their deserved punishment to give them an undiscreet and evil Prince, and also rebel against him, and withal against God, who for the punishment of their Sins did give them such a Prince. And this Doctrine is excellently [Page 10]inforc'd in the second part of that Homily from the Example of King David in his Carriage towards Saul. And one reason perhaps why these old plain Sermons are by some men despised, and evil spoken of, is, because they so heartily recommend this Doctrine of Non-resistance.
CHAP. IV. The Doctrine of the Liturgy.
TO our Homilies I subjoin the Liturgy of our Church, the most excellent body of publick Prayers that the World owns. In the Morning and Evening Service for every day, God is said to be the only Ruler of Princes, exclusive of both Pope and People. To the understanding of which Collect, I shall give you the Paraphrase of Dr. Cumber. Compan. to the Temple, part 1. § 23. p. 171. Ed. Fol.The Church of England is famous above all other Churches for her entire Loyalty to the King; which may be seen not only in the Lives of the true Sons thereof, but in their Prayers, &c. Id. p. 173. God is the only Judge of the Actions of Princes, since they are his Servants and Substitutes; to their own Master they must stand or fall, and are only accountable to his Tribunal: and therefore we have so much the more need to pray for them to their great Lord, that he would direct them to do well, and guide them who are to rule us, that this their mighty Prince may be in safety and in peace: for if it should be otherwise (which God forbid) we neither will nor can oppose them, having no other Arms against our Prince but Prayers and Tears. Id. p. 174.If he were a Saul or a Nero, we should sin in ceasing to pray for him. Id. p. 176. v. p. 225.It is natural to the true Sons of the Church of England to love the King.—If a foreign Prince opposes our King, he is a Robber; if P. 177.he be a Subject who rises against his Sovereign, he hath renounc'd Christianity with his Allegiance,☞and is to be esteem'd a Troubler of our Israel. Therefore whosoever they be that are Enemies to the King, and whatsoever the pretence be, we wish they may never prosper.
In the Litany we pray God to deliver us from all Sedition, privy Conspiracy, and Rebellion; and Dr. Cumber Part 2. § 2. p. 225. says, That the Words Rebellion and Schism were put into the Litany since our late unhappy Civil Wars, that have given us reason to pray, From all Sedition, &c.
‘In the Greek Liturgies he says it is thus express'd, From Civil Wars, &c. ☜ but not one Word of this could he ever find in the Roman Missals that have come to his hands; it being the peculiar Glory of the Church of England, that her Prayers and Practices have always been eminently loyal,’ and Enemies to Treason and Rebellion. And he says farther, Ib. p. 226, 227. That Rebellion is a sin so contrary to Christianity, that though the Primitive Christians had all the Provocations imaginable, and Force sufficient, they never offer'd to rebel.—So that they who do rebel have divested themselves of the Christian Principles, and almost of their Humanity too.
In the Prayer for the Parliament, We may say of our Princes as Pliny said of the good Emperor Trajan, they have freely yielded to rule by those Laws to which nothing but their own goodness could oblige them; and doubtless the People of England ought to take it as an Act of Grace that their Kings have consented to govern them on this manner.
In the Prayer after the Commandments the King is said to be God's Minister, and we beg God, that all his Subjects duly considering that he hath God's Authority, may faithfully serve, honor, and humbly obey him according to God's blessed Word and Ordinance. And this is admirably commented; Id. part 3. §. 4. p. 20. We are to consider that Kings bear God's Name, and act by his Power; and such as rebel, do fight against God, oppose his Word, and resist his Ordinance, &c.
In the occasional Office for Nov. 5. we pray God, That the King may cut off all such workers of Iniquity, as turn Religion into Rebellion, and Faith into Faction. And in the Office for May 29. when we thank God for the Restoration of the Royal Family, we beseech God to accept of our unfeigned Oblation of our selves, vowing all holy Obedience in Thought, Word, and Work, unto the Divine Majesty, and promising in him, and for him, all dutiful Allegiance to his anointed Servant, and to his Heirs for ever. And it is also observable, the Proclamations relating to those solemn times are appointed to be read, which are as full to this purpose as any thing can be: and by our Canons, when the Minister bids Prayer before his Sermon, to continue the belief of this Truth, he is bound to exhort the People, when they pray, to acknowledge the King to be in all Causes and over all Persons, next and immediately under God supreme, &c.
CHAP. V. The Orders of our Bishops.
BY the Orders of our Bishops I mean not so much the particular Injunctions, or Enquiries of our Prelates within their own particular Dioceses (though of such instances there is no want, as I have shewn Chap. 2. from the Articles of Inquiry of Archbishop Cranmer, and the Articles of Visitation of Bishop Ridley, and could prove from many other such Instances) but the general Orders which have been sent from the Metropolitan to the whole Church; such Injunctions, when obey'd, ought to be look'd on as the sense of the whole Church, unless we shall impeach either the Makers, or the Complyers, of dishonest Practices; especially when the Adversaries of the Church have given occasion to such Injunctions: thus when Knight (of whom I shall treat in the next Chapter) was censured at Oxford, the same Year some Cautions concerning Preachers and Preaching, were by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with the King's Consent, as the Law required, sent to the several Bishops of their Provinces to be put in execution in their several Dioceses. The Directions are dated Aug. 4. 1622. of which the first requires, ‘That no Preacher, &c. shall fall into any set course, or common place, otherwise than by opening the Coherence, and division of his Text, which shall not be comprehended and warranted in essence, substance, effect, or natural inference, within some one of the Articles of Religion set forth Ann. 1562.’ or in some one of the Homilies set forth by Authority, &c. The fourth is, ‘That no Preacher, of what Title or Denomination soever, shall presume from henceforth in any Auditory within this Kingdom, to declare, limit, or bound out by way of positive Doctrine, in any Lecture or Sermon, the Power, Prerogative, Jurisdiction, Authority, or duty of Sovereign Princes, or therein meddle with Matters of State, and Reference between Princes and People, than as they are instructed in the Homily of Obedience, and in the rest of the Homilies, and Articles of Religion, set forth by Publick Authority.’
These Injunctions were again renew'd and reinforc'd in the days of King Charles the Second, and in the next Reign: and [Page 13]in the Articles of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, July 16. 1638. Art. 7. the Clergy are expresly enjoyn'd, That in their Sermons they should four times in the Year, at least, teach the People, ‘That the Kings Power being in his Dominions highest under God, all Priests should upon all occasions persuade the People to Loyalty and Obedience to his Majesty in all things lawful, and to patient Submission in the rest, promoting, as far as in them lies, the publick Peace, and Quiet of the World.’
And agreeably to this Doctrine were the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, especially the later, framed, which though particularly made against the Papists, yet as Bishop Sanderson well observes, where the Reason of making and imposing an Oath is particular, Praelect. 7. de juram.but the words of the Oath are general, there the Oath obliges according to the sense of the words in their utmost latitude; as, says he, for Example, in the Oath of Supremacy, to the making of which the Usurpation of the Pope gave occasion; the words being all general, do exclude all Persons from exercising that Supreme Power in this Kingdom. And every Clergy-man especially ought to reflect, how often he hath solemnly profess'd and averr'd; That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King, or any commissioned by him, &c. and to remember, that that Declaration was injoyned in opposition to the Doctrines of the year 1641, the Men of which age asserted, That the Power of Kings, was given them by the People, and might be resumed by the Donors; that the King was co-ordinate with the States, and that his Politick differ'd from his personal Capacity. Now the occasion of the making a Law, and the preamble of it are look'd on, as the best Interpreters of the words of a Law.
CHAP. VI. The Censures of our Universities.
NOR are the Censures of our most famous Universities in this case to be neglected, or look'd on slightly; it is well known, what a Repute the Judgment of the single College of the Sorbone hath at Paris, and how much the Authority of the Foreign Universities, together with our own, sway'd [Page 14]with King Henry the Eighth, and persuaded the Christian World to credit the Justice of his Divorce.
Now I shall not mention the Censure of the Mille manus Petition, as it was call'd, in which both the Universities most amicably agreed, resolving only to give an account of the Proceedings at Oxford in the Years 1 [...]22, 1647, and 1683; the Decree of 1622, was made the 25th of June in full Convocation on this occasion. Antiqu. Oxon. l. 1. p. 326, 327, &c. Mr. Knight of Broadgate Hall, (now Pembroke College) preaching at S. Peter's in the East on Palm-Sunday upon 1 Kings 19.9. What dost thou here Elijah? started this Question, Whether it were lawful for Subjects in the defence of themselves, when persecuted for Religion, to take Arms against their Prince? which he held in the Affirmative; for which Doctrine, when he was convened by the Vice-Chancellor, he pleaded the Authority of Paraeus, in his Commentary on the xiii. to the Romans, and the Example of King James, who assisted the Rochellers against their King; and was for that reason sent to Prison, the Vice-Chancellor making the Bishop of St. David's (Laud, who in May of the same Year had his Conference with Fisher the Jesuit) acquainted with it, from whom the King was inform'd; who ordered Knight and his Sermon to be sent up, the Author being committed a Prisoner to the Gate-house in Westminster, where he lay two Years; and at last, by the intercession of one of his Fellow Prisoners with Bishop Williams, was releas'd; and having ask'd the King's Pardon, went into Holland, where in a short time he died.
When Knight was complain'd of, the King sent to the Vice-Chancellor, to injoin the Students of Divinity to lay the Foundation of their Studies (next to the holy Scriptures) in the Fathers and Councils, and to abstain from the Writings of either Jesuits or Puritans: and accordingly, the Heads of Colleges, the Professors, &c. met in Convocation (the Bishops, that were then about the Court, having condemn'd the Doctrine (and the Books that contain'd it) as seditious, and contrary to the holy Scriptures, the Decrees of Councils, and Dictates of the Fathers, and to the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Church of England) and censur'd among others this Proposition, Proposit. 2. v. Antiqu. Oxon. p. 327. That Subjects, not private Persons, but inferior Magistrates, may take Arms to defend themselves, the Commonwealth, the Church, and true Religion, against their Sovereign, or the superior Magistrate, upon these Conditions; If 1. The Prince turn Tyrant. 2. If he compel his Subjects to commit Idolatry, or [Page 15]to blaspheme. 3. When any great injury is done. 4. If they cannot otherwise be safe in their Fortunes, their Lives, and Consciences: upon condition also, 5. That under the pretext of Religion, or Justice, they do not seek their own advantage; and 6. That their Arms be managed with much moderation, Moderamine inculpatae tutelae. These are the Terms of the Proposition; and the Censure of the University runs thus, This Proposition is false and seditious, and so craftily restrain'd under such Conditions annex'd, as every seditious Person may make use of to vindicate himself. And the third Proposition, which is of the same kind, is alike condemn'd: so that it is no wonder that Gillespy, in the Preface to his Sermon, calls this Doctrine the new Oxford Divinity; and I wish no worse had been ever broach'd or owned there.
Nor did the University rest here, but withal decreed and declared, ‘That according to the Canon of the holy Scriptures, Subjects ought by no means forcibly to resist their Prince; and that it is not lawful to take Arms either offensive or defensive against the King upon the account of Religion, or any other Pretence;’ requiring all the Members of the Convocation to subscribe the Censures, and enjoyning all that should be admitted to any Degrees, to take an Oath to consent to the determinations of that Convocation; while the Commentary of Paraeus was burn'd in the Church-yard of St. Mary's at Oxford, at Paul's Cross in London; as it was likewise burn'd at Cambridge; that University joyning with her Sister of Oxford in the Condemnation of those seditious Doctrines.
For as a Doublet. Ep. ad Gerh. Voss. learned Foreigner, who at that time was upon the spot, informs, that Knight citing for his Opinion the Authority not only of Paraeus, but also of Bucanus and Junius Brutus, affirming further, that it was the Opinion of all the Reformed Divines, and illustrating it by this instance, that ‘If the King of France should (while his Army laid Siege to any Town of the Protestants his Subjects) happen to fall by the hand of any of the besieged, he was justly slain, nor was he that killed him guilty of any crime;’ both the Universities condemn'd the Doctrine: and though at Oxford only Paraeus's Book was burn'd, yet at Cambridge they also burn'd Bucanus's Common places, and Junius Brutus (or Hubert Languet's) Vindiciae, and damn'd the Authors to perpetual Infamy; my Author adding, that the Cambridge Doctors were the more fierce of the two, whether because they hated the Puritans, [Page 16]or were the Majority of them at least, Remonstrants; the Censure of that University Doublet saw, when he was at the Commencement, it being put into his Hands by him who drew it up, upon his promise not to transcribe it. What hinder'd it's publication, I know not, while the same year Dr. David Owen publish'd his Anti-Paraeus seu Determinat. de Jure Regio adv. David. Paraeum at Cambridge, anno sc. 1622. Octavo, in which the Doctrine of Resistance is throughly confuted. This Censure, and the Execution done upon his Book much troubled the old Paraeus. And his Son Append. in Comment. ad Rom 13.5 vit. Paraei. says, that his Father meant, what he wrote, not of Kings endowed with an absolute power, but of such as were admitted to their Crowns upon condition; while the illustrious Hugo Grotius thought so well of it, that he hath inserted it at large in his Works Vot. pro pace ad Art. 16. p. 661. with a high commendation, affirming, ‘That the Reverend Memory of King James the first, the wisest King of Great Britain, and the honor which he owed to the University of Oxford, which at that time foresaw the Calamities which England afterward suffered, and a just fear lest the pernicious Doctrine might do more mischief, ingaged him to reprint the Censure.’ To which Determination Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Abbot, and the other eminent Men of that time gave their suffrage.
Anno 1647, June 1. The same famous Academy met in Convocation, and declared their Judgment concerning the Solemn League and Covenant, and a few of their Reasons, why they could not take that Covenant I shall transcribe, Ad calc. vit. Sanderson. p. 174. as they were drawn up by Bishop Sanderson.
1. ‘We cannot take the Oath without acknowledging in the Imposers a greater power, than for ought appeareth to us, hath been in former times challenged — P. 181. 3. We cannot take the Oath without manifest danger of Perjury, P. 182. the Oath being contrary to the Oath of Supremacy by us taken.’ P. 201, 202. ‘We are not satified in being obliged to preserve the King's person, and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and the Liberties of the Kingdom, forasmuch as 1. No such limitation of our Duty in that behalf is to be found either in the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance (which no Papist would refuse to take with such a Limitation) nor in the Protestation, nor in the Word of God. 3. Such a Limitation leaves the Duty of the Subject at so much loosness, and the safety of the King at so great uncertainty, ☞ that whensoever the People shall have a mind to withdraw [Page 17]their Obedience, they cannot want a pretence from the same for so doing. 4. Hereby we make our selves guilty of an actual and real diminution of his Majesties Power and Greatness, which in the same Breath we call the World to witness with our Consciences, that we had no thought to diminish, &c. P. 210, 211. The Tyranny and Yoke of Antichrist, if laid upon the Necks of Subjects by their lawful Sovereigns, ☜ is to be thrown off by Christian Boldness in confessing the truth, and patient suffering for it, not by taking up Arms, or violent resisting the higher Powers. Pag. 217 — Because some have inferred from the very Order, that the Defence of the King's Person, and Authority ought to be with subordination to the preservation of the Rights, and Privileges of Parliaments, and the Liberties of the Kingdom, therefore we cannot take this Oath. — Especially being told in a late Pamphlet, P. 219. that the King, not having preserved the Liberties of the Kingdom, &c. as of duty he ought, is thereby become a Tyrant, and so ceaseth to be a King, and consequently that his Subjects cease to be Subjects, and ow him no longer Subjection; which Assertion since we heartily detest as false and scandalous in the Supposition, and in the Inference seditious and devilish, we dare not by subscribing this Article give the least countenance thereto. — And that we may take the Covenant in our own sense is contrary to the nature and end of an Oath, which must be full of simplicity, P. 223. contrary to the end of Speech, &c. and will bring a scandal upon our Religion, that we practise that our selves that we condemn in the Paqists, viz. Swearing with Jesuitical Equivocations, and mental Reservations, that we play fast and loose with God, in as much as what we swear to day in one sense, we may swear the direct contrary to morrow in another. P. 225. — And if this would fatisfie the Conscience, we might with a good Conscience not only take the Covenant, but even subscribe to the Council of Trent also, yea, and to the Turkish Alcoran: P. 229. if the King should not protect us, but neglect his part too, having power and ability to perform it, his voluntary neglect ought not to free us from the faithful performance of what is to be done on our part.’
Ann. 1683. July. 21. in a full Convocation many opinions were condemn'd that had been publish'd in diverse Books, and writings in English, and also in the Latin tongue, P. 2. repugnant to the holy Scriptures, decrees of Councils, writings of the Fathers, the Faith, and profession of the Primitive Church: and also destructive of the [Page 18]Kingly Government, the safety of his Majesties Person, the publick Peace, the Laws of Nature, and Bonds of Humane Society, as
Proposition 1. All civil Authority is derived originally from the People.
Proposition 2. There is a mutual compact tacit, or express, between a Prince, and his Subjects: and if he perform not his Duty, they are discharged from theirs.
Proposition 3. P. 3. that if Lawful Governours become Tyrants, or Govern otherwise, than by the Laws of God and Man they ought to do, they forfeit the Right they had unto their Government.
Prop. 7. Self-preservation is the Fundamental Law of Nature, and supersedes the Obligation of all others, when they stand in competition with it.
Prop. 8. The Doctrine of the Gospel concerning patient suffering ‘of Injuries, is not inconsistent with violent resisting of the higher Powers in case of Persecution for Religion.’
‘Pr. 9. P. 4. There lies no obligation upon Christians to Passive Obedience, when the Prince commands any thing against the Laws of our Country: and the Primitive Christians chose rather to die than to resist, because Christianity was not yet settled by the Laws of the Empire.’ And besides the Condemnation of the Doctrines, the Books of Milton, P. 7.Baxter, Goodwin, Owen, Johnson, &c. were ordered to be publickly burnt by the Hand of the Marshal in the Court of the Schools, ‘as Books that were fitted to deprave Mens Manners, stir up Seditions and Tumults, overthrow States and Kingdoms, and lead to Rebellion, Murther of Princes, and Atheism it self:’ And a Prohibition issued, forbidding the Reading any of the said Books under great Penalties.
This Decree was drawn up by Dr. Jane, Dean of Glocester, and the King's Professor of Divinity at Oxon, and subscribed by the Vicechancellor, other Professors, and the whole Convocation. And pursuant to this Decree Parkinson, a Fellow of Lincoln-College, for maintaining, that the Right and Foundation of all Power was in the People, that Kings are accountable for their Maleadministration, &c. And particularly, that King Charles the First was justly put to death, for making War upon his Subjects, was an. 1684. expelled the University.
And it is observable, that our excellent Homilies, that so expresly require Obedience to Princes, and condemn Rebellion and Resistance upon any pretence whatsoever, were Printed at the Theatre the same year that the abovementioned Decree was made.
CHAP. VII. The Opinions of Learned Men.
WHen Men would know what are the Sentiments of any Church in her Articles or Sanctions, the most rational Course is to make inquiry among those who were concern'd in making them, or those who may be presumed best to understand them, by reason of their nearness to the time, their acquaintance with the Compilers, or their extraordinary Sagacity and Honesty; and of suchpersons in the Church of England must we make Inquiry concerning the Doctrine of Obedience and Non-resistance. In Burn. hist. Ref. part. 1. l. 3. p. 245. the Days of Henry the Eighth, when the Reformation began to dawn, an. 1537. a Convocation was held, upon the Conclusion of which there was Printed an Explanation of the chief Points of Religion, signed by nineteen Bishops, eight Arch-Deacons, and seventeen Doctors of Divinity and Law, in which there was an Exposition of the Creed, the Ten Commandments, &c: But this was but a rude Draught, the beauteous Stroaks were given it Id. p. 286. anno 1540. when a select number of Bishops sate by Virtue of a Commission from the King confirm'd in Parliament (among which were Cranmer, Ridley, Redman, and other extraordinary men) their first work was to draw up a Declaration of the Christian Doctrine for the necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, in which the Commentary on the fifth Commandment thus instructs us: Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty, Truth, Love and Obedience towards their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be, nor for any cause they may conspire against his person, nor do any thing towards the hinderance or hurt thereof, or of his Estate. And this they prove out of Rom. 13. Whosoever resists the power, resists the ordinance of God; and they that resist the ordinance of God, shall get to themselves damnation. And [...]n the sixth Commandment, No Subjects may draw their Swords against their Prince for any Cause whatsoever it be. So that hereby we see, that the Declaration made in the Reign of Charles the Second, (That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, &c. (is no Novel Doctrine, but the old [Page 20]Doctrine of the Church of England even in the infancy of its Reformation.— And again, Although Princes, which be the Supreme Heads of their Realm, do otherwise than they ought to do, yet God hath assigned no Judges over them in this World, but will have the Judgment of them reserved to himself, and will punish them when he sees his time. And Ann. 1542. Id. Coll. of Record. n. 26. p. 252. V. Fox to. 2 p. 346, 347. it is expresly injoin'd by the Bishop of London to his Clergy, Item, That every of you do procure and provide of your own a Book called The Institution of a Christian Man, otherwise called the Bishop's Book, and that you and every of you do exercise your selves in the same according to such Precepts as hath been given heretofore, or hereafter to be given. So that I suppose the Book to have been the whole duty of Man of those days.
SECT. I.
The Popish Bishops, Tonstal and Stokesly, in their Letter to Cardinal Pool, Apud Fox to. 2. p. 351, 352. prove out of St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, and other Fathers, ‘That a King is accountable to God only for his Faults; that he hath no Peer upon Earth, being greater than all Men, and inferior but to God alone, &c. and from hence they shew, That the Pope's Power (and by parity of Argument the Power of the People) to depose Kings is a Doctrine that will be to his own Damnation, if he repent not; whereas he ought to obey his Prince according to the Doctrine of St. Peter and St. Paul:’ nay Bonner himself, Ap. eund. p. 673. as he wrote the Preface to the Book of true Obedience, so in his Sermon at Paul's Cross, Ann. 1549. in the beginning of the Reign of Edward the Sixth, declares, ‘That all such as rebel against their Prince, get to themselves Damnation; and those that resist the higher Power, resist the Ordinance of God; and he that dieth in Rebellion is utterly damn'd, and so loseth both Body and Soul, — what pretences soever they have; as Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, for Rebellion against Moses, were swallowed down alive into Hell,’ although they pretended to sacrifice to God. So much of the Doctrine of the Reformation did even Bonner himself at that time own▪ and this also was the Opinion of the Protestants of that Age; for Ap. eund. to. 2. p. 592 among the Heresies and Errors collected by the Popish Bishops out of the Martyr Tyndal's Book, called the Obedience of a Christian Man, this is the fourth, he faith, fol. 113. that a Christian Man may not resist a Prince being an Infidel, and an Ethnick, and that this takes away free will; or as [Page 21]it is in the Inter addend. Latin, Non licere Christiano resistere Principi Infideli, & Ethnico. Tollit libertatem arbitrii. Where observe, that the Papists look'd upon it as if Tindal had said, that it was impossible to do so; whereas he only means, that a Christian ought not to resist, &c. for the Words are thus explained; Ibid. ‘St. Peter willeth us to be subject to our Princes, 1 Pet. ii. St. Paul also doth the like, Rom. xiii. who was also himself subject to the Power of Nero: and altho every Commandment of Nero against God he did not follow, yet he never made resistance against the Authority and State of Nero, as the Pope useth to do against the State not only of Infidels but also of Christian Princes.’
SECT. II.
In the Reign of Edward the Sixth the true Religion began to flourish, and at that time old Father Latimer was famous for a plain and honest Preacher; Fol. 56. he in his fourth Sermon before the King telling the Audience what Conference he had with my Lord Darsey in the Tower, subjoins, ‘that when that Lord pleaded that he had been always faithful, and had he seen the King in the Field he would have yielded his Sword to him on his Knees,’ he replyed, Marry, but in the mean season you played not the part of a faithful Subject in holding with the People in a Commotion and Disturbance: it hath been the cast of all Traitors to pretend nothing against the King's Person; they never pretend the matter to the King, but to others; Subjects may not resist any Magistrates, nor ought to do any thing contrary to the King's Laws. And to put the matter out of all doubt, in his Afternoon Matth. xxii. 21. Sermon at Stamford he says, If the King should require of thee an unjust Request, yet art thou bound to pay it, and not to resist, nor rebel against the King. The King indeed is in peril of his Soul for asking an unjust Request, and God will in his due time reckon with him for it; but thou must obey the King, and not take upon thee to judge him, for God is the King's Judge, &c. and know this, that whensoever there is an unjust Exaction laid upon thee, it is a plague and punishment for thy Sin. We marvel that we are plagued as we be, and I think verily, this unjust and unfaithful dealing with our Princes is one great cause of our plague: look therefore every Man upon his Conscience; ye shall not be judged by worldly Policy at the latter day.
Archbishop Cranmer, in his Letter to Queen Mary (whatever his fear might otherwise betray him to do) confesses, Ap. Fox, to. 3. p. 672. ‘That the [Page 22]Imperial Crown, and Jurisdiction of this Realm, is taken immediately from God to be used under him only, and is subject unto none but God alone; p. 674. and afterward averrs, That as the Pope taketh upon him to give the Temporal Sword to Kings and Princes, so doth he likewise take upon him to depose them from their imperial States, if they be disobedient to him; and commandeth the Subjects to disobey their Princes, assoiling the Subjects as well of their Obedience as of their lawful Oaths made unto their true Kings and Princes contrary to God's Commandment,’ who commandeth all Subjects to obey their Kings, or their Rulers over them. It is not to be denied that this great Man was for the Lady Jane; but besides his Temper, I have this to say for him, that the several and contrary Acts of Parliament, limiting and changing the Succession according to the King's Pleasure in the latter end of Henry the Eighth's Reign, might very well in such a juncture of Affairs as happen'd on the Death of Edward the Sixth, stagger a wise Man, and incline him to believe, that the Son had the same Right that his Father had (as unquestionably he had, if it were a Right of the Crown) especially while that Right was recogniz'd and confirm'd in Parliament.
To this excellent Prince was Sir John Cheek a Tutor, as he also was the Restorer of the Greek Tongue in England: he in his Advice of the True Subject to the Rebel, Ed. Oxon. 1641. p. 2, 3, 4.or the hurt of Sedition, thus bespeaks the Rebels of that Age; For our selves, we have great cause to thank God, by whose Religion, and holy Word daily taught us, we learn not only to fear him truly, but also to obey our King faithfully, and to serve in our own Vocation like Subjects honestly—ye, which be bound by God's Word not to obey for fear, like Men-pleasers, but for conscience sake, like Christians, have contrary to God's holy will, whose Offence is everlasting Death, and contrary to the godly Order of Quietness set out by the King's Majesty's Laws, the breach whereof is not unknown to you, taken in hand, uncalled of God, unsent by Men, unfit by reason, to cast away your bounden Duties of Obedience, &c. — yet ye pretend, that partly for God's sake, partly for the Commonwealth's sake, ye do rise.— How do you take in hand to reform? Be you Kings, by what Authority, or by what Succession? Be you the King's Officers, by what Commission? Be you called by God, by what Tokens declare you that? — Ye rise for Religion, what Religion taught you that? If you were offer'd Persecution for Religion, you ought to fly, so Christ teacheth you; and yet you intend to fight: if you would stand in the [Page 23]truth, you ought to suffer like Martyrs, and you slay like Tyrants, thus for Religion you keep no Religion, and neither will follow the Counsel of Christ, nor the constancy of Martyrs: whatever the Causes be, that have moved your wicked Affections herein,Pag. 11.(as they be unjust Causes, and increase your Faults much) the thing it self, the Rising, I mean, must needs be wicked and horrible before God; and the usurping of Authority, and taking in hand rule, which is the sitting in God's Seat of Justice, a proud climbing up into God's high Throne, must needs be not only cursed newly by him, but also hath been often punished afore of him, and that which is done to God's Officers,Pag. 12.God accounteth it done to him. — Ye be bound in God's Word to obey your King, and is it no Breach of Duty to withstand your King? See also Bishop Hooper's Comment on the Fifth Commandment.
SECT. III.
But the outward Felicity of the Church, as it was very great under Edward the Sixth, so it was short-lived; a black Storm gathering under Queen Mary, and at last falling severely upon her Protestant Subjects, who dealt with her as they were in duty bound; they assisted her chearfully till she got her Crown, and when contrary to her Duty, and her Promises she persecuted them, some of them resolutely suffered Martyrdom, others, as our Saviour advises, fled into Foreign Countries for Protection, the great Men of that Party solemnly disowning the Principle of taking up Arms against their Sovereign, even when she had falsified her promises to them. And this is attested by more than a few of the greatest Men of that Reign, Burn. Hist. Res. part. l. 2. p. 285. the Bishops of Exeter, S. Davids, and Glocester, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, Crome, Sanders, Rogers, Laurence and others, who having given an account of their Principles conclude thus, as the Historian says, ‘These things they declared, that they were ready to defend, as they often had before offered, and concluded, charging all People to enter into no Rebellion against the Queen, but to obey her in all points, except where her Commands were contrary to the Law of God.’ But their own words will most properly give us their meaning, as Tom. 3. p. 100, &c. Fox records. ‘Because we hear, that it is determined to send us speedily out of the Prisons of the King's Bench, &c. (where at present we are, and of a long time some of us have been, not as Rebels, Traitors, seditious persons, Thieves, or Transgressors [Page 24]of any Laws of this Realm, Inhibitions, Proclamations, or Commandments of the Queen's Highness, or of any of the Councils, God's Name be praised therefore, but only for the Conscience we have to God, and to his most holy Word and Truth) to one of the Universities there to dispute — We write and send abroad this our Faith — humbly requiring, and in the Bowels of our Saviour Christ, beseeching all that fear God to behave themselves as obedient Subjects to the Queen's Highness, and the superior Powers which are ordained of God under her; rather after our Example to give their Heads to the Block, than in any point to rebel, or once to mutter against the Lord's anointed, we mean our Sovereign Lady Queen Mary, into whose Heart we beseech the Lord of Mercy plentifully to pour the Wisdom, and Grace of his Holy Spirit now, and for ever. Amen.’ First, ‘we confess, and believe all the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, &c.’ And having reckoned up what Doctrines they owned, and what they condemned, they go on thus — ‘And we doubt not, but we shall be able to prove all our Confessions here to be most true, by the Verity of God's Word, and Consent of the Catholick Church — In the mean season, as obedient Subjects, we shall behave our selves towards all that be in Authority, and not cease to pray to God for them, that he would govern them all generally, and particularly with the Spirit of Wisdom and Grace; and so we heartily desire, and humbly pray all Men to do, ☞ in no point consenting to any kind of Rebellion or Sedition against our Sovereign Lady the Queen's Highness; but where they cannot obey, but they must disobey God, then to submit themselves with all patience and humility to suffer, as the will and pleasure of the highest powers shall adjudge, as we are ready through the goodness of the Lord to suffer whatsoever they shall adjudge us unto, rather than we will consent to any Doctrine contrary to this, which we here confess, unless we shall be convinced thereof either by Writing, or by Word, &c. and the Lord of Mercy endue us all with the Spirit of his Truth, and Grace of Perseverance, therein unto the end. Amen. May 8, Anno Dom. 1554.’
This Letter was subscribed by Bishop Ferrar, Bishop Hooper, and Bishop Coverdale, and by nine others, who were the Flower of Confessors at that time. And if it be objected, that Wyat's Rebellion happened the same year, and that he took Arms upon the [Page 25]Account of Religion, I answer, 1. Were it so, this was the fault of but a few discontented Protestants, not the fault of their Religion and Principles, but of their Passions. 2. Nor did those Discontents take Arms for Religion, as the Historian says expresly: Burn. ubi supra. p. 269. ‘For when Wyat made his Proclamation at Maidstone, he professed, that he intended nothing but to preserve the Liberty of the Nation, and keep it from coming under the Yoke of Strangers, which he said all the Council except one or two were against, and assured the People, that all the Nobility and chief Men of England would concur with him.’ (Now the Generality of the Nation was then Papist, the Nobility and Gentry especially, and so could not be presumed to take Arms for the Protestant Religion.) ‘He said nothing of Religion, but in private assured those that were for the Reformation, that he would declare for them. — And his Demands P. 270. have no relation to Religion, but to the Command of the Tower, and that the Queen should be under his Guard, &c.’ The same Ibid. Historian affirming, ‘that the Rebellion was not at all raised upon the pretence of Religion, which according to the Printed Account set out by the Queen's Order was not so much as once named, and that Poynet Bishop of Winchester was not in it, P. 171. &c. and that Christopherson's Book on this Subject was but a Flourish of his Wit, and no decisive proof.’ And I cannot learn but that Wyat as well as Dudley died a Papist. 'Tis true, some of his Adherents pretended Religion (as there are, and will be wicked Men of all Persuasions) but they did but pretend Religion as Mr. Bradford (one of the Writers of the aforementioned Letter) said of them in his Exhortation to the Professors of the Gospel in England: but, ☜ as he adds, they were Hypocrites, and under the Cloak of the Gospel would have debarred the Queen's Highness of her Right, but God would not so cloak them.
This therefore was the Sentiment of our Confessors at home, during the Reign of Queen Mary, and I doubt not, but it was the Sense of their Brethren the Confessors abroad (as I shall make it appear from the Writings of the Bishops Jewel and Sandys) whatever the Author of the History of the Troubles at Francfort says to the contrary, who was well known to be a party, and for that reason not fit to give such evidence P. 195. as he does, that the greatest Traitors and Rebels King Edward had in the West Parts were Priests, and such as had subscribed to the Book, or whatsoever by Law was then in [Page 26]force — But in all the Stirs which have happened either since the Queen's Majesty came to the Crown, or before, I have not heard of so much as one (Minister, or other) that hath lifted up his hand against her Majesty, or State, whom it pleaseth the malicious Man to term Precisian and Puritan, Traitor and Rebel. While this Author hath forgot what before he recorded, Pag. 44, 45. ‘That Knox their Patriarch was banished from Francfort for High Treason against the Emperor of Germany.’ And not long after the History was written, Hacket and his Companions would have convinced him, that the Men of his Party can be Rebels.
SECT. IV.
Under Queen Elisabeth the Truth broke from behind the Cloud, and shone triumphantly; and as Truth is always the same, so it appeared in this particular Doctrine: Archbishop Sandys was one of the Confessors of that Age, and from him we learn, Serm. 3. p. 51. That if we despise Government, and speak evil of them that be in Authority, if we mutter and murmur against the Principality of Moses and Aaron, if we loath the present State, and seek after Alterations, then shall the Blessings of God turn into Cursings. Id. Ser. 4. p. 67.As we should pray for all Men, so chiefly for Kings (and undoubtedly it is unlawful to rebel against those whom we are bound to pray for.) In Paul's time the Kings and Rulers of the People were Ethnicks, Tyrants, Enemies to Christ, and cruel Persecutors of the Gospel, whereupon some thought it not convenient for the Church to pray for them, who sought to destroy it, S. Paul abateth this Opinion, teaching them, that they should chiefly pray for such, as for Men in greatest danger, and most needing the help of their Prayers, pray for him that prayeth not for himself, — We must pray for ill Princes, because the King's Heart is in God's Hand, that he may turn their minds, and stay their Persecutions, &c. to pour out Supplications,Pag. 68.that God would grant them a long life, a safe Government, a sure dwelling, Tertull.valiant Soldiers, faithful Counsellors, a good People, and a quiet world, and whatsoever the Hearts of Men or Kings do desire, (and I am sure such a Prayer is not reconcileable with resistance) and let all such as will not say Amen to this Prayer, assure themselves, that they are neither dutiful Christians, nor faithful Subjects.
Thus also speaks Bishop Jewel, Def. of the Apol p. 15.We teach the People as S. Paul doth, to be subject to the highest Powers, not only for fear, but also for conscience; we teach them, that whosoever striketh with the Sword by private Authority, shall perish with the Sword; if the Prince happen [Page 27]to be wicked, or cruel, or burthensome, we teach them to say with S. Ambrose, Tears and Prayers be our Weapons. ☜
Anno 1586. Bishop Bilson Printed his Book of the true difference between Christian Subjection, and unchristian Rebellion. And therein says, P. 260. Deliverance if you would have, obtain it by prayer, and expect it in peace, P. 262.these be Weapons for Christians—the Subject hath no refuge against his Sovereign, but only to God by prayer and patience. — Christ fore-teaching his Disciples,P. 256.that they should be brought before Kings and Rulers, and put to death, and hated of all Men for his Names sake, addeth not, as you would have it, he that first rebels, but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. P. 278.— Your Spanish Inquisitions and French Massacres are able to set grave and good Men at their wits end, and to make them justly doubt, since you refuse the course of all divine and human Laws, with them, whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves from such barbarous Blood-suckers — if the Laws of the Land where they do converse, do permit them, &c.
This last Quotation I have transcribed, that I might answer the Authority, which some Men use to prove, that it is lawful in some Cases for Subjects to resist. For were this true: yet 1. This is but one Doctor's Opinion, contrary to the Doctrine of the Church (and that with a limitation which concerns not us) nor do we pretend, that any Man is infallible. 2. Bishop Bilson had been in other things very much deceived, tho a wise Man, and a good Scholar, for even upon such Men their Passions do many times impose; witness the Nullity. 3. For this very Opinion Bishop Bilson is censured by the Third Paper to Henderson, p. 85. op. 2d. Edit. ann. 1687. Martyr Charles; For Bilson, I remember well what Opinion the King my Father had of him for these Opinions, and how he shewed him some favor in hope of his Recantation (as his good nature made him do many things of that kind) but whether he did or not, I cannot say. 4. At the time when Bilson's Book was written, the Queen was assisting the Dutch against their, and her common Enemy, the Crown of Spain: now if in the Low-Countries the Government was founded in Compact, as many Learned Men say, and that all their Privileges, Sacred and Civil, contrary to that Agreement, were invaded, and the Inquisition introduced, all their Petitions slighted, and some hundred thousands barbarously murdered, this alters the Case, while it can no way hold good in Governments, where there is no such Compact. 5. Ductor. dubitant. l. 3 ch. 3. rule 3. n. 19. Bishop Taylor quotes Bilson, with Barclay and others, as an Assertor of the Doctrine of Non-resistance, and Loyalty. If the Opinion of Bishop Bilson [Page 28](were he never so venerable for his Learning and other Accomplishments) be contrary to that of our Blessed Saviour, and his holy Apostles, we ought to renounce them; and I have with a mixture of sorrow and shame reflected upon Cressy's Censure of that Book, Exomolog. c. 12. ‘Queen Elisabeth conceived it convenient for her wordly Designs to take on her the Protection of the Low-Countries against the King of Spain, she imployed Dr. Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, to write his Book of Christian Subjection, in which, to justifie the Revolt of Holland, he gave strange Liberty in many Cases, especially concerning Religion, for Subjects to cast off their Obedience; but that Book which served Queen Elisabeth's wordly Designs, by the just Judgment of God hath contributed much to the Ruin of her Successor King Charles; for there is not any Book, that the Presbyterians have made more dangerous use of against their present Prince, than that which his Predecessor commanded to be written to justifie her against the King of Spain.’ Howel's Life of Lewis 13. And it was a smart Observation of Lewis the Thirteenth of France, when that good King Charles was involved in a Civil War, that perhaps God punished him for assisting the French Protestants at Rochel, when in Arms against their Sovereign.
But after all, let's hear this Reverend Prelate, where he determines, rather than disputes upon this Case, and none shall need to speak for him.
The Jesuit after long arguing with him about the Magistrate's being accountable for his Faults to the People, The true Difference between Christian Subject. &c. part 3. p. 97, 98. Ed. Lond. 1586. Id. p. 252, 253. as well as the People to him, comes at last to this Issue: Then Princes, (says he) have impunity to do what they list without fear of Laws. To which he replies; ‘Princes appoint penalties for others, not for themselves; they bear the Sword over others, not others over them: Subjects must be punished by them, and they by none, but by God, whose place they supply.’ And in another place, ‘We deny, that Princes have any superior and ordinary Judge to hear and determine the Right of their Crowns: We deny that God hath Licensed any Man to depose them, and pronounce them no Princes—Princes have far greater honor and power over Subjects, than any Man can have over Sons and Servants; they have power over Goods, Lands, Bodies and Lives, which no private Man may challenge. They be Fathers of our Country, to the which we be nearerbound, by the very Confession of Ethnicks, than to the Fathers of our Flesh: how then by God's Law should Subjects depose their [Page 29]Princes, to whom, in most evident words, they must be subject for conscience sake, tho they be Tyrants and Infidels.’ Pag. 277. And lastly, in Answer to the Jesuit's Objection of the German Princes resisting the Emperor, which was the Hinge on which all the difference in their Arguments did hang. ‘They were Magistrates, (says he) and bare the Sword in their own Dominions; you are private Men, and want lawful Authority to use the Sword: their States be free, and may resist any wrong by the Law of the Empire. You be Subjects, and simply bound by the Laws of the Country to obey the Prince, or abide the pain which the publick State of this Realm hath prefixed—The Queen of England inheriteth, and hath one and the same right over all her Subjects, be they Nobles or others.’
So Mr. Perkins on the Fifth Commandment: ‘The Duties to Superiors in Authority are, 1. Obedience to their Commandments, Rom. 13.1. — because every higher power is the Ordinance of God, and the Obedience which we perform to him, God accepteth it, as tho it were done to himself, Rom. 13.2.—Qu. What if our Superiors be cruel and wicked? Answ. Yet we must yield Obedience to them, but not in wickedness, 1 Pet. 2.18. Act. 4.19.’ — 2. Subjection in suffering the Punishments inflicted by our Superiors. Qu. What if the punishment should be unjust? Answ. ‘Yet must we suffer it, till we can get some lawful Remedy for the same, 1 Pet. 2.19, 20. — And among the Sins against this Commandment he reckons the sixth to resist the lawful Authority of Superiors:’ and the seventh to obey them in things unlawful.
In this Reign Mr. Hooker published his judicious Books of Ecclesiastical Polity, from the first of which it must be confessed, it is observed, that he lays the Foundation of Government in Agreement, Spalatens. de Rep. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 2. n. 19. p. 526. Opinionem verò jam factam communem nostrorum Scholasticorum, &c. That the common Opinion of the Schoolmen, and most other Divines, which place the power of Government in the Body of the People, as if it were given to them by God, and the People might dispose of it to whom they pleased, is false, and altogether to be rejected. he herein following the Schoolmen too strictly, who had brought in the Terms and Notions of the Aristotelean Philosophy into the Christian Church, while Aristotle is known to be a great Lover of a Democracy: but whatever he laid down in Thesi, I am sure he hated the Deductions, that some Men make from him, that because Government arose out of Compact, therefore [Page 30]the People may call their Princes to an account; for in those Fragments of his Eighth Book of Ecclesiastical Polity, which were happily preserved by Archbishop Usher, and published by Dr. Bernard in his Clavi Trabales, (who professes, Pag. 49, 50. that by what art, and upon what design, so much was expunged, he knows not) he fully declares his mind. Pag. 93, 94. ‘In the mighty upon earth (which are not always so virtuous and holy, that their own good minds will bridle them) what may we look for, considering the Frailty of Man's Nature, if the World do once hold it for a Maxim, that Kings ought to live in no Subjection, that how grievous disorder soever they fall into, none may have coercive power over them. Yet so it is, that this we must necessarily admit, as a number of right well learned Men are persuaded, &c. Inducements leading Men to think, the highest Magistrate should not be judged of any saving God alone, are especially these: 1. As in natural Bodies there could be no motion, unless there were something that moves all things, and it self continueth immoveable, so there must be a supreme Head of Justice, whereunto all are subject, but it self in subjection to none, which kind of preheminence, if some ought to have in a Kingdom, ☞ who but the King shall have it? Kings therefore no Man can have lawful power and authority to judge; if private Men offend, there is the Magistrate over them, which judgeth; if Magistrates, they have their Prince; if Princes, there is Heaven, a Tribunal before which they shall appear, on earth they are not accountable to any.’ And here this admirable Discourse breaks off abruptly, which is a great pity.
There is no need to give Arch-Bishop Bancroft a place in this Catalogue, the naming of his Books of dangerous Positions &c, and the Survey of the pretended holy Discipline are a sufficient Proof of his Sentiments; and by his Directions (if I mistake not) was the account of Hacket, Coppinger, and Arthington drawn up, called, Conspiracy for Pretended Reformation; the Design of which Books is expresly against the Doctrine of taking up Arms against the Lords Anointed, especially on the account of Religion.
Near Mr. Hooker therefore I shall place his dear Friend Adrian Saravia (as the Ancients frequently quote St Basil, and St Gregory of Nazianzen together) who tho a Forreiner, better understood both the Civil, and Ecclesiastical Polity of these Kingdoms, [Page 31]than some Natives. And he thus pronounces in the behalf of truth. Epist. ante libr. de Imperandi autorit. & Christianâ obedient.. At this time the Authority of Kings is called in Question, and many men Dispute, that the Authority of the People, or of the Senate (the States) is above the King, and that from Reasons of Humane, not of Christian, and Divine Philosophy; and what is much to be lamented not without great Scandall of the Church of Christ, they having got by reading the Roman, and Greek Historians, Philosophers, and Orators an Admiration, and liking of their Manners, and Laws, so as to think, that all other Governments ought to be Modell'd like them — Many Books are written by our own, Men, and by the Papists on this Subject, which incite the Nobility and Commons to take Arms, whensoever Kings turn Tyrants; which Doctrine, since it is contrary to the Principles of Christianity, which our Saviour and his Apostles deliver'd to the Church, and brings ruine, and desolation to Kingdoms, and Commonwealths, I have thought my self bound to confute — And see the Madness of these People, who write on this Subject; the Papists oblige all Subjects to take Arms against an Heretical Prince i. e. one whom they call so; and others they oblige Subjects to take Arms against a Prince, that is a Papist, and therefore refuses to Establish or Defend the Pretestant Religion; so that of whatsoever persuasion a Prince be, by some part of his Subjects he must be accounted a Tyrant, while a true Christian is a Good Subject, let his Prince be of what Religion he pleases.—It is Intolerable Impiety to abuse the Testimony of Holy Scripture to the Confirmation of so Pestilent an error, while no Pagan Laws, no institutes of the Philosophers can enjoin Subjects a more perfect and strict ‘Obedience, than the Doctrine of the Gospel, &c, after this in the Book, he shews, that the Original of Government is from God, and not from the People; that the People, when they have chosen a King, have no Authority over him afterwards; that a King is as much a King before his Coronation Oath, as after it, and many other such things: he concludes his fourth Book. p. 314. Ed. 1610. (and it is great pity, the other three Books are lost) with this excellent passage. Since God is the preserver of Mankind, he cannot suffer a Tyrant longer to Reign, than it is necessary for the punishment of the Sins of Men, wherefore the best remedy against a Tyrant is the amendment of our Lives, and constant Prayers to God.—A serious Meditation upon the precepts of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ will easily teach us, what is the Duty of Good Men toward evil Kings, and [Page 32]Princes; he, who shall revolve with himself the precepts of loving Enemies, can be no Mans Enemy, much less his Kings; he who is prepared to Bless them, that Curse him, and is resolved not to return rayling for rayling, nor to pursue revenge of injuries, will never speak irreverently, nor Curse Crowned Heads, nor lye in wait for their Life; he, who hath learnt, that we must not resist evil, but overcome evil with Good, with Forbearance, and Patience, can never be a Rebel, never be a Traytor. These things the Apostles taught us, these things the Fathers have deliver'd down to us, and being bred up under these institutions they patiently suffer'd the most cruel Torments, and by suffering overcame; and to us their Posterity they have left this Example, in whose steps it is much safer for us to tread, than to give credit to the Authors of the new Doctrine, that is contrary to it.’
SECT. V.
King James, when he came to the Crown, brought learning enough with him to Vindicate his own Right, and the Rights of other Princes, and without vanity it may be Affirm'd, that he hath managed that subject to Admiration in his Writings; the greatest part of which were opposed to the Doctrines of the Romanists, tho his Basilicon Doron smartly chastises the Disciplinarains. ‘This King in the Hampton-Court p. 47, 48.Conference severely Condemn'd some of the notes of the Geneva Bible, as partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous, and Trayterous Conceits; as for Example, the Marginal Note on 1. Exod. 19. alloweth disobedience to Kings,—on 2. Chron. 15.16. the Note taxeth Asa for deposing his Mother only, and not killing her; And to shew the agreement between Papists P. 49 50., and some others in these Doctrines, wereas Dr. Reynolds complain'd of a seditious Book written by one Ficlerus a Papist in behalf of the Pope against Queen Elizabeth called De jure Magistratûs in subditos, the Bishop of London said, that the Author of that Book was a great Disciplinarian, whereby it did appear, what advantage that sort of People gave unto the Papists, who mutatis mutandis could apply their own arguments against Princes of the Religion p. 7 [...]..’ In that Book it is asserted, that if Kings observe not those compacts, to which they were Sworn, Subordinate Magistrates [Page 33]have powet to oppose them, — and to punish them, till all things be restored to their former State, that what Power a General Council hath to Depose a Pope for Haeresie, the same the People over Kings, that are turn'd Tyrants.
And it is worth the notice, that King James, when the Prince Palatine his son in law had axcepted of the Crown of Bohemia, did not only dissuade him from Rushus. Collect. p. 12. it (it being an usurpation upon the Rights of the Emperor) but disavowed the Act, and would never style him himself by that Title, nor suffer his Chaplains so to do. And the defeat of that unhappy Prince near Prague is very remarkable, it happening on Sunday Novemb. 8. Anno 1620. when part of the Gospel for the Day was, Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
SECT. VI.
Under a learned King the Arts flourish, and therefore many eminent Authorities appear in this Reign to the vindication of the truth. Dr. Buckeridge Bishop of Rochester in his Sermon on Rom. 13.5. before the King Sept. 23.1606. says p. 16., there is no resistance, either thou must obey good Princes willingly, or endure evil Tyrants patiently p. 3.. If they command any thing against God, their Authority comes too short; in such cases it is better to obey God, than Men; and yet in these things, tho we may not obey, yet we may not resist, but suffer. — p. 13.Subjection to higher Powers is necessary in Christians Necessitate praecepti, & Finis, by the necessity of the end, Peace, and Tranquillity, and Religion in this Life, and Life Everlasting after Death. And by necessity of the Precept, Honor thy Father, and Mother; in which number all Kings, and Fathers of Countries, and Princes must have the Honor of Reverence to their Persons, of obedience to their Laws, of patience to their Punishments, of maintenance to their Estates, and of fidelity to their Crowns; thus saith Arch-Bishop Laud's Tutor, for so was Bishop Buckeridge.
Tho. Cartwright also, notwithstanding his other heterodox Opinions, and Practcies, seems in this to be Orthodox; Confut. of the Rhem. Test. in Rom. 13.4. p. 968. V. p. 58. V. Arch-Bishop Bramhal. We praise God, that our sworn Enemies are constrained to give us the testimony of sound Doctrine in all duties toward Princes, both good, and bad, Fathers, and Tyrants; for our practice accordingly we are content to rest in equal and indifferent judgment, this one thing we may boldly say, that we seek not to betray our native Princes, nor to lie in wait for their Lives, as the [Page 34]Jesuits most wickedly, and unnaturally do. These were Mr. Cartwright's cool thoughts in his old age, whatever his former Sentiments might have been.
Arch-bishop Whitgift also herein agrees with T. C. for when he says, Def. of the Admonit. p. 4. Ibid. ‘Indeed the Doctrine of the Gospel, 'which is the Doctrine of Salvation, hath been, is, and will be a friend to Princes and Magistrates, yea tho they persecute the same. T.C. re-joins: If it be ask'd of the Obedience due unto the Prince, and unto the Magistrate; it answereth, that all obedience in the Lord is to be rendred: and if it come to pass, that any other be asked, it so refuseth, that it disobeyeth not, in preferring obedience to the great God before that which is to be given to mortal man. It so resisteth, that it submitteth the body, and goods of those that profess it, to abide that, which God will have them suffer in that case. And to this the Arch-bishop subjoins, All this is truly spoken of the Doctrine of the Gospel.’
Dr. Fulke, In 1 Pet. 2.18. on the Rhemish Testament. ‘It is a lewd Slander against Wicklif, (that Magistrates lost their Authority, if once they were in deadly sin) — he obeyed, and taught obedience to the Kings Edw. III. and Rich. II. in whose time he lived, which two Princes all men know to have committed deadly sin, yea some heinous and notorious sins. So it is a detestable slander against us, whom you call followers of Wicklif; for none of us ever held, or taught any such Seditious, or traiterous Opinions: but your Heresie commeth nearest to this Opinion, which holdeth, that the Pope hath Authority to depose lawful Kings from their Thrones at his pleasure, &c.’
Anno 1610. Bishop Carlton printed his Book of the Jurisdiction of Princes, wherein he affirms, Ch. 1. p. 4. That in external, coactive jurisdiction the King hath Supreme Authority in all Causes, and over all Persons, Ecclesiastical as well as Civil, and that this is that, that hath been publish'd by divers Writings and Ordinances —P. 12. Ch. 2.Some of the Pope's Flatterers of late, as also others, to open a wide gap to Rebellion, have written, That the power of Government by the Law of Nature is in the multitude — but the first Government was in a Family, it is absurd to think, and impossible to prove, that the power of Government was in the Multitude. — and what is a King by nature, but a Father of a great Family?
SECT. VII.
I am now enter'd into a vast Ocean, where Writers are every where to be found, and I resolve to examine them as they occur, without adjusting with a too curious niceness the exact Chronology Ser. 1. on Gowrey's Conspir. p. 781.; And I begin with Bishop Andrews, the smartest Adversary that ever the great Card. Bellarmine met with, A King is Al Rum, no rising against him, or, if any man rise, they had better sit still — for Kings begin from God, we cannot set our selves against them (saith Gamaliel) but we must be found to fight against God; being ordain'd of God (saith S. Paul, Gamaliel's Scholar) to resist them is to resist the Ordinance of God; none might better say it than he, it was told him from Heaven, when he was about such another business, persecuting Christ in his Church, Ser. 2. p. 791. and having quoted the example of David toward Saul, he adds, I verily think, God in this first Example of his first King over his own people hath purposely suffer'd them all (i.e. all the faults of Governours) to fall out, and to be found in him, even all that should fall out in any King after him. 1. His Government was tyrannical. 2. He usurp'd a Power in things spiritual, taking upon him to sacrifice in person. 3. He dip'd his hands in the bloud of God's Priests. 4. Was possess'd by God with an evil spirit, a case beyond all other cases, and yet destroy him not Abishai. Ser. 3. on the 5. August. p. 800. Kings are God's Anointed to the superseding of two Claims, meos, saith the Pope — another Claim hath of late begun to be buzz'd as if they were Christi populi (the anointed of the People) and held of them; but this Claim also falleth to the ground by the Text — God help if the people fall to make Gods — to say that Princes may be lawfully slain — is to make men believe, P. 801. P. 808.that they go to Heaven for breaking God's Commandments. Ser. 3. on Gunpowder Treas. p. 938, 939. V. Appen. p. 91.What if Kings take too much upon them (Corah's exception) then it is, dedi vobis Regem in irâ, saith God by the Prophet, Angry was I, when I gave him, but I gave him tho. — but this onus Principis, how may webe rid of it? Is there any other per me to go to? to deprive, or depose them sure, where the worst is reckoned that can be of them, clamabunt ad Dominum, is all I find: in nature, every thing is dissolved by the same means it came together; in the Law, institution and destitution belong both to one, &c.
Sermon on the Queen's day at the end of his Lectures on Jonah. p. 695. Bishop King. ‘It is the greatest dishonour to Religion to put down Princes, a thing which neither Moses in the Old, nor Christ in the New Testament, &c. ever hath taught, counselled, and much less practised, I say not against lawful Magistrates, but not [Page 36]against heathenish infidel Idolaters, tyrannous Rulers, though by the manifest and express sentence of God reprobated, and cast off. P. 696. V. p. 697. I never could suspect, that in the Commission of Christ given to his Disciples there is one word of encouragement to these lawless attempts, unless to go into the World be to go, and overturn the World, to shake the Pillars, and foundations thereof with Mutinies, and Seditions, and unless preaching may be interpreted proclaiming of War, and Hostility — unless to baptize be to wash the people of the World in their own bloud, unless binding and loosing be meant of Fetters and Shackles, retaining and remitting of Prisons, and Wards, and receiving the Holy Ghost be receiving the firy and turbulent Spirit, which our Saviour liked not. Id. Lect. 35. in John. p. 472, 473, &c. Cons. Loc. If such were the King, as Darius was, and such his Rulers and Officers, as would make a Decree to defraud God of his Worship (as Dan. 6.) be thou also as Daniel was, enter into thy House, and open thy Windows toward Jerusalem, and pray, &c. stay not till the King, or his Council release thee thereto, and if every hair of thy head were a life, redeem thy duty to God [...] adventure, and loss thereof rather than neglect it, and if [...]ou happen to be alone in that action, yet forego it not — I like not in any case that the least advantage, and slip in the Earth be given to the People against his lawful, and Christian Governour, it is as fire to Flax, an easie, a welcome persuasion to busie, and catching natures, the least exception once taken against their want of Religion, Piety, Justice, or the like is so far followed, that not onely the Prince in the end, but the whole People rueth it.’
Doctor Jackson To. 3. Treat. of Christian obed. p. 903. yield but once, ‘That dominion over the Creature is founded in Grace, and then tempt the precious Saints to muster Decem legiones, and if God suffer them to prosper, they will be the godly party, whether men will, or no. P. 933, 934. Let every Soul be subject, is not the same as let every Soul be obedient to the higher Powers, no, no, albeit there can be no obedience without subjection, yet may there be subjection without obedience; and oftentimes when obedience to humane Powers is dangerous, subjection is due, and cannot be denied without the just censure of disobedience, Act. 4.18, 19. the Apostles were commanded not to speak in the name of Christ, so far were they from doing what was commanded, that they refuse to hearken to such a proposal, yet were they still subject to their Power, whom they refused to [Page 37]obey, for they suffer themselves to be imprison'd by them without resistance, and yet withal they obey the Angel of the Lord, which open'd the Prison doors, Acts 5.18. but being the second time convened, without violence offered they subject themselves to their Power, and do not appeal to the Angel, which had deliver'd them out of Prison, or implore his aid to resist their Power — with this flat denial of obedience to their injunctions they do not deny, or question subjection to their coercive Power, nor do they repine at the exercise of it, or rail upon the actors; and the true reason of the subjection of their bodies without subjection of their Consciences was that Commandment of our Saviour, Luke 12.4, &c. fear not them that can kill the body, &c. Id. p. 941. the Rule is General, that unto the penalty, or sanction of every humane Law, or Ordinance passive obedience, ☜ or subjection of the outward man is due, whether the Law be just, or unjust P. 963. — and this Rule holds as punctually of the Magistrate, as of the Magistracy: P. 965. he, that is a King, or supreme Magistrate by just, and lawful Title, may not be resisted, albeit he exercise his Power tyrannically. P. 967. The power which the High-Priest exercised in apprehending our Saviour was unjust, and satanical, was it therefore lawful for Christ's Disciples to resist it; to oppose violence to it was unlawful, and if Peter had continued to do, as he began, he had fallen under the Sanction of this Law, They that resist, shall receive damnation.’
SECT. VIII.
Doctor Hakewil was thought fit by King James to be intrusted with the instruction of his eldest Son Prince Henry, the delight of the English Nation, and to vindicate the just rights of Princes he set forth Ann. 1613. his Scutum regium, in which Chap. 1. Lib. 1, he shews, ‘What a horrid sin Murther is, especially (Ch. 2.) of Princes, who are God's immediate Vicegerents, and sit in the place of God, and are accountable only to him — against whom to make insurrections is with the Giants to make War against God — and Ch. 6. discoursing of that Text, 1 Sam. 8. that their King should seize their Vineyards, &c. he subjoins, not that this was lawful for their King to do (for the King's duty is otherwise described Deut. 17.) but that if he did so, they ought not to resist him, and therefore the Prophet subjoins, ver. 18. not that they were to shake off his Yoke, or to disturb his Reign, or to [Page 38]murther his Person, but to call upon God for redress — and Ch. 7. the Prophet David shall rise in judgment against those that do otherwise, and shall condemn them, who had this excellent Lesson not only in his mouth, but in his heart, and I could wish engraven on all mens tongues, and hearts, and hands in great Letters, Nolite tangere Christos meos. In the subsequent Chapters he considers the other Examples of Rebellion, and resistance in the old Testament, and Ch. 14. the Example of our Saviour, who patiently submitted to all injustice, though he could have called for more than twelve Legions of Angels. And when Pilate was a most profligate Man, and no one could be worse than the Pharisees, and High-Priests, and Tiberius the Emperour was infamous for his perjuries, his lusts, and murthers, yet even then so did our Saviour demean himself (and every action of his is our instruction) towards the Magistrates of his time, who were Infidels, Barbarians and Tyrants. And in the second Book he considers the obedience of the antient Christians to Nero and other Persecutors, under Julian, and the Arian Emperours, when they were punish'd contrary to Law, deriving the History down to the times of Pope Gregory the Great, and the Emperour Focas, from whence we date the Papal Tyranny.’ On Epist. for the fourth Sunday after Epiph.
Dr. Bois the Dean of Canterbury, says the same on those Words, Let every Soul be subject, &c. ‘The Proposition is peremptory, deliver'd not narratively, what others hold meet, but positively, importing what God would have done, not advised only by Paul, but devised also by Christ as a Command in imperative terms expresly, Let every Soul be subject—Every Soul is every Man, and this universal Note confutes as well the seditious Papist as the tumultuous Anabaptist.—To be subject is to suffer the Prince's Will to be done, aut à nobis, aut de nobis, either of us, or on us; of us, when he commands for Truth, on us, when he commands against the Truth: either we must be Patients or Agents; Agents, when he is good and godly, Patients, when he is tyrannous and wicked: we must not use a Sword, but a Buckler, against a bad Prince. St. Paul doth not here say, Let every soul be subject to Virtuous and Christian Governors, ☞ but indefinitely to Potentates.—I have read and heard, that the Jesuits are desirous to purge St. Paul's Epistles, especially this to the Romans, as being herein more Lutheran than Catholick. This Text of all other (Let every Soul be subject, &c.) is much against their humor and honor.’
The exempting Clergy-men from the Obedience to secular Powers, Ep. Rom. 13.1. is a Doctrine not heard in the Church a thousand years after Christ, p. 159. [Bishop Bilson against the Jesuits, p. 128.]
Whosoever therefore resisteth.] If there be no power but of God, and nothing done by God but in order, he that resisteth Authority, resisteth God's Ordinance: so the Lord himself said to Samuel: 1 Sam. 8.7. They have not cast thee away, but they have cast me away, that I should not reign over them. — As God is a great King, so a King is as it were a little God: he therefore that resisteth the Prince, resisteth him that sent him; Almighty God is King of kings, and Lord of lords: 1 Tim. 6.15. (pag. 161.)
He is the Minister of God for thy wealth.] D. Buckeridg. Sermon upon the fifth Verse of this Chap. If he be a good Prince, causa est, he is the Cause of thy Good, temporal and eternal; if an evil Prince, he is an occasion of thy eternal Good, by thy temporal evil. August. Serm. 6. de verbis Dom. secundum Matt. Si bonus, nutritor est tuus; si malus, tentator tuus est: If a good King, he is thy Nurse; receive thy nourishment with obedience: if evil, he is thy tempter; receive thy trial with patience. So there is no resistance; either thou must obey good Governors willingly, or endure bad Tyrants patiently. (pag. 162.)
As all power is from God, so for God: and therefore when the Prince commands against truth, it is our Duty to be patient, and not agent. (Ib. 162.)
23d. Sunday after Trin. Mat. 25.15.
Zepper. Aretius. Aquin. 22. quaest. 10.4. Art. 6. This Scripture sheweth evidently, that the Kingdom of Christ abrogateth not the Kingdom of Caesar, but that the Gospel is a good Friend unto Common-weals, in teaching Princes how to govern, and the People how to be subject unto the higher Powers. It is not Christ and his Word, but Antichrist and the Pope, who deny to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, absolving the Subject from his Allegiance to his Sovereign— This Intrusion upon the things of Caesar is thought unjust and uncouth even by the Sorbon and Parliament of Paris in France, by the Commonwealth of Venice, by the Seminary Priests in England; in a word, distasted of all Popelings in the world, except the Serpentine Brood hatch'd of the Spanish Egg Ignatius Loyola. Read the Books of Watson, especially Quodlibet 8. Art. 7, 8. Barclai, of the Authority of the Pope; Roger. Widdrington Apolog. pro Jure Principum: Sheldon's general Reasons proving the Lawfulness of the Oath of Allegeance. The ready Pens of our accurately learned Caesar and his judicious Divines have foiled in this Argument the Popes Bull-beggar Cardinal Bellarmine. (p. 550.)
As for the Tributes of Caesar, if they be just and reasonable, we must pay them as his Wages; if unjust and unreasonable, we must bear them as rur punishment. We may rofel his Arguments in Parliament, and repel his Oppression according to courses of Law, but we may not in any case rebel with the Sword. (Ib.)
On S. Peter's Day: Act. 12.1. (p. 725.)
Prayer was made without ceasing of the Congregation.] Prayers and Tears are the Churches Armor, and therefore when Peter was imprisoned by cruel Herod, the Congregation cometh unto prayer, and not unto powder for his deliverance: they did not assault the Prison, nor kill the Soldiers, [...] Salmeron tract. 35. in Act.nor break the Chains; only prayer and patience were their Weapons: Arma Christianorum in adversis alia esse non debent quam patientia & precatio.
Dr. Donne, the Dean of S. Pauls: Pseudomart. ch. 6. § 10. p. 172. ‘Tho some ancient Greek States, which are called Regna Laconica, because they were shortened, and limited to certain Laws, and some States in our time seem to have conditional and provisional Princes, between whom and Subjects there are mutual and reciprocal Obligations, which if one side break, they fall on the other, yet that Sovereignty, which is a power to do all things available to the main ends, resides somewhere, which, if it be in the Hands of one Man, erects and perfects that Pambasilia, of which we speak. — Id. § 11. God inanimates every State with one power, as every Man with one Soul, when therefore People concur in the desire of such a King, they cannot contract, nor limit his power, no more than Parents can condition with God, ☞ or preclude, or withdraw any Faculty from that Soul, with God hath infused into the Body, which they prepared and presented to him, &c.’ — And upon this Principle of the Sovereignty, and unaccountableness of Kings, he shews, that those who suffer for asserting any other power over Kings, are not Martyrs, but Traitors.
Id. Serm. 39. p. 391, 392. ‘We sin against the Father, the Root of Power, in conceiving amiss of the Power of the Civil Magistrate, — when God saith, By me Kings reign, there the Per is not a Permission, but a Commission; it is not that they reign by my Sufferance, but they reign by my Ordinance; a King is not a King, because he is a good King, nor leaves being a King, as soon as he leaves being good; all is well summed up by the Apostle, Rom. 13.5. Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.— The Law of the Prince is rooted in the power of God, Ser. 69. p. 698.the Root of all is Order, and the Orderer of all is the King.’
SECT. IX.
The Archbishop of Spalato came a Stranger into this Kingdom, but in a little time became well acquainted with the Estate of our Church, and spoke her Sense in his Books, which were well received both here and abroad; nor does his Apostacy afterward concern the Merit of the Cause; for if we may believe a Bishop Cosens of Transub. Reverend Prelate of our Communion, the Archbishop of Spalato did make good what he promised here, when he came to Rome, that he would own and defend the English Church to be a true Church of Christ. And that among other her Doctrines he very well understood this of Non-resistance, (or rather he understood it to be a Doctrine of the true Catholick Church; for his Books were written, tho not completed, before he left Italy) will easily appear, when it is remembered, that Lib. de Rep. Eccles. cap. 1. he shews to the confutation of all that can be said to the contrary, ‘That our blessed Saviour, while he lived on earth, had no temporal Kingdom: Cap. 2. That the Power of Princes is immmediately from God, proving it from Rom. 13.1. That thus God ordain'd the Affairs of the old World, that God himself was the King of Israel, till the Days of Saul, that he transferred his power, not to the people, but to Saul, — that this Opinion, that Kings were of God's Institution, and not the peoples, was the Belief of the ancient Christians, which he proves from the Writings of Irenaeus, Tertull. Chryst. Optat. Didymus, Hosius, Ambrose, Austin, &c. And from the Assertions of the elder Popes and Councils, that the common opinion of the Schoolmen, and other Divines, that Government is in the Body of the People is false; that there is no Revelation hath confirmed this Assertion, that all, that the Light of Nature says, is, that Men must be governed, and that if the Government were originally in the Hands of the People, all Governments ought to have been Democratical, which, says he, is the worst, and most imperfect Form of Government; he proving also, that if the People do elect, they cannot call the Prince, whom they elect, to account; after which Cap. 10. n. 82. he proposes an Objection; If Princes be so unaccountable, then there is no Remedy against evil Princes, no not tho they are Enemies to the true Faith, and are guilty of Maleadministration of the Government, and vex their Subjects both in their Civil and Sacred [Page 42]Properties; for while Deposition is the only Remedy, if they cannot be deposed, there is no Remedy. To which he answers: 1. That we are to enquire after such a State, not what is free from all Inconveniences, but what is subject to the least, and the least dangerous; but much more pernicious and destructive of human Society are those Confusions, which are wont to arise from the Rebellions of Subjects, and from Civil Wars, than those which happen from the Cruelty of an ungovernable King exercised upon his Subjects. 2. That this is proper and peculiar to a supreme temporal Prince, that he cannot lawfully be deposed, for such Kings are only inferior to God, and are his immediate Vicegerents, &c. And in his Confutation of the Errors of Suarez, C. 3. n. 6. he shews the mistakes of that Jesuit, that there is no Revelation that God hath given Princes such a power, proving from S. Paul, that there is no power, but what is of God.—And N. 16. if a Crown happen to fall to an Infidel, his Subjects are bound to obey him, in which case, says he, we ought to acknowledge, and reverence the Equity of the English, ☞ who when they had freed themselves from the Papal Yoke, and embraced the Reformed Religion under Edward the Sixth, did notwithstanding after his Death set the Crown on the Head of his Sister Mary, whom they knew to be a Papist, and zealously affected towards the Pope, which Succession the Peers did not only allow of, but the Prelates also, who expected nothing from her, but Executions and Martyrdoms; for they knew, that Religion ought not to hinder the Admission of the lawful Heir to his Right. — N. 17. For the Power of a King is given him by divine positive Law, and therefore there is no other but God, who can take his power from him.’
To this Archbishop I will join his bitter Adversary, Bishop Montagu, Not. in Invect. 2. Naz. in Jul. because herein they were both agreed; When the Christians in Julian's time betook themselves only to their Prayers, and not to Force, it was not because they could not, but because they would not; for they had sufficient force to subdue the Tyrant, as both Greg. Naz. and S. Austin aver; but they had learn'd patience in the School of their Master Christ, who had recommended it to them, both by his Words, and by his Example, not to confound Heaven and Earth, &c.
Bishop Lake's Sermon Preached in Trinity-Church in Winchester at An Assizes. 1610.
‘A false Religion doth not hinder him from being a lawful Sovereign. To resolve the Conscience of such as doubt, Whether [Page 43]a different Religion doth evacuate the Power of a lawful Sovereign. It doth not, (says he) tho it be a false Religion.’
SECT X.
Old Mr. Ded hath been censured, as a Puritan, but I am sure, neither he, nor his Copartner Clever were so in this point; for in their The 5th. Commandment, p. 216, 217. Comment on the Commandments, they thus declare themselves. ‘The first Duty of the Subject is Submission both inward and outward; in heart to reverence, and outwardly to obey the Magistrate, and this is commanded, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject, &c. He commands not only a bodily Subjection, which may be in many rebellious persons, that resist Authority, and lie open to the Curse of God for this sin, but an inward submission of the Soul, as unto a spark of God's Authority, ☜ and an appointment of his. For if this inward be not first, this outward will fail upon every occasion; there must be also an outward subjection in obeying their Commands, as far as they command lawful things; but if it so fall out, that the Prince, or any in Authority under him command things unlawful against the Commandment of God, then it is better to obey God than Man, yet so, that we be content to bear any punishment that shall be laid upon us, even to death it self, as Daniel, when the King made a wicked Edict, would not yield unto it, but yet was content to yield unto the punishment with patience, and never went about to gather a Power against the King in his own Defence, &c. so that if the Magistrates Command be lawful, the Subject must obey; if he require an unlawful Obedience, he must not rebel, but suffer the punishment without grudging, ☜ even in heart, Eccl. 10.20. If the King be unjust and wicked, we must pray God to convert him, that as our Sins have brought an ill Governor over us, so our Prayers may either remove, or better him.’
Bishop Hall's Contemplations.
The Inauguration of Saul. 1 Vol. fol. p. 1029.
‘Earthly Monarchs must walk by a Rule, which if they transgress, they shall be accountable to him, that is higher than the [Page 44]highest, who hath deputed them: Not out of care of Civility, so much as Conscience, must every Samuel labour to keep eaven terms betwixt Kings and Subjects, prescribing just moderation to the one, to the other Obedience and Loyalty; which whoever endeavours to trouble, is none of the Friends of God, or his Church.’
The Death of Saul. Lib. 14. p. 1084.
‘Saul was none of the best Kings, yet so impatient are his Subjects of the Indignity offered to his dead Corps, that they will rather leave their own bones amongst the Philistins, than the Carcass of Saul. Such a close Relation there is betwixt a Prince and Subject, that the dishonour of either is inseparable from both. — but how unnatural is the Villany of those Miscreants that can be content to be Actors in the Capital Wrong offered to Sovereign Authority?’
Page 1085.
‘Every drop of Royal Bloud is Sacred; for a Man to say that he hath shed it, is mortal.’
The Death of Absalom. Lib. 16. 1128.
‘Strangers shall relieve him, whom his own Son persecutes. —’
Page 1129.
O holy David, what means this ill-placed love, this unjust mercy, deal gently with a Traytor? but of all Trayors with a Son?
Who can want courage to fight for a righteous Sovereign, and Father, against the Conspiracy of a wicked Son? The God of Hosts with whom it is all one to save with many or with few, takes part with Justice, and lets Israel feel what it is to bear Arms for a traiterous Usurper.
Let no Man look to prosper by Rebellion; the very thickets and stakes and pits, and wild Beasts of the Wood shall conspire to the punishment of Traytors.
Page 1131.
— ‘Even at this day very Pagans and Pilgrims that pass that way, cast each man a stone into that heap, and are wont to say in a solemn Execution, Cursed be the Parricide Absalom, and cursed be all unjust persecutors of their Parents, for ever:’
‘Fasten your Eyes upon this woful Spectacle, O all ye rebellious and ungracious Children, which rise up against the loins and thighs from which you fell, and know that it is the least part of your punishment, that your Carcasses rot on the Earth, and your Name in Ignominy: these do but shadow out those Eternal sufferings of your Souls, for your full and unnatural disobedience.’
Sheba's Rebellion. Page 1132.
‘That a lewd Conspirator should breath Treason is no wonder, but is it not wonder and shame, that upon every mutinous blast, Israel should turn Traytor to God's anointed?’
Contemplations. Lib. 18. p. 1171.
‘In the Case of Succession into Kingdoms we may not look into the Qualities of the Person, but into the Right.’
— ‘No Bond can be surer than the natural Allegiance of Subjects: I do not find that the following Kings stood upon the Confirmation of the People; but as those that knew the way to their Throne, ascended their steps without aid.’
Page 1174.
How durst these seditious Mouths mention David in defiance? One would have thought that very Name had been bale to have temper'd their fury, and to have contained them within the limits off Obedience: —
Blessed be God for lawful Government: Even a mutinous Body cannot want a Head: If the Rebellious Israelites have cast of their true Sovereign, they must chuse a false.
Jeroboam. Page 1175.
The Civil defection was soon follow'd by the Spiritual. As there are near respects betwixt God and his Anointed, so there is great Affinity betwixt Treason and Idolatry. —
They cannot return to God and hold off from their lawful Sovereign; They cannot return to Jerusalem and keep off from God, from their Loyalty. How can they be mine— whiles— the Priests and Levites shall preach to them the necessity of their due obedience, and the abomination of their Sacrifices in their wilful disobedience.
Bishop Hall's second Vol. Christ and Caesar. p. 416.
‘It is Religion that teacheth us that God hath ordained Kingly Sovereignty, Rom. 13.1. ordain'd it immediately; That Position was worthy of a Red-hat, Potestas Principis dimanavit à Populo, Pontificis à Deo. (Bellar. Recog.) What need I persuade Christian Kings and Princes, that they hold their Crowns and Scepters as in fee from the God of Heaven? Cyrus himself had so much Divinity, Ezra 1.2. It is Religion that teaches us that the same Power which ordained Caesar enjoins all faithful subjection to Caesar; Not for fear, but for Conscience.’
Bishop Hall's third Vol. Pag. 118.
3. ‘A promissory Oath, which is to the certain prejudice of another Man's Right cannot be attended with Justice.’
4. ‘No prejudice of another Man's right can be so dangerous and sinful as that prejudice which is done to the right of publick and Sovereign Authority.’
5. ‘The right of Sovereign Authority is highly prejudiced, when private Subjects encroach upon it; and shall upon suspicion of the diavowed intentions, or actions of their Princes, combine and bind themselves to enact, establish, or alter any matters concerning Religion without (and therefore much more if against) the Authority of their Lawful Sovereign.’
6. ‘A Man is bound in Conscience to reverse and disclaim that which he was induced unlawfully to engage himself by Oath to perform.’
7. ‘No Oath is or can be of force that is made against a lawful Oath formerly taken; so that he that hath sworn Allegiance to his Sovereign, and thereby bound himself to maintain the Right, Power, and Authority of his said Sovereign, cannot by any second Oath be tied to do ought that may tend to the infringement thereof; and if he have so tied himself, the Obligation is ipso facto void and frustrate.’
And according to this Doctrine was Mr. Dod's practice; Sir H. Yelverton's Pref. to Bishop Moreton of Episc. for a little before Naseby fight King Charles of blessed memory sent the Earl of Lindsey to Mr. Dod to know his opinion of the War; his Lordship found him ill, nevertheless he sat up, and dictated his sense of it; but the Earl was on a sudden by reason of the fight hurried [Page 47]away, and whether the King had the Paper or no, I cannot learn; but the original (or a Copy of it) was by some zealous Man supprest; no doubt, because it condemn'd taking up Arms on the specious pretences of Religion, and Liberty. And according to his Sentiments was his usage, he being plundred by the Parliament Army, as well as the other (so called) Malignants.
SECT. XI.
There was no little Clash between Arch-Bishop Laud, and Bishop Davenant about other points, but in this they agreed Davenant deter. qu. 4. p. 22. He that taketh the sword, shall perish by the sword, i. e. ‘He that usurps the Sword, he that uses it without permission from the King, who by God's Ordinance bears the Sword; now who can believe, that a Prince will give leave to draw his own Sword against himself — all others ought to abstain from laying hands on him, whose punishment God hath by a certain special priviledg reserv'd to himself. — the antient Christians, being harass'd with most grievous persecutions, never fled to these indirect means, Pag. 23. but defended the Church by those means, which God hath appointed, viz. by the tears of her Christians, the preachings of her Priests, and the sufferings of her Martyrs; and what Suarez say, V. p. 24. That there is no need of a Superiour Power to keep the Pope in order, because Christ will in an especial manner in this case provide for his Church, may be with much greater reason said of Kings— Christ himself will in a more Eminent manner defend his Church, not onely against the cruelty of persecutors, but also against the gates of Hell. — Resistance is unlawful, and contrary to God's Ordinance; for St. Paul says it is a sin, and worthy of eternal damnation to resist the Powers ordained of God. Put the case, that Princes will not only not purge the Church of Heresies, and false worship, but what is worse, Id. qu. 12. p. 58. will defend those corruptions by their Authority, yet in this case the people ought not to reform; 1. Because God requires from Subjects — to suffer whatsoever the Magistrate can inflict rather than desert the true Religion; but not to compel the Magistrate — for Religion is to be defended not by killing others, but by dying for it our selves, not by cruelty, but by patience, not by wickedness, but by fidelity, says Lactantius. 2. When the people undertake such an action without the Prince's consent, [Page 48]it is Rebellion; now evil is not to be done, that good may come thereof — let such Men take to themselves whatever Names they please, they are Traytors, not Christians; L. there will be great danger in so doing — for should they get the Power, they cannot make Laws — Qu. 17. What shall be able to keep a Man within the duty of a good Subject, who will not be bound by Oaths. — Qu. 30. Criminals of the Superiour Order (i.e. Kings, &c.) God hath reserv'd to his own Court, and Judgment.’
SECT. XII.
I will not quote Arch-Bishop Laud, because the Adversaries to this Doctrine aver, that it was of his inventing; but instead of him I will call for an unquestionable witness Arch-Bishop Usher, who expresly order'd, Clavi Trabales. p. 52. That Loyalty should according to the Canon be four times every year preach'd to the people, while his actions were a plain Comment upon his Opinions. I need not mention the regard the forein Protestant Divines had to him (and the Romanists too, especially Cardinal Richelieu) as well as those of our own Country; Apud eund. & Sanders pref. to the Bishop's Book. While I inform the Reader, that in the beginning of our most unhappy Commotions the Lord Deputy of Ireland Strafford desired the Primate Usher to declare his judgment publickly concerning those Tumults, which he did in two Sermons at Christ-Church in Dublin on Eccles. 7.2. Whereupon the Deputy signified, it would be acceptable to the King to print the Sermons, or to write a Treatise on the Subject; the latter the Arch-Bishop made choice of, and sent it into England with an intent to have it printed; as the Martyr Charles design'd, that his Subjects might receive the satisfaction from the same, as himself had done. In the time of the Usurper Cromwel it was not thought fit to be printed, lest it might have been perverted to the support of his Power. ‘For by this time the flatterers of that great Tyrant had learn'd by a new device upon the bare account of Providence without respect to the justice of the Title (the only right, and proper foundation) to interpret, and apply to his advantage whatsoever they found either in the Scriptures, or in other Writings concerning the Power of Princes, or the duty of Subjects, profanely, and sacrilegiously taking the Name of that holy Providence of God in vain, and using it onely as a stalking Horse to serve the lusts and interests of ambitious Men.’
In the first part of that learned Treatise the Bishop proves, that the Power of the Prince is from God, and that Part. 1. §. vi. p. vi. ‘Our Government is a free Monarchy, because the Authority resteth solely in the person of the King, whereupon it is declar'd, that the King is the onely Supreme Governour of these Realms in all Causes whatsoever; which could not stand, if either the Court (of Parliament) it self, or any other power upon Earth might in any cause over-rule him; I say any Power, whither forein, or domestick, and then §. 28. He discourses at large as of the original of Regal power from Heaven, so of the Law of the King proceeding in the second part to treat of the Obedience of the Subject V. p. 109. 111, 134, &c. In which he plainly shews, that whither the Power be good, or bad, whosoever does resist it (by withdrawing his service from it, or denying Tribute, or not giving that honour to it, which he ought to give) resisteth the Ordinance, and disposition of God, by whose appointment they bear Rule. P. 145. 146. Quest. But how are Subjects to carry themselves, when such things are enjoined, as cannot, or ought not to be done; R. surely not to accuse the Commander, but humbly to avoid the command — and when nothing else will serve the turn, as in things that may be done, we are to express our subjection by active; so in things, that cannot be done, we are to declare the same by passive obedience without resistance, and repugnancy; such a kind of suffering being as sure a sign of subjection as any thing else whatsoever. — He, P. 147, &c. that consults with flesh and bloud, will hardly be induc'd to admit this Doctrine of passive Obedience, and therefore, if he will learn this Lesson, he must make choice of better Masters, and listen in the first place to Solomon, Prov. 3.5. Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding. And to that Oracle of the Son of God himself, Matth. 16.24. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, &c. then must he raise up his thoughts to the heigth of that beatitude, which our Saviour's own mouth hath given assurance of to all such, as will be ruled by him herein. Matth. 5.10, 11, 12. Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness sake, &c. and to look on the recompence of Reward — and to encourage himself with the precedent of the Apostles and Prophets, the innumerable company of Martyrs, and Confessors: — and above all to look unto Christ himself. Obj. P. 150, But suppose the King should command us to worship the Devil, would you not give us leave to stand [Page 50]upon our Guard, — and if not, what will become of God's Church, and his Religion? R. As if this had been a new Case never heard of before; when the Devil-Worship, i. e. that of Idols, (called Devils, 1 Cor. x. 20.) was so vehemently urged by the cruel Edicts of the persecuting Emperors, did the Christians ever take Arms against them for the matter, or betake themselves to any other Refuge, but fervent Prayers unto Almighty God, and patient suffering of what disgrace or punishment soever should be put upon them, Pag. 152. &c. — But if Mens Hands be tied, no Man's Estate will be secure, &c. I answer, God's Word is clear, Whosoever resisteth, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and thereby a necessity is imposed upon us of being subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake, which may not be avoided by the pretext of any ensuing mischiefs whatsoever — it becomes us in obedience to perform our part, and leave the ordering of Events to God, Pag. 177. whose part that is. — And so much both of active Obedience, which in all things that may be done, we are bound to perform unto our Sovereigns, and of the passive, which in other Cases with all Christian Fortitude we are tied to undergo, ☞ without the least carnal thought either of resisting their Authority, or conspiring against their Persons, State and Dignity.’ And then he closes his Discourse with an account of the Obligation of Oaths, &c. and the methods of the ancient Church, when persecuted, viz. 'Patient Sufferings, and Prayers to God.
Nor need I mention Dr. Heylin, whose Opinions are well known, and are remarkably to be seen in his Stumbling-Block of Disobedience discovered, censured, and removed, &c. Of which the Arguments are cogent, and the Authorities good, tho I do not like the sharpness of his Language, nor the severity of his Reflections.
SECT. XIII.
Archbishop Oper. to: 1. disc. 2. The Serpentine-Salve, p. 525, 526. Bramhal who succeeded Usher both in his See, and his Loyalty, says there were Nonconformists in the Days of Queen Elisabeth, and King James, who severely protested in Print, That no Christians gave more to the Royal Supremacy, than they, without limitation or qualification — that for the King not to assume such a power, or for the People to deny it, is a damnable sin, nay, altho the States of the Kingdom should deny it him; and if the King command any [Page 51]thing contrary to the Word of God, yet we ought not to resist, but peaceably to forbear Obedience, and sue for Grace, and when that cannot be obtained, meekly to submit our selves to punishment — abjuring all Doctrines repugnant to this as Anabaptistical, and Antichristian, they condemn all Practices contrary to this as seditious and sinful. And then proceeds to give his own Opinion: That Dominion is not from the Grant or Consent of the People, but from God. Pag. 527, 528.— That absolute Power may be limited by Statutes, &c. without communicating Sovereign Power to subordinate or inferior Subjects, or subjecting Majesty to Censure, which Limitations do not proceed from mutual Pactions, but from Acts of Grace and Bounty. Pag. 531.— If the People be greater than the King, it is no more a Monarchy, but a Democracy. Our Oath binds us to acknowledge the King to be supreme in all Causes, and over all persons; to defend him against all Conspiracies, and if to defend him, much more not to offend him.—That Oath which binds us to defend him against all Attempts whatsoever, presupposeth, that no Attempt against him can be justified by Law — against such evident Light of Truth to ground a contrary Assertion derogatory to his Majesty,Pag. 532.upon the private Authority of Bracton and Fleta (no authentick Authors) were a strange degree of weakness or wilfulness — that Subjects who have not the Power of the Sword committed to them — may use force to recover their former liberty, or raise Arms to change the Laws established, Pag. 537.is without all contradiction both false and rebellious.—Surely, Pag. 538.if any Liberty might warrant such force, it is the Liberty of Religion, but Christ never planted his Religion in Blood, he cooled his Disciples Heat with a sharp Redargution, Ye know not what spirit ye are of. It is better to die innocent, than to live nocent, as the Thebean Legion, all Christians of approved Valor, answered the Emperor Maximian. Pag. 542. — If a Sovereign shall persecute his Subjects for not doing his unjust Commands, yet it is not lawful to resist by raising Arms against him, they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. But they ask, Is there no Limits? I answer, where the Law doth not distinguish, neither ought we to distinguish; how shall we limit what God hath not limited? Obj. But is there no Remedy for a Christian in this Case. Yes, three Remedies. 1. To cease from sin, remove our sin, and God will take away his Rod. ☜ 2. Prayers and Tears. S. Naz. lived under five Persecutions, and never knew other Remedy. The third Remedy is flight; this is the uttermost which our Master hath allowed; nor is this way so hard for Subjects: this way hath ever proved successful to the Christian Religion.
SECT. XIV.
With Archbishop Usher I will also join Bishop Brownrig, a Man much of his primitive temper, and approved Moderation (even by the Enemies of our Church, notwithstanding his Episcopal Character:) Serm. to. 1. Serm. 2. p. 26, 28. ‘The Writ, by which Princes are made, issues from Heaven, Kings reign by God's Election, not by his Permission only, that is too weak and sandy a Foundation, permission falls short of approbation, &c. Serm. 3. p. 33. Darius was an Enemy to the Church, one that kept the Church of God in Bondage and Captivity, used them not as Subjects, but as Slaves, enthrall'd them to his Tyranny; yet still acknowledged and honored by the Prophet as their rightful Sovereign, — the primitive Saints submitted to Julian, that hateful Apostate; S. Peter requires Subjection not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward Governors. — Darius made a wicked Law, forbidding Religion, and enforcing to Idolatry, assumed all Religious Worship to himself, yet the Prophet acknowledges and honors him, as his King and Sovereign:’ observe, Religion requires Subjection to those Kings that deface the Worship of God, and would compel to Idolatry. Now if it be said, that Idolatry was the Worship injoin'd by the Laws of the Land: We answer, that Idolatry is against the Law of God, and so the Jews were under a superior Obligation; and I think, if Men may take Arms, when any thing is done to them contrary to human Laws, there seems to be more reason, that they should do so, when any thing is done contrary to the Laws of the great King of Heaven and Earth; but the latter is by our Adversaries disallowed, therefore with much more reason the former. But it is time to return to Bishop Brownrig, who avers, ‘That active and actual Obedience to ungodly Laws we may not, we must not yield, and perform; thus to submit to Men were to rebel against God; but yet protestation of Subjection must continue, tho our particular active Obedience be denied, or restrain'd — tho we dare not perform our active Obedience in doing what they command, Pag. 34. yet we must perform our passive Obedience in submitting to their punishments — Papists teach, that Heretical Kings forfeit their Crowns and Lives, if they command against God. No, we must here with Daniel honor their Persons and Calling, when Conscience forbids us to fullfil their [Page 53]Commandments. — Darius also was now the Author of Daniel's destruction, his Law ensnared him, his Power condemn'd him, his Seal shut him up in the Den of Lions, yet for all this the holy Prophet honors him as his King. Observe, No worng or injury can exempt or discharge our persons from our Lawful Sovereign. ☜ — He upbraids not the King with Tyranny and Impiety, charges him not with the cruelty of his usage, threatens him not with Vengeance and Judgments from God, much less, as a Prophet, doth he denounce sentence of deprivation against him; but fergetting his wrongs, forgiving his Injuries, sends up a devout Prayer for his life and welfare, &c.’
SECT. XV.
In Justice I ought to have given King Charles the First the Preference to some of the forecited Authors; but I have reserved him to lead the Van of the remaining Writers, who were particularly engaged in the Service of that Truth, for which that great Prince became a Martyr; and when I have mentioned this, I have said enough to those who consider what he suffered by the Men who were Enemies to the Doctrine of Nonresistance, and what he unanswerably wrote in Defence of that Doctrine, being resolved at present to quote no more of him, than that one Sentence in his Second Paper to Henderson, that to reform (as Grosthead said) in ore gladii cruentandi, is a wicked and ungodly saying.
This Prince shall be attended (as he ought) by his Chaplains, and Dr. Hammond comes first, of whom it were enough to say, that he was a Member of the Convocation, anno 1640, for that discovers his Sentiments, since he gave his consent to those Canons. But he hath more particularly declared his Opinion, especially in his L. 2. § 5. p. 53. Practical Catechism: ‘Some Wars are unjust, as that of Subjects seditiously raised against the Supreme Power in a State. Sect. 9. p. 69, 70. But what may we fight for, if we may not fight for Religion? Resp. It is the most precious thing indeed, and that to be preserved by all lawful, proper, proportionable means; but then War, or unlawful resistance being of all things most improper to defend, or secure, or plant this, and it being acknowledged unlawful for Peter to use the Sword for the Defence of Christ himself, to do it meerly for Religion must needs be very unlawful; Religion hath still been spread, and propagated by suffering, [Page 54]and not by resisting; and indeed it being not in the power of Force to constrain my Soul, or change my Religion, or keep me from the Profession of it, Arms, or Resistance must needs be very improper for that purpose. And the same Author in his Section of Meekness, says, if they be our lawful Magistrates, then our Meekness consists in Obedience, active or passive, acting all their legal Commands, and submitting so far at least, as not to make violent resistance to the punishment, which they shall inflict upon us.’ ‘I shall put you in mind of this great Truth, that Christ and his Disciples were, Id. sect. 11. p. 79, 80. of all the Doctors that ever were in the World, the most careful to preserve the Doctrine, and Practice of Allegiance, even when the Emperors were the greatest Opposers of the Christian Religion; and if ever you mean to be accounted a Follower of them, you must go, and do likewise.’
S. But was not Tiberius an Usurper, and yet Christ saith, Render to Cesar the things that are Cesars? ‘C. Julius Cesar wrested the Power out of the Hand of the Senate, but before the time of Tiberius the Business was accorded between the Senate and the Emperors, that the Emperor now reigned unquestioned without any competition from the Senate. — Which Case, how distant it is from other forcible Usurpations (where the Legal Sovereign doth still claim his Right to his Kingdoms, and to the Allegiance of his Subjects, no way acquitting them from their Oaths, or laying down his Pretensions, tho for the present he be overpower'd) is easily discernable to any who hath the Courage and Fidelity to consider it, and is not by his own Interests bribed, or frighted from the performance of his Christian duty.’ And this Doctrine he ex professo maintains against S. Marshal, Godwin, and others, in his Treatise of resisting the lawful Magistrate under the color of Religion, &c. in which he condemns Subjects taking Arms against their Prince p. 54. &c. by Arguments taken, ‘1. From the nature of Religion. 2. From the Examples of Christ and Christians. 3. From the making of Christianity, and particularly of the Protestant Doctrine. 4. From the Constitution of the Kingdom; affirming, that in the New Testament there is no one Christian Virtue or Article of Faith more clearly deliver'd, more effectually inforc'd upon our Understandings and Affections, than that of Obedience to Kings.’
Bishop Ferne hath written purposely on this Subject, his Resolution of Conscience, whether upon supposition, the King will not discharge [Page 55]his Trust, but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion, Laws and Liberties, Subjects may take Arms and resist.—Resolved, That no Conscience upon such a Supposition or Case can find a clear ground for such Resistance. — whence it follows, that the Resistance made against the higher Powers is unwarrantable, and according to the Apostle, damnable, Rom. xiii. You are told, says Dr. Ferne, the Gospel, and your Liberties, Epist.and all you have are in most eminent danger, and without taking Arms for the defence irrecoverably lost, and that it is lawful by the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom. You must take all this upon trust without any express and particular warrant to rule, and secure your Conscience against the express Words of the Apostle forbidding Resistance, Rom. xiii. §. 3. & 4. and then disproves that Tenet, That Power is originally in and from the People, and that if a Prince discharge not his Trust, the Power devolves again upon the People, §. 5.shewing, that most of their Weapons for Resistance were sharpned at the Philistines Forge, their Arguments being borrowed from the Roman Schools; and § 6.doth Religion stand in need of a Defence which it self condemns, and which would be a perpetual Scandal to it? But should I transcribe all that is to the purpose, I should offer to the Reader the whole Book, to which I must refer, as I also refer him to the excellent Treatise of the Archbishop of Tuam (Maxwell) called Sacrosancta Regum Majestas, written upon this very Subject.
Chillingworth. Religion of Protestants a safe way, &c. p. 360.
‘If I follow the Scripture, I may, nay I must obey my Sovereign in lawful things, though an Heretick, though a Tyrant; and though, I do not say the Pope, but the Apostles themselves, nay an Angel from Heaven, should teach any thing against the Gospel of Christ, I may, nay I must denounce Anathema to him.’
SECT. XVI.
I might also only name Dudley Diggs's Book of the Unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against their Sovereign in what case soever, but then I should do wrong to my Subject and the Truth. Pag. 2. In the Service of which the Author shews, ‘That that one main Principle by which the seduced Multitude hath been tempted to catch at empty Happiness, and thereby have pulled upon themselves Misery and Destruction, That every Man being born free, the Law of Nature doth justifie any Attempts to shake off those Bonds imposed upon him by Superiors, if inconvenient and destructive [Page 56]of native Freedom, is false, since every Man is not born free, all being by Nature subject to paternal Power, and consequently to the Supreme Magistrate, to whom divine Law confers the several Powers, which Fathers resigned up; and p. 7. that those that will allow any Power to Subjects against their Ruler, do thereby dissolve the Sinews of Government, by which they were compacted into one, and which made a Multitude a People; for there cannot be two Powers, and yet the Kingdom remain one: Afterward he proves p. 13. by what Arts and Persuasives People are moved to Rebellion, particularly p. 30, 31. by being brought to believe, That we are a mix'd State, and that our Kings are accountable, &c. and then p. 34, 41, 42. &c. proceeds to prove the Doctrine of Nonresistance from Scripture, proving, that the same Obedience which God required from the Jews under the Law to be shewn to their Judges and Kings, is now required, and that Christ enjoyns his Followers under the Gospel as high a degree of Patience towards the higher Powers, and that there is great reason that we should perform this duty more chearfully, because our Saviour hath commended Persecution to all those that will live godly, and that both by Precept and Example — Rebellion in Christians being most prodigious — The Jews wanted not some Colours of Reason to rebel; their Blessings were temporal, but a Christian cannot have any shadow of Scruple. St. Peter failing in this Duty by resisting the Magistrate in defence of his innocent Master, hath taken special care not to be imitated, and therefore informs us largely with the full extent of Christian Patience. Then p. 45. &c. he makes an excellent Comment on St. Paul's Words, Let every Soul be subject, &c. Here is a fair warning, take heed what you do, you have a terrible Enemy to encounter with, it is a Fight against God; you cannot flatter your selves with a prosperous issue, for those that resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation.— You have God's Word for it, you are damn'd if you resist.’
This same Year came out a Pamphlet called, The late Covenant asserted, printed on the day of Trouble, Rebuke, and Blasphemies, for Thomas Underhil, Ann. 1643. undertaking to prove, ‘That there is a sweet Agreement between the Protestation and Covenant, and Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy did bind to the taking of the Covenant — to take up Arms against their Sovereign, &c.’ and out of it I [Page 57]shall give an Instance how conscientious those Republican Reformers were, and how obliged by Oaths. p. 5. &c. We have, says he, sworn, that the King ruling by Law is the Supreme Power, and so we have sworn Obedience to him; we abjure any foreign Power; we have sworn that neither Pope, nor Cardinal, nor the most Catholick King, nor the most Christian, shall over-rule our King and Kingdom, if we can help it: we have sworn, and we do not repent; ☜for in pursuance of this Oath to repel foreign Power we are in Arms at this day. To whom have we sworn Allegiance but to God, and the King in reference to him? — We have sworn, and will not repent to obey the King, ☜while he obeys God, ruling his People by his Law and Book. We have not sworn our selves Servants to Men, their private Wills, their Lusts, &c. and we will maintain the King the higher Power with our Lives and Fortunes. We will obey all his lawful, not personal Commands.— Look into these Oaths, ☜and you shall not there find a Word soberly understood contradicting the Covenant: God forbid that we should vow our selves Servants to Men, and Rebels to God. — The Queen and the King are notoriously faulty touching both these Oaths, the one doing her utmost to bring in and establish a foreign Power, the other denying Allegiance to the most supreme. Qu. But where have you any warrant to take up Arms against the King? Answ. We will never allow those Words, against the King; they are taken up for the King, and for the defence of all that should be dearest to him; but let it go, against the King, we have warrant for it, when he bends all his force, all his might, sets open the Gates of Hell against the Parliament, against Religion, against our Laws, &c. we vow and covenant to take Arms against King, Queen, both, setting themselves against God, and the power of Godliness, and we have as good Warrant as can be desired for so doing. — p. 19. Obj. But I cannot think it a lawful Vow, for we vow to fight against our lawful Prince. Answ. It is not against him, but for him, to deliver his sacred Person out of the hands of Murtherers, our Land from out of the hand of Spoilers, and the Laws of God and Men from Sons of Belial, who would make all void, null, and of none effect. Obj. But we have taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy already. Answ. You have vowed Allegiance to the King to obey him ruling by Law, according to the Law of Heaven; you have not vowed to obey his private Will, for that is to obey the Lusts of Men, breaking and making void the Laws of God, the Rights and Privileges of a free People. Obj. But the King hath promis'd to maintain the true Religion. Answ. p. 20. So did the Lady Mary to the Men of [Page 58]Suffolk, &c. To all which venomous Doctrine I will apply this Antidote: Sir Edw. Coke in Calvin's Case says, ‘This damnable Opinion, That Allegiance was due to the King upon the account of his politick Capacity, more than his natural Person, was invented by the two Spencers to cover their Treason; and from thence they deduc'd these execrable Consequents; 1. That if the King did not demean himself by reason in the Right of his Crown, his Lieges were bound to remove him. 2. That when the King could not be reformed by Suit of Law, it ought to be done by the Sword. 3. That his Lieges be bound to govern in aid of him, and in defect of him.’ — All which Positions were condemn'd in two succeeding Parliaments.
SECT. XVII.
The Year after this the learned Dr. Gerhard Longbaine set out his Review of the Covenant, Chap. 9. p. 56. and therein tells us, ‘That to labor the Advancement of Religion by way of force, contrary to establish'd Laws, and the Prince's Will, hath no warrant by way of Command, or Approbation from God's Word, must be taken for granted, till those who are otherwise minded can shew the contrary, and will be needless to persuade, if we shew in the second place, that it is against the express Testimony of Scripture. Our Saviour professeth, My Kingdom is not of this World, and adds, for then would my Servants fight: which words, as they evince that it is lawful for Subjects to fight at the Command of their temporal King for the maintenance of his worldly Estate; so they do insinuate, that Christ's Kingdom, being spiritual, must not be advanced by temporal Arms. We have always deprecated the Aspersion which our Adversaries would cast upon us, P. 60. professing, we do not punish any Hereticks with Death, but Seminaries for Sedition and Rebellion. Here I must observe, that the Lords and Commons in Parliament, 1 Eliz. confess, they had no means to free the Kingdom from the usurped Power and Authority of the Pope, but with the assent of the Queen's Majesty; so far were they from thinking it lawful to raise Arms for the Extirpation of Popery, when it was establish'd by the Law of the Land.’ And lest this distinction might seem to invalidate his Objection, he adds, ‘It is utterly destructive to all civil Government; P. 61. for if any be allowed to [Page 59]take up Arms for Propagation or defence of their true Religion, against the civil Laws and Will of their Prince, whosoever hath a mind to rebel, may do it upon the same pretence, and ought not to be question'd by any humane Authority: for tho they do but pretend Religion, yet it is impossible for any Judge to convince them of such Pretences; nor can any thing be urged in defence of the true Religion, which may not be made use of by a false.’
SECT. XVIII.
Anno 1646. Richard Overton (the famous Leveller) deck'd with many fantastick Titles, printed a Pamphlet, intituled, An Arrow against all Tyrants and Tyranny; wherein the Original, Rise, Extent, and End of Magisterial Power, the Natural and National Rights, Freedoms, and Properties of Mankind, are discover'd, and undeniably maintain'd, and the late Encroachments of the Lords over the Commons legally condemn'd. Out of which, that the Principles of such Men may be made known, I shall transcribe a few passages. ‘To every individual in Nature is given an individual Property by Nature, not to be invaded or usurp'd by any; for every one as he is himself, so he hath a self-propriety, else he could not be himself. — No Man hath Power over my Rights, and Liberties, and I over no Man's. — If I presume any farther, I am an Encroacher, and an Invader upon another Man's Right, to which I have no Right; for by natural Birth all Men are equal and alike, born to like Property, Liberty, and Freedom. — No Man naturally would be fooled of his Liberty by his Neighbor's Craft, or enslaved by his Neighbor's Might; for it is Nature's Instinct to preserve it self from all things hurtful and obnoxious. — And from this fountain or root all just humane Powers take their Original, not immediately from God (as Kings usually plead their Prerogative) but mediately by the hand of Nature, as from the Represented to the Representers — no more may be communicated than is conducive to a better Being, more Safety and Freedom: he that gives more sins against his own Flesh; and he that takes more is a Thief, and a Robber to his kind, every Man being by nature a King, Priest, and Prophet in his own natural Circuit and Compass, whereof no second may partake but by Deputation, Commission, and free Consent from him whose natural Right and [Page 60]freedom it is. — As by Nature no Man can abuse, beat, torment or afflict himself; so by Nature no Man can give that Power to another. — So that such so deputed are to the general no otherwise than as a Schoolman to a particular, his Mastership is by deputation; and that ad beneplacitum, and may be removed at the Parents pleasure upon neglect or abuse thereof, and it may be conferr'd on another.’ And speaking to the Parliament, he continues: ‘If you think you have power over us to save, or destroy us at your pleasure — the edge of your own Arguments against the King in this kind may be turn'd upon your selves; for if for the safety of the people he might in equity be opposed by you in his Tyrannies, Oppressions and Cruelties; even so may you by the same rule of right Reason be opposed by the people in general in the like cases of destruction and ruin by you upon them; for the safety of the people is the Sovereign Law, to which all must be subject, and for which all powers humane are ordain'd by them. And at last applies all to the pulling down of the House of Lords,’ as Usurpers. The Pamphlet is said to be printed at the backside of the Cyclopian Mountains by Martin Clawclergy Printer to the Reverend Assembly of Divines, and are to be sold at the sign of the Subject's Liberty right opposite to persecuting Court.
SECT. XIX.
As a Preservative against the infection of such dangerous Principles Bishop Sanderson gives us his Advice. Pref. to Arch-Bi. Ʋsher's Book of the Power of Kings, &c. ‘Some say, it is not for Divines to meddle in these matters, nor do they come within the compass of their Sphere, that they ought to be left to the cognizance and determination of Statesmen, and Lawyers, who are to be presumed most able to judg; the one (by the constitution) in whom the Sovereignty resides; the other (by the Laws) how that Sovereignty is bounded, and limited in the exercise of it — while another sort of Men say, that the original of Government is from the people, that the Power which Kings and Princes have is derived unto them from the people by way of pact, or Contract — that this Power the people may enlarge, or restrain at their pleasure — while the known Laws of the Land have declared the Sovereignty so fully and particularly, and the Oath of Supremacy hath express'd it so clearly, that any Man of an ordinary capacity may understand it as well as the deepest [Page 61]Statesman in the World. That which some talk of a mix'd Monarchy (which by the by is an arrant Bull, a contradiction in adjecto, and destroys it self) and others dream of a co-ordination in the Government, as was hatch'd amidst the heat of our late troubles, but never before heard of in our Land, ☜ are in truth no better than senseless, and ridiculous fancies — which must fall down before the Oath Vid. Ʋsher of the Power of the Prince. Sect. 6. pag. 6. (that the King's Highness is the onely Supreme Governour, &c.) as Dagon before the Ark; which Oath is sworn according to the plain, and common sense and understanding of the words. — After this he disproves the Position: That the original of Government is from Compact — for the Power of the sword is by the Ordinance of God given to Kings; and for the Contract it self it would trouble the ablest of them that hold the Opinion; to give a direct satisfactory answer to these following Interrogatories: 1. Of the Persons contracting; Were all without difference of Age, Sex, Condition or other respect promiscuously admitted to drive the bargain or not, &c. if any excluded; who excluded them, and by whose Order, and by what Authority was it done, and who gave them that Authority? — Shall the Majority of Votes conclude all Dissenters, &c? God gave Adam the Government of all the inferiour World, and the properties of Cain and Abel were held of him; so that it is undoubtedly true, that Government was before Property — and after the Flood the like Government was in Noah, &c. Id. de juram. praelect. 4. An Oath imposed by one that hath not a just Authority, is to be declin'd as much as we can; if it be forcibly imposed, it is to be taken with reluctancy, upon this Condition, that the words imply nothing unlawful, or prejudicial to the rights of a third Person; for, if so, we must refuse the Oath at the peril of our lives. Id. praelect. 6. But what shall we do when the Oath is ambiguous, and we are left to take it in our own sense? R. In this Case we are to suspect a Cheat; and therefore a wise and good Man will reject such an Oath, for which Assertion he there gives his Reasons.’ — These Lectures of this great Casuist were put into English by the Order, and corrected with the hand of the Martyr Charles. But I must leave the Martyr to return to the Bishop, who in his Lectures of Conscience preaches the same Doctrine. Praelect. 2. Sect. 7. de Conscient. ‘We must do nothing that is evil for the promoting of the glory of God, and he instances in the zeal of the Jews: the fury of the German Anabaptists and our English Rebellion; he further saith Sect. 19. That it is the plea of all seditious [Page 62]persons to pretend the glory of God, the reformation of Religion, &c. while he that proposeth the glory of God for his end, ought to take the word of God as the rule of his Actions. Sect. 21. Nor do those err less, perhaps more grievously, who drive out one evil by another, as Tyranny by Sedition, Superstition by Sacriledge, &c. Sect. 22.Object. But rather than destroy the Commonwealth, may we not violate Laws, &c? Resp. I remember, that Christ was thought fit by Caiaphas to be crucified, though innocent, because it was expedient, &c. but this is to make the Scriptures a nose of Wax; but away with such Divinity from our Schools, from our Pulpits, from our minds; the Apostles of our holy Saviour have taught us otherwise; nay the honest Heathens had better thoughts, we must not do evil, that good may come thereof. Sect. 23. He also avers, that he heard it once said, that those words of the Apostle were meant onely of private persons; but that it was lawful, notwithstanding this Command, for the great Council of a Nation to do evil, if the publick necessity required it. — Praelect. 6. Sect. 3. All Laws made by a lawful Power do oblige to subjection, so that it is not lawful for a Subject to resist the Supreme Authority, let it require things just or unjust. ☞ This was the perpetual Sentiment and practice of the primitive Christians, who lived under the severest tyranny; in Rom. 13. the Apostle presses the necessity of subjection with many arguments, but gives no Man liberty to resist in any case, or upon any pretence whatsoever. It's always necessary to submit, though not always necessary (actively) to obey. After which he proceeds Praelect. 7. to prove, that Power is from God; and that the people have no right to resume it, &c. and that that Maxime, Praelect. 10. That the safety of the people is the supreme Law, must include the King in it, and that especially; and that it supposes, there must be an unaccountable Authority in the Prince above all positive humane Law, to whom it belongs to foresee, and Order, that the Commonwealth receive no damage, either through defect of a Law, or through the too superstitious observation of it.’
Sanderson's Twelfth Sermon, ad Aulam.
‘No Conjuncture of Circumstances whatsoever can make that expedient to be done at any time that is of it self and in the kind unlawful; for a Man to take up Arms (offensive or defensive) against a lawful Sovereign, may not be done by any Man at any time, in any case, upon any colour or pretension whatsoever; [Page 63]Not for the maintenance of the Lives or Liberties either of our selves or others, nor for the defence of Religion, nor the preservation of a Church or State; no nor yet if that could be imagin'd possible for the salvation of a Soul, no not for the redemption of the whole World. p. 166.’
Ad Magistratum.
‘Both Wrath and Conscience bind us to our duties, so that if we withdraw our subjection, we both wound our own Consciences and incur your just Wrath, but onely Conscience bindeth you to yours, and not Wrath; so that if ye withdraw your help we may not use Wrath, but must suffer it with Patience, and permit all to the judgment of your own Consciences and God the Judg of all mens Consciences. p. 86.’
Ad Aulam.
‘As for our Accsuers (Papists I mean, and Disciplinarians) If there were no more to be instanced in but that one cursed Position alone, wherein (notwithstanding their disagreements otherwise) they both consent; That lawful Sovereigns may be by their Subjects resisted, and Arms taken up against them for the Cause of Religion, it were enough to make good the Charge against them both, which is such a notorious piece of ungodliness as no Man that either feareth God or the King as he ought to do, can speak of, or think of without detestation.’ pag. 134.
Ad Aulam.
‘It were good if we did remember that they are to give up that account to God onely, and not to us.’ pag. 177.
SECT. XX.
Doctor Bernard Ser. on Rom. 13.2. in the Clavi Trabalea. p. 21. affirms, ‘that some Expositors conceived one cause of the Apostle's Exhortation to be the Rumour then falsly rais'd upon them, as if they had been seditious, &c. And that the Kingdom of Christ tended to the absolving of Subjects from their obedience to any other — And then shews, p. 28, 29. That it is a Popish Assertion, that a people can never so far transfer their right over to a King, but they retain the habit of it still within themselves — averring p. 30. That whoever have, or shall resist, do tread under their feet the holy Scriptures — p. 35. That as Kings receive their Power from God, so are we to leave them only to God, if they shall abuse it; not but that they may, and ought to be prudently [Page 64]and humbly reminded of their duties; but yet without lifting up our Hands against them in the least resistance of them — God wanteth not means whereby he can, when he pleases, remove or amend them. Pag. 40. The Arms of the Primitive Christians were nothing but Prayers to God, Petitions to the Emperor, or Flight, when persecuted, &c.’
To this purpose does Mr. Symmons in his Vindication of King Charles aver, ‘That Sect. 8. p. 84. Rebels as for God, they believe him as little as they do the King; for they dare not trust him for protection, they have more confidence in the Militia a great deal, and stand more upon it; beside if they did believe God, they would also fear him (Faith and Fear go together) they would regard his Word more, and not be so opposite in all their ways, or endeavour to make it of none effect by their sinful Ordinances and Traditions; besides Faith in God discovers it self by their doing the Works of God; and they are not Hatred, Strife, Sedition, Rebellion, Murther, Lying, Slandering and speaking evil of Dignities, Sect. 14. p. 146. &c. Tell us, (O ye pretenders to Piety) where is that Subjection to the King for conscience sake, which S. Paul calls for, and that Obedience for the Lords sake, which S. Peter requires, Pag. 257. &c. — Consider, and call to mind, whether those Teachers, ☞ who have been most active, and busie in drawing you into this way, have not hereby contradicted their own former Doctrines? As it was said of Stephen Gardiner, that no Man in the Days of Henry the Eighth had spoken better for the King's Authority, than he had done in his Book De verâ obedientid, and yet no Man more violent in Queen Mary's Time, in persecuting those that held fast to the same Truth and Doctrine; may not the like be affirm'd of many of your Preachers, that no Men taught the Duty of Obedience better, or inveighed more against Rebellion, Pag. 258, 259. and sheedin of Blood, than they heretofore have done, but now none more violent. — Observe that Note out of Mr. Fox, how Henry the Fourth that deposed Richard the Second, was the first of all English Kings that began the burning of God's Saints for their standing against the Papists. Pag. 260, 261, 262. As the Doctrine of Infallibility is the Root of all Error among the Papists, so it is now among them that are the Worshipers of a Parliament; for when it was believed, that the Pope could not err, then he might oppose Princes, excommunicate Kings, absolve Subjects from their Obedience, &c. so now, this being swallowed, that the Parliament [Page 65]cannot err, they may raise Rebellion too, absolve People from their Loyalty, persecute the King, &c. — Consider, whether in any thing these Men have perform'd what at first they promised, whether Religion be better settled, the Church better reformed, and united, or the Commonwealth more flourishing, &c.’
SECT. XXI.
Thus that good Man asserted the Rights of Princes, and the Duty of Subjects in those evil Days, Bishop of Lond. 2d. Letter ab. the neglect of the Lord's Supper. when under an usurped Power Sin was the Law, and Transgression the Commandment. When three once happy Nations wore the heavy Yoke of Slavery, and Men felt to their cost what the power of the People could do, till God of his infinite Mercy restored our Judges as at the first, and our Counsellors as at the beginning, under whom Truth appeared in its true Colours, and the Mask of Hypocrisie would no longer hide the Deformities of the Traitor; and here I will not mention the Acts of Parliament made just after the Restoration, that condemn the Power of the People, that assert their Authority, Superiority and Unaccountableness of Princes, and the Unlawfulness of taking Arms against them upon any pretence whatsoever; and confine my self to the Writings of the eminent Divines of the Age; and I will begin with the Bishop of Down and Conner, Dr. Taylor, Ductor dubitant. B. 3. c. 3. Rule 1. who proves, ‘That the supreme Power in every Republick is universal, absolute, and unlimited. — Rule 3. n. 1. That it is not lawful for Subjects to rebel, or take up Arms against the Supreme Power of the Nation upon any pretext whatsoever. — He that lifts up his Hand against the Supreme Power or Authority that God hath appointed over him, is impious against God, and fights against him, Rom. 13. The Apostle doth not say, he that doth not obey is disobedient to God; for that is not true: in some Cases it is lawful not to obey, but in all Cases it is necessary not to resist. Id. n. 2. I do not know any Proposition in the World clearer, ☞ and more certain in Christianity than this Rule.’ And in the fifteenth Number he answers at large that wild Question, as he calls it, ‘If a King went about to destroy his People, is resistance then lawful? And concludes all, N. 15, 17. We have nothing dearer to us than our Lives and our Religion, but in both these Cases we find whole Armies of Christians dying quietly, and suffering Persecution without murmur — if [Page 66]the Prince doth not do his Duty, that is no Warrant for me not to do mine.’
To this pious Prelate, now in Heaven, I will join a pious Brother of his as yet on Earth Bishop Kenn's Expos. Ch. Cat. V. Comman. Who thus addresses to God in the behalf of his Sovereign: ‘Thou, O Lord, hast set our most Gracious King over us, as our Political Parent, as the Supreme Minister, to govern and protect us, and to be a terror to them that do evil. — O my God, give Grace to me, and to all my Fellow Subjects, next to thine own infinite self, to love and honor, to fear and obey our Sovereign Lord the King thy own Vicegerent for Conscience sake, and for thy own sake, who hast placed him over us; O may we ever faithfully render him his due Tribute; O may we ever pray for his Prosperity, sacrifice our Fortunes, and our Lives in his defence, and be always ready rather to suffer than to resist.’ So also say the Bishops of Sarum and Exon.
Seth, Lord Bishop of Sarum's Sermon Preached before the King at White-Hall, November 5. 1661.
Rom. 13.2. And they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.
If within the Compass of those Foundations which I have mentioned, Pag. 9. be found any color or shadow of License for any person whatsoever, upon any pretence whatsoever, to entrench upon the power of lawful Magistracy, if any warrant at all for open Rebellion, or privy Conspiracies, for murthering or deposing of Princes, or absolving Subjects from their Allegiance; then let Kings cease to be our Nursing Fathers, and Queens to be our Nursing Mothers.
The Act of Resistance is set down—absolutely without any restraint, Pag. 19. in respect of any Pretences, or Causes whatsoever. So that the sense of the words resolved by the Scriptures, is this; every Soul which upon any pretence whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, shall resist the lawful Authority that is over him, shall receive to himself damnation, that is, he puts himself thereby into a state of damnation.
If Erroneous, Pag. 25. heretical, or Idolatrous Magistrates may be resisted, (because they are so, or because they join oppression of godly Men unto their Error in Religion) how can any Kingdom stand?
[Page 67]Supposing this Tenet to be true, it is indeed evident, Pag. 26. no Government can be. But now what color can there be to charge this Tenet upon Christianity? Doth the Old or New Testament give any occasion to this Doctrine? Is it countenanced, 1. By Moses? Or 2. By the Prophets? Or 3. By our Saviour? Or 4. By the Apostles? 5. That Cloud of Witnesses, (the Noble Army of Martyrs) did they give testimony to this Assertion, or to the contrary?
1. ‘Moses was so far from the Doctrine of Resistance, Pag. 27. that notwithstanding the Hardness of Pharaoh's Heart, the Cruelty of the Bondage, the Weakness of the Egyptians by Plagues, the Number of Israel six hundred thousand, and three thousand five hundred and fifty fighting Men above twenty years old, besides the Tribe of Levi; yet he would not lead them unto the promised Land, without Pharaoh's positive and express consent to their Departure.’
2. ‘As for the Prophets; in the third Chapter of Daniel we find three of God's Children put to the Trial (the fiery Trial) of this Doctrine, by Nebuchadnezzar, an Idolater, and a Tyrant, acting highly under both those Capacities together. They were cast into the fiery Furnace, because they would not worship the Golden Image which he had set up. And in the sixth we find Daniel thrown into the Lions Den, only for praying to the God of Israel. Let us consider their Behaviour, did they resist or mutiny, or labor to alienate or discontent, or (by denouncing Threats and Terrors) to discourage Subjects from Obedience? How had they been instructed by their Prophets? Jeremy (2 Chron. 36.13.) had taught them that Zedekiah had turned from the Lord God of Israel, in rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; and that they ought to seek the peace of the city whither they were carried captives, and to pray unto the Lord for it — Jer. 29.7. And therefore the three Children in the Third of Daniel only refer themselves to God for Deliverance; and Daniel in the midst of the Lions Den prays heartily for Darius: O king live for ever: Dan. 6.21.’
3. ‘In the next place let us consider the Case of Christ and his Apostles, and see whether any such Tenet may be collected from their Doctrine or Practice, their Speeches, or their Actions. As for what concerns our Lord Christ, I have had the Honor formerly in this place more at large to vindicate him from such [Page 68]Aspersions. He paid Tribute at the expence of a Miracle, Matth. 17.27. He submitted himself to all the Powers that were over him; to the Sanhedrim and their Delegates, to Herod, and to Pontius Pilate: he submitted himself to death by an unjust Sentence, even to the bitter and accursed Death upon the Cross, Phil. 2.8. This was his Practice. As for his Doctrine, he taught Men to render to Cesar the things that were Cesars, Matt. 22.21. He acknowledged Pilate's Power to be from above, John 19.11. He rebuked Peter for smiting with the Sword; and told him, that those that take the sword shall perish by the sword, Matth. 26.52. He taught his Disciples to pray for them which should persecute them, Matth. 5.44. And the utmost permission which he gave them, was, when they were persecuted in one city to flee unto another, Matth. 10.23.’
4. ‘As for the Apostles, they taught Men to obey them that have the rule over them, Heb. 13.17. To submit themselves to every Ordinance of Man, 1 Pet. 2.13. To do all things without murmuring or disputing, Phil. 2.14. To pray for Kings, and all that are in authority, 1 Tim. 2.2. Saint Peter hath told us, that such as despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities are (in an especial manner) reserved to Judgment, 1 Pet. 2.9, 10. And Saint Paul, in my Text, that they shall receive damnation.’
This Doctrine they sealed with their Blood. Saint Peter (according to Ecclesiastical Tradition) was crucified, and S. Paul beheaded, James, the Son of Zebedeus, slain with the Sword, &c.
Now, as for the Powers, to which all these Instructions and Behaviours did refer, they were for Idolatry and Tyranny and Persecution — Humani generis portenta. If it be objected, that all these submitted because they were not able to resist: the Answer upon Christian Principles might be, That he which restrained the Flames, and stopped the mouths of Lions, could have given his Servants power to resist; that Christ could have prayed his Father who would have given him more than twelve Legions of Angels for his relief; that the Apostles, who wrought mighty Signs and Wonders, could have rescued themselves, had it not rather pleased the great Ordainer of Powers, by their submission to ratifie and establish the Doctrine of Obedience.
5. ‘But the Belief and Practice of the Primitive Christians will satisfie this Objection even to common Sense and Reason.’
The Instances in this kind are infinite, where Christians, abounding [Page 69]in numbers, being in Arms, and abundantly able to make resistance, have chosen, with the expence of their lives, to yield obedience to Idolaters, persecuting them for their Religion. I shall name but two Examples.
Tertullian tells the Emperor, that his Cities, Islands, Castles, Councils, Armies, Regiments and Companies, the Palace, the Senate, the Courts of Judicature were filled with Christians; and yet they submitted to Persecution.
And we read, that the Thebean Legion consisted of six thousand, six hundred, sixty and six persons, every Man Christian, when they submitted to the Decimation of Maximinian for Religion.
MISHPAT HAMELEK, Pag. 63. (the Jus Regium) the Fundamental Law of the Kings of Israel.
What then is the meaning of Mishpat hamelsk? Surely it imports thus much, that if all this hard usage should come upon them, they might cry unto the Lord (1 Sam. viii. 18.) but that it would not dissolve Jus Regium (the Right of Sovereignty) or enable them to resist their Kings, or rebel against them.
That — Pretence, Pag. 67. that after a lawful Sovereign is established — the Power still remains in the People (in the diffused Body of them or their Representatives) to alter the Government as they please; it is in respect of Policy and Government, what the Sin of the Holy Ghost is to Religion.
‘These were their secret Griefs; Pag. 69. for a Redress whereof they make a party in the Parliament, they gain to them two hundred and fifty Men, famous in the Parliament, Men of Renown; and in order to their ambitious Designs, they remonstrate against Moses, Numb. xvi. 13. and their Declaration was this Pretence which we are upon; that all the Congregation [...] were holy, and that Moses and Aaron had lifted up themselves above them, that is, that their power was a contrivance of themselves, not an Ordinance of God; that notwithstanding what God had done to settle the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power, it remained still in the People, or their Representatives assembled together. Now the Scripture tells us, that since the World began God was never more highly provoked, than upon this occasion, Numb. xvi. 32. When he heard this, he was wrath, and greatly abhorred them; he invented a new thing in the World for their sakes;’ for the Earth opened, and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the congregation of Abiram.
It tells us, Pag. 71. in effect, that Might is Right; that every thing is just or unjust; good or evil, according to the pleasure of the prevailing Force, whom we are to obey till a stronger than he cometh, or we be able to go through with Resistance.
That in reference to this Life, Pag. 71. Obedience is a matter of Wit and Prudence; and after Life there remain for us no Concernments.
How stramineous is this Theory compared with the Christian Theory, which speaks in this wise, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers?
It is but a little while since the Anointed of the Lord, Pag. 74. the holiest, the wisest, the best of Kings, was taken in the Snares of Men pretending to Reformation, and sacrificed to the fury of Men possessed by an evil Spirit from the Lord.
It is but a very little while since the Lamentation of Jeremy was in the mouth of all the Faithful in the Land, Pag. 74. Lam. ii. 9. Our Kings and our Princes were amongst the Gentiles.
It may be all these things have been done, Pag. 75. that the Sayings of our Saviour might be fulfilled, Matth. 18.7. ibid. 6. It cannot be but that Offences will come, but woe be to them by whom they come; it were better that a Mill stone, &c.
It may be God suffered the late Rebellion to prevail, Pag. 76. that he might not leave himself without witness, but shew forth his Wonders in our days, in the miraculous Restitution of our gracious Sovereign and the Church.
Surely these things were suffered, Pag. 77. that the Faith, and Patience and Loyalty of the Church of England might be made bright and glorious by the Flames of Persecution; and that in the day when God shall have given our most gracious Sovereign the hearts or necks of all his Enemies, it may not repent him of the kindness he hath shewn to Religion and Government, in lifting out of the Dust the despised Head of that only Church (for ought I know) which makes Obedience, without base Restrictions and Limitations, an Article of its Religion.
Bish. of Exeter's Serm. before the House of Lords, Nov. 5. 1678.
Certainly their Authority who lived in the Primitive Light (and who bear witness to their own disadvantage, teaching Submission to Magigrates, though absolute Tyrants, and who never took up any Arms against them, but Prayers and Tears) ought to beget in us a conformity to those innocent times, when Christianity gained as much by Patience as 'tis now like to lose by Rebellion.
The Emperors for the first three hundred years after Christ, for the generality were very bad, but especially to the Christians they were bloody and cruel; and yet we never read of any Insurrection of the Christians against them, tho they were in a condition to do it. The Thebean Legion were all Christians; when the Emperor commanded the whole Army to offer Sacrifice to false Gods, they removed their Quarters, that they might, if possible, avoid the occasion of displeasing the Emperor. He summons them a second time to perform that Worship; they return an humble denial. The Emperor not content with that Answer, puts them to a Decimation; to which they submit with much chearfulness, and dye praying for their Persecutors.
Not to trouble you with many Witnesses of this Truth, take one for all. Tertullian, who wrote his Apologetick as the sense of the whole Church, he makes there a bold Challenge, and desires them to produce, if they can, any one Example of any Christian taking part with Rebels, such as Cassius Niger and others were: No, he tells them the Christians were better instructed than to hold Resistance lawful: Nos judicium Dei suspicimus, &c. We with patience submit, and kiss the Rod that scourgeth us. Though they have no just cause to torment us, yet there is too much cause why we should suffer. We must acknowledge our Sins against God, and he may punish us in what way he thinks fit; however, resist we must not.
And again, in his thirty seventh Paragraph of that Apologetick, he tells the Emperor, That his Cities, Istands, Castles, Councils, Armies, his Palace and Courts of Judicature, were fill'd with Christians; Sic non deesset nobis vis Copiarum: If we had a mind, we could not want force to resist; but we dare not save our Bodies to the eternal loss and perdition of our Souls. We wish to the Emperor a long Life, an happy Reign, a valiant Army, a faithful Council, a sober People and a quiet World. Such as these were their Wishes towards their Emperors, tho Heathens and Persecutors.
Thus you see the Minds of Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Christians in that great Point of Obedience to Magistrates. Therefore they who raise Tumults, abett Rebellions, set on foot Plots and Conspiracies, teach Doctrines to murder Princes, are not of the Gospel-Spirit.
Bishop Hacket's Sermons: on Psal. xli. 9. on the Gowry's Conspiracy, p. 740. 741.
‘Surely above all Men, if the Clergy be not careful to set forth the honor of this day with great Honour and Solemnity, it is [Page 72]their Ignorance or their Negligence. — Had these furious Swordmen that laid their Weapons to his Throat, found an austere Master, nay a Tyrant, they must have born with it, and not touch the Man that bears the Character of the Lord's Anointed.’
Dr. Sharp before the House of Commons, Apr. 11. 1679. p. 35.
O may God so inspire you, That by your means the Person of his sacred Majesty, and the Rights of his Crown, may be secured against all wicked Attempts. And p. 39. Let us hate all Tricks, and Devices, and Equivocations, both in our Words and in Carriage. Let us be constantly and inflexibly loyal to our Prince, and let no consideration in the World make us violate our Allegiance to him. And in his Sermon preach'd before the Lord Mayor, 1680. speaking of the upright Man, He is one—studiously endeavouring to preserve his Allegiance to his Prince. Pag. 19. He is a Man — that honors the King, that is observant of the Laws, that is true to the Government, and meddles not with them that are given to change. In his Sermon preached at the Yorkshire Feast Feb. 17. 16 79/80. p. 17. We may do a great deal of good by our good Examples of Loyalty.
SECT. XXII.
And to evince, that this hath been the unquestion'd Doctrine of all the Members of this Church, I shall subjoin many other Testimonies. Bish. of Lincoln Principl. and Posit. p. 7. ‘That England is a Monarchy, the Crown Imperial, and our Kings supreme Governors, and sole supreme Governors of this Realm, and all other their Dominions, will (I believe, I am sure it should) be granted, seeing our Authentick Laws and Statutes do so expresly, and so often say it. In our Oath of Supremacy we swear, That the King is the only supreme Governor; supreme, so none (not the Pope) above him; and only supreme, so none coordinate, or equal to him; so that by our known Laws our King is solo Deo minor, invested with such a Supremacy, as excludes both Pope and People (and all the World, God Almighty only excepted by whom Kings do reign) from having any Power, Jurisdiction, or Authority over him.’ — This Book hath its Imprimatur, not from any mean hand, but from my Lord Bishop of London himself, which is to me a plain implication, that his Lordship did then own the Doctrine; and so we have another Testimony to the Truth.
Burnet's Vind. &c. printed at Glascow, p. 7. &c. The Vindication of the Authority, &c. of the Church, is full to this purpose. Obj. ‘May not Subjects, when opprest in their establish'd Religion, defend themselves, and resist the Magistrate? doth not the Law of Nature direct Men to defend themselves when unjustly assaulted? Answ. We must distinguish between the Laws of Nature, and the Rights and Permissions of Nature; now self-defence cannot be a Law of Nature, ☜ for then it could never be dispenc'd with without a Sin; nay were a man never so criminal, he ought not to suffer himself to be killed, neither should any Malefactor submit to the sentence of the Judge, but stand to his defence by all the force he could raise; and it will not serve turn to say, for the good of Society he ought to submit, for no Man must violate the Laws of Nature, were it on never so good a design. — Christ's dying for us shews that selfdefence can be no Law of Nature, otherwise Christ, who fulfilled all Righteousness, had contradicted the Laws of Nature.— Pag. 10. He then proceeds to demonstrate, that Magistrates derive not their Power from the Surrender of the People — for none can surrender what they have not. ☜ Take then a multitude of People not yet associated, none of them hath power of his own Life, neither hath he power of his Neighbor's, since no Man out of Society may kill another, be his Crime never so great, much less be his own Murtherer.—A multitude of People not yet associated are but so many individual Persons, therefore the Power of the Sword is not from the People, nor is any of their Delegation, but is from God. — Pag. 35. Consider, that Christ was to fulfill all Righteousness; if then the Laws of Nature exact our Defence in case of unjust Persecution for Religion, ☜ he was bound to that Law as well as we, for he came not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law, both by his Example and Precepts: if then you charge the Doctrine of Absolute Submission as brutish or stupid (or as contrary to the Law of Nature) see you do not run into Blasphemy by charging that Holy One foolishly; for whatever he knew of the secret Will of God, he was to follow his revealed Will in his Actions. — Pag. 39. If fighting at that time (when Saint Peter drew his Sword) for preserving Christ from the Jews, were contrary to the Nature of his Kingdom, so, the Rule of the Gospel binding all the succeeding Ages of the Church no less than those to whom [Page 74]it was first deliver'd, what was then contrary to the nature of Christ's Kingdom, will be so still. — P. 42. I shall add one thing, which all Casuists hold a safe Rule in matters that are doubtful; viz. That we ought to follow that side of the doubt that is freest from hazard; ☞ here then damnation is at least the seeming hazard of resistance, therefore except upon as clear evidence you prove the danger of absolute submission to be of the same nature that it may ballance the other, then absolute submission, as being the securest is to be followed. P. 41. — Obj. But he is the Minister of God to thee for good, and if they swerve from this, they forsake the end for which they were raised up, and so fall from the Power and right to our Obedience. Answ. It is true, the Sovereign is a Minister of God for good, so that he corrupts his power grosly, when he pursues not that design; but in that he is onely accountable to God, whose Minister he is, &c.’ — The same Author continued stedfast to this Doctrine, when he left Scotland, and came into England; Ser. on Jan. 30. 1674/5. p. 7. 9. ‘David, when Saul was most unjustly hunting his life, would not stretch forth his hand against him, seeing he was the anointed of the Lord — from Almighty God the King had his Power, and to him he knew he was to give an account of his Administration. — Affirming, that the Enemies of that Royal Martyr, P. 38. by Oaths and Counter-Oaths which they often took, had their Consciences so seared as to be past feeling — till they threw off all sense of God and Religion, and set up professedly for Atheism; Id. Ser. on Rom. 13.5. — p. 5, 6. &c. The real causes of Commotions are seldom the same with those that are pretended for training in, and engaging a multitude; they are truly an ungrounded, and aspiring Ambition, the heat and fury of Mens passions, &c. — But P. 19. 20, &c. Natural and revealed Religion do offer us these reasons for obliging us to subjection to the higher Powers; 1. We are taught that those Powers are of God, nay that they are Gods; a strain of speech, that if divine Authority did not warrant it, would pass for impudent, and blasphemous flattery — Deputed Powers are onely accountable to those from whom they derive their Authority — and L. P. 25. the Example and practice of our Great Master — My kingdom is not of this World; this doth so expresly discharge all bustling and fighting on the pretence of Religion, ☞ that we must either set up for another Gospel, or utterly reject what is so formally condemn'd by the Author of this we profess to believe. — Never [Page 75]cause of Religion was of so great concern as the preserving the Head and Author of it. P. 27. — If we examine the nature and design of that holy Religion our Saviour deliver'd, we shall find nothing more diametrically opposite to all its Rules than the distemper'd fury of these misguided Zealots. — Otherwise doth St. Paul teach the Romans, though then groaning under the severest rigours of bondage and tyranny; and St. Peter doth at full length once and again call on all Christians to prepare for sufferings, and to bear them patiently. ☜ — And though the bondage of the Slaves was heavy, and highly contrary to all the freedoms of the humane nature; yet he exhorts them to bear the severities even of their froward and unjust Masters. P. 29. — With this Argument, that Christ suffered for them, leaving them an Example; from these unerring practices and principles, must all true Christians take the measures of their actions and the rules of their Life; and indeed the first converts to Christianity embrac'd the Cross, and bore it not onely with patience, but with joy. Neither the cruelty of their unrelenting persecutors, nor the continued tract of their miseries which did not end but with their days, prevailed on them, either to renounce the faith, or do that which is next degree to it, throw off the Cross, and betake themselves to seditious practices for their preservation. ☜ — In twenty years persecution the Martyrs of one Province (Egypt) were reckon'd to be betwixt eight or nine hundred thousand, P. 31.32, and yet no tumults were raised against all this tyranny and injustice; and though after that the Emperours turn'd Christian, and establish'd the Faith by Law; yet neither did the subtle attempts of Julian the Apostate, nor the open persecutions of some Arian Emperours, who did with great violence persecute the Orthodox, occasion any seditious Combinations against Authority. — And though Religion suffer'd great decays in the succession of many Ages, yet for the first ten Centuries no Father, ☜ or Doctor of the Church, or any Assembly of Churchmen did ever teach, maintain or justifie any Religion, or seditious Doctrines or practices. It is true, about the end of the Eleventh Century this pestiferous Doctrine took its rise and was first broach'd, and vented by Pope Gregory VII. Hildebrand. P. 36. — The same equality of Justice and freedom that obliged me to lay open this, ties me to tax also those who pretend a great hate against Rome, and value themselves on the abhorring all the Doctrines and practices of that [Page 76]Church, and yet have carried along with them one of their most pestiferous Opinions; pretending Reformation when they would bring all under confusion, and vouching the Cause and Word of God, when they were disturbing that Authority he had set up, and opposing those impower'd by him; and the more Piety and devotion such daring pretenders put on, it still brings the greater stain and imputation on Religion, as if it gave a patrociny to those practices it so plainly condemns. — But blessed be God, our Church hates and condemns this Doctrine from what hand soever it comes, ☞ and hath establish'd the Rights and Authority of Princes on sure and unalterable foundations; enjoyning an entire Obedience to all the lawful Commands of Authority, and an absolute submission to that supreme Power God hath put in our Sovereign's hands; this Doctrine we justly glory in; and if any that had their Baptism and Education in our Church, have turn'd Renegado's from this, they proved no less Enemies to the Church her self, than to the Civil Authority, so that their Apostacy leaves no blame on our Church.’
The same learned Man P. 446. in a marginal Note on Bishop Bedel's Letter to Wadsworth (when the Bishop was representing the common Principles of those Papists and Protestants, who asserted a right of taking up Arms against their Sovereign, whenever their Lives, Properties or Religion were invaded) saith, ‘This passage above is to be consider'd as a Relation, not as the Author's Opinion; but yet for fear of taking it by the wrong handle, the Reader is desired to take notice, that a Subject's resisting his Prince in any cause whatsoever is unlawful and impious. Which passage I have lately seen in some Copies of the same Edition (for I never heard but of one) thus altered: This passage above is to be consider'd as a Relation, not as the Author's Opinion, lest it should mislead the Reader into a dangerous mistake. And when he makes his own Apology Pres. to the Ser. Nov. 5. at the Rolls. 1684. He professes, I am sure that the last part of the Sermon that presses Loyalty and Obedience, is not at all enlarged beyond what I not only preach'd in that Sermon, but on many other occasions, in which I appeal to all my Hearers; but I leave the Sermon to speak for it self and me both; and will refer it to every Man's Conscience that reads it to judg, whether or not I can be concluded from it to be a Person disaffected to his Majesties Government.’
‘Id. first Letter to the E. of Middl. collect. of pap. p. 284. Few have written more, and preach'd oftner against all sort of treasonable Doctrines and practices, and particularly against [Page 77]the lawfulness of rising in Arms upon the account of Religion—I have preach'd a whole Sermon in the Hague against all treasonable Doctrines and practices; and in particular against the lawfulness of Subjects rising in Arms against their Sovereign upon the account of Religion. — And I have maintain'd this, both in publick and private; that I could, if I thought t [...] convenient, give proofs of it, that would make all my Enemies be ashamed of their injustice and malice. P. 159. — As oft as I have talk'd with Sir John Cochran of some things that were complain'd of in Scotland, I took occasion to repeat my Opinion of the duty of Subjects to submit, ☜ and bear all the ill administration that might be in the Government, but never to rise in Arms upon that account. Id. third Letter to the E. of Middl. p. 168. I will do that which I think fit for me to do to day, though I were sure to be assassinated for it to morrow; but to the last moment of my life, I will pay all duty and fidelity to his Majesty. Ans. to the New Test, &c. p. 48, 49. The Church of England may justly expostulate, when she is treated as seditious after she hath rendred the highest Services to the Civil Authority, that any Church now on Earth hath done; she hath beaten down all the principles of Rebellion with more force and learning, ☜ than any body of Men hath ever yet done, and hath run the hazards of enraging her Enemies, and losing her Friends even for those, from whom the most learned of her Members knew what they might expect. — We are the only Church in the World, that carries these principles to the highest. — We acknowledg, that some of our Clergy miscarried in it upon King Edward's death, yet at the same time others of our Communion adhered more steadily to their Loyalty in favour of Queen Mary, than she did to the promises that she made to them. — The Laws of Nature are perpetual, P. 51. and can never be cancell'd by any special Law; so that if these Gent. own so freely, that this is a Law of Nature (that every individual might fight in his own defence) they had best take care not to provoke Nature too much. P. 52. — As we cannot be charg'd for having preach'd any seditious Doctrine, so we are not wanting in the preaching of the duties of Loyalty, P. 55. even when we see what they are like to cost us. — Of all the Maximes in the World, there is none hurtful to the Government in our present circumstances, than the saying, That the King's promises and the people's fidelity ought to be reciprocal, and that a failure in the one cuts off the other; for by a very natural consequence the Subject [Page 78]may likewise say, that their Oaths of Allegiance being founded on the assurance of his Majesty's protection, the one binds no longer than the other is observed; and the Inferences that may be drawn from hence, will be very terrible, if the Loyalty of the so much decryed Church of England does not put a stop to them.’
But for that we may cite the Testimony of the Right Reverend Bishop of S. Asaph, in his Seasonable Discourse, &c.
‘We are Members of a Church, Pag. 4. which above all other Constitutions in the Christian World, enforces the great Duties of Obedience and Submission to the Magistrate, and teaches to be subject not only for Truth, but Conscience sake.’
And among other Motives which he mentions in the behalf of the Established Religion: ‘The fourth (says he) is this, The Safety of the King's Person, and the Prerogative of the Crown, which hath no higher or more necessary Appendent than his Supremacy in his Dominion in all Causes Ecclesiastical and Secular, according to the Powers invested in the Jewish Kings under the Law, ☞ and exercised by the first Christian Emperors.’
To whom we may add the Right Reverend Doctor Sprat, in his Sermon before the House of Commons, Jan. 30. 1677/8. by them ordered to be Printed: Where speaking of King Chalres the Martyr—‘Who (saith he) not only by his Birth had a Successive Right to the Crown, which he could not forfeit; but also by his Personal Vittues, might have deserved another Title to it, if his Crown had been elective, and as his Murderers impudently pretended, at the Disposal of his Subjects, pag. 3. So that he terms him the Vicegerent of God's Power, ibid. & pag. 44. — He pleaded and prayed for his Enemies at the Bar of Heaven, which only was above him. And pag. 47. May all of us be most industriously watchful, that the same Schismatical Designs, and Antimonarchical Principles, which then inspired so many ill Men, misled some good Men, and cost our good King so dear, may not once more revive, and insinuate themselves again under the same or newer and craftier Disguises, and find an opportunity to attempt the like mischiefs.’
And in another Sermon of his at White-Hall, Pag. 44, 45.December 22. 1678.
‘Let us withdraw our thoughts, and lift up our minds to the imitation of the most Christian Examples — As of our Saviour himself, so of his Apostles and Disciples, in the first, and therefore the best Ages. — How were they zealous for the Glory of God? [Page 79]Not by violence, or malice, or revenge against any, not eve nagainst their Oppressors; but only by their own Labors, and Prayers, and Patience, and Magnanimity in suffering. How were they zealous in respect to their Temporal Governors? Not to resist for conscience sake, but rather to be subject for that very reason: not by open Rebellion, not by private Machinations, but in blessing, and serving, and submitting to their Emperors, tho they were Idolaters; and obeying them in all things except their Idolatry. —Whom to imitate is our Duty.’
SECT XXIII.
Mr. Thorndyke Apud Falkner's Christian Loyalty, p. 429. from the Instance of the Maccabees avers, that it was lawful for Subjects to take Arms in Defence of their Religion under the Jewish State (tho in that he be mistaken) but expresly condemns taking Arms upon that, or any other pretext under the Christian State.
Dr. Spencer, Serm. at S. Mary's Cambr. Jun. 28. 1660 p. 4. (the now Dean of Ely) ‘The Gospel doth very sparingly meddle with State matters, but when it doth, it engageth to Obedience by as obliging Principles as it doth to Religion, even a Principle of Conscience, we must be subject for conscience-sake (not barely for safety's sake) and a principle of highest fear, They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. A Doctrine taught the World in the Type long before by that Fire and Earthquake which destroyed the Opposers of lawful Authority, Numb. xvi. 33, 34. P. 11, 12. — God hath attested unto Sovereignty by suffering none of his Servants in Scripture, few, or none in story to be guilty of willful opposing lawful Authority, — We find many a wicked Man guilty of this Sin — but as Reverence to other Divine Commands wore off in time [as the power that exalteth it self above all that is called God obtained in the world] so to this among the rest of Obedience, to lawful Authority. P. 14. — The Heathens used to reproach the Gospel on this account, — but the Pulpit was never intended to be a Circle, in which to raise up the evil Spirits of Sedition, and State-Commotions; no Religion in the Doctrine of it so greatly secures the Power of Kings, and the Peace of States, ☜ as the Christian doth; we are bound by the Gospel to be obedient [...], 1 Pet. ii. 18. to the crookedest and frowardest Masters God sets over us. So that Religion can never be pretended against Loyalty; and therefore when I take a sad review of the Evil of our [Page 80]late Disturbances, It ake not so much notice of the Loss of King, Liberty, Property, Parliaments, Blood (tho very great) as of impairing so far the Credit of Religion, in the Violences offered to the person of his Sacred Majesty, and that by persons so highly pretending to it; I am sorry, the Papists seem to have now a thirtieth of January, Pag. 18. to return us for a fifth of November.—Christianity disowns all consecrated Daggers, in Heathen Writers indeed nothing of more familiar occurrence, than Panegyricks in commendation of the Assertors of publick Liberty by the assassinating of a Tyrant; a thing easily pardonable in them, being able by the dim Light of Nature to discover no more in a King, than a Head of Gold supported by the Clayie Toes of popular Election and Acceptance; but Scripture shews a higher Charter than so, Pag. 19. by which Kings hold their Crowns, Prov. 8.15. By me Kings reign, &c. the taking Arms to redress some Evils in the Government of a Nation, proves generally, but as the cutting off of the Hand to get rid of a cut Finger. Pag. 23.—It is a Truth of everlasting Faithfulness, That can never be brought about (safely) by bad means, which could not be by good.’
SECT. XXIV.
Dr. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, Letter to the Lord Russel, Jun. 20. 1683.In tender compassion of your Lordship's Case, and from all the good will that one man can bear to another, I do humbly offer to your Lordships deliberate thoughts these following Considerations concerning the Point of Resistance, if our Religion and Rights should be invaded. ☞ — 1. That the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the resistance of Authority. 2. That tho our Religion be established by Law (which your Lordship urges as a Difference between our Case, and that of the Primitive Christians) yet in the same Law, which establishes our Religian,14 Car. 2. c. 4. 14 Car. 2. c. 3.it is declared, That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms, &c. Besides that there is a particular Law, declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King; and this ties the Hands of Subjects, tho the Law of Nature, and the general Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty, which I believe they do not, because the Government, and Peace of human Society could not well subsist upon these Terms. 3. Your Lordship's Opinion is contrary to the declared Doctrine of all Protestant Churches, ☜and tho some particular persons have taught otherwise, that have been contradicted herein, and condemn'd for it by the generality of Protestants. [Page 81]— I beg of your Lordship to consider, how it will agree with an avowed asserting of the Protestant Religion, to go contrary to the general Doctrine of the Protestants: my end in this is to convince your Lordship, that you are in a very dangerous and great Mistake; and being so convinced, that which before was a sin of Ignorance, will appear of a much more heinous nature, as in truth it is, [...] calls for a very particular and deep repentance, which if your Lordship exercise by a particular acknowledgment of it to God and Man, you will not only obtain forgiveness of God, but prevent a mighty scandal to the Reformed Religion. I am very loth to give your Lordship and disquiet in the distress you are in—but am much more concern'd, that you do leave the world in a delusion, and false peace to the hinderance of your eternal happiness.
And in his Prayer on the Scaffold with the same Lord he hath this expression — Grant, O Lord, that all we, who survive, by this and other instances of thy Providence may learn our Duty to God, and the King.
Dr. Stillingfleet, Dean of S. Paul's: Serm. on Jan. 30. 166 8/9, on Jude 11. p. 2, 3. ‘The Christian Religion above all others hath taken care to preserve the Right sof Sovereignty, by giving unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's. And to make resistance unlawful by declaring, that those who are guilty of it shall receive to themselves; damnation. Of such men we have a description in this short, but smart Epistle, who believ'd it a part of their Saintship to despise Dominions, &c. P. 7, 8. Whose design like that of Corah, was the sharing the Government among themselves, which it was impossible for them to hope for, as long as Moses continued a King in Jeshurun; nor were they awed by the solemn Vows and Promises they had made of Obedience to him; for factious men know, they must address themselves to the people, and in the first place persuade them, that they manage their interests against the usurpations of their Governors, while the people take a strange pride in hearing and telling all the Faults of their Governors. P. 11, 12. — The common grounds of all Seditions being usurpations upon the Peoples Rights, ☜ arbitrary Government, and ill management of Affairs, as if they had said, we appear only in the behalf of the Fundamental Liberties of the People, both Civil and Spiritual. — That Moses was guilty of the Breach of the Trust committed to him, so that now by the ill management of his Trust the Power was again devolved into the Hands of the People, and they ought to [Page 82]take account of his Actions. Pag. 21. Cons. p. 22, 23, &c. There were then two great Principles among them, by which they thought to defend themselves: 1. That Liberty and a Right to Power is so inherent in the People, that it cannot be taken from them. 2. That in case of Usurpation upon that Liberty of the People they may resume the Exercise of Power b [...] punishing those who are guilty of it. And I believe they will be found to be the first Assertors of this kind of Liberty that ever were in the world; ☞ and happy had it been for this Nation, if Corah had never found any Disciples in it.—Of the later of the two Propositions, Pag. 26, 27, 28, 29. it is said, that there can be no Principle imagined more destructive to Civil Societies, and repugnant to the very nature of Government; for it destroys all the Obligations of Oaths and Compacts, it makes the solemnest Bonds of Obedience signifie nothing, — it makes every prosperous Rebellion just, &c. and if Corah, Dathan and Abiram had succeeded in their Rebellion against Moses, no doubt they would have been called the Keepers of the Liberties of ISRAEL.—The Supposition of this Principle will unavoidably keep up a constant Jealousie between the Prince and his People, and there can be no such way to bring in an arbitrary Government into a Nation. —Besides, this must necessarily engage a Nation in endless Disputes about the forfeiture of Power, into whose Hands it falls, whether into the People in common, or some persons particularly chosen by the People, &c.—but on the other side what mighty danger can there be in suppossing the persons of Princes to be so sacred, that no Sons of Violence ought to come near to hurt them? Have not all the ancient Kingdoms and Empires of the World flourished under the Supposition of an unaccountable power in Princes?—No inconvenience can be possibly so great on the supposition of this unaccountable power in Sovereign Princes, as the unavoidable Mischiefs of that Hypothesis, which places all power originally in the People, and notwithstanding all Oaths and Bonds whatsoever to Obedience, ☞ gives them the Liberty to resume it when they please, which will always be when a Spirit of Faction and Sedition shall prevail among them. God, Pag. 34. Numb. 26.9. interprets striving against the Authority appointed by him, to be a striving against himself—they who resist, resist an Ordinance of God, and they who do so, shall in the mildest sense receive a severe punishment from him, let the Pretences be never so popular, the persons never so great and [Page 83]famous; nay tho they were of the great Council of the Nation, yet we see, God doth not abate of his severity upon any of these Considerations — nor hath the Christian Doctrine made any Alteration in these things. P. 39. — It would take up too much time to examine the frivolous Evasions and ridiculous Distinctions, by which they would make the case of the Primitive Christians in not resisting Authority so much different from theirs, who have not only done it, but in spite of Christianity have pleaded for it; either they wanted Strength or Courage, or the Countenance of the Senate, or did not understand their own Liberty. P. 40. —When all their Obedience was only due to those Principles of the Gospel, which made it so great a part of Christianity to be subject to Principalities and Powers, and which the Teachers of the Gospel had particularly given them in charge, to put the People in mind of, Tit. iii. 1. And happy had it been for us, if this Doctrine had been more sincerely preach'd and duely practis'd in this Nation. — Id. Ser. on Nov. 5. 1673. p. 39. It is the Honor of our Church of England, that it asserts the Rights of Princes so clearly and fully without Tricks and Reservations; and all that mean honestly love to speak plainly. Id. Ser. on Mat. x. 16. at Whitchall March 7. 167 8/9. That there might be no colour for any such Cavil against Christianity (as if it gave occasion to many Disturbances of the Civil Government) no Religion that ever was did so much enforce the duty of Obedience, as Christ and his Apostles did, and that upon the greatest and most weighty Considerations, for Conscience sake, for the Lord's sake, for their Religion's sake: for consider, I pray, if the Doctrine of Christ had given encouragement to Faction and Rebellion under pretence of it; if S. Peter himself had taken upon him to dispose of Crowns and Scepters, or had absolved Christians from their Allegiance even to their greatest Persecutors; what Blot had this been even upon the whole Religion? such as all the Blood of the Martyrs could never have wash'd out. P. 50. — It is an intolerable Reproach to Christianity to impute their patient Submission to Authority to their Weakness and want of force, which is all one as to say, they would have resisted if they durst.’
And the same Author, in his Grand Question, &c. p. 180, 181. says, ‘That every new Modeller of Government hath something to offer that looks like Reason, at least to those whose interest it is to carry it on: and if no Precedents can be found, then they appeal to a certain invisible thing called the Fundamental Contract [Page 84]of the Nation, which being a thing no where to be found, may signifie what any one pleases.’ — And pag. 75. ‘I am of Opinion, That if he (i.e. the Author of the Letter, &c.) could be persuaded to produce this Fundamental Contract of the Nation, which I perceive he hath lying by him, it would not amount to so much as a blind Manuscript.’
Thus also he says in his Book called The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly stated, p. 106. ‘The Principles of our Church are directly contrary to them (i. e. deposing Principles) and our Houses of Convocation would as readily condemn any such damnable Doctrines as the University of Oxford: and all the World knows how repugnant such Principles are to those of the Church of England; and none can be Rebels to their Prince, but they must be false to our Church.’
SECT. XXV.
Dr. Patrick, Dean of Peterborough, Paraphr. on Prov. 24 21. ‘Take care therefore, my dear Child, that thy Religion, which teaches thee in the first place to worship, reverence, and obey the great Lord and Governor of all the World, make thee humbly obedient to the King, as God's Vicegerent here on Earth; and have nothing to do with those whose discontent with the present state of things, or their love of Novelty, makes them affect a change of Government, and depart from their duty both to God and Man.’ Id. Pref. to the Paraphr. on Eccles. p. 16. To this purpose the Preface to the Paraphrase on Ecclesiastes cites, and confirms the Opinion of Antonius Corranus, an excellent Person, a learned Spaniard, as the Paraphrast justly stiles him, concerning that Book of Solomon's. ‘This Tractate is truly royal, and worthy to be read perpetually, in this most turbulent Age, both by high and low; that from hence Subjects may learn to perform Obedience and the greatest Observance both in word and deed towards their Princes, chusing rather to bear and suffer any thing than to attempt Rebellion against them. — Id. Per. & Annot. on Eccl. 8.2 p 216. It is much safer and easier, as well as more honest, to submit and be quiet, than to contend and unsettle the Peace of Kingdoms, tho Princes do not govern as they ought.—The Verse, says Melancthon, is a Sentence exceeding worthy of Consideration and Remembrance:’ and then gives the different Interpretations of it, and closes all ‘thus. P. 219.220. Some may think, that I have dilated too much upon this [Page 85]Verse, but they may be pleased to consider, how useful, if not necessary it is at this time, when men begin again to plead the lawfulness of Resistance: which is so plainly condemn'd in this place, that the most learned Assertors of the Old Cause were extremely puzzled to make it agree with their Principles in the late Times of Rebellion. There is one, who (in his Book called Natures Dowry, chap. 21.) calls in the Assistance of a great many Hebrew Doctors to help him to another Translation of the Words; and yet after all is forc'd to acknowledge, that our English is right enough, and is content to admit it with this Proviso, That the King manage well the Affairs of the Commonwealth; as much as to say, do what they would have him. — Id. on v. 4. p. 221. Who may say unto the King, What dost thou? i. e. first, who hath any Authority to call him to an Account? As much as to say, none hath but God alone: according to that of an eminent Rabbi, No Creature may judge the King but the holy and blessed God alone. To allow the People (either collective or representative) to have Power to do it, is to make them Accusers, Judges, and Executioners also in their own Cause, and that against their Sovereign: nor secondly, can any Man safely attempt it, but he shall meet with Punishment either here or hereafter; which is no new Doctrine, but the same with that of S. Paul (as Luther here honestly notes,) They that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation, which none shall be able to avoid.’ Thus much the Author of Nature's Dowry is forced to acknowledge from the evident Light he saw in this place. ‘It is Wisdom (saith he out of Elisha Gallico, an Hebrew Interpreter) in a private man, when the Magistrate enjoins what is repugnant to God's Will, to remove out of his Dominions rather than contest with him. Id. p. 223. The wisest thing we can do when Princes require any thing grievous unto us, is not to rebel, but to watch the fittest opportunities to petition for redress, and that after such a manner as may not give offence. V. 7. P. 224. Luther refers wholly to the miserable Condition of a Rebel in this manner; He desires various things, and hopes for mighty matters by his Disobedience, but is mightily deceiv'd; for of the very impunity which he promis'd himself he cannot be secure, &c. Id. in Eccles. x. 20. Paraph. p. 277. Curse not the King, &c. but notwithstanding all this, (viz. consuming the publick Treasure, &c.) as I advised thee before not to rise in Rebellion against thy Sovereign; so now let me add, that it is very foolish, as well as wicked, to be provoked by this ill management, [Page 86]so much as to speak an opprobrious Word of him or his Ministers, &c. Annot. in loc. p. 302. But whatsoever negligence or profuseness and waste there be, it should not provoke any wise or good man, to speak contemptuously of his Sovereign, or of his Ministers. P. 306. It will not be unuseful, much less unseasonable, in such an unruly Age as this, to let the Reader understand how deeply the first Reformers of Religion laid this Precept to heart, by transcribing some of Luther's Admonitions in his Annotations on this Verse: The worse and the more malignant (says he) the World is, the more studious and laborious Solomon teaches us to be in the doing of our duty, particularly in honoring Magistracy, because it is a divine Ordinance, and the better part of the World, by which God manages all things under the Sun. But the Ungodly begin their Wickedness chiefly in the Contempt of Magistrates, when they hear how God blames and reproves them in the holy Scriptures; but it belongs to the divine Office to find fault with Magistrates, and to rebuke them; and therefore tho thou hearest it, yet do not imitate it, for thou art not God, nor the Ordainer, no nor the Reformer, nor the Restorer of the divine Ordinance: but as God reproves them, so thee also in the holy Scriptures, that thou may'st do thy duty, and not meddle with what belongs to them. — The meaning therefore of Solomon is, I have spoken much of Princes, how they undo the World, but do thou reverence them notwithstanding that, for they are not an humane Ordinance, but a divine. St. Peter indeed calls the King an Humane Creature, because he is assumed from among men, but his Authority is divine: and tho Princes be bad, they are to be honored, because of this Ordinance of God. Why then wilt thou speak evil of those who are vexed with so many and great cares and labours for thy Peace, if they be good? And if they be bad and foolish, their own Impiety is mischief enough to them, and brings them into sufficient danger. Bear with them then, and compassionate them, rather than rail upon them and revile them, &c.’
Dr. Towerson on the fifth Commandment.
Those Powers are to be look'd upon as ordained by God, which came to that Power they have, as without any fraud or violence, so by the ordinary Course of God's Providence. — Upon which account, all those Powers must be look'd upon as ordain'd by God, that either come to the Throne by a lineal Descent from former Kings, where the Kingdom is [Page 87]Hereditary; or by a free and unconstrained choice, where it is Elective. Part 5. p. 241.
Pag. 251. There is no doubt it is in the Power of the Subject, who conceives himself not to have deserv'd it, so (by flight) to avoid, if he can, the falling under the Power of it (the Sword;) Our Saviour having expresly given leave, that if we be persecuted in one City, we should to save our selves flee from that to another. As little difficulty should I find if that were the thing in question, to license the avoiding the Prince's Severity, by appealing to his own Courts of Judicature, where that is by Law so allowed, as it is in several Cases here, that being not to be looked upon as a Resistance, much less an injurious one, which is with the leave of him against whom it is directed. But if the Question be concerning resisting by force of Arms, and so avoiding the severity of the Prince; so it is as certain both from the Scripture and Reason, that we ought not to avoid it, but rather with all readiness submit to the strokes of it.
Pag. 253. For tho it be true, that a Prince hath no Authority to inflict an unjust Punishment, yet he is privileg'd by the place he holds under God, from being subjected unto Man, and ought not therefore, by any force, to be brought into Subjection to him.
Pag. 254. Whosoever resisteth evil Powers must be thought in a particular manner to fight against God. — What a disappointment must needs have been to the Counsels of the Almighty, if it had been permitted Christians to resist.
Part 7. An Answer to several Pleas which are made in behalf of Resistance, &c.
Pag. 257, 258. That which generally draws Princes to the persecuting of those that are of a different Religion from themselves, being not so much any hatred of their Religion, as the Jealousie they have lest under the Pretences of that, and the Assemblies which are made for it, some secret Design against the State should lurk; which Jealousie must needs be taken away, when it appears to them from undoubted Experiments, that they who do profess it, will not attempt any thing against them, how severely soever they may be handled by them.
To all which if we add the story of primitive Times too, we shall not need to doubt of Religion's being more than secured by a patient submitting to persecuting Princes; it being manifest from thence, that Christianity was so far from being destroyed by the Blood of its many Martyrs, that on the contrary it thrived and propagated it self by it.
Pag. 260. From that second Plea pass we to a third, which is taken from those Oaths which Kings do commonly make (before they are solemnly crowned) of governing the People by the Laws; the Government (as some think) seeming thereby to arise from a Compact between them and their Subjects; upon the breach whereof on the King's part, it may be lawful for the Subject to depart from their Allegiance, and resist him in the Execution of his Power. For Answer to which, not to tell you what intolerable Mischiefs would ensue from such a Tenet, as often as any seditious Man should go about to persuade the People they were not so well governed as they ought; I will alledge in behalf of our own Princes (farther than which we shall not need to look) that which will cut the Throat of this Objection; to wit, That our Kings are to as full purpose such before their Coronation as after; witness, not only their performing all the Acts of a King, but that known Maxim in our Laws, that the King of England never dies. From whence as it will follow, that as the Kings of this Nation owe not their being such to any compact between them and their People, that upon any supposed breach thereof it might be lawful for the Subject to resist them; so also that the Oaths taken by them at their Coronation, are not to procure them that Power which otherwise they could not have: but for the encouraging the People to yield the more ready Obedience to them, which they may very well do, when they who are to govern plight their Faith and Reputation to govern them according to their own Laws.
Mr. Scrivener, Book I. Part I. Of the Original Government. p. 93.
The Arguments to affirm that the grosser Body of the People did first of all agree upon Government and constitute their Ruler, are 1. Ridiculous, 2. Sacrilegious and impious. 3. Impossible. 4. Pestilential and pernicious to all Government.
'Tis a true Saying, It is more to make a King than to be a King. Still I hold-this, which I have not found shaken by the many Attempts of innovating Wits, That there is a real Paternal Power in lawful Princes. — For 'tis not Choice but Power that makes a King: and in this case no power at all is given, or can be given, nor in truth ought to be taken away, as the manner is, from Princes entring through the Populacy into the Throne; for God only is the proper and immediate Author of Right and Power, which he hath inserted into Parents over their Children, and hath proportionably prescribed to Kings and Princes, without ever advising with the People or expecting their Consent or Confirmation. This the Scripture it self calls Jus Imperii, or l [...]ss significantly with us, The manner of the King, 1 Sam. viii. 9. Not from the People but from God.
Pag. 94. The most therefore that the People do when they act most in creating Kings, is, under God, to apply the Person to the Place or Office of Governing.
Pag. 95. Grant that all Men were once, (but no body could ever tell when) and in a certain place, (but no body could ever tell where) equally free, or at least all of years of Discretion, which is most uncertain, it would be known first, how Men dare to be so presumptuous as to make such a breach of the Law of Nature as this must be? viz. To part with their Birth right, and to imbezzle that which God had given them concomitantly with their own Lives. And this is further confirmed from the impossibility as well as impiety of making any such Translation of Power from its natural Subject the People; because it cannot ever fairly or justly be brought about, seeing that the People cannot unanimously, much less ever did concur to the Election of any one Government or Governor. They cannot all give in their Votes to such an end; always some were dissenting; and if they did not enter their Protest against the proceeding of their Fellows, it must be because they were deterred, curbed, and oppressed by a more prevalent Faction, obliging them and constraining them most unjustly to comply with their Opinions and Decrees: for there appears no sound reason why a more numerous and powerful Faction may not as well take away my Estate, because they are stronger than I, as take away my Birth-right, which Liberty is here asserted to be. So that the very first step to Liberty must be founded in Injustice, in taking away that from me which I might no less in natural reason spoil them of; and in Servitude too, in bringing me, whom they acknowledge naturally free, into unwilling Subjection. Neither is the difficulty solved in saying, That Reason and Nature also require that for order sake and regulating humane Society, the minor part must yield to the major: for upon this Supposition indeed that Power is so absurdly and inconveniently posited, there doth presently appear such a necessity; but my Argument is taken from the absurdity of any such necessity of Natures creating, that the Supposition is very false: and if it were true, yet were not that Maxim true which is here brought to controul and correct the same; for Nature doth not teach us, much less necessitate us, in any case to follow the most numerous; but rather Reason and Experience, and the Judgment of diligent and wise Discussers of this Point inform us, That the Multitude are more inconsiderate, undiscerning, and injudicious than the fewer in number many times; the World being generally thicker set with Fools than wise Men, and Fools being commonly more apt to be led by Fools than with deeper and sounder Reasons of the Wise.
Pag. 96, 97. The Right of Rule in the People is look'd upon as by Nature and Divine Ordinance belonging to them, and therefore cannot [de jure] be transferred; or, if attempted, must needs, by the same Right be revocable. — Finding themselves most commonly destitute of that advantage, they proceed to expound it more to their purpose tyrannical, and boldly affirm, That by the People is not meant necessarily the most, but the best, and soberest, and godliest, and such only that study really the Good of Religion and the Liberties of the People. And are not these sine Doings? Do not these popular Tenets hang well together, and end well, which in process of their own Reason and Practices, confute the very first Principle of all, viz. That People have an absolute supream Power to frame Governments, when before they can bring matters to their intended conclusion, they are forc'd to deny them?
Of the Obligations between the Governors and Governed, p. 103.
It cannot either consist with the Law of God or Nations, to inflict Punishments on Princes Sovereign. Not but that, for instance, Murder, Adultery, unjust Spoil, and Robbery of the Subjects, may no less (considering the nature of the Crime) deserve such Punishment of Princes as they do [...] People. But because there is none in such Cases that can or ought duely and regularly to execute such Laws, because there can be no such Execution without the Power of the Sword; and there can be but one proper Subject of that Power in any Republick. — And of all guilt, I know not whether any be greater than the assuming of such a Power, which no ways belongs to a Man: for better it were to take away ones Horse, or to ravish another Man's Wife, or to extort unjustly anothers Estate, than to divest a Prince of his Right of Rule, and usurp it to himself; and that, first, because no Man's Estate, or any thing that is his, doth descend to him, or otherways become his, by the like divine Title as the Supream Power rightly posited and possessed, doth to the Owner thereof; and therefore this being more sacred, the Invasion of this Right is much more wicked and unjust. Secondly, because a publick mischief, and of general influence upon all, is much more intolerable than a private. But such a Violation of Princely Rights must of necessity draw a publick mischief on the whole civil Body; I mean all the Subjects in such a Nation, who shall be distracted between the sense of Obedience known otherwise to be due, and the terror of usurped Power, threatning ruine to such as comply not with their Injustice.
Pag. 104. Some late Demagogues have written, for the promotion of Religion, forsooth, as well as Civil Liberty, that to kill Tyrants (and [Page 91]here I will not shew who they call Tyrants) is as good an act as to slay Wolves, Lions and Bears. But I would fain know whence such a Law proceeded, if not from Tyranny it self? Even such persons, who under colour of natural Law of returning evil for evil, and self-preservation, have done the greatest injustice imaginable, not only against the person persecuted, but the people, who never at any time had power so to deliver themselves, nor, if they had, did generally and unanimously, or could confer the same on the new Pretenders to it. That Law therefore of killing Tyrants invented by Tyrants, taketh place on the Authors of it as much as any body else; and where the like Power can be snatched up, may have the same event on popular Statesmen as well as Kings and Princes: For they are Tyrants too.
Mr. Jos. Glanvil's Sermon of Christian Loyalty, published by Anth. Horneck. D. D. on Rom. 13.2. They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Pag. 153, 154. Which words were spoken in the days of Nero, who besides that he was an Heathen, was a Persecutor and a Tyrant, and the most infamous instance in Nature; and yet this Monster is not excepted as to the tribute of Obedience. Whereas had this been said in the days of such a Prince as our Charles the First, it might have been suppos'd that the vertue of the Person claim'd the reverence and subjection, and not the Character of the Prince. And that 'twas damnable to resist because he was good; not because he was supreme: because he was a Nursing-father of the Church, not because the ruling Father of his Countrey. 'Twas an happy Coincidence therefore to secure the Authority of the Magistrate, which answers the greatest pretensions of Rebellion. If Religion be pretended, an Heathen must not be resisted: If Tyranny, 'tis damnation to oppose a Nero.
Pag. 156. Kings wear God's Image and Authority — but besides there is evidence enough in the nature of the thing to prove, that Kings have their Power and Authority from God, and are no Substitutes of the People.
Pag. 157, 158, 159. They that Rule are God's Substitutes, and no Creatures of the People: for the People have no power to govern themselves, and consequently cannot devolve any upon another.
Resistance is opposite to the Spirit of Religion: Religion is of a calm and pacifick temper, like that of its Author whose voice was not heard in the street. — He commands the payment of all Duties to Cesar: [Page 92] He acknowledgeth Pilates Power to be from above: He commands his Disciples to pray for their Persecutors: He permits them to fly, not to oppose. He rebukes Peter's violence to the High Priests Servant; and the revenge of the Disciples when they called for fire from Heaven.
He paid Tribute, submitted to the Laws of the Sanhedrim, and to that unjust sentence against his life.
This was his temper: and the Apostles who liv'd among his Enemies and theirs, and met with severity enough to have soured their spirits, and exasperated their Pens to contrary resolutions and instructions; yet as true followers of their dear Lord, they faithfully transmit to us what they had learn'd from him, viz. That we should obey those that have the rule over us: submit to every Ordinance of Man: pray for Kings and all in Authority: submit to Principalities and Powers, and to obey Magistrates. —
And those Noble Spirits of the first Ages after, who began to be Martyrs as soon as to be Christians, who lived in the Fire, and went to Heaven wrap'd in those flames that had less arder than their love: These, I say, amidst the greatest and fiercest fires that cruelty and barbarism had kindled, paid the tribute of a peaceable and quiet subjection to their Murtherers, and made unforced acknowledgments of the right they had to their obedience.
Pag. 157, 158, 159. Nor do we ever read of any attempts they made to free themselves by resistance, though (as Tertullian saith) they were in powerful numbers mingled in their Villages, and in their Cities, yea in their Castles and in their Armies: Yea, there is an illustrious instance of Passive Obedience in the Thebean Legion, whose tenth Man being executed for not offering sacrifice to Idols, they quietly submitted to the Cruelty. And a second Dicimation being commanded by Maximinian, the Author of the first, one of their great Commanders, (an excellent Christian) persuades them to suffer it with the same patience: because it was not with their Swords they could make their way to the Kingdom of Heaven, but by another kind of Warfare. —
Pag. 163. By a dear experience we have learned, that 'tis better to endure any inconveniences in a setled Government than to endeavour violent alterations.
Pag. 496. They looked upon Christianity as a Religion that taught them to suffer valiantly. —
Pag. 534. 535. To their Princes and Magistrates, they were ever very submissive, and in all lawful things obedient to a tittle. In their Prayers they always remembred them, and though they persecuted and afflicted them, yet that did not abate their Zeal and Vows for their welfare and prosperity: Rebellion against their Governours they hated as Witchcaft, and ever thought it safer to suffer than to resist. Hence they paid Tribute without marmuring; for their opinion was, that no Man could have that Power, except it were given him from above. His Tyranny could not make them neglect their duty, nor his ill Government tempt them to forget their Allegiance; Where the Man was rough and hard-hearted that was over them, they look'd upon the Providence as a means to try their faith, and even then when they might have resisted and conquer'd, they would not, because they thought it was unsuitable to their Religion. —
SECT. XXVI.
Doctor Tennison says the same Mr. Hobbs's Creed examin'd p. 149, 15, 151. — ‘This then is the Doctrine of Politicks, that Rebellion is not Iniquity, if upon probable grounds it becomes prosperous. — It is blamed as an opinion of Mr. White, That part-boil'd Romanist, as he is called, that a dispossess'd Prince ought neither to be desired, nor to endeavour to return, if the people think themselves to be well, and their Trade and Employment be undisturb'd. And he adds, Who can answer, they shall be better by the return of the dispossess'd party; surely in common presumption the gainer is like to defend them better than he, who lost it. ☜ — Certainly for this Sentence publish'd at such a time to this Nation, if for any other cause, those Books ought to be burnt in England, as well as some of them have been burnt at Rome; there is no tye so strong as that of Religion, p. 158, 159. which eternally binds a conscientious Subject in Allegiance to his Sovereign, and Wars arise from mens self-interests and lusts; and true goodness is both the Creator and preserver of peace: unless a Man obeys for Conscience-sake, all the Cords of outward [Page 94]Pacts and Covenants will not hold him V. pref. p. 7. &c. — Neither will such Covenants hold the people that pretend to Religion, if they be mis-taught, that God is glorified in their private good, and that their private good is to be valued before the life of a Prince, if they can safely deprive him of it. — What Hobbs hath written three times over in his de Cive, p. 161.de Corpore Politico, and his Leviathan ought rather to be esteemed seeds of Sedition, than Elements of Government and Society;’ and I am sure among those Principles one is, that Government is founded in compact — ‘The people, p. 167. if they believed, that a company of Delinquents joyning together to defend themselves by Arms do not at all unjustly, but may lawfully repel lawful force by force, they would soon be stirred up, and suffer none for whom they have respect, to be brought to justice.’
SECT. XXVII.
Thus Doctor Hooper. Serm. at Whitehal on Math. 22.21. p. 11. ‘Is he not the Vicegerent of God? Wherever therefore his Sovereign the Almighty hath not prevented him by any precedent Commands, there he hath right and liberty to put forth his, and in those cases to expect an active chearful Obedience; ☞ and that we should in no case, and for no reason resist. — Be this Civil Government heretick, or Infidel, we are not discharg'd of our Allegiance, we are obliged by the same divine Authority to preserve our Religion under it, and to continue to it our subjection, p. 18, 19. — the Church, of which we have the blessing to be Members, has restored to Princes, and those that are in Authority the full exercise of their lawful Power, their Countries and their people; no place priviledg'd, nor person exempted; no forein Potentate sharing the Authority, nor dividing their Revenue, ☞ their Subjects bound in an Allegiance not to be withdrawn on any pretence of Schism, or Heresie, in the power of no Consistory to discharge. And here we see no politick reserve, that our Church hath not provided for it self any other refuge but in the providence of God, and the piety of the Civil Power. What was not her own, she hath given out of her hands; where she cannot communicate, yet there she will obey, and where she cannot obey, she is ready to endure, expecting her reward in Heaven; ☞ not ignorant how much she suffers now from the contradiction of disloyal Men for the truth [Page 95]of this Doctrine, and how much by its meekness she stands exposed to future persecution; yet she professes to know too, that her Saviour's Kingdom is not of this World; that the rendezvouz against a Prince is not protected by being in a Church, turns not her Congregations into Armies, &c. — And though Parties seemingly opposite agree in the contrary Opinion, we take not that for an argument of its truth, equally detesting the holy League of the one, and the solemn League of the other.’
Doctor Harscard, Dean of Windsor. Serm. before L. Mayor, 1680. p. 13. ‘Contempt of Government springs from that leud Opinion, that Dominion is nothing else but strength and might; that Philosophy that resolves all Beings and Actions into matter and motion, lays the foundation too of all Obedience, not Conscience and divine Commands, ☜ but the strongest Arm and longest Sword, only Subjects, because they are over-power'd. — What doth vilifie our Governours more than this Principle. — Whom we beautified before with the Titles of sacred and divine, but now are made a common lump onely of strength and power, and are really weaker, because their Subjects too, like them, are onely Arms, but no heart or Conscience, no internal Principle to oblige unto Obedience.—For if no inward persuasion or dread of an higher power, but only fear and interest, weakness and convenience are the bottom and reason of our Obedience; where these shall change, and the Man hath swell'd his Coffers, procured firm Alliances, and muster'd up his Armies and Confederates and other instruments of Rebellion, he may then by the Title of Power lay claim to Dominion, and set up for himself. — What signifies religious Oaths and solemn Vows to engage us unto Obedience, which is onely an acknowledgment of weakness, if onely external power must, be their keeper?’ —
SECT. XXVIII.
Doctor Falkner's Christian Loyalty is written wholly upon this Subject, proving, that Government is appointed by God, and is of divine Institution, own'd so by the Christians who were persecuted by the Civil Powers; and his whole second Book is employed in shewing the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Arms against the King upon any account; and this he proves from the obligation [Page 96]of Oaths, and solemn declarations from the Laws of Nature and humane policy, from the prohibitions of both the Old and New Testament, especially the New; proving that this resistance is not onely sinful in private persons, but in the whole body of the people, and in subordinate Magistrates; and I would willingly see a sober Answer to that discourse, instead of puzling the World with little distinctions of persecuting according to, or against Law.
And in his Treatise of Reproach and Censure, he shews how careful our blessed Saviour was to pay all due respects to any person invested with Authority; and that St. Peter recommends a meek behaviour even towards them, from whom we receive hard measure; P. 94. — ‘That such a continued respect, and practice of duty to Governours, even under hard usage is that, which Conscience to God will oblige to perform. — This duty of respectful submission is not founded upon the good temper of our Superiours, but upon the Authority they receive from God, and the Precepts which God hath thereupon given to us. P. 97. — Obj. But if Religion be concern'd and in danger, doth it not behove every good Man to be zealous, &c. Ans. 1. It is requisite he should be zealous in the diligent exercise of a holy Life, and in frequent and devout prayer, &c. But he must not be active as an evil doer in giving himself the liberty to behave himself undutifully towards his Superiours. — 2. Religion can never be so in danger, that God can need any sinful practices of Men to uphold his interest; his Kingdom is not so weak that it cannot stand without the affistance of the works of the Devil. P. 99. — 3. Religion can never be opposed with greater enmity and malicious designs, than it was when our Saviour suffered, and yet then he reviled not, P. 100. nor allow'd St. Peter's rashness. The Jews aimed utterly to root out the Christian Name; and there were great oppositions against Religion, even fiery Tryals, 1 Pet. 4.12. When yet Saint Peter requires Christians to follow the Example of our Lord's patience and meekness, and to reverence Superiours. 4. True zeal for Religion consists in pious and holy living, not in passionate and sinful speaking.’ —
To Dr. Falkner I should join his Pupil Dr. Sherlock, but his Book of Non resistance is so strong, and his arguments from Scripture so cogent, that it is needless to make any extracts out of it; and till his Adversary writes both a more becoming, and a more demonstrative Answer, it will be still by all wise Men look'd upon as unanswerable.
SECT. XXIX.
Among the unanswerable Treatises I also reckon Dr. Hicks, the Dean of Worcester's Jovian; for unless scurrility, confidence, and a desertion of the main Argument may pass for an Answer, the Reply, that is yet extant, deserves no Rejoinder. Out of that Elaborate Commentary on the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, I shall only quote one passage, because it is a History of the Author's Principles, and Resolution. I had rather dye a Martyr than a Rebel; P. 259:and I resolve by God's assistance neither to turn Papist, nor Resist: but if I cannot escape, I will suffer according to the Gospel, and the Church of England; and I will Preach and Practise Passive Obedience, after the example of the Prophets, and Martyrs, who suffered against Law: and in my most melancholy prospect of things, I can comfort my self with the hopes of a reward for dying at a Stake, which he shall never have for dying in the Field. To this purpose also the Sermon at Bow-Church, Jan. 30. 1681/2. Together with the same Author's Artillery Sermon: are worth the perusing.
Dr. South. I have read heretofore of some, Serm. 2. p. 80, 81.that having conceived an irreconcileable hatred of the Civil Magistrate, prevailed with Men so far, that they went to resist him, even out of Conscience, and a full perswasion, and dread upon their spirits, ☜that not to do it were to desert God, and consequently to incur Damnation. Now when Mens rage is both heightened, and sanctified by Conscience, the War will be fierce: for what is done out of Conscience, is done with the utmost activity, and then Campanella's Speech to the King of Spain will be found true, Religio semper vicit, praesertim armata, which sentence deserves seriously to be considered by all Governors, and timely understood, lest it come to be felt.P. 212. P. 236.We have seen Rebellion commented out of Rom. xiii. He that makes his Prince despised, and undervalued, blows a Trumpet against him in Mens Hearts, &c. See Dr. Freeman's Ser. before the L. Mayor. 1682. p. 8. P. 242, 243. To imagine a King without Majesty, a Supreme without Sovereignty, is a Paradox, and direct contradiction. — The Church of England glories in nothing more, than that she is the truest friend to Kings, and to Kingly Government, of any other Church in the World. — It is the happiness of some Professions, and Callings, that they can equally square themselves to, and thrive under all Revolutions of Government: but the Clergy of England neither know, nor affect that happiness, and are willing to be [Page 98]despised for not doing so. — And so far is our Church from encroaching upon the Civil Power, as some who are back-friends to both would maliciously insinuate, that were it stript of the very remainder of its privileges, and made as like the Primitive Church for its bareness, as it is already for its Purity, it could chearfully, and what is more, Loyally, want all such Privileges, and in the want of them pray, that the Civil Power may flourish as much, and stand as secure from the assaults of Fanatick Anti-Monarchical Principles, grown to such a dreadful height during the Churches late confusions, as it stood while the Church enjoyed those Privileges.
Dr. Serm. on Heb x. 36. p. 2. John Moor. Our Saviour was the first, that did effectually recommend this Passive Virtue to the World, and furnished Men with such true Arguments to bear their Cross, as made the most afflicted state not only supportable, but to be preferred before the happiness of this life.P. 16, 17.— A good Man, when he is persecuted for his Religion, neither deserts it, nor by any unlawful means defends it. He will not renounce his Faith to escape Persecution, and yet he dreads by resisting of Authority to promote the cause of Religion;P. 19.it being a blasphemy against the Divine Wisdom and Power, to suppose God can stand in need of our sins to bring to pass his most glorious designs; and this he says of those, who under pretence of defending their Rights, or Religion, resist lawful Authority. — He then, in whom this virtue of Patience dwells, keeps a due regard to the commands laid upon him to submit himself to the Supreme Powers, and he dares not lift up his Hand against the Lords Anointed,☞nor Levy War upon the most plausible account whatsoever: nay to him it cannot but seem a wonder, that the Doctrin of Resistance should have gone down so glibly with any, who have read the New Testament, and are baptised into the Christian Faith. — All Resistance to the Supreme Authority is unlawful — The Popes of Rome being the first pretenders from Scripture to a right to resist the Civil Power, P. 20, 21. &c. — And it is most certain, that by the same Argument, they would take off their obligation to this plain Christian Duty, they may excuse themselves from their obligations to all the rest. Will they plead, that the Gospel is not a perfect Rule of Duty, and that the inspired Writers did not foresee, and provide for all cases, &c. Upon the same ground they dispense with one Law of Christ, they may dispense with as many as they please. P. 29.— If the Magistrates be Ordained of God, then it is no more lawful for an hundred thousand Men to resist him, than for twelve; and if we are bound to submit for Conscience sake, no increase of our numbers, or strength, can alter the Rule [Page 99]of our Duty, or take off the Obligation of Conscience.☜So that had the Primitive Christians had more potent Arms than Nero, or Julian, yet no right ever could have accured to them thereby to oppose Gods Ordinance, or to proceed against their Conscience. P. 30.— The Popes of Rome were the first pretenders from Scripture to a right not only of Resisting, &c. but of Deposing Kings. Knox, Milton, Rutherford, &c. P. 40.could not have spit ranker venom at Kings, or spoke with greater contempt of their Authority, than Hildebrand.
And in another place thus, P. 15. It always holds true with respect to the Sovereign Power in any Country, what was said by Judge Creshald (Legacy p. 5.) both like a pious Christian, and an able Lawyer, concerning the Royal Authority of our Nation: that the Jura Regalia of our Kings are holden of Heaven, and cannot for any Cause Escheat to their Subjects; nor they for any Cause make any positive or actual forcible resistance against them: but that we ought to yield to them Passive Obedience, by suffering the punishment, albeit their commands should be against the Divine Law, and that in such Case Arma nostra sunt preces nostrae, nec possumus nec debemus aliter resistere, for who can lift up his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltless?
And thus the Author of Jeremiah in Baca, or a Fast-days Work; Published for the Devout Members of the Church of England, as a Preservative for all them against Perjury and Rebellion speaks. Rebellious Perjuries, pag. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.
A further branch of Perjury there is, which in the late Rebellious days involved a great part of the three Nations, over and over. Some Popular wicked Men, Sons of Belial, contrary to the Oath of the Lord upon them, rose up against the Lords Anointed, drew in (against their Allegiance also) many, and many thousands of the People into that Rebellion and bloody War; and when through thy just judgment upon the three Kingdoms for former sins, those Perjured Rebellious Men had very far prevailed, and imbrued their Hands not only in the common blood of their fellow Subjects, but also in the sacred blood of their Sovereign, and driven all the Royal Family into Foreign parts; the dayly practice was making and taking new Oaths, and imposing them upon the People, and then both breaking them themselves, and compelling others to break them. — O God! ☜ how many Rebellious Oaths were there framed contrary to that one rightful Oath of Allegiance, every of which later Oaths were direct and solemn Perjury.
[Page 100]The dreadful effects of that Rebellion, and those Perjuries we now see: and we have all reason to fear the guilt of them will not cease operating to further vengeance upon the Nations, for that there are still left therein Men of like wicked Principles.
But O God! when thou makest inquisition for blood, shut not up the innocent with the guilty. The Established Church thou knowest all along abhorred, and withstood unanimously as one Man, those false, Treasonable and bloody practices, and chose the utmost sufferings rather than joyn therein, or in the least comply therewith.
Notwithstanding we acknowledge the multitude of the Offenders was so great, that both the Rebellion, and the Perjuries may affect the whole Body of the Nation. For if thou wilt by no means hold them guiltless, who take thy name in vain, what may we all expect?
SECT. XXX.
Mr. Wake, Serm. at Paris, Jan. 30. 1684/5. p. 3. Speaking of the Murder of Charles the Marty [...]; ‘Had an Infidel Nation risen up against him, or the chance of War cut him off, — we should soon have turned our sorrow into joy. — But that we, who were obliged by all the tyes of God and Men to obey him, should destroy that life, for which we ought not to have refused any hazard of our own: that we, who were certainly his Subjects, and pretend to be Christians too, should violate all the Rights of Majesty, trample under feet all the Laws of the Gospel, — this raises those Clouds, that obscure so bright a Day. P. 10. — Long had the Trumpet been blown to War, and to Rebellion, the Church become Militant, and our Pulpits instead of setting forth the Gospel of Peace, spoke nothing but Wars, and Seditions, and Tumults to the People. Is there any one among us, that by the malignity of his Nature, the desperateness of his Fortunes, or a misguided Zeal, hath been actually concerned in this guilt? P. 17, 18. — Is there any one now present, who though unconcerned in that black Parricide, is yet involved in any of those Principles that lead to it, ☞ hath assisted, approved, or encouraged those new Rebels, the Progeny of the same Old Cause, that have again so lately endeavoured to Crown the Son with the like Glory their Ancestors did the Father, — let me beseech them, either to sanctifie the Fast [Page 101]with us, or not to join in the Celebration. — A Crime, Pag. 22. which I should doubt, had exceeded the Power of any Repentance to expiate, had not the Apostles left us an Example, by exhorting the Jews to labor for a Forgiveness, Pag. 29. even of their crucifying the Lord of Glory. — Was there ever Villany like this, that a Christian Kingdom should break through all those Bonds of Duty and Obedience, which the more righteous Heathens have reverenced as sacred and inviolable; ☜ that so many Oaths and Vows repeated with that frequency, taken with that solemnity, should all be insufficient to preserve our Fidelity; that Religion and Reformation, two things, than which none can be more excellent in themselves, nor are any more easily, and more dangerously abused, should be able to cheat us into wickedness, which the barbarous Scythians never heard of.’
‘The Peace and Liberty which we enjoy, Pag. 88. The Close. we do not ascribe to their (i. e. the Papists) Civility: it is God's Providence and our Sovereign's Bounty, whom the Church of England has ever so Loyally served: whose Rights she asserted in the worst of times, When, to use our Author's own words, Perjury and Faction for this very cause, loaded her with all the Injuries Hell it self could invent. But we gloried to suffer for our Duty to him then, ☜ and shall not fail, should there ever be occasion to do it again. And we have this Testimony from our King, which no time nor malice shall be able to obliterate: That the Church of England is by Principle a Friend to Monarchy; and I think cannot be charged to have ever been defective in any thing that might serve to strengthen and support it.’
And in the Tract.
‘It is said in the Gospel, Pag. 72. that Michael the Archangel disputing with the Devil, would not bring any railing Accusation against him, but was content to say to him only, The Lord rebuke thee. Because he looked upon God, as him to whom Judgment and Vengeance belonged, and yet we see that the Sons of Adam are bold and desperate enough, not only to condemn, but to destroy Dignities, which they ought to reverence, and to ruin them together with whole States, as their fancy leads them.’
Agreeable to what Dr. Dr. Beveridge's Serm concerning the Excellency and Usefulness of the Common Prayer. Nov. 27. 1681. Pag. 34. l Beveridge hath upon the like occasion.
‘What our grand Adversary had done before by the Papists, he afterwards brought about again by other means in the Reign of King Charles the First. For by what kind of Spirit the Common Prayer was then cast out, you all know, and some of you found by woful experience. All that I shall say of it is only this, That the same Spirit that then stirred up them so violently against the Common Prayer, stirred them up at the same time to rebel against their King—contrary to all Law and Justice. — And whether that was the Spirit of Christ or Antichrist, God or the Devil, judge you.’
Dr. Ironside. Serm. at Court, Nov. 23. on 1 Pet. 4.15.—p. 1, 6. P. 8, 9. ‘S. Peter gives this Injunction as an Apostle, not as a Statesman. — Of all Principles, Obedience to Magistrates (the great Eye-sore) and the Execution of Justice (the Support of the World) will be always necessary to be taught, and pressed upon the Conscience: — We are forbidden all kind of Revenge, when others injure us in our Names, Goods or Persons. This was the Doctrine of our Saviour, and this was the Practice of our Saviour. — Revenge is God's, and he executes it. 1. Immediately by himself, and that sometime; in this World, always in the next. 2. Mediately by the Power deputed to Men, and the Magistrates are called Gods in that respect. pag. 21. — Suffer we must for Truth, not defend, or propagate it by violence, and in this agree the Harmony of Confessions in all Reformed Churches, whatsoever some turbulent Spirits of Scotland have written to the contrary. pag. 27. — Inferiors have no Right to meddle with Superiors at all, unless it be to defend, and obey; nothing else, no not so much as to counsel, unless called to it, much less to reprove sawcily, pag. 32. or contumeliously to expose, &c. — It is very observable, how particular the Apostles are in laying out the respective Duties of Inferiors (Obedience in this World is the great thing) the Sins of Superiors are remitted to the other World, ☞ and then great Men shall be greatly tormented. p. 35, 36, 37, 38. — The Acts of the Apostles, and the Life and Death of Christ are perfect submission to the Imperial Laws. — It is therefore a true and wise saying, ☞ Sedition is worse than Murther: and it is pity the Saying is found so often in the Alcoran, and so seldom to be met with in the Practice of Christians. — There be three sins in the New Testament, which are threatened with signal Judgments in this Life. 1. The first is doing evil that good may come thereof, such men's [Page 103]damnation, saith the Apostle, is just. 2. Profaning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 3. Profaning the Supreme Powers, they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. That is, these three sins make men liable, not only to the Divine Wrath hereafter (for so all sins without repentance expose to damnation) but usually they are also attended with signal Judgments in this life — and so let it be upon all the Troublers of the Earth, that our Kings may be at rest, and that we may lead a quiet life in all Godliness and Honesty.’
SECT. XXXI.
Dr. Isaac Barrow: Vol. 1. Serm. 10. p. 135. ‘Are Princes bad, or do they misdemean themselves in their Administration of Government, or Justice? We may not by any violent or rough way attempt to reclaim them, for they are not accountable to us, or liable to our Correction. — Do they oppress us, or abuse us; do they treat us harshly, or cruelly persecute us? We must not kick against them, nor strive to right our selves by resistance— We must not so much as rail, or inveigh against them, we must not be bold, or free in taxing their Actions, we must forbear even complaining and murmuring against them, ☜ we must not so much as curse them in our thoughts. To do these things is flat impiety against God, and an invasion of his Authority, who is the King of Kings, and hath reserved to himself the prerogative of judging, of rebuking, of punishing Kings, when he findeth Cause. These were the Misdemeanors of those in the late times — discovering therein great profaneness of mind, and distrust of God's Providence; as if God being implored by Prayer could not, or would not, had it been needful, without such irregular Courses have redressed those Evils in Church or State, which they pretended to feel, or fear. Pag. 136. — In the primitive times prayers and tears were the only Arms of the Church, whereby they long defended it from ruin, and at last advanced it to a most glorious prosperity.’
So Dr. Cave: Primitive Christian. part. 3. ch. 4. p. 321. ‘There is scarce any particular instance, wherein the primitive Christianity did more triumph in the World, than in their exemplary Obedience to the Powers and Magistrates under which they lived, honoring their persons, revering their power, paying their Tribute, obeying their Laws, wherein they were not evidently contrary to the Laws of Christ; and when [Page 104]they were, submitting to the most cruel Penalties they laid upon them with the greatest calmness and serenity of Soul, Pag. 329, 330. &c. — They were not patient for want of Power, and because they knew not how to help it — Julian's Army, which was almost wholly made up of Christians, ☞ withstood him only with prayers and tears, accounting this (saith S. Greg. Naz.) to be the only Remedy against Persecution. Pag. 351. I verily believe, that had the Primitive Christians been no better Subjects than their Emperors were Princes, had they practised on them those bloody Artifices, which have been common among those that call themselves the only Catholicks, that barbarous Dealing would have been a greater Curb to the flourishing of the Gospel, ☞ than all the ten Persecutions; for how could an impartial Heathen ever have believed their Doctrine to have been of God, had their Actions been so contrary to all the Precepts of Natural Divinity.’
And in this matter does the Learned Dr. Dr. Dove's Serm. before the Sons of the Clergy. 1687. Dove vindicate the Integrity of our Church in a few, but as significant Words as any of his Brethren, when speaking of some who suffered much for their Constancy to the Faith, and their Fidelity to the Crown, he terms them, Two inseparable Notes of a genuine Son of the Church of England.
Dr. Puller: Moderat. of the Ch. of Engl. ch. 12. § 5.Other Sects deny the King's Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastical, either claiming a Power of Jurisdiction over him, or pleading a Privilege of Exemption from under him, where as the Clergy of the Church of England, like good Christians, and good Subjects, neither pretend to any Jurisdiction over the Kings of England, nor withdraw their Subjection from them. Sect. 6, 7.And then he vindicates that Expression of Can. 1. of the Synod 1640. That the Order of Kings is most high and sacred. — The Moderation of our Church doth not favour any Doctrines, or Practices which are prejudicial to the safety of human Society in general — It doth no where pretend to remit the Divine Laws, or dispense with Oaths, or transfer the Rights of Kingdoms, &c. — Contrariwise it requires of all of its Communion to give the King such Security of their Allegeance and Fealty, as may be a sufficient Security to his Government. — Chap. 17. The Romanists and Separatists extremely agree in their Principles against the Civil Magistrate, according to that of Bishop Lany, Bishop Lany's Serm. on 1 Thess. 4.11. The Papists and Presbyterians hunt in Couples against the King's Power and Supremacy. It is admirable to see how the Commonwealths Men in the times of the late Rebellion received their Principles from the ancient and modern Writers of the [Page 105]Jesuits, and other Papists, and still agree with them in most of the Republican Doctrines, and Tendencies of them to the like Practices.— Both deny the Supremacy of the King; one attributes it to the Pope originally, the other to the People; and the same Arguments, which the Pope useth for his Supremacy over Kings, the Disciplinarians use for establishing their Sovereignty. The Pretence of the King's Authority against his Person was hatch'd under the Roman Territories, and was made use of in the Holy League of France. The Rules for making a King to be a Tyrant, and then ceasing to be a King; that it may be lawful to attempt any thing against his Person and Life, are so much the same, §. 20.that they cannot be more. — I need not here relate, how many Doctrines of the Romanists tend to dissolve the very Bonds of relative Duty one towards another,— absolving People from their Oaths and Allegiance, No Faith to be kept with Hereticks, &c. How do many Principles of our Enthusiasts and Separatists tend to destroy the Relations of King and Subject, Bishop and People, &c.
SECT. XXXII.
Dr. Scott. Serm. July 26. 1685. p. 2. P. 13, 14. ‘Absalom accomplish'd his design, partly by declaiming against the Maleadministrations of his Father's Government, partly by promising them a thorough Reformation, if ever he arrived to be a Judge in Israel. — Every Man knows, or might easily know, if he were not extremely wanting to himself, that his King is the Vicegerent of his God, and that being so, he is indispensibly obliged by all the ties of Reason and Religion to submit to his Will, and reverence his Person, and bow to his Authority, and that he cannot lift up his hand against him without fighting against God himself; the Truth of which is as obvious to our natural Reason, and as plainly asserted in holy Scripture, as of any Proposition in Religion: ☜ so that I dare boldly affirm, a Man may find as many Pretexts for any Vice whatsoever, even for Drunkenness, Whoredom, or Perjury, as ever were made for Rebellion; and were I to set up for a publick Patron of Wickedness, I hardly know a Villany in nature so black and monstrous, which I could not more plausibly recommend to Mens Reason and Consciences, than this of Resistance against lawful Authority; which is such a complication of Villanies, such a loathsome mixture of hellish Ingredients, as is enough to nauseate any Conscience but a Devil's. And tho Conscience [Page 106]and Religion are the Colors it usually marches under, yet is the imposture of this Pretence so fulsome and bare-fac'd, that no Man in his Wits can be innocently abused by it; for certainly that Man must have a great mind to rebel, his Will must have a strong Byass of Pride, or Discontent, Faction, or Ambition in it, that in despite of all the evidence from Reason and Scripture to the contrary, can persuade himself that it is lawful for him, and much less, P. 15, 16. that it is his duty, to lift up his hand against his Sovereign. And therefore for Men to appeal to God in a Cause so apparently wicked, is not submissively to refer themselves to him, but openly to mock and affront him, and to make a vexatious Appeal to God's Judgment again in a Case which he hath so often and so expresly judged already, is a common Barretry; 'tis not to consult, but to tempt him, and under pretence of submitting to his determinations, openly to defie his Authority; in effect, it is to appeal from his Will to his Providence, and to bespeak him to declare himself against his own Declarations.— In the case of Rebellion there is not only a peremptory Disobedience to those Laws of God which require our dutiful Submission to our lawful Superiors, ☞ but also a direct Renuntiation of the divine Authority it self; for all Sovereign Power is immediately founded in the Dominion of God, who being the supreme Lord of the World, no person can have right to govern in his Kingdom under him, but by Commission from him. Kings therefore are only accountable to him; P. 17.18. and if so, then for any of their Subjects to presume to call them to account by a publick form'd resistance, is to arraign God's own Authority, and invade his peculiar; it is to thrust him out of his Throne, and set themselves down in it; and then to summon his Authority before them, and require it to submit its awful Head to their imperious doom and sentence. While therefore we behave our selves factiously and rebelliously towards those whom God hath set over us, we live as Out-laws in the Kingdom of God, without any respect to that visible Authority by which he governs the World: and if this be so, then for Subjects to rebel against their Prince, is neither better nor worse than to appeal to God against his own Authority, and to put this impious Case to him, Whether it be he or they that have the Right of Governing the World.’
‘I profess, Id. Serm. on Prov. xxiv. 21. Ep. ded. P. 17, 19, 20, &c. with the same sincerity as I would confess my Soul to God, that my design in this Discourse was only to promote the Peace and Happiness of Men. — These are the ways of knowing Men when they are given to change: 1. When Men who have actually chang'd the Government already, begin to readvance their old Methods and Principles, it's a certain sign they are given to change. 2. When Men make that a pretence for publick Clamor and Bustle, which themselves have little or no claim to, or regard for, that is, Religion; it's a certain sign they are given to change. 3. When Men pretend Religion or publick Reformation, but pursue it by sinful and indirect means, it's a certain sign, &c. Now Religion is as great an Enemy to Lying and Rebellion, as it is to Popery. 4. When under pretext of reforming the Government, ☜ Men reproach and vilifie the Persons of their Governors. 5. When Men shift their Principles with their Interests, and to serve a turn can comply at one time with that which they condemn at another. Tho in following our Principles we may sometimes indanger our worldly Interest, and fall under the disgrace of a Rabble and the Persecutions of a prevailing Faction, yet our very Enemies will be forc'd to revere and honor us, to acknowledge that we are constant, and brave, and honest, and resign'd to our own Principles. 6. and lastly, When Men, who in the ordinary course of their Conversation are proud and quarrelsome, and impatient of Contradiction, set up Pretences of Religion against the Government. Id. Serm. on Rom. xiii. 1. p. 25, 26. Consider, that upon our faithful Subjection to our Prince, the safety of our Religion depends; for there is nothing in the World can more indanger our Religion, than our making it a pretence for Rebellion; for hereby we inevitably expose it to the hatred of Princes, and do what lies in us to arm their Power against it. Id. Artillery Serm. p. 31. If you be courageous from a Principle of Righteousness, you will honor the King as well as fear God, and obey his Ordinances for God's sake; you will never conduct a rebellious design under the sacred Banner of Religion, nor pretend Loyalty to God to cover your Disloyalty to his Vicegerent; you will never press the Scriptures to fight against the King, Pag. 32. nor arm his political against his personal Capacity, nor assume his Authority to cut off his Head; nor on the other hand will you ever allow him to be unking'd by the sentence of a domineering Prelate, &c. In a word, you will never confront those loyal Admonitions of [Page 108]S. Peter and S. Paul, with the treasonous Canons of the Councils of the Ungodly, nor levy Arms against your Prince upon that counterfeit Commission of his being pronounc'd a Heretick by a Congregation of Impostors — who would fain fetch Pretences for their Treasons and Rebellions from the most loyal and peaceable Religion that ever was.’
The ADDRESS of the University of Cambridge, presented by Dr. Gower then Vicechancellor, Sept. 18. 1681. to the King at Newmarket.
WE your Majesties most faithful and obedient Subjects of the University of Cambridge, have long, with the greatest and sincerest joy, beheld what we hope is in some measure the effect of our own Prayers, the generous Emulation of our Fellow Subjects, contending who should first and best express their Duty and Gratitude to their Sovereign; at this time especially, when the seditious Endeavours of unreasonable Men have made it necessary to assert the ancient Loyalty of the English Nation, and make the World sensible that we do not degenerate from those prime Glories of our Ancestors, Love and Allegiance to our Prince.
That we were not seen in those loyal Crowds, but chose rather to stand by and applaud their honest and religious Zeal, we humbly presume will not be imputed to the want of it in our selves, either by your Majesty or your People: for, Sir, it is (at present) the great honor of this your University, not only to be stedfast and constant in our Duty, but to be eminently so, and to suffer for it, as much as the Calumnies and Reproaches of factious and malicious Men can inflict upon us: And that they have been hitherto able to do no more than vent the venom of their Tongues; that they have not proceeded to Plunder and Sequestration, to violate our Chappels, rifle our Libraries, and empty our Colleges, as once they did, next to the over-ruling Providence of Almighty God, is only due to the Royal Care and Prudence of your most sacred Majesty, who gave so seasonable a check to the arbitrary and insolent Undertakings.
But no earthly Power, we hope, no Menaces or Misery, shall ever be able to make us renounce or forget our Duty. We will still believe and maintain, That our Kings derive not their Titles from the People, but from God; that to him only they are accountable; that it belongs not to Subjects, either to create or censure, but to honor and obey their Sovereign, who comes to be so by a fundamental hereditary Right of [Page 109]Succession, which no Religion, no Law, no Fault or Forfeiture can alter or diminish.
Nor will we ever abate of our well-instructed Zeal for our most holy Religion, as it is professed and established by Law in the Church of England; that Church which hath so long stood, and still is the envy and terror of her Adversaries, as well as the beauty and strength of the Reformation.
It is thus, Dread Sir, that we have learned our own, and thus we teach others their Duty to God and the King: in the conscientious discharge of both which we have been so long protected and encouraged by your Majesties most just and gracious Government, that we neither need nor desire any other Declaration than that Experience, for our assurance and security for the future.
In all which Grace and Goodness, Great Sir, we have nothing to return; we bring no Names and Seals, no Lives and Fortunes, well capable of your Majesties Service, or at all worthy of your Acceptance; nothing but Hearts and Prayers, Vows of a zealous and lasting Loyalty; Our Selves and Studies, all that we can or ever shall be able to perform, which we here most sincerely promise and most humbly tender at your Majesties feet, a mean and worthless Present; but such a one as we hope will not be disdained by the most gracious and indulgent Prince that Heaven ever bestowed upon a People.
SECT. XXXIII.
Dr. Grove. Short def. of the Church and Clerg. of Engl. p. 81. p. 84. ‘This is the main occasion for which so many of the Conformists are clamor'd against; they are presently branded for medling with matters of State, if they do but teach their Hearers to be obedient to Magistrates, and are not furnish'd with Jesuitical Distinctions to shew in what Cases it may be lawful to take up Arms against the King.—They are not enamour'd with every fine Project that may be set on foot, neither do they admire those for the wisest of all that think themselves excellent at new modelling of States.—They suppose the King's Title may be good enough, tho they do not know exactly how many Acres of Land may be held sufficient to confer a Right to the Sovereign Power. They understand very well, that there will be some casual Miscarriages in the administration of all humane Affairs, but they esteem it more becoming wise and good Christians to bear with those we are acquainted with, than to hazard the infinite [Page 110]mischiefs and inconveniences of a change, which it is impossible either to foresee or prevent: and therefore among the great Uncertainties and Vicissitudes of these earthly Concerns, they are verily persuaded, that our common Safety will be best preserved by a pious dependance upon the divine Providence, which they are not ashamed to own, tho they should be laugh'd at for it by a few conceited scoffing Politicians.’
Mr. Hesketh. Serm. on Jan. 30. bef. Lord Mayor 167 [...]/ [...]. p. 10. Cons. also his Serm. on 1 Pet. 2.15. p. 10, 11, &c. An. 1684. P. 13, 14. ‘Subjects are as equally obliged to assist their Kings in all straights and dangers, as not to resist, or rise up against them to bring them into the same, and their failure in the first is as criminal as their doing the second, and only differs from it as the Cause from the Effect; for therefore some Men are encouraged to attempt the latter, because others are negligent and failing in the former. — Some Men are apt to claim the honor of Loyalty, if they do not actually resist their King, as others, that venture their Lives and Fortunes to assist and vindicate them against those that do resist them.— But how pernicious this is to the Safety of Kings, and how contrary to the true notion of Loyalty, will soon be made appear.— All Nations have ever held the Persons of Kings to be sacred— and he that considers those Oaths, that Subjects bind themselves in to Princes, will clearly see, that thereby they are obliged, not only not to do violence to them themselves, but to do all that in them lies, that others also may not do it.—And when Duty is tied on men by Oaths, there to fail in it is not only common guilt, P. 17. but died with a Perjury.—Tho much may be said for David's being actually in Arms against Saul, considering some Circumstances, yet considering the whole matter, we may safely pronounce of it, that it was certainly unjustifiable; for there were safer ways of avoiding the Displeasure and Anger of Saul, than by raisng an Army of Out-laws and vicious Persons, and appearing in actual Rebellion against him. — But if none of this were true, yet the least Evil that can be said, is, that he yielded not that Assistance unto Saul which he might have done, and by which possibly he might have averted Saul's sad Fate, &c. P. 22. I think it neither difficult nor injurious—to shew the Doctrines of the late Usurpers to be but the Transcripts of what the later Jews do fabulously report of the Power of their Sanhedrim over Kings. P. 22. ☞ P. 35.37.—The Parricide of Charles I. was committed by Men who must first offer Violence to their own Consciences, chase all remains [Page 111]of Justice and Compassion out of their own Breasts, before they could do this Murther, and cease wholly to be Men, that they might commence Devils: for truly I do not know how they can expect a better Name, whom no ties of Laws, no Bands of Conscience, no Obligations of Oaths can hold.—Were our Religion chargeable with this Fact, there needed no other thing to be pleaded against it; this alone could bar all its pretences of being a Christian for ever: for it is most certain, the Religion of the Blessed Jesus can be chargeable with no such thing; nay it is most obvious, that it takes all possible care to prevent them, that it secures Subjection and chearful Obedience to Kings by the strongest ties possible, and makes it impossible for a true Christian to become Rebel upon any pretence whatsoever. Whatever Religion doth contrary to this, P. 37, 38. is by that only Argument detected to be perfectly Antichristian. — I could easily make manifest how very unsafe all of them make the condition of things, and upon what weak and slippery grounds they found Subjection to them. It is the honor of the Church of England, that her Doctrines in this case are truly Christian and Primitive.—And it is certain when she fails to be so (i. e. loyal) she ceases to be, degenerates from her self, and doth justly forfeit their (i. e. Prince's) Protection.’
Dr. Freeman. Sermon before L. Mayor, 1682. on Psalm 34.12, 13, 14. P. 8. ‘He that makes his Prince to be undervalued and despised, raises a Rebellion against him in mens breasts, beats him out of his Subjects hearts, and fights him out of their Affections; and having once dispossess'd him of this his strongest Hold, 'twill be no hard matter to strip him of all his other Garrisons; neither his Person nor his Government can hope to be long in safety, when once they have wounded his Honour, and put his Reputation to flight; but in the Name of God! What do people of this temper propose to themselves? Do they think that their Governours are not Men of passion and infirmities as well as others? Do they not know, that the Employments they are engaged in are so infinitely various and difficult, that they are scarce capable to be managed with that evenness and exactness, as may exclude all inconveniences? And is it not certain, that how ill soever the administration of publick Affairs may at any time be under lawful Governours, 'tis yet far more tolerable, than even the reformation of an usurping Populacy?’
Dr. Littleton's Sermon at a Solemn meeting of the Natives of the City and County of Worcester. p. 17.
Blessed Jesu! — This Evangelium Armatum, this Sanguinary Doctrine, was no Gospel of thy making, no Doctrine of thy teaching. Thy Doctrine was sealed with no bloud but that of thy own, who wast the teacher of it, and that of thy Apostles and Martyrs, who were the propagators of it; and though thou said'st thou camest not to send peace, but a Sword; yet that Sword was not designed to fight with, but to suffer by; it was a Sword of a passive, not of an active persecution as to thy Disciples, by which they were to fall victims themselves, and not to sacrifice the lives of others. And p. 18. May God ever preserve his gracious Majesty and Us the sinful People of this Land from such villanous Attempts of his and our Enemies — I am heartily sorry, that any who delight to wear the name of Protestants — should give a just occasion for such a Charge.
D. Morrice, Chaplain to his Grace the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his Sermon on the 30. of Jan. 1682.
The English Nation had been long held in singular Reputation; P. 24.for good Natur'd and Loyal Courage, and not onely the neighbouring Nations, but the more remote parts of the Earth have been witnesses of their Dutiful Affection to their Kings. — And p. 30. speaking of the Authors of that days wickedness, saith, Doubtless we have great reason to own the kindness of their Separation. They went out from Us, and would not be of Us; because our Doctrine was too Loyal and Passive for Men of so fiery Temper; and the greatest Tyranny they found in our Religion, was the Restraint that it laid on the Conscience of Men from resisting against the Higher Powers, &c. Pag. 33.— He who has no due Conscience of his Duty to his Prince, and obeys not for Gods sake, but his own, is a Servant but during his own pleasure or Advantage.— Now let us learn the Necessity of joyning Religion to Loyalty, to Fear God and the King together. It is the same Power that is to be Reverenc'd in both, they cannot be separated, but to the manifest disadvantage of all humane Authority. — Learn to detect all the plausible beginnings and Witchcrafts of Rebellion, and confirm our selves with stedfast Resolutions of perpetual Obedience to our Sovereign.
Dr. Lake's Sermon before the Lord Mayor, &c. Jan. 30. 1684.
Tells us, It was a usual saying among the Rabbies, that no one can judge the King but he who is over all, God blessed for ever; and p. 22. [Page 113]— The Reformed Religion of our Church, gives no Rules, prefers no Examples, but what are obedient and Loyal ones. If any will convince our Church as accessary to any others, let them impeach our authentick Constitutions, her Doctrine, Worship or Discipline. Her Doctrine is contained in the 39 Articles, and Book of Homilies, which are of Age, and can speak for themselves. p. 22.— What our Articles do more concisely speak, the Homilies do more fully teach;— With an exact agreement to this Doctrine, is her Liturgy compos'd. p. 23.— Nor has the practice of the Children of this Church, ever run Counter to those excellent Rules.— And speaking concerning the villany of that day, He adds, Shall we Curse, shall we detest the Men who acted or encouraged this Murther? No, p. 24. — But we will execrate those damnable Positions which gave occasion to it; those Positions which fix the Government in the people, and transfer to them a power to Curb, to Correct, to depose their Princes. You bloudy, you Antichristian, you Hellish Doctrines, let there be no more Dew nor Rain upon you! let them not be diffus'd, nor propagate any farther, but wither and die. p. 29.— What remains, but that we ever detest and accurse their villanous suggestions, beware of the Witchcraft of Rebellion, and not suffer our selves to be again charm'd and trick'd out of our Loyalty.
Mr. Lynford. Sermon 1679. bef. L. Mayor on 2 Chr. 20.17. p. 12, 13. &c. ‘Our great mistake is, that we dote too much upon these present Enjoyments, and are too fond of the things of this World, by which means it comes to pass that we stretch the Principle of preservation too far, and are often apt to conclude, that whatsoever seems fit and proper to work our present security, this we may lawfully and with a safe Conscience do. Now although our present danger may seem great enough, altho Life, Fortune, Religion, all should appear to be at stake, and we can imagine within our selves, that if such and such courses were made use of, we might escape. Yet that we ought nevertheless to stand still and make use of no means but such as are honest and lawful, I shall endeavour to evince from these following Considerations. First, Consider, that by doing any unlawful action we deprive our selves of God's care and protection, &c. 2. Nothing can bring a greater scandal upon the Religion we profess, than for us to do any thing which is unlawful, although it be for our own preservation. All Sects and Parties do in all their undertakings pretend Piety, &c.— But our Saviour hath given us a Caution not to judg of Men by their pretences, but by their actions &c. — Wheresoever therefore we observe Men to [Page 114]be covetous, and full of ambition, to allow Superstition and Idolatry, to be Factors for Schism and Rebellion, &c. Let them talk as much as they please of the Glory of God, by their Fruits we know them, they are ravenous Wolves in Sheeps cloathing, &c. — We see how the Papists have misrepresented all our Actions, — And therefore nothing could be a greater gratification to them at this time, than to see us act any thing, which is either contrary to that duty which we owe to God, or that Allegiance which is due to our Soyereign: what pleasure would they reap from an Insurrection, Pag. 17. or popular Tumults, &c. — In vain do we call our selves Protestants, if we live otherwise than becomes true Christians, neither shall we be ever able to excuse our selves either to God or Man, if to keep out Popery we are not afraid wilfully to commit any sin, or wickedness: such a way of proceeding, as it would on the one Hand confirm the Proselytes of Popery, and hinder them from renouncing their gross absurdities, so would it on the other Hand harden the Atheist in his loose, and debaucht Principles, who with more boldneses than formerly would assert, that Religion was a trick of State, since the most Zealous Professors of it took so little care to observe its Precepts, and that Heaven, and the pleasures of another World were only Fable and Romance, since they who talk'd so much of them (whether Papists or Protestants) had nevertheless such a tender regard to the comforts of this life, and so kind a respect to their present Estates, and Fortunes, that for the preservation of these later, they did not scruple venturing the forfeiture of the former. — If therefore we have any kindness for that Religion we profess, if we would not make the name of Protestants as despicable as that of Papists, &c. Let us keep within those bounds of Duty which are set us, and although our condition may appear desperate, ☞ let us resolve not to uphold it by any other means than what are allowed by God himself: his glory will be sooner advanced, and true Religion better propagated by suffering wrong, than doing wickedly. And therefore it was the constant practice of the Primitive Christians to submit to the most cruel Tortures, rather than by any unwarrantable action strive to avoid them: neither were there any more severely censured among them, than such who at any time for fear of Persecution warpt from their Duty, by tamely complying with any Heathenish Custom. Nothing being more scandalous, than for Religious [Page 115]Professors to be guilty of such practices, as are most manifestly repugnant to their own Principles. 3. Consider, that to do evil, though for our own preservation, instead of procuring our peace, and settlement, would be most likely to unsettle, and ruin us; for having once broken down the fences of Duty, which are placed about us, who can tell where we shall stop or abide? Having allowed our selves the liberty of doing one sinful action, we may easily be prompted on to commit a thousand; for the same pretences will justifie all sins alike, and if for the sake of Religion a Tumult may lawfully be raised, a Rebellion also may be promoted, &c.’
SECT. XXXIV.
Mr. Long is so well known for his Zeal in this good Cause, to all that have seen his answer to Johnson and Hunt, his no Protestant, but a Dissenters Plot, and other such Treatises, that it is wondered, that of late he should own himself the Author of the Solution of the Popular Objections, &c. In which he musters up for unanswerable Arguments the very same Objections of Julian, (of Persecuting according to, and against Law, &c.) which himself had formerly so luckily both answered, and exploded. But he tells us, that St. Austin wrote his Retractations, in which he corrected his errors: and he might have told the World too, that Bellarmine wrote his Recognitions, in which he multiplies, and confirms his Heterodoxies. I shall therefore briefly represent his former Judgment, out of one of his Printed Sermons. On Sept. 9. 1683. p. 13. Rebels should shew so much of ingenuity, and serious Penitence, as the Sorcerers did Act. xix. 19. Who burnt their Books, — for I dare aver, that there are more Arguments for Resisting of Lawful Princes, which they cannot but know is threatned with damnation, Rom. xiii. 2. in the Books of some, who term themselves true Protestants, than are in all those, which are written by such as they justly condemn for Idolatrous, and Trayterous Papists. P. 19.What greater encouragement can be given Men pretending to Religion and Conscience, than when their Guides, ☜to whom they have committed the Conduct of their Souls, shall Prophesie lyes in the name of God, and urge them to Rebellion by Scripture, and Examples. — They are like them in the Gospel, whom no Bonds, or Chains could restrain from practising the mischief they had imagined. No Obligation of Laws, of Conscience, of Fear, or Favour, no Oaths or Promises [Page 116]could hold them, but they mock God himself, that they may the more unsuspectedly destroy his Vicegerent.Pag. 22.— If the Principles allowed of in any Community of Men, ☞do countenance the Resisting, Deposing, and Mur hering of Princes, be it on pretence of Heresie, or Tyranny, or for the good of the Kirk, reforming Abuses, or redressing Grievances, though there be but a few Actors, yet all are Criminals. When Absalom was Sacrificing at Hebron, P. 25, 26. the Conspiracy was strengthned, saith the Text. — It seems, that Absalom had his Levites, — and these were they that strengthned the Rebellion. By him the People were instructed in their great Priviledges, and Power, that there is Idolatry, and Superstition in the Church; Oppression and Tyranny in the State: that they ought to shake off these Yoaks of Bondage, and vindicate themselves into the glorious liberty of the Sons and Daughters of God.P. 27, 28.One tells the People, That they are the Original of Authority. ☞ —That it is not against Scripture, or the practice of the Primitive Christians, violently to resist the Higher Powers, when they Persecute them for Religion, and when the Prince commands against the Laws of the Country; that Success justifies a good Cause, and to pursue it is to comply with the Will of God, and the Conduct of Providence. Ʋnder such Doctrines as these the Presses have sweat, the Church hath groaned, the Peoples souls been led Captive in Chains of darkness, and under these this horrid Conspiracy hath been hatched. The Devil himself, when he appeared in the Mantle of Samuel never did, nor could teach Saul more pernicious Doctrine than this. — Philostratus saith, that the murther of Domitian was more owing to the Doctrine of Appollonius, than the Hands of Stephanus, and Parthenius, who slew him.—
Dr. Fowler. Design of Christianity, chap. 16. ‘The most calm, meek, peaceable, gentle, and submissive temper recommended in the Gospel, did mightily declare it self in the Primitive Christians, that though they were for the most part sorely Persecuted, yet (saith Tertull) there was never any uproar, or hurlyburly among them, nor was this owing to necessity, as is plain from Tertullian, and the History of the Thebaean Legion. Chap. 24. p. 346. — It is the most strange, and unaccountable thing, for Men in defence or favour of that way of Religion, which they take to be most truly the Christian, to do that which is essentially, and in its own nature evil; for these things are quite contrary to the design of Christian Religion. Pag. 248, 249. — What Villanies are there, which the Pope and his Proselytes have stuck at committing for the propagation of their Religion? Such as [Page 117]exciting Subjects to take Arms against their lawful Sovereigns, to whom they are obliged in the Bonds of most solemn Oaths, &c. — I would I could say that of all that are called Christians, the Papists only are lyable to this charge: but alas! It is too manifest to be denyed, or yet dissembled, that not a few of those that profess enmity to Popery are sadly guilty, though not equally with the Papists in this particular.’
SECT. XXXV.
The Author of The Faith and Practice of a Church of England Man. ‘I pay all Men their dues, all Officers, Chap. 3. p. 63, 64. and Offices in Church and State, according to St. Paul's command, Rom. xiii. —I pay all Honor and Service to the King, as God's Vicegerent, and I cannot endure to hear him evil spoken of. P. 66.—I consider my self as to all the Capacities and Relations, that I am in the World, and endeavour to behave my self suitably to them—Which Duties are fully exprest in the excellent Book of the Whole Duty of Man,’ (and I am sure that excellent Book plainly asserts the Doctrine of Non-resistance) — ‘I look upon Government and Magistracy as one of the most sacred things in the World, Chap. 6. p. 137, 138, 139. 140. for it is of God's Appointment. — Of all kinds of Government I like Monarchy, which seems naturally to derive it self from paternal Authority. — And if there be any Right on Earth, surely Monarchy hath Right with us; and hath at least as good a Title to all its Powers, Rights, and Privileges, as any of its Subjects can have to their Honors, Properties, and Estates. The Monarchy of England being always esteemed as truly an hereditary and successive a Monarchy as any in the World, not liable to be disposed, alienated, or sold, nor depending on any Election, Choice, or Approbation of the People.— And according to this method our present King enjoys the Crown, who hath, as I believe, the truest and most ancient Right to his Crowns that any King in the known Parts of the World hath. P. 178. — Where Government in general (in Scripture) is establish'd, and Obedience to Governors injoin'd, it ought to be reckoned as spoken of our Governors and Government Ecclesiastical and Civil, as well as of any other in the World. Ch. 7. p. 198. — Whatever discouragement the Clergy of England have found, they still preach up and persuade Loyalty to the King, and by the Doctrine of Passive [Page 118]Obedience to temporal Authority keep People from Rebellion, notwithstanding they have so often been jeer'd and abused with it.’
Serm. 2. of the unlawfulness of resist. Ep. Ded. Mr. Payn. ‘I think it my duty, as a Minister of that Church and Religion which hath been often the Mark, but never the Author of any Treason, to publish these Sermons. — And that none may be so malicious as to think we calculate our Sermons merely for the present Circumstances, as if the Pulpit were but a kind of a Weather-glass, wherein the Doctrine of Obedience to Governors is higher or lower to the temperature or variation of outward Affairs, I have put out a plain Sermon without any Addition, that was preach'd long before the Plot, &c.—When the ancient Christians were persecuted, P. 7, 8, 9. they endured unheard of cruelties from their Governors, ☞ and this often, as they complain'd of in their Apologies, against Law too, — Such as would have stirred up those, who had power to defend themselves, had they not learnt such Principles from their Religion, as forbad it. — we are under the obligation of Oaths, though there have been some, who have forgot all Oaths, and could as easily unloose them as Sampson did his Withs, and then set themselves free from the Precepts, ☞ and Examples of Christ and his Apostles, by this colour and pretence, that the Government, under which they lived, was of another Nature, than ours in England, and that such is our Constitution, as makes all this impertinent, and of very little regard here. And by the same way might they not discharge Wives, and Children, and Servants, from those Duties the Gospel requires from each of them, because there was a great difference between the State and condition of those among the Jews, the Romans, and the Grecians formerly, and with us now. — And afterward he shews, Serm. 2. p. 22. That neither in the Case of Religion, nor of Legal Rights, nor in the case of Natural Defence, and the otherwise remediless case of Mankind by the encroachments of Princes,P. 27.it's any way lawful to take Arms. — And proves, that the Law of Nature, or of Self-preservation, does not allow of resistance, &c. And closes all with these good Prayers; God preserve Christianity from that reproach, P. 37. and blasphemy, which these wicked Men have brought upon it. God preserve the Protestant Religion from that advantage, which is hereby given to our Enemies to destroy it.’
J. Kettlewell's Measures of Christian Obedience.
Book 2. c. 4. ‘A Duty to Kings and Princes — being God's Vicegerents here on Earth—is a readiness and resolved industry to maintain and support them in their Persons and Government— not plotting and endeavouring our selves to give away their Lives and Kingdoms unto others, or consenting to them that do so —not submitting and subjecting our selves to them, but violently resisting and opposing them, is called by S. Paul resisting of Power, or standing up against it, Rom. 13.2. And this when it is made by great numbers, and goes on to extremities, when men are, as the Apostle there saith, set in array and posture of Defence against it, ☜ and ready by force of Arms to wage War with it, is Rebellion.’
Book 3. c. 6. ‘The first pretence whereby men justifie to their own thoughts the indulgent Transgression of several Laws—is because those Transgressions wherein they allow themselves are necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of themselves in those times of danger and persecution wherein God's Providence has placed them.’
Religion is in danger, and like to be undermined by the close and subtle Arts, or overborn by the more open and powerful violence of strong and witty Enemies. And this is God's Cause, and Christ our Lord and Saviour's Interest. So that whatever is done here, we think is in Service of our Maker. If we fight it is his Battels.—Some on one Hand that call us Hereticks—think no means sinful whereby they can weaken and divide. And others again even of our own selves, who justly abhor these damnable Instances of Disobedience, upon pretence of preserving or propagating Religion, in some furious and firy spirited sort of Papists (for God forbid, that we should think them all to be of this temper) do yet run into the same extravagance, which upon so great reason they condemn in them.
For if we look into our zeal for the common Religion of Protestants, we shall find, that we transgress many, and those most material and weighty Laws of it, whilst we express our affection and concern to defend and preserve it.
For doth not this pretence of preserving our Religion, carry us beyond all the Bounds of Peaceableness and good Subjection?
Yea, I add further, that these same Fears for our endangered Religion transport us into the Transgression of sundry weighty Laws, which oblige us towards our very Enemies, who have contrived to destroy us.
[Page 120]Thus full of Sin and Disobedience is this sanctified pretence. It is the Cover for every Offence, ☞ and the common shelter for all Transgressions; for we boggle not at an [...] sin so long as it tends to preserve us in the prosperous Profession of our endangered or oppressed Religion.
But if Men would consider calmly, and have patience to look beyond the surface and bare outsides of things, they would soon discern the vanity of this pretence, and how far it will be from excusing any such sinful and disobedient Practices, as they think to justifie and warrant by it.
For as for true and substantial Religion, for protection whereof they would be thought to venture upon all these Transgressions, it stands in no need of their help to preserve it in persecuting times, altho they should use innocent and just means, not such as are sinful and disobedient; it would live then without their care, and whether they went about by any politick means to preserve it or no. For Religion is not lost when Religious Men are persecuted; it doth not suffer when they do that profess it, seeing it is not one jot impaired when Men are buffeted and imprisoned, nay, when they bleed and die for it. ☞ Could the violence of Persecution have oppressed our Religion, it had been stifled in the Birth. For it entered in a persecuting Age, and yet was not over-born by the pressure of its Sufferings, but bravely overcame them. It begun, grew up, and conquered all the World in the very Heat of Affliction and Opposition; the more it was burdened, the more still it spread.
And indeed what should hinder Religion from thriving in evil Times? For the same Religious Duties which are practised with more ease in prosperous, are exercised also, but with greater honor in an afflicted state of things.
Nay, some of its more eminent Parts and noble Instances are not capable of being exercised at other times.
It is not Religion then, whatever Men may vainly pretend, that makes them run into the Breach of Laws, and Contempt of Duty, lest they should suffer in the profession of it. For God and Religion owe them no thanks for such a Course, because he is not honored, ☞ nor is strengthned and preserved but ruined and destroyed by it. But the true and real Cause of such Disobedience, whereof God and Religion are only the Color and false Pretence, is plainly a great want of Religion, and of the Love of God, and too great a love of the World, and of Mens own selves.
Mr. Pelling: Ser. on 30. Jan. 1683. on Rom. 13.2. p. 2, 3, 4. ‘Had not this Duty been a prime part of the Christian Religion, we cannot conceive, why such great care should have been taken to inform the whole World of it, especially in times which afforded not any common encouragement thereunto: Were it not a sad Truth, that some will believe no more of the Scripture, than will serve the present turn, we might wonder how it is possible for a Christian to be an undutiful Subject; so that it is not either ignorance that can excuse, or any allowable Principle of Christianity that can encourage Resistance; nor is it Zeal or Conscience that doth it, tho that hath been pretended, but it is either a haughty and unmanageable Spirit, or an hankering after Spoil, &c. that have been the true Causes of those Riots, which have been so vexatious, so fatal to Sovereign Princes. It being otherwise impossible, that Men, whose Consciences are so enlightened by God's own Word, should be so blind, wicked and fool-hardy as to rise up against their Prince at the manifest hazard of the greatest and most intolerable of all Evils, for that is the Rebel's portion, Damnation. — By Resistance is meant all undutiful, disobedient, and contumacious Behaviour, and in particular, all open, forcible, and violent Opposition, and by the Power is meant not only the Governor's Authority, but the Governor himself. Shall I take leave to give you a Paraphrase upon my Text. Why! ☜ you shall have it not out of any single Commentator, — But out of an honest Statute of this Realm, which makes S. Paul's Divinity to be Law too — The Act declares, That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, &c.’ After that he proceeds upon the common Topicks, that Power is God's Ordinance, &c. — and how reproachful Rebellion is to the Gospel, &c. Pag. 25. — ‘Usurping and pretending Powers Men may be forced sometimes to be subject unto upon pain of Plunder and Sequestration, but the Supreme Power, the King, is he whom we must not refist, upon pain of Damnation. — Such was the Authority of Claudius, Pag. 27. and such were his Ministers, ☜ that they would not allow Christians either the Exercise of their Religion, or the Liberty of their Native Countries, or the protection of their own Houses; Pag. 29.30, 31. and yet both Claudius and his deputies must be submitted to. — Obj. But when Religion is established by Law, then Resistance is not unlawful.’ Answ. 1. Religion was established among the Jews by the municipal Laws of that Country — ‘And yet tho several Kings introduc'd Idolatry among them, they did not resist; or if they [...] [Page 124]rational; and it is my Resolution—to part with all that this World calls dear, even Life it self, rather than ever own their (i. e. the Papists) novel Doctrines for true, or submit to their Usurpations, or communicate in their idolatrous Worship: but yet for all this, neither for the Preservation of this our most holy and excellent Religion profess'd here in England, nor for the keeping out of Popery it self (and then I have named the worst thing that I can) will I ever by the Grace of God go beyond the Duty of my Calling, and that Station divine Providence hath placed me in; nor will I ever lift up my finger, or open my mouth, against the Lord's Anointed, whatever his Religion be, whether he hath any or none, whether he be a Nero or a Constantine, whether he rules by Law or against it; we must not wish him evil, no not so much as in our secret Thoughts, whatever hard things we suffer from him; we must not affront, disturb, or oppose his Government, or resist his Authority; and if we have not opportunity of flying from such a Persecution (as I now suppose, because I would put the worst Case that can happen) or cannot by prudence decline it, I know no other remedy the Gospel allows us, but meek and patient Suffering for our Religion after the example of our blessed Lord and Master.—This is the plain loyal Doctrine of the Church of England, which her Ministers have always preach'd and defended both against Papists, and Fanaticks of all sorts, and for which such an Outcry and Clamor of late years hath been raised against the Clergy; and whenever we teach you otherwise, give me leave in God's Name to charge you all to forsake us, and despise us at as high a rate as our greatest Enemies can do; P. 31. nay, if an Angel from Heaven preach any other Doctrine, let him be accursed.— Zeal for the best and the greatest things in the World will not excuse private Mens taking upon themselves to reform publick Abuses either against or without the consent of the supreme Magistrate; nor will it hallow any Action, for which we have not sufficient Warrant and Authority from God's Word.—For conclusion of all, Would we engage God's favour and protection—let us at all times adhere close to our duty, as well when it is against our temporal Interest, as when it is for it; let us inviolably in all things observe the Commands of our Religion, not only propose good ends, but be as careful to choose lawful means.’
SECT. XXXVII.
I shall conclude this Chapter with the Doctrine of the Whole Duty of Man, which Book I look upon as a body of practical Divinity owned by our Church, and well spoken of even by our very Adversaries. Sund. 14. §. 5. ‘The Civil Parent is he whom God hath establish'd the supreme Magistrate, who by a just Right possesses the Throne in a Nation; this is the common Father of all those that are under his Authority; and therefore we owe him Honor and Reverence, &c. and Obedience (according to the Apostles, 1 Pet. ii. 13. Rom. xiii. 1.) and it is observable, that these Precepts were given at a time when those Powers were Heathens, and cruel Persecutors of Christianity, to shew us, ☜ That no pretence of the Wickedness of our Rulers can free us of this duty: an Obedience we must pay, either Active or Passive; the active in the Case of all lawful Commands—But when the Prince commands any thing contrary to what God hath commanded, we are not then to pay him this active Obedience; we may, nay we must refuse thus to act—but even this is a Season for the Passive Obedience; we must patiently suffer what he inflicts on us for such refusal, and not to secure our selves rise up against him—St. Paul's Sentence in this Case is most heavy, Rom. xiii. 2. They that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Here is very small encouragement to any to rise against the lawful Magistrate, for tho they should so far prosper here as to secure themselves from him by this means, yet there is a King of Kings from whom no Power can shelter them, and this Damnation in the close will prove a sad prize for their Victories.—Whatsoever the Duty of the Prince is, ☜ or howsoever perform'd, he is accountable to none but God; and no failing of his part can warrant his Subjects to fail of theirs.’
CHAP. VIII.
TO these eminent Divines of our own Church I shall add a few of the most eminent of the Reformed Divines beyond Sea, to shew herein the Harmony of the Confessions, as in other things between us and them, against the Papists. In Rom. xiii. 1. Erasmus I look [Page 126]upon to be one of the first Reformers, and he plainly asserts, ‘That Christians ought to obey a Tyrant; if he says, Go to a Goal, they ought to go; if, Lay their Head on a Block, they ought to obey, &c.’ And to him I will joyn the other Writers, (whom Pool in In loc. his Synopsis hath quoted, viz. Grotius, Beza, &c.) ‘Every man ought to be subject, i. e. to obey in things which are not against the Law of God.—But if Princes shall punish those that so obey the Law of God, they ought not to resist, but to suffer patiently.’
As to the Opinion of Luther, I refer the Reader to what Dr. Patrick hath cited out of him, p. 92, 93. And whereas it is objected against this, that Luther wrote a Book contra duo mandata Caesaris, and approved of the League at Smalcald, we must consider, that the Empire was Elective, and the Government upon condition, as appears from the Bulla aurea Apud Goldast. to. 3. p. 429., where it is said, Quod si nos ipsi, quod absit, &c. ‘But if we our selves, which God forbid, or any of our Successors, which we hope will not happen, should in process of time contradict this Ordinance, retract it, or presume to violate it, we ordain, That it may be lawful for all the Electors, Princes Ecclesiastical and Secular, Prelates, Earls, Barons, Gentry, and Commons of our sacred Empire, without imputation of Rebellion or Infidelity, to resist, or contradict us and our Successors, &c.—And till the German Lawyers convinc'd Luther Sleid. lib. 8. an. 1531. of this, he refused to enter into the League, and taught, That Magistrates ought not to be resisted, and wrote a Book on that Subject. Nay, the Elector of Saxony himself, who was the Head of the League against Charles V. did openly declare, that if Charles V. were a proper Sovereign in their Principalities, then that it was unlawful to make a War against him.’ But whatever was done by the German Princes in that Conjuncture, I am sure it no way concerns us, whose Government is hereditary, and who have no such Authority to take Arms.
Calvin himself, tho so much censured for the Passage in the end of his Institutes, yet elsewhere Ep. ded. ad Fran. I. Reg. Fran. ante Instit. answers the Objection made against the Reformation, That it was the cause of many Tumults and Seditions, by shewing, that the best of Men had been so accused, and that the Accusation was an ungrounded Calumny, &c. — If any under the pretence of Religion, do raise Tumults, if any Man make the free Grace of God a Pretext for their Licentiousness, let the Laws compel such Men to be quiet; let not the Truth be evil spoken of for theId. l. 17. an. 1546.[Page 127]Wickedness of some profligate Men. — And if at last the Whispers of ill-minded Men shall fill your ears, so that we still must be inured to Bonds and Whips, and Tortures, and Manglings, and Burnings, that like Sheep appointed to the Slaughter we must be reduced to the utmost extremity, we will with patience possess our Souls, and wait till the Lord will deliver us. And in that very Chapter of his Institutes, wherein he seems to make Kings accountable to their Subjects, as the Lacedaemonian Princes were; yet there he avers, Inst. l. 4. c. 20. § 25.29. That we ought to obey, not only good Princes, but those who do not their Duty, and that as to the point of Obedience of Subjects, there is no difference between the just King and the unjust. — That if we are severely tormented by a cruel Prince, if we are robb'd by a covetous or a luxurious Prince, if we are slighted, and neglected to be protected by a slothful one, nay, if we are vex'd by an impious and sacrilegious Prince for the sake of Piety and Religion, let us remember, that our Sins have deserved such Scourges from God; then let humility check our Impatience, and let us afterward consider, that we cannot help all this Evil; that there is nothing left, but to implore the help of God, in whose hands are the Hearts of Kings, &c. — When Princes do command any thing against God's Law, we are to obey God, and must in such Cases comfort our selves, that we have obeyed God as we ought, while we suffer every thing rather than desert our Religion.
Camero In Rom. xiii. 1. Vot. pro pace, p. 662, says Grotius, is of the same mind, and was much harrass'd for owning the Opinion: for when he asketh the Question, ‘What shall we do with a Tyrant when he swerves from this rule of being a Minister for good? He answers, That it is our duty to submit.’
Is. Casaubon, Epist. ad Front. Ducaeum, p. 732. Ed. ult. P. 749. (Though no profest Divine, yet to be reckoned here) May God never permit, the God by whom Kings Reign, may he never permit, that those Men, who are not well inclined toward their Prince, may light upon the Book of Mariana, or take Counsel from him, or any other such Writer. There are many at this day, acted by a preposterous Zeal, who under the pretence of Religion and Piety, dare ingage in Rebellions, Treasons, most cruel Murthers of the Innocent, subversion of lawful Governments, and the blackest Parricides of their Princes. St. Paul the Apostle, whom no Man will deny to have been acted by a most holy and fervent Zeal for Faith in the Son of God; being admonish'd, that there were some, who boasted that they approved of that old saying, Let us do evil that good may come thereof, cries out, that they speak Blasphemy, and that such mens damnation is just: as if he were pronouncing [Page 128]an Anathema Maranatha against such profane Men. — But our modern Zelots, how contrary are they to St. Paul? — They seem to have minded that one thing, that they might exclude the King from his rightful Succession, due to him by Inheritance, and by the Laws of the Land, &c.
Peter du Moulin, Vit. Molinaei. Lond. 4 [...]. p. 707. When he returned into France from England, with much grief saw the Protestants ingaged in the Party of the Prince of Conde against the Queen Mother, which War was indeed raised against the King himself: and endeavoured both by his Sermons, and his Letters to remove them from so unlawful a design; V. Du Moulin answ. to Philan. Angl. p. 37. and the King's Party owes it to him, that not one Protestant Town on this side the Loire joyned it self to the Prince of Condé. And when he was forc'd to leave France, and fix at Sedan, the first Letter that he wrote was to the Commonwealth of Rochel, as it was then called. 'To persuade them to Peace, to dissolve their Covnention, and to throw themselves, as they ought, on the Kings Mercy; advising them to obey the King, and thereby to take away all pretence from their Enemies. — And, if God saw fit, that they should suffer extremity; for every one that feared God, would be sure to suffer for no other cause, but for the Profession of the Gospel, &c. Nay du Moulin the Son says, Ubi Supr. p. 45.that the actions of the Men of Rochel were disallowed by the best, and the most of their Church. — That they were exhorted to their Duty by their Divines. — And that this was the Sense of the National Synod, of which du Moulin was the President but two months before he wrote his Letter.
This also is du Moulin's Doctrine P. 795, &c. Ed. Genev. 1635. in his Buckler of Faith, That the Government of Kings is by Divine Right, and founded upon the Ordinance of God, and that God hath required Obedience to Magistrates, as to those whom he hath established: and that whosoever resisteth them resisteth God, and that those who affirm, that the Authority of Kings is of Human Institution, put Kings upon maintaining their Interests by force, &c. That that Allegiance of Subjects is firm which is incorporated in Piety, and is esteemed a part of Religion, and of the service which we owe to God.
And whatever the learned Hugo Grotius might have said in his Books de Jure Belli, Grot. in Mat. xxvi. 52.& Pacis, in his later Works (wherein it may presumed he speaks his truest Sense) he asserts this Doctrine, which it appears, he had well studied, as if he had been a Member of the English Church, whose Articles and Politie he so well understood, and in whose Communion he resolved to have lived, had not God in [Page 129]his Providence ordered it otherwise. If it be once admitted, says he, that private Men, when they are injured by the Magistrate, may forceably resist him, all places would be full of Tumults, and no Laws, or Judicatures would have any Authority, since there is no Man, who is not inclined to favour himself. To this purpose Vot. pro pace ad art. 16. pag. 66 [...], 662. he censures the Practices, and Writings of many of the French Church, still excepting Camero: confirming his Opinion by the Authority of King James, and the Reasons of the University of Oxford, that condemned Paraeus's Book. Animadver. in animadv. Riveti. art. 16. p. 644. For both Christ, and his Apostles Peter and Paul, have Preached the Doctrine, that no force is to be opposed to the Supreme Power: and that we ought to own, and retain the Doctrine to be of Divine Right and Institution.
The Opinion of Monsieur Bochart, the glory of the French Churche sis fully seen in his Epistle to Bishop Morley; who among other reasons refused to Communicate with the Reformed Church in France, because he thought, they asserted the Doctrine of Resisting, and Deposing Kings; but Bochart expresly avers, ‘That the King is Gods Anointed, and Lieutenant, and so not in any case to be Resisted, since he is accountable to none but God. That he who rises against his Prince, is one of those Giants that fight against God. That David could not take away the Wife of Uriah. Nor Ahab seize Naboth's Vineyard without being guilty of great sin: but that when Samuel, 1 Sam. viii. 9. says of the King, He shall take your sons, and your daughters, &c. He means, that when Kings commit such transgressions, they are as uncontrolable, as if the Actions had been lawful. That in such cases a Nation ought to call upon God, since there are no Human remedies against the force of a King; for if a King may be resisted, he cannot be a Sovereign, for where Subjects may Resist, they may Judge, and consequently the Sovereignty is in them. That when Julian Persecuted contrary to Law, none of his Soldiers rose up against him, though nothing was more easie, would they have undertaken it, since at his death it was plain, that almost the whole Army was Christian.’
David Blondel De Formula Regnante Christo. Sect. 2. §. 16. p. 172. p. 184. chastises Pope Gregory VII. as for many other Usurpations upon Princes, so for this among the rest, for saying, That a Prince hath his Power from the People, contrary to what S. Paul says expresly of Nero, that he was ordained of God; affirming further, that lawful Kings, being guilty of ill management of their Power, are accountable to, and shall be punished by God, who gave them that [Page 130]Power,Pag. 187,but not to Men.—That this Opinion, that Kings were subject to any human Authority, was brought into the Church near 1100 years after our Saviour came into the World, when the Church could not be presumed to be in a better condition than it was, when it flourished in the former Ages of Christianity. And that no Man before Greg. VII. ever owned the Power of any Man over Kings. And this he proves from the Testimonies of Tertullian, Pag. 188.Hosius of Corduba, Basil, Ambrose, Hierom, Arnobius junior, Cassiodore and others, who say, That King David was above the coercive power of the Law, nor could be called to account for his Faults. And therefore says in his Confession to God, Against thee only have I sinned. If Subjects offend against the Laws of Justice, the King corrects them: but if the King offends, who shall correct him? None but he who is Justice it self; all other persons are under the Restraint of Laws, but Kings only are reserved to the Tribunal of God; and therefore, while, according to the Apostle, it is a terrible thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God, it will be more terrible to Kings, who have none on earth their Superior, that may awe them, if they sin more licentiously, and heinously than others.
He that will read the Sentiments of Sam. Petit on this Doctrine, let him consult his Treatise set out by his Nephew Sorbiere, called Diatriba de Jure, Principum edictis, Ecclesiae quaesito, &c. while Monsieur Allix says, Praefat. ad Determ. Joh. Paris. p. 61. That the Determination that Kings may be deposed, is much worse than the most Heresies. And Dr. Bourdieu Serm. on 29. May. 1684. having asserted, That Religion teaches men to give Obedience to Pagan, Tyrannical, Persecuting, Heretical Princes; in his Epistle to the King avers, That it was reasonable, that he should publish to the World the Opinion of their disconsolate Churches upon the Doctrine of Obedience, which ought to be given to higher Powers. Thus he was instructed in his Infancy and Youth; thus he saw it practised in their Congregations and Assemblies; thus for many years himself had taught it, as he had read and found it contain'd in the Holy Scriptures.
And to mention one unblassed Authority out of that suffering Church, instead of all the rest, take a few words of a pious Minister of theirs, smarting at the very time when he wrote, under the Severity of his Sovereign, and (as himself testifies) enjoying then the Protection of a Commonwealth. Le Droit Souv. du Prince, &c. p. 15, 16. No good man, (says he) ought to resist a Prince for any earthly Interest whatsoever; nay, nor for Religion neither, &c. — It may be objected, that the Doctrine of such absolute Power in Princes should give occasion to the increase of [Page 131]misery in such passive Churches. To which I answer, 1. That were it so, that such temporal misery should be increased by it, yet that countervailed not the necessity of recovering so many Souls without number from death temporal first, and afterwards from eternal. And again, speaking of the Authority of a Prince, as to the Essentials of Religion. Pag. 33. If a Prince will use force and violence there, all that we have to do, is to suffer with humility and patience both his threats and the worst he can do, not suffering his rigor to raise the least motion to Rebellion in us, and transport us to the least degree of outward resistance, any more than refusing to wound our Consciences with such Acts of Religion, as are contrary to the Faith we profess; and never had the Church of Christ had so many holy Champions as deserved the Name of Martyrs and Confessors, if they had not thought this Rule inviolably true.Pag. 36.We must suffer all their displeasure even in case of these Essentials without murmuring, and sacrifice our Resentments to the Authority that afflicts us, according to the Commandment of God, which we keep in suffering so. — As for the things of this life,Pag. 40.there is not one of them exempted from the Power of Princes; for as the Judgment of Conscience upon the Account of being peculiar to God alone, was the reason why the Essence of Religion was exempted from it; so the Cognizance of these things belonging to Princes, they are all of them capable to receive the impressions of their Power, pag. 53, 54. And again having described the Nature and Original of the most Sovereign and Absolute Power upon Earth, he adds, That in all States, where that Power is either already established, or where it is about to establish it self by such means, as nothing but an unjust Rebellion of Subjects can prevent, the Hand of God ought to be acknowledged in it, and the Secrets of his Providence adored, and our Sins forsaken, which provoke the King of Kings to permit such an Increase of Power, and try to obtain that Liberty of the Divine Mercy, which it is not lawful for us to give our selves; and if it please not God to take off that Yoke from them that bear it, or to help them escape it that fly from it, it is matter of Conscience to undergo it, as a Chastisement of God's sending, and against which we cannot struggle, without opposing him who sends it. In a word, this Power is a Power of Impunity which Sovereigns have in respect of their People.