Example of that Lord whom we are bound to imitate For even hereunto were we called because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that we should follow his Steps who when he was reviled reviled not again when he suffered he did not so much as threaten 1. Where in the first place note what hath already been made good that the then present Governours were cruel and tyrannical And 2. The Christians to whom St. Paul and Peter directed these Commands were Men of spotless Innocence Men groaning under the Pressures of the Cross 1 Cor. 15.9 and labouring under most heavy Persecutions for the Gospel's sake They were saith the Apostle Paul obnoxious to such Afflictions as would have rendred them of all Men the most miserable v. 30. had they not been supported by their future Hopes 2 Cor. 4.11 1 Thess 1.6.3.4 2 Thess 1.4 Heb. 10.32 1 Pet. 1.6.4.12 They were in Jeopardy every Hour always delivered to Death for Jesus sake They received the Word of God with much Affliction great Tribulations and Persecutions and they endured a great fight of Afflictions They were saith Peter subject to manifold Temptations and fiery Tryals But notwithstanding all these Sufferings their Master strictly hath obliged them not to take up the Sword not to resist their cruel persecuting Magistrates but when they suffer wrongfully for doing well for Conscience towards God to take it patiently Whence it is clear that by the Christian Doctrine it is unlawful to resist the Higher Powers upon pretence of Male-administration Tyranny Injustice or to rebel for the Defence of our Religion against the worst of Persecuting Princes For if Resistance in the fore-mentioned Cases was a damning Sin when can it be excusable and if it is the Will of God that when his Servants suffer purely for Conscience towards God and are delivered to Death for Jesus sake they should then bear it patiently when can it be supposed agreeable unto his Will that Christians should resist the Higher Powers 2. Observe that when these Precepts were delivered there was then in the Imperial City a Senate somewhat like our Parliament or House of Commons yea such a Senate by whom the Emperours or Higher Powers then in being were elected and by whose Election they became the Ordinance of God having no Right unto that Character till they were thus elected De Jure Belli l. 2. c. 9. §. 11. for as Grotius truly notes and proves Electio Imperatoris ad populum pertinebat aliquoties à populo per se aut per Senatum facta est quae autem à Legionibus modo his modo illis fiebant Electiones non erant ratae ex jure Legionum nam in vago nomine jus certum esse non poterat sed ex approbatione populi Examples of which Elections made or approved by the Senate he gives many in his Notes upon that Section And yet the Scripture takes no notice of this Senate it doth not limit the Obedience of the Christians or those times to things commanded by the Emperours and not forbidden by the Roman Senate it doth not say Obey them till that Senate which at first chose them or approved of them do again reject them but plainly and without exception doth enjoyn us not to resist the Higher Powers The Taxing Luke 2.1 or Enrolling at the Birth of Christ was by the Decree not of the Senate but Augustus the Tribute-money had Caesar's Image and Inscription on it and therefore by our Saviour's Argument did shew that Caesar was to be obey'd St. Paul's Appeal was made not to the Roman Senate Acts 20.10 11. but to Caesar at whose Judgment-Seat saith he I ought to be judged The Submission which St. Peter speaks of is to the King as Supreme So that the Spirit of God seems plainly to condemn those specious Pleas and politick Pretences which our late Rebels made to Justifie their Insurrection against our Caesar and his Imperial Crown by virtue of a pretended Power derived from Lords or Commons who neither do elect nor approve of our Kings before they have a Right unto their Government and who are most apparently inferiour to him since he gives being to both those Houses by his Writ continues them at his own Pleasure adjourns prorogueth and dissolves them pro Imperio Argument 2 2. Christians must not resist the Higher Powers because they cannot do it without Resistance of the Ordinance of God That Magistracy is God's Ordinance that Supreme Powers are the Ministers of God and not of Men that they do act by an Authority derived from him and not from men even when by the Election of Man they become the Higher Powers is evident from Scripture and from Reason From Scripture which doth often stile them Gods Exod. 21.6 Exod. 22.28 1 Sam. 2.25 Psal 82.6 1 Sam. 24.6 10.26.9 11 16 23. 2 Sam. 1.14 16. and the Children of the Mest High His Servants his Anointed as Saul is often stiled even after that God's Spirit was departed from him and David by his Prophet was anointed King Now as no Man can be Vicegerent to an earthly Prince but by his Order and Commission so can no Sovereign Prince be God's Vicegerent without the Ordinance or the Commission of the God of Heaven to act as his Immediate Officer on Earth And suitably to this Assertion the Apostle hath declared of the Supreme Authority in being then what is as true by parity of Reason of those in being now that they were all the Ordinance of God the Ministers of God the Officers of God Rom. 13.2 4 6. that there is no Power but of God and that the Powers that be are ordained of God And even that Power which Pontius Pilate did abuse to the condemning of our Saviour was by our Lord's Confession from above Joh. 19.11 for thou saith he could'st have no Power at all against me unless it were given thee from above It also is extreamly evident from Reason for what is more unlikely than that he who is the God of Order should Faulkn Christian Loyalty p. 416. for the peace and good of lesser Societies in private Families ordain the Authority of Parents over their Children and the Headship of the Husband over the Wife and yet should leave the more general and publick state of Mankind which is of greatest Concernment without any Government which truly can be stiled his Ordinance It would moreover reflect unduly on Divine Goodness to conceive that it was not his Will that Justice Righteousness and Peace should be preserved and Goodness countenanced and rewarded by Men that Evil-doers should be punished and the Destroyers of his Image should suffer by the hand of Justice and yet it cannot be conceived that he hath made Provision for these things unless this Governour of all the Earth this Lord of Life to whom Vengeance doth primarily belong hath constituted and ordained that this his Government and Power should be
world upside down and that Christianity was instrumental to promote Rebellions and give disturbance to the Civil Government and for this Cause St. Peter is so earnest in his Exhortation to submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lords Sake that by so doing Christians might put to silence the ignorance of foolish men who knowing nothing of the peaceable and loyal Principles of Christian Faith did represent it as destructive to the Civil Government and prejudicial to the Higher Powers And surely to pretend that our Religion doth allow such horrid Crimes is most effectually to blaspheme our Holy Calling and cast upon it an indelible Reproach For if those Jews who gloried in the privilege of Circumcision and yet were guilty of Adultery Rom. 2.24 Theft Sacrilege blasphem'd the name of God among the Gentiles he must assuredly blaspheme it who being guilty of Sedition Faction and Resistance of the Higher Powers doth glory in the name of Christian And if the Name and Doctrine of our Lord is then blasphemed Tit. 2.6 when the Wife doth not yield Subjection to the Husband and when the Christian Servant doth not yield Obedience to his Master in all things must they not be blasphem'd much more when Subjects do not yield Obedience to their Prince Add to this that all the Pleas and specious Pretences which were used to justifie our late Rebellions do cast on the Apostles and Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures the Reproach of gross Dissimulation and Hypocrisie For were it lawful to take up Arms against our Governors when we conceiv'd them guilty of Tyrannical abuse of Power when they became a terror to good works and not to evil only when they did seem to us to act against the good and welfare of the Kingdom or against their Coronation Oaths or when they did not rule according to Justice or established Laws or were it lawful to resist them in behalf of God or to preserve the true Religion or the Publick Exercise thereof I say were it in all or any of these cases lawful for Subjects to resist the Higher Powers the Apostles must dissemble and deal hypocritically when they without all limitation or exception of any of these cases do command Obedience for the Lord's sake and do forbid resistance of the Higher Powers even when they persecute us for the sake of Righteousness Had they believed intended or secretly taught that Christians upon all or any of the forementioned accounts might be exempted from Subjection and Obedience to them 't is plain they acted not with that simplicity which might have reasonably been expected from the Dispensers of the Gospel For if they verily believed and knew that Christianity in any of these cases did approve of the resistance of the Higher Powers they plainly went about to deceive Heathen Princes with fair words and sought by making them believe that their Religion called men to suffer peaceably under their Government and never to resist to win them to receive and own that Faith which when they had embraced they by experience should find that it taught no such matter They said indeed in words as plain as they could utter That Kings were Higher Powers who could not be resisted without the peril of Damnation and that this was the will of God That all should yield subjection to them but yet it seems they knew that this was not the will of God but that he did permit Christians to resist as oft as they conceived their Rulers guilty of male-administration or Enemies to their Religion or Persecutors of them for the Cause of Christ So plainly do the Patrons of Resistance cause the Name and Doctrine of our Lord to be blasphemed Argument 5 Fifthly All Christians are obliged to suffer patiently and not resist when they are persecuted when their Religion which is dearer to them than their lives doth suffer with them and men endeavour to suppress and utterly extirpate the Profession of it from the Nation where they live because our Lord expresly hath declared that his Kingdom is not of this World whence his own inserence is this That his Disciples must not fight no not in the defence of their dear Lord. He plainly tells them that they must bear the Cross and willingly must take it up whereas if Christian Faith did give a right to its Professors to defend themselves by Arms against the Higher Powers it rather would oblige the Christian to take up the Sword than to take up the Cross Again Christianity assures all the Professors of it that they are called to suffer that it is acceptable to God for them to suffer patiently for doing well to suffer for the sake of Conscience That 't is their Duty to follow the Example of their Saviour who when he suffered threatned not but did commit himself to him that judgeth righteously Nor were it lawful for Christians to resist Authority when their Religion was opposed and they were punished for the Profession of it they could not be obliged to suffer but only when they wanted power to resist and so it never could be said that their Religion but only that their weakness caused them to suffer It could not truly be affirmed that they were called but rather that they were necessitated to suffer nor could they be true Imitators of that Jesus who when he could have summoned twelve Legions of Angels to his aid chose rather to endure the Cross To these things I might add the Oath of God by which we have been many of us bound not only to bear true Allegiance to the Government we now live under but also to defend it as far as we are able against all Conspiracies and Insurrections I might remind you of the fierce wrath of God not only against Corah and his Accomplices whom the Earth swallowed up for their Rebellion against Moses but against Zedekiah Prince of his own People who having sworn Allegiance to an Heathen King did violate that Covenant he had confirmed with the Oath of God For this God doth expresly call Rebellion Ezek. 12.15 expressing his great detestation of the Fact and swearing twice by his own Life that he would recompense this sin upon his head He made a Covenant with him and took an Oath of him but he rebelled against him shall he prosper shall he escape that doth such things or shall he break the Covenant and be delivered As I live saith the Lord God surely in the place where the King dwelleth that made him King whose Oath he despised and whose Covenant he brake with him in the midst of Babylon shall he dye Seeing he despised the Oath by breaking the Covenant he shall not escape As I live saith the Lord God surely mine Oath that he hath despised my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompense upon his own head And lastly I might add that this hath been the constant Doctrine of the most Primitive and Purest Ages of the Church That Lawful Powers
for certainly there is as much subjection due to a Sovereign Prince who is more eminently Gods Minister and his Vieegerent than any Master is with respect unto his Servants since when the Master doth command that which the King forbids the Servant may be punished for his obedience to his Master that is for not preferring the King's Will before his Masters And if it be thank worthy with patience to endure Grief when we do suffer wrongfully from our Superiors sure it must be blame worthy in all such cases to resist and to rebel against them Reason 3 Thirdly The contrary Doctrine would expose the Government to endless Troubles and Confusions for had God granted to Inferiors a liberty thus to resist the Higher Powers upon presumptions of severity and hardships when imposed upon them he must have left it in the power of Subjects to judge when they are thus severely dealt with and to act suitably unto that judgment since otherwise that liberty would be in vain allowed Now what is this in the Result but to allow them to be Accusers Judges and Executioners in their own Cause against their Sovereigns and God's Vicegerents How easie is it for popular men with the Assistance of their Agents and with the help of their seditious and lying Pamphlets to make the multitude believe they are too hardly and severely dealt with the case of Absalom and of our Royal Martyr too fully will inform us We therefore may for ever bid adieu to Peace and Quietness if such surmises or pretences will authorise men to resist Authority Reason 4 Fourthly In opposition to this vain pretence it is observable that when by Haman's Policy Letters were sent through all the Provinces of Ahasuerus to destroy kill and cause to perish all Jews both young and old little Children and Women in one day though by this Butcherly Decree as Mordecai complains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esth 4.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Nation was to be destroyed which had done nothing to deserve destruction which was most barbarous injustice and although as the sequel of the Story shews they had sufficient strength both to defend themselves Esth 8.11 and vanquish those who did assault them yet neither Mordecai nor Esther thought it sit that they should thus endeavour to preserve themselves from Ruine without Commission from the King and his Reversion of the Decree procured by Haman Exod. 1.14 And though God's People during their abode in Egypt were kept under the greatest slavery and the most cruel bondage and though when they went out from Egypt they were six hundred thousand sighting men a number sure sufficient to have made their way by force to their desired liberty and though God stood obliged by promise to deliver his own People out of Captivity after their seventy years of Bondage were accomplished yet did he not encourage or permit them to procure their liberty by rising up in Arms against the Kings of Egypt or of Babylon but either did accomplish their deliverance by his own mighty Arm as in the case of their departure out of Egypt or by procuring to them favour in the eyes of their Superiors Cyrus and Artaxerxes Kings of Persia as in the case of their return from Babylon that there might not be found on Record in his word any allowance of the Rebellion of his own beloved People against the worst of Tyrants to justifie or to encourage it in others on the like pretences though to be sure God wanted no affection to his chosen people nor power to assist them in their Lawful Wars If therefore this had been a method of deliverance agreable to his Sacred Will no doubt but that he would have given them permission thus to obtain their freedom and would have assisted them in these endeavours Since then he did not do it we may rest assured that it was not according to his will that they should thus exempt themselves from their Captivity and Bondage to their Heathen Governours And (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chryst ad Rom Hom. 23. Prop. 2. much less can it be according to his will that Christians should thus exempt themselves from their Obedience to Governours professing the same Christian Faith It is not lawful to resist the Higher Powers on the account of our Religion or from pretences of labouring to preserve it to our selves or to transmit it to Posterity For though it is the Duty of all good Christians and will for ever be their practice manfully to profess the true Religion as occasion serves and firmly to adhere unto it to pray heartily unto the Author of it that he would stablish and preserve it to us and our Posterity for ever and in his station to do all that lawfully a private Person can by pleading and by acting for it and above all by living so as that his Conversation may commend it to the good liking of all those who see the blessed Fruits it doth produce in the Professors of it yet must he not take up the Sword without Commission from the King or Supreme Governor much less against him for the defence or preservation of it but must yield due Subjection even to those Superiors who persecute the true Religion and suffer patiently for it without attempting to resist For Reason 1 No men more certainly were persecuted for the true Profession of the Christian Faith than the Believers of the Apostles Age and yet you see the Precept given to them runs thus without exception Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers and Christians are still charged upon the Highest Penalties not to resist their persecuting Emperors but in this very case to suffer patiently for conscience towards God Reason 2 St. Peter drew his Sword for the defense of Christ and in him of Christianity it self when Christ was under condemnation on the account of his Religion and yet his Lord doth peremptorily command him to put it up again and that First because he could not use it even in the Cause of Christ but he must take it i. e. must wrest it from the hand of that Superior to whom by God it was committed Put up thy Sword saith Christ for all that take the Sword shall perish by it from which words it appears that (g) Contra Faust Mar. l. 22. c. 70. Matt. 26.52 Austins Rule is an eternal Truth He takes the Sword qui nulla superiori ac legitima potestate vel jubente vel concedente in sanguinem alicujus armatur who is armed with it to shed blood without Commission from his lawful Governor Secondly Put up thy Sword saith Christ because by taking of it thou wilst deserve to perish by it or wilst be guilty of that Rebellion which deserveth death which reason equally concerns all Christian Subjects for albeit this special reason that Christ was then to suffer might cause our Saviour to refuse the assistance of St. Peter's Sword yet could it not induce him
he is saying Be subject unto every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake to the King as Supreme And Lastly The design of the Sacred Writers of the Gospel was undoubtedly to secure the peace and quiet of the world to forbid all Resistance of the Higher Powers and to stop the mouths of those ignorant and foolish men who represented Christianity as prejudicial unto the Powers then in being and apt to make disturbance in the State but if they laid no obligation on the Christian to own the Powers then in being as Gods Ordinance but only to acknowledge in the General that Civil Government is from God how could their Doctrine answer these designs seeing it leaveth men at liberty to resist all who are invested with Authority and by so doing to disturb continually the peace and quiet of the world That therefore men should struggle against such shining evidence of truth may tempt us to suspect that they were as averse from yielding due subjection to the word of God as they were from conplying with the Commands of their Superiors Secondly For explication of the first particular I add that the Powers here mentioned must not be extended to Vsurped Powers or such as have no Legal Title in opposition unto those who have Just Title though by the prevalence of an Vsurper they are unjustly kept from the enjoyment of their Right For were this so Might would give Right and every prosperous Rebel would by that very Act commence God's Ordinance and so be both a Rebel against God and yet be his Vicegerent too nor would men rule because they are the Higher Powers but be the Higher Powers because they rule Moreover what is Vsurpation but the assuming of a Power to which he that usurps it hath no lawful call and no just title since then the ordination of that God who is the Sovereign of the world must be a lawful call and give the person thus ordained a Legal Title to be his Vicegerent it follows from the very nature of the act that the Usurper can not be Gods Ordinance When the Vsurper doth begin his Vsurpation by taking of the Sword or wresting it out of the hands of him who bears it by Commission from God he must unquestionably be the Resister of Gods Ordinance how therefore can success in his resistance render him the Power Is it not strange that he who purchaseth damnation by resisting by the same act and by the highest aggravation of it even the deposing of his lawful Prince should purchase a just title to Dominion Thirdly Could an Usurped Possession create a Right to Government were it sufficient to render the Vsuper Gods Vicegerent and his Ordinance though he doth justle out the lawful Successor then must all Laws and Constitutions to preserve the Government in the Right Line and to condemn all Vsurpations made upon it become void as being Laws enacted to disapprove condemn and to resist Gods Ordinance and all our Oaths of yielding Faith and True Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors and of defending them unto the outmost of our Powers against all Vsurpers whatsoever must be unlawful oaths So plainly doth this Doctrine tend unto the dissolution of our Government Fourthly A man may possibly usurp Dominion against Gods own appointment and designation of another person to be the Ruler of his people Thus was it in the case of Absalom 2 Sam. 16.18 Chap. 19.10 for all the men of Israel chose him in opposition to David they anointed him over them and yet the Holy Ghost doth forty times style David King during the Usurpation of his Son but never doth vouchsafe that title to Rebellious Absalom whereas if such an Usurpation could have rendred him Gods Ordinance then must He Reign at the same time against and yet according to Gods Ordinance Fifthly Certain it is the Pope did long Vsurp and actually possess and exercise a power over most of the European Kings and Kingdoms If then bare Usurpation would render any man the Ordinance of God I know not how we could divest him of that Title or throw of his Yoke without resisting of the Higher Powers And therefore to conclude this first particular we by the Higher Powers are to understand The Persons lawfully intitled to their Government To the next enquiry viz. Head In what sense are these persons said to be ordained by God I answer negatively that they cannot be supposed to be here styled his Ordinance only by virtue of Gods eventual and permissive providence for so all things must be acknowledged to be of Gods appointment which were foreseen but not prevented by him The Rebel who Resists Gods Ordinance as well as the Superiour Powers which are here styled his Ordinance the Usurper and the Legal Prince must in this sense be equally ordained of God These Higher Powers therefore must be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Edict Constitution Ordinance as being by his Institution invested in their Dignity and Office and as being men who act by virtue of his Commission Word and Precept Which will be farther evident if we consider 1. That every Soul is here commanded to be subject to the Higher Powers i. e. to yield a free intire active obedience to them in all lawful things now as no Subject can be obliged to yield obedience to an Inferior Magistrate but as he is by virtue of Commission from his Prince impowered to be a Magistrate so neither can the Subjects of the King of Kings which we all naturally are be bound to yield Subjection to any as his Ministers unless they have received Commission from him so to be 2. The Higher Powers must be obeyed saith our Apostle for Conscience Sake Now nothing but a Law of God can bind the Conscience and therefore there must be some Law of God investing the Superior with that Authority we are commanded to obey for Conscience sake 3. The Higher Powers are here said to be the Ministers of God to us for Good and to be terrors to the Evil Doer Now by experience we find the Providence of God doth not so order matters as to make them at all times and in all places actually so the Persecuting Emperors to omit many others being a Terror to the best of men and even those Higher Powers which then obtained when this Epistle was indited being Promoters and Encouragers of the most Barbarous Impieties they must be therefore styled the Ministers of God for Good c. because by him they are ordained and positively appointed for that end But yet it still remains a question Question how 〈◊〉 Higher â—â—wers become Gids Ordinance how these Higher Powers do become Gods Ordinance how his Commission is derived his Ordination doth descend upon the Individual Person so as to render him the Person by God ordained to exercise that power which is here said to be of God To which enquiry I answer negatively First Answer to it negatively not by Gods
tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet Haereticos autem atque Schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi subjici Imperator Constantinus A. ad Drucilianum Cod. Theodos l. 16. Tit. 5. l. 1. Privileges He granted to the Clergy should belong only to the Catholicks not to the Hereticks or Schismaticks i. e. the Arians or Meletians 2. 'T is also evident that notwithstanding all these Edicts the Arian Emperors did often persecute the Orthodox Professors of the Faith For (e) Socr. Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 7.13 Soz. l. 3. c. 4 7. Constantius expelled Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and appointed Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to succeed him yea he afterwards (f) Socr. l. 2. c. 16. banished him and placed Macedonius in his room He threatned (g) Socr. l. 2. c. 17. Soz. l. 3. c. 9. death to Athanasius and when both Paul and Athanasius were restored to their Sees by the Council of Sardica though whilst his Brother Constans lived he durst not gainsay that Decree after his death He (h) Socr. l. 2. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. c. 27. again expelled them He was saith Socrates perswaded by Macedonius to assist him in wasting of the Churches at least as (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 4. c. 20. Sozomen informs us Macedonius pretended his Commission so to do whereupon all the Oratories of the (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 4 c. 20. Catholicks were taken away and they were expelled both from their Churches and their Cities who held the (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. lib. 2. c. 27. Son to be of the same Substance with the Father and were persecuted in like manner as the Heathen Emperors had persecuted Christians and with equal cruelty These Persecutions did prevail (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. c. 28 throughout the East in Alexandria also in Egypt and in both the Libya's some of the Bishops were exiled some manacled and others did by (n) Socr. l. 2. c. 28. slight endeavour to consult their fafety all this was done before the Council of Ariminum and so before any Decree was made for the establishment of the Faith there propounded The next Emperors infected with the Arian Heresy were Valens and Valentinian who as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l 4. c. 8. Theodoret informs us at first asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Consubstantial Trinity and by their Edict commanded all men to profess it and by so doing made that to be the Established Religion of the Empire But afterwards we learn from (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 1. Socrates that Valens did grievously treat those who consented not unto the Arians that he raised an (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. implacable War against the Orthodox that he (r) Socr. l. 4. c. 3. persecuted them in the East and (ſ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 6. shewed his inclinations that all Christians should arianize that he (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 6. c. 9. persecuted the Novatians because they were Orthodox and deprived them and others of the like judgment with them of their Churches that the (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 4. c. 15. Arians did beat reproach imprison and committed intolerable outrages upon them and these or at least many of these things were done before any new Edict was set forth for the establishment of the faith taught by the Council of Ariminum or for reversing of the forementioned Decree 3. The Christians who lived under these Arian Emperors and suffered so much by them did constantly declare They thought themselves obliged in Conscience to be subject to them that they could not lawfully resist them and therefore were content to suffer Martyrdom thus when Constantius the Emperor did persecute the Christians of Alexandria Pop. Alex. protestuo apud Athan. Tom. 1. p. 868. they never thought of fighting for the established Religion but only of patient suffering for it for say they if it be the Emperors Command we should be persecuted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are all in a readiness to suffer Martyrdom so well instructed in that Doctrine of passive obedience were the Ancient Christians which this late Author doth Burlesque And though * Socr. l. 2. c. 25. Vetranio Magnentius and Gallus rebelled against Constantius and †Socr. l. 4. c. 5. Soz. l. 6. c. 8. Procopius against Valens none of them were assisted or countenanced by the Orthodox Professors but they were still reputed by them Tyrants and Rebellious persons Sixthly Consider the Absurdities which do attend this Doctrine It makes that Treason and Damnation after an humane constitution a Law or Act of Parliament which before was a Christian Duty for surely insurrections are never things indifferent they never can be lawful but when they by some Law of God or nature become necessary and they are wanting in their duty who do not rebel Now though a Humane Law or Act of Parliament may make that sinful in its exercise which was before indifferent it is not easie to conceive how it should turn a necessary duty into the worst of sins and transform the Glorious Martyr into the damned Rebel 2. What Conviction so ever any Prince may have that the established Religion is New and Schismatical or justly charged with Superstition and Idolatry he cannot by this Doctrine attempt to change it and to establish true Religion in its place by any penalties imposed upon the Superstitious or Schismatical but he must be in danger of an Insurrection and by this very Act must authorize his Subjects to enquire with Sword and Pistol in their hand By what law must we suffer for professing the established Religion 3. This strange Assertion justifies those Rebels who endeavoured to hinder Queen Mary whose inclinations and disaffection to the then established Religion they well knew from coming to the Crown and it condemns the Reformation both in this and in all other Kingdoms as being that by which the Roman Catholicks did suffer in their estates and Persons for professing of the established Religion if then this be sufficient Ground for any Subjects to rebel against their lawful Soveraign that their Religion is established by Law and they are like to suffer by his attempt to change it Jul. p. 69. and that 't will be too late for them to help themselves should they be quiet till there Reformers strengthen their Innovations by a Law there must have been sufficient cause for the Rebellion of Roman Catholicks in all those Countries and if the introduction of the Reformation by which they suffered could warrant their Rebellion the Reformation must be an evil thing that being evil with a Witness which can make Rebellion good So evident is it that this Doctrine tends more to turn a