Subjects of the Empire had legal Rights HAving said thus much to shew men how far their arming against their lawful Sovereigns is from doing any good to Religion I now proceed in the next place to shew that Religion 's being back'd by Law and made a civil Right will by no means justifie them in so doing Their Plea is That the Scripture Precepts of Obedience and Submission and not-resisting higher Powers but bearing crosses under them were not design'd for Sufferers in all cases but only for Sufferers according to Laws They forbid all liberty of resisting not absolutely say they to every man but to him only that has the Laws against him or who suffers under a Prince whose Will is his Law and without any Law to cover him But where men suffer in their civil Rights or where Religion suffers that stands by Law and is taken into the Subjects civil Properties especially where they suffer an invasion of most important Rights or a breach upon the Constitution it self those Precepts they say forbid not Resistance in such cases nor were they given or intended for any such Sufferers And tho the nature of Religion will not yet the nature of civil Right they think will authorize men notwithstanding those Gospel Injunctions to arm in defence thereof I take this to be a great and most lamentable perversion of those Gospel Precepts which were given to men that had legal Rights and suffer'd the most illegal invasions of them And to clear this point I shall endeavour to shew how under the most heinous and notorious Invasions that oppressive Sovereigns have made upon Laws and Rights God has still call'd Subjects to this Non-Resistance And how such Invasions gave no exemptions therefrom either to the Christians under the persecuting Emperors nor to the Jews under their Kings nor is allow'd to exempt us by our own Laws Nay if this plea of defensibleness of legal Rights can exempt us I think it will be found that a like defensibleness of natural Rights would as well exempt all other Subjects and so leave no such duty in the World as Passive Obedience There being as good Authority to defend our natural Rights this way against persecuting Laws as there is to defend any legal Rights against illegal Persecutors First I shall shew this of the Christians under the Roman Emperors And this I shall endeavour to do with the more exactness the Gospel Precepts of Submission and Non-Resistance being by our Lord and his Apostles most indispensably injoyn'd and afterwards during all the ten Persecutions most carefully and strictly practised under their Invasions First to clear this point I observe that there was a great and most notorious Invasion of Rights and Liberties when yet the Authority was own'd and Non-resistance and Allegiance injoyn'd by Christ and his Apostles The Imperial Power became a legal Constitution and was setled by Law upon Augustus by the Senate and People themselves His Country gave up the Care and Authority of the whole Empire to him that for his Life he should have the power both of Peace and War says Strabo This was when in a set speech in free and open Senate he offered to restore and give up all the Power into their hands both Arms Laws and Provinces as Dio reports They had passed through a long series of civil Miseries and Distractions through the Factions and bloody Wars of the great men that appeared now plainly unavoidable under the popular form And being made sensible thereby of the great inconveniency of their former popular State and of the Sweetness of that Ease and Quietness which all experienced under his Government they all pray'd him with many words laying before him many Arguments as the same Dio relates that he would take the Empire which he offer'd to restore back to them upon himself alone And thus adds he was all the power of Senate and People transferr'd upon Augustus and confirmed to him by themselves The Emperors as he farther notes to this purpose received all the Power of the whole Commonwealth by means of those Names of Consul Proconsul Imperator of the Pontifical and Tribunitial Powers c. which were used in the popular State and which they now assume according to the Laws taking the Names together with the Powers of the former Magistrates upon themselves that they may not seem to hold them by Force but by the Laws Thus according to this noble Historian did the Imperial Power become the legal Constitution and Government of the Roman Empire And this was by the Royal Law or Lex Regia a Law past as Justinian declares about the Authority of the Emperor whereby the People conferred upon him all their Power and whence his Placita as well as any Leges Plebiscita Senatusconsulta c. in their Law Books should have the force of Law This Law gave him also the Prerogatives of calling and holding Senates of making Leagues and Alliances of acting whatsoever he should think of use to the Commonwealth or for the majesty of humane and divine things with other particular Powers mention'd in a Fragment thereof upon its renewall to Vespasian still extant in an Inscription on a Brazen Table in the Lateran at Rome But after the erection of the Empire and making it as by the Lex Regia it begun to be in Augustus a legal Establishment several Powers still remain'd in the People and Senate Publick business and the chief of his private also were treated of by the Senate The Consuls and the Praetors too retain'd their Figure The lesser Magistrates likewise exercised each their several Powers and the Laws bating only in Questions of Treason were in good use says Tacitus of the Empire as it had stood ad eam diem viz. till the ninth year or thro all the best days of Tiberius The Senators and the Magistrates had both their ancient Majesty and Authority preserved to them And before them were brought both the matter of Customs and Monopolies of raising and disbanding Soldiers of continuing Commanders or nominating them for extraordinary Wars and of answering the Letters and Ambassadors of Kings says Suetonius of the way and administration of the Emperor in the days of that Prince By the Tribunitial Power the Emperor indeed could interpose and when he saw fit with power of Negative stop any matters Tho here also Suetonius notes the Temper and Moderation of Tiberius in his good years suffering and that without complaint some things to be carried in the Senate against his Mind and Suffrage Albeit in most things either about Men or Money or whatever else wherein they were to refer to the Senate the Emperors having such height of power in themselves found the Senators very obsequious But the Emperors not content with this original Power tho mighty free and large indeed as Tiberius tells the Senate who had confer'd it still sought one after another to stretch the
Act. xvi 37 38. Another Privilege of the Free Subjects and Citizens of Rome was that Persons of Honor as the Decurio's or Senators in any of the municipal Courts but especially the Chiefs of the City as those of the Title of Egregii and Perfectissimi should not unless in some special Cases as of Treason be examined by Torture As it was moreover that a Mans Servant should not be put to the Torture to confess against his Master Both which as well as Bonds and Stripes and Crosses towards Romans Lactantius cries out of in Galerius as Violations of Roman Liberties and calls a treating of them by a Right of War as Captives not as Roman Subjects but as Persian Slaves And the like might be shown of others but it would be too tedious to recount particulars Thus to insist on no more instances which were very numerous both to Persons and Places were the Subjects of the Empire under the Protection of Laws and in the legal and customary enjoyment of Freedoms and Privileges The Administration of the Emperor was to be according to the Laws and Liberties of the Empire He owed his Power to the Law On the Authority of Law hangs our Authority So that 't is a Voice worthy of the Majesty of one that reigns to profess himself tyed to Laws say the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian And as he had his Power by Law so had they too their Rights and Privileges in these and many other instances Yea these Rights the Law would defend them in against the Emperor himself For by the Rule of the Roman State and by the practice of it not only all the days of Augustus but all the best days of the Reign of Tiberius they had the Protection of Law for their Rights and Properties against their Prince as well as against their Fellow Subjects If the Emperor Tiberius says Tacitus and any private man had any Dispute the Law and Courts were to decide it He was to have no more than what the Law allow'd him If the Testament be illegal the Prince cannot inherit by it as has often been decreed says the Law So that altho the Imperial Power was very large yet was it not without its Bounds and by Law should comport with popular Rights and Immunities And this Point of the Romans being Free Subjects that have Rights and Properties under a Civil and Politick Power not Slaves which have none under a Despotick made a wide distinction betwixt the way of a Roman Emperor and a Persian Monarch as Lactantius notes against Galerius who affected to Rule the Free born Roman in way of Servitude like Eastern Kings And therefore when the Emperors after all the Powers of Senate and People had by Law been transferr'd on them were styled absolute that is not as being loose in their Administration from all Laws or popular Immunities But from that Dependance wherein others for a limited time had held these Powers whilst they were parcell'd out among many Magistrates in the Freedom of the Roman State and from all Sharers and Partnership either of People or Senate in their Imperial Sovereignty and Government Yet still so as to be Governors of Free born Subjects not of Slaves And to administer the several parts of their Power by the Laws of the Empire as the other Magistrates ere it was taken out of their hands had done before Especially whilst those Laws were in force and before they themselves when possessed of the Legislative in such sort as might consist with the Liberties of a Free People had alter'd or revoked any that were legally revocable by Regular Repeals Whilst any Laws were in force those Laws as I noted from Cicero were to model the Courts and guide the Sentences And S. Ambrose afterwards who had himself been first an Advocate and then a Judge of the Empire in Civil Affairs says A good Judge doth nothing of his own will or private choice sed juxta Leges jura pronunciat Sicut audit ita judicat obsequitur Legibus non adversatur i.e. but pronounces according to the Laws As he hears so he judges he follows the Laws never opposes them Yea even the Persians themselves whose Princes did so exceed in Prerogative yet in the height of their absolute Power were not loose from inviolable Laws however few those Laws were or free they were from being call'd to account for any Breaches of them For the Scripture tells us of the Laws of Medes and Persians which alter not Esth. i. 19 and Dan. vi 8.12.15 And when the Princes had got one of these Laws to destroy Daniel we see when his heart was the most set upon it it was not in the Power of the King himself to save him Dan. iii. 14 15 16. Thus were the Roman Emperors not merely arbitrary but limited Governors who were to Rule their People according to stated Laws And the Roman Subjects were privileged Subjects who lived under the Benefit and Protection of Legal Rights Freedoms and Properties for which they had as good Law as the Emperor had for his Prerogatives and whereof they could not be despoiled without Violence to the Law and legal Constitution whereupon the Emperor himself stood And this I have taken the more pains to clear because one main Foundation of the Advocates for Resistance is the supposed absolute Power of these Emperors They own the Scripture Prohibitions of Resistance which no man certainly can deny till he has either lost all Modesty or Understanding But they say they are not to our purpose nor suit our Case because their Kings and Emperors Wills were their Laws and their People had no Magna Charta's or Records of Liberties to show as we have So that the Frame of the Government warranted all those Commands that had the Royal Pleasure and the People could plead no legal Injustice Whereas in truth their Emperors as I have shown were tyed to Laws and the Subjects had legal Rights yea and those not coming from the Emperors Grants but antecedent to them in virtue of their ancient Laws which were still reserved and kept on when his Imperial Power was first given and so were capable to suffer illegal Injustice as any other privileged Subjects of legal and limited Governments may do CHAP. III. Of Invasion of Legal Rights under the persecuting Emperors HAving said thus much in the foregoing Chapter to prove the Subjects of the Empire had legal Rights I now proceed in this to shew what Invasions were made upon them to try their Passive Obedience under these Emperors Now the foremention'd Rights and Immunities of the Christians as they were Roman Subjects and the common benefit and favour of the standing Roman Laws were invaded in the primitive Persecutions I do not mean Laws for Christianity our holy Religion not being like to have any establishment of Laws whilst the Emperors were Heathens But Laws for Liberty and Property and common Justice as Roman Subjects
of all Duties of Subjects and particularly of Non-resistance saying They that resist shall receive Damnation as resisting the Powers that be of God and the Ordinance of God and requiring Subjection out of Conscience because they are Gods Ministers So that as to matter of Resistance any other King has the conscionable Bar against it as much as a King of Gods own naming if he be but Gods Minister and Ordinance But now the Power of Kings by humane Titles is Gods Power and God owns this way of coming in and empowers them as much as those that come in by his own personal Nomination declaring that their Power is his Power and that they are his Ministers and Ordinance All which S. Paul says as expresly of the Roman Emperor as he could have said of any Prince immediately call'd out and commission'd by God himself The seditious Jews I conceive were of this Opinion that the Heathen Powers not set up by any Revelations but left to humane Claims were not Kings of Gods making And so were wont to despise and speak slightfully of them Despising Dominion and speaking evil of Dignities as S. Jude says of the Seditious Judaizers v. 8. But S. Paul tells such Men that these Powers were as truly of God as any of their own Nation and that Gods Command for obeying Powers was as much for obeying these as it had been for obeying them There is no power saith he but of God And he that resists the Power resists the Ordinance of God 〈◊〉 the Divine Precept viz. the fifth Commandment or other Precepts that oblige Subjects and empower Princes and give as much Duty to these Heathen Powers as they had done to any among the Jews Rom. xiii 1 2. And like to this of the different ways of their coming in making no difference in our Duties to them we find in other instances In point of Property we come into our Lands and Possessions by an humane Law and Allotment but they came into theirs in Canaan by a divine But yet there is as much Stealing and a breach of the eighth Commandment in taking away our things from us as there was in taking away theirs from them And in case of Servitude the Primitive Masters came by their Servants either as their Captives taken in War or as their Purchase bought with money like their Cattle in the Markets but we by Contract all our Servants voluntarily submitting themselves to us and at their own choice Yet for all this different Rise of Masters Powers when once Servants are got under them the same Gospel Precepts of Diligence Fidelity and not answering again c. do equally oblige in both Cases The Duties respecting either Power or Property depend not on the particular manure of coming in but only on the Rightfulness and Degrees of that Power and Property which any Persons are come in to More Power I grant there is in some Princes and more Liberties to some Subjects than to others according to the difference of Civil Governments and Constitutions But since the Power of the Jewish Kings was a Power limited by Laws as ours is an Invasion of Laws and Rights can no more justifie Resistance in our Case than it did in theirs And to say they did not come into this limited and Legal Power the same way makes no difference as to this business The Scriptures of the New Testament likewise they endeavor to turn off by saying they only bind us not to resist when true Religion has Laws against it but for all those Precepts we may resist when it has a Law on its side If we may do thus when we have a Law for Religion then since Law is as good in one Case as in another when we have a Law for Liberty or Property or any thing else But this as I have shewn is contrary to the sense of those Gospel Precepts and to the Belief and Practice of Gospel and Primitive Times Which tied up the Hands of Christians when they suffered illegal things and were treated by their Governors in numerous and most concerning Points against the Laws Again they say those Precepts were directed against Jews who were not for submitting or paying Allegiance to Foreiners or Heathens Admit they had one Eye against these yet at the same time they had as much against any others that would have run into the same Jewish Practice or have been for making Warlike Resistance to those Powers on any other pretences The thing those Precepts are plainly for securing is Non-Resistance to those Powers notwithstanding any thing that could be alledged against them And as the Jews might pretend in those days that they were Foreiners and Heathens so might others and with as much truth too that they were Invaders of Laws of Rights and Liberties And yet for all these or any other pretences Seditious Spirits should start the Apostles peremptorily injoyn all good Christians to own them still as Gods Ordinance and to forbear all warlike Resistance towards them not only for wrath but for Conscience sake And thus in obedience to those injunctions they all practised at that time as their followers did in the succeeding Persecutions And the Scriptures are written for a Rule of Christs Church alike in all times as much to us as they were to former Ages So that these Precepts both of Old and New Testament are as binding upon us as ever they were upon either the Jews or the Primitive Christians And whatever pretences were pleadable in their Case whilst the Inspired Pen-men told them they were bound not to Resist to be sure those same pretences can never Cancel our Obligation more than it did theirs or make it lawful for us do it We must follow them to Heaven in the same way the Apostles taught and they took or else we are not like to get thither at all CHAP. VI. Of the unlawfulness of Resistance on such Invasions of Rights by our own Laws TO all this which I have hitherto Discoursed from the Obligations both of Jews and Christians I shall now Thirdly In the Thrid Place Note from our own Laws how little Ground there is with us in these Realms to take up Arms against our Sovereigns for any Rights because of their being Legal or for Religion because of its being taken into the Law of the Land For those very Laws which establish our Religion and particularly the Act of Uniformity forbid this way of Defence and declare it unlawful on any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King This Declaration was made upon occasion of the Great Rebellion begun in 41. and for preventing any ones falling into the like again And therefore by any Pretence whatsoever it must more particularly include all those Pretences which were given out for taking Arms at that time And those Pretences as may be seen from the Votes and Declararations of that Parliament a brief Account whereof is given in the View of the late
Troubles were the Preservation of Liberty and Property of Religion and Laws of the Privileges of Parliament who are the Conservators of all our Rights and for keeping out of Foreign Forces which the King was said to be endeavouring to bring in to inslave this Kingdom Which Pretences are the best that can be invented for Forcible Defence and so as oft as they are bent on change will probably be made use of by Men of like Minds in latter Ages Indeed so far as Words and plain Declarations can do it our Law seems to have taken all the Care the Wit of Man can take before hand to prevent all Recourse to this way of Defence against our Lawful Sovereigns by leaving none in this way to be our Defenders or capable to pretend a Power of making use thereof If any could list Armies against the King not only in Defence of private Rights but of the Laws or the very Constitution it self when the Kings chance to break in upon them It would certainly be the two Houses of Parliament But the Act about the Militia 13. Car. 2. c. 6. and 14. Car. 2. c. 3. declares the Power of the Militia so much contested by the Parliament in King Charles the First 's time yea and that on this very Pretence that they might therewith Defend the Laws and Liberties against him to be solely in the King And that neither one nor both the Houes of Parliament can or lawfully may Levy any War either Offensive or Defensive against him So that take even the most Defensible Rights which seem best to deserve a War and put them into their Hands who have the best Claim to be their Defenders and yet t is plain by this Act that they are not to defend them against the King by Levying War or Listing Soldiers T is true our Parliaments are taken into the Government and have a share in the Highest Acts as making Laws Whence some have argued that upon the Princes Breaking in upon the Legislative Power the Parliament may take Arms against such an Invader as one Sovereign may against another This Inference is directly against the Act last mentioned which declares they have no Power against him either for any Offensive or Defensive War But to clear this Point this Share of theirs in the Legislation as I conceive is not a Sovereign's but a Subject's Part. They are called in to consult and with Authority of Negative upon all Laws to be imposed on them which is a great Security indeed of their being well-governed and bound to nothing but what is for their Benefit no Law being to be made or repealed without their own Consent But this Liberty of consulting and Authority of Negative is still under the King the only Sovereign nor on equal Terms with him as two Independant Sovereigns Agreeably we find the Stile in the Acts so often is Be it enacted by the King our Sovereign Lord with the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by Authority of the same As 37. H. 8. c. 4. 25. H. 8. c. 11. 19. H. 7. c. 18. 23. 3. Edw. 4. c. 4. 7. Edw. 4 c. 3. passim Or our Lord the King by the Advice and Assent of the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at the Request of the Commons in this Parliament Assembled and by Authority of the same hath Ordain'd and Establish'd c. 12. Edw. 4. c. 8. Tho the King is not Absolute without Rules in Governing nor alone without Partners in Legislation yet is theirs only a Subjects Part not a Coordinate Sovereigns and he alone is Supreme both in Legislation and Execution For our Law and Church too fixes all the Sovereignty of the Realm solely in the King The Kings Majesty hath the Chief Power in this Realm of England c. unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain Say the 39. Articles of Religion He is the only Supreme Governor of this and all other his Realms in all Temporal things as well as Spiritual says the Oath of Supremacy His Realm recognizes no Superior under God but only his Grace says Stat. 25. H. 8. c. 21. His Parliaments when they meet both sit and Act only as his Subjects not as his Compere Sovereigns he not having Parem in Regno suo as Bracton says For by order of Law they were to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance professing by those Solemnities of Religion that he is the sole Sovereign and that they whilst acting there are only his Subjects When during their Session they make to him any Addresses they Stile themselves his Majesties most Loyal and Dutiful Subjects Yea in Acts and Statutes themselves they have often used the same Stile calling as him their Gracious Leige Lord and Sovereign so themselves his Humble Loving and Dutiful Subjects in those Acts of Legislation In all Humble manner shew unto your most excellent Majesty your Majesties most Dutiful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons c. says Stat. 12. Car. 2. c. 30. We your Majesties most Faithful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons c. says Stat. 1. Jac. c. 1. We your Majesties most Loving Faithful and Obedient Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. representing the three Estates of this Realm so bearing only the Part and Place of Subjects in that Representation says Stat. 1. Eliz. c. 1. and the like may be seen in the Acts under Q. Mary as in Stat. 1. Mar. Sess. 2. c. 1. under King Edward 6. as Stat. 1. Edw. 6. c. 14. and K. Henry 8. as Stat. 37. H. 8. c. 4. c. 17. By all which I conceive it plainly appears that the two Houses sit with the King in Parliament and concur in making Laws not as Coordinate Powers that are equal to him but as Subordinate under him not in Place of Sovereigns but of Subjects under him their sole Sovereign So that if any Parliaments head Insurrections against our Kings they are Wars of Subjects still against their Sovereigns and such as they neither can nor Lawfully may make no not in their own Defence as the Statute says But some Appeal from the Letter of these Laws and Legal Declarations to the Equity of them and think tho the Letter of the Law condemns resisting Subjects that the Equity thereof will acquit and justifie them This Plea of Equity against the Letter of these Laws and Legal Declarations is for excepting some particular Cases from being meant and comprehended in the general Terms used therein and that is by way of Presumption that the Makers of those Laws and Declarations would have excepted them had the Cases been foreseen or particularly put to them But there is no Place for presumptions of a thing against express Declarations to the contrary or for supposing such exceptions
to be obeyed as Gods Ministers although they be evil although they abuse their Power although they be wicked and wrong doers and it is not lawful for Inferiors and Subjects in any Case to resist and withstand them Whatever the rightful Sovereign be then that bears hard upon any Man let me ask him who is most uneasie if for all his Personal unworthiness and oppressive Administration he be not still the Lords anointed and the Ordinance of God And so long if he will be a Follower of the Holy Scriptures the Primitive Fathers or our own Church whose Testimonies have been alledged how can he lift up his hand against him 2. A second Ground of their Non-Resistance was in Patience and Submission to Gods Providence In such hard Cases they were like to ease their Suffering by Patience and make it worse by Resistance In your Patience says our Saviour possess ye your Souls Luke xxi 19 When the Cross was brought upon them they were called to take it up not to drive it away to follow Christ in bearing it themselves not to follow the World in endeavouring to Force it upon others according to those Precepts of our Lord for taking up and bearing his Cross. These Persecutions they looked on as sent by God for tryal of their Patience not of their fighting Valor in making Resistance and were careful under them to shew invincible Stoutness in Sufferings not refuse to Suffer and rather fight in their own Defence The Cup which my Father hath given me shall I not Drink it Therefore put up thy Sword said Christ. Joh. xviii 11 Lo here is the Patience of the Saints says S. John noting what in their Persecutions they sought to Signalize Rev. xiv 12 And Absit ut Divina Secta dolâ—at pati in quo probatur God forbid this Divine Sect should be against Suffering which is only Gods way of Tryal and Probation says Tertullian of their patient and unresisting Sufferings when they had strength enough to defend themselves 3. In faith in God and trust that he as Rightful Judge would sooner or later as he saw best Right their Cause Vengeance is mine I will repay saith God and they were content to leave it to him We confide in him who is able to take Vengeance both for his own and his Servants injuries When we suffer such unspeakable things we leave it to God to Right us says Lactantius Against all your injuries the Judgment and Vengeance of God is our Defence And upon that account it is that none of us makes any Resistance though we have Numbers more than enough says S Cyprian And loe here is the Faith and Patience of the Saints said S. John Rev. xiii 10 They committed their Rights to him when despoiled of them by unjust Force and never went about to make Parties and Tumults by Force to Right themselves to shew the Faith they had in his Justice his Providence and Promises and how far and freely even in these dearest and most concerning Interests they durst trust him Now both these also are Reasons equally not to Resist under any rightful Sovereigns The Cross is the same under one as under others The same Tryal of Patience and of Faith when they fall under the same distresses whether by Christian or Heathen Sober or Dissolute by Princes that Invade or that observe Civil Laws and Legal Properties Now to all this that has been said on this Subject it would be a very weak and unjust exception to say this forbidding of Resistance on violation of Laws is setting up for illegal and arbitrary Government For to Govern Arbitrarily is to Rule by Discretion or to have no written Laws to Govern by And where there are Stated Laws to regulate and direct Administrations there is all the Human care that can be to prevent Arbitrariness in Sovereigns There are but two ways to limit and lay Restraints or keep any Governor within compass One is Laws which restrain him as a Rule by fixing and prescribing for him his just Bounds The other is a Superior Power that can call him to account when he Deviates and forceably compel him to return into a Right Course and these restrain him as his Rulers Now as for this later way of appointing Higher Powers for their Supervisors and Correctors it is visible this can be no way of restraining Sovereigns who can be no longer Sovereigns but Subjects if they have any Superiors He that is by Law declared the Supreme especiall the only Supreme in any Realm must needs be above all and no Man can be above him Though the Laws of his Realm are to be his Rule yet no Man in his Realm can be his Ruler nor they who all profess themselves made subject to pretend to set upon him Besides if such Correctors were appointed to secure the Laws yet would that be only a Dream of Security which would vanish as Experience made us awake and come to our selves and not secure them really more than they are secured already For these Correctors being subject to like Over-sights Passions and Misgovernments are as liable to Prevaricate and Violate the Laws as those whom they are set to Supervise The Laws are safe enough in the Hands of good Kings and as unsafe in the Hands of ill Correctors as of ill Kings and such Correctors are every whit as liable and like as oft to be ill and abuse the Laws as Kings themselves And what redress for the Invasions and breach of Laws when they do amiss So that this doth not Cure but only shift the Disease which is uncureable under any Sovereign or last Judge be it King or Parliament Army or Mobile through the Nature of this World and the inseparable uncertainties of Human Affairs As in the â—â—ne of Human Subordinations then some must be Sovereigns and these must be Men subject to be drawn aside like our selves so can these have no Restraint but Laws nor any Judge but God and so be unaccountable here on Earth The only possible restraint of Arbitrariness in them is Laws And the best restraint these can lay is if Acts of State and Justice are to be sped not only by the Sovereign himself in Person but by his Ministers And if though the Sovereign himself is not yet his Ministers are accountable and tryable for Breach of Laws as well as others Which I think is as much security under a Sovereign as Sovereignty allows And this Human Security we have in this Realm to Guard our Laws although we may not resist our Sovereign and fight for those Laws against him by force of Arms which is a throwing off his Sovereignty over us and setting up for our Selves But though this Doctrine of Non-Resistance yea even in Defence of Laws doth not make Arbitrary Power yet on the other Hand I would have it considered whether the Liberty of Resistance is not like to bring in Arbitrary Subjection They may cast off Obedience say some
CHRISTIANITY A DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS OR Passive Obedience UNDER ANY Pretended Invasion of LEGAL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES LONDON Printed for Jos. Hindmarsh and Rob. Kettlewell and are to be sold at the Golden Ball in Cornhill 1691. TO THE READER IT is a sad Reflection to a true Christian Spirit to see some of the noblest Virtues of our Holy Religion and Points of Good Practice not only neglected in the Lives but endeavoured to be driven out of the Reverence and Esteem of Christians Among these I think none of late have bore more of the rude Batteries of Noise and Violence or fallen deeper under the Wanton Sport or Malicious Strokes of Profane Wits than the Doctrine of Passive Obedience I take it to be an unquestionable Gospel Truth and Primitive Doctrine And to carry in it the most lively exercise and expression of the two grand Virtues of Faith and Patience It is Faith that under persecuting or oppressive Governors rather than save our selves by sinning against God or them dare run Ventures and trust or rely on him either to prevent those Persecutions and outward Losses that are ready to meet us in this stedfastness to our Duty or to support us under them and abundantly Compensate and Reward us for them And it is Patience that bears all the pressing Conflicts without Fainting till the Grace of God has brought us through them And these two Virtues raise us so much above our selves and this World or above Human Weaknesses Affections and Interests that God has always dignified them with especial Marks and Prerogatives of his Favor and Acceptance And on the same account good Men have ever held them as the brightest Glory of the Saints and what they were most ambitiously to aim at As on the other Hand for the same Reason they have ever been the greatest Terror and Stumbling-Block to Worldly and Carnal Minds My design in the ensuing Papers is to do what seasonable Service I am able to this great and noble instance of Oppressed Truth and Righteousness And because after all that has been so often and so well said of late upon this Subject by others particularly in the Elaborate and much Celebrated Discourses of Jovian and the Case of Resistance of the Supreme Powers Stated c. The Adversaries of this Truth still insist with great Confidence and Triumph upon the Plea of Legal Rights for Authorizing Resistance I have singled out this Plea and Discuss'd it in the ensuing Treatise My aim is not so much to ingage in particular and personal Disputes as to speak to the Argument and to say so much as among Minds willing to see it may be sufficient to Prove and Establish a Doctrine so necessary as that whereof I write and to obviate the most Colorable Pretences brought against it Passive Obedience is a great and Practical Truth and I seek herein by setting it off with as much Strength and Clearness and withal as briefly as I can to build up honestly disposed Readers in the Belief and Practice thereof notwithstanding any things which either in pretended Favor to Religion or on any fancied Autority from Civil Right they shall find urged in opposition to it I must advertise thee further that this Treatise was sent away in Company of another Intituled Of Christian Prudence c. And being both then prepared and designed for the Press there is a Reference to it in Page 160. of that Book Which not being observed by those who had the care thereof the Author himself being at a great distance from the Press that Book was Published first and this was left to follow it And now it is come abroad I beseech Almighty God of his Infinite Mercy to vouchsafe it his Acceptance and to accompany it with his Grace that it may not fail to do an Holy Religion some Honor a Noble but decried and exploded Duty some Credit and thy Self and his Church some Service THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. NO Arming against Sovereign Powers in Love for Religion Religion an internal thing So 1. Others Force can never make us lose Religion But only the external things about Religion Nor binder the force of our Ministry 2. When Religion suffers force from Persecuting Sovereigns to rise in Arms is not a way for us to defend and Preserve Religion CHAP. II. That the Subjects of the Empire had Legal Rights The Invasions upon Laws in the days of Christ and his Apostles Yet they Preached up Submission and Non-Resistance The Emperors were to Govern by Laws In what sense said to be loose from the Laws The Romans had both their Laws and Customs and several Freedoms CHAP. III. Of Invasion c. under the Persecuting Emperors The Persecuting Emperors invaded these Legal Rights An account thereof in several Particulars CHAP. IV. The Christians Passive Obedience under these Invaders of Legal Rights Many Emperors in Fact and opportunities for Resistance The Christians still true to the Rightful Emperors not resisting under invasions of Legal Rights The general Pleas for Resistance never more strong than under those Emperors shown in Particulars CHAP. V. Of Passive Obedience under Invasions of Legal Rights among the Jews Of Persecutions of Religion against Law and of the illegality of Idolatry among the Jews Of breach of Property against Law by their Kings Vnder all which no Liberty of Resistance No evading these Scriptures by saying their Kings were personally nominated by God Nor the Scriptures of the New Testament by the Answers given to them CHAP. VI. Of the unlawfulness of Resistance on such Invasions of Rights by our own Laws No pretence left for Resistance by our Laws Nor from the Subjects Share in Legislation No appealing in this Point from the Letter of our Laws to the equity thereof Or to the Nature of our Constitution and to the end of our Frame CHAP. VII Of Passive Obedience under Invaders of Natural Rights c. Natural Rights as Defensible by Arms as Civil Rights are Subjects must defend both by ways consistent with Subjection No great difference as to Point of Resistance when Religion is Persecuted whether it stand on its own Right or on Civil Right Nor betwixt our Case and that of the Primitive Saints on the Distinction of Absolute and Limited Governors CHAP. VIII No Resistance on pretence that Acts against Law are inautoritative Non-Resistance due to a King whilst the Regal Autority is not forfeited but resides in his Person This it doth for all his unautoritative and illegal Actings which is shewn in several instances No making War upon him for the same because they do not disauthorize his Person or unking him An Answer on these Grounds to several Questions about the Autority of Kings acting against Laws CHAP. IX The Reasons of Non Resistance c. On what Grounds the Primitive Saints paid this Non-Resistance Non-Resistance on Invasion of Laws doth not make Arbitrary Government ERRATA PAge 2. Line 11. Read of our Holy p. 4. l. 21. r. of this
World p. 11. l. 33. r. that it is but fit p. 14. l. 17. r. this external Force p. 23. l. 6. in the Margin r. cited p. 3. p. 29. l. 15. in the Margin r. Apol. p. 6. c. 13. p. 38. l. 18. in the Margin r. c. l. 4. p. 39. l. 8. r. Romans p. 43. l. 29. r. to bear p. 46. l. 16. r. which no Judge and l. 25 in the Margin r. convenit eum p. 51. l. 21. in the Margin r. Vindemiam p. 52. l. 11. r. Persecutors p. 65. l. 1 r. manner p. 66. l. 24. r. third p. 67. l. 29. r. Houses p. 68. l. 17. r. not on p. 71. l. 7. r. Salvo p. 79. l. 1. r. Sue for it in CHRISTIANITY A DOCTRINE OF THE CROSS PAssive Obedience to Sovereign Powers is keeping under their Obedience when we suffer wrongfully at their hands If they command things against the Law of God or of the Land we ought not or if against the inviolable Liberties which Laws have secured against the Prerogative in their respective Kingdoms we need not ordinarily be Active in doing what we are bidden In other things a just and lawful Authority must have Active Obedience But when they come to punish against Laws or for such things as with a safe Conscience their Subjects could not act in they are still to continue under their Obedience and in a state of Subjection And this is by being Passive or not rising up to Resist and Levy War against them They may seek to guard off the unjust Suffering by Petitioning by claiming the help of Law from Courts of Justice whilst there are any Provisions for help yet untryed therein or by any other fitting ways consistent with Subjection But not by running to Arms when all other ways fail and by lifting Soldiers for no Man will stand in Arms by himself against him to defend their own Rights against their lawful Sovereign Whilst a Prince is our lawful Sovereign Obedience must be Due to him and whilst we are under his Obedience we must be Passive and have no liberty in this sort to resist him This Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance seems both most plainly prescribed by the Precepts and most sutable to the Spirit and Genius of Holy Religion The Fifth Commandment under the name of Honor injoyns both Reverence and Support of Princes as our Politick Fathers But when Subjects make War upon them instead of paying Fear and Reverence they are plainly in a state of bidding Defiance and when the Sword is unsheathed against them that is evidently not for their Support but for the beating and pulling of them Down Put them in mind saith S. Paul to obey Magistrates But there is most visibly an end of Obedience when things are come to this pass and Men under command cannot possibly do any thing more contrary to shewing Obedience than to rise and fall upon their Commanders Submit says S. Peter to every ordinance of man Yea Let every soul be subject saith S. Paul But what becomes of submission when they fall thus to resisting For every Man must needs be sensible he doth no longer submit to another when he stands up to resist and fight against him Christianity is a Doctrine of the Cross which is one of its Distinguishing Marks nothing in account thereof being more necessary more proper and praise-worthy than for Christians to take up and bear Crosses Whence came those Crosses so much as from the Persecuting Powers And if the Crosses which Christians profess to bear are such as Persecuting Sovereigns lay on it is plain they profess not to Resist which is out of the way of bearing but to shew Passive Obedience under them For there is an end of taking up and bearing Crosses when instead of taking up and bearing Men set themselves with all their might to shake them off or beat them back again These passages and such like do sufficiently bear out the Duty of Non-Resistance even to the most ordinary Understandings if they will but attend to them Besides that S. Paul has told us in express terms that they who resist the Higher Powers shall receive to themselves damnation All this was true say the Advocates of Resistance at those times and in those Cases for which these Rules were given But those were where the wills of Governors were Laws or where the Laws brought Crosses not where the Laws as it is with us are a Cover against them Religion it self say they doth not authorise Resistance but Civil Right doth And if Religion is by Law made a Civil Right we may Resist for it as we may for other Civil Rights and Properties Not being bound by any of these Precepts to bear Crosses which the Law keeps off Nor tyed to submission under invasion of Civil Rights which carry with them a power to rise in Defence thereof This Plea is set up as the main strength of those that argue against the Doctrine of Passive Obedience And my design is particularly to Discuss it and to inquire whether the Precepts and Obligations to Passive Obedience were given and kept with an exception of these Invasions of Civil Rights or with a design to bind under them and as a Rule to Christians whilst they suffered such Invasions This way of Warlike Resistance is a very hazardous course and thereby Men extremely expose their own Persons And that which tempts them thus to hazard themselves as the most serious are wont to profess is their Affection for Religion Like as that which is given out to justifie them therein is its being made a Civil Right or Legal Constitution And I shall endeavour to shew them that Religion gets no good by it so they are mistaken in the way of shewing their Affection And that its being a Civil Right will not warrant them therein so they will miss also of their Justification The former I shall not pass over without saying so much as I think sufficient to undeceive the honest and well meaning But the clearing of the later is what I principally design CHAP. I. No Arming against Sovereign Powers in love for Religion TO take off the pretence and temptation to war-like Resistance against the Soveraign Powers for the sake of Religion I shall shew in the first place that this Rising in Arms is no wise expression of Mens care and kindness for true Religion Religion is an internal thing It doth not hang without us as the things of the world but is inward in the mind It is lodged in our hearts and is to dwell upon our Spirits The Kingdom of God is within you says our Saviour Luk. xvii 2 It consists in a New Nature and the Renewal of the mind says S. Paul Rom. xii 2 It lies in Faith and Obedience which are Spiritual and internal things Their Power and Excellence take life from and are seated in the inner Man though they are expressed and made visible in the
Imperial Prerogative more and more till by degrees they had swallowed up most of that which by the allowance of the Lex Regia at first remain'd of the Powers and Prerogatives of the People and Senate Nay not content thus to incroach on all that seemed to carry any competition in point of Power when they had taken from them almost all the Authority of Governors they would not permit them to rest safe in the Rights and Immunities of Subjects or keep in their Administration to the known Laws and Justice of the Empire For they were very heinous and notorious Invaders of the Lives and Properties of the Roman Subjects and those too of highest Dignity as may appear to any that will read the Lives of Tiberias Caligula Claudius Nero who sway'd all in the days of Christ and his Apostles But what say the Prince and the Preachers of the Gospel of Peace to the Subjects of the Empire under these Invaders of Rights and Properties or Ravishers of Liberties as the phrase of some now is Render to Caesar the things which are Caesars says our Saviour to the Jews under Tiberius towards the end of his Reign and in his worst times Mat. xxii 21 Whoever resists resists the ordinance of God and shall receive damnation Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake says S. Paul to those at Rome Rom. xiii 2.5 And submit for the Lords sake to every ordinance of man whether to the King as supreme or to Governors who are sent by him says S. Peter to the strangers or converted Jews thro Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and those parts 1 Pet. ii 13 14. And this charge he laid on them and was instant in it when their Countrymen were busily meditating a Revolt which was abetted by those in the Provinces as well as acted by those in Judea as Dio says and that from under Nero the worst of invading Tyrants and monster of men this Epistle being writ as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures in the eleventh year of Nero when the Jews had begun those Commotions the factious spirits had been so long driving on it being the year before Cestius Gallus laid siege to Jerusalem which a few years after was taken and destroy'd by Vespasian These were the Rules of Christian Subjection under all the aforesaid Emperors whereby the Christians of that and of the ensuing Ages were to govern themselves And these do not teach taking up Arms against invading Princes but passive Obedience or Non-resistance under them And that at a time when the invasion of Rights was most crying and notorious and in the tenderest points both of Life Power and Fortunes And when they had not merely the nature of Right to plead as implying a power as some say now of forcible Defence even against the Prince himself should he offer to infringe it But when also says the Pastoral Letter tho I think the Lex Regia and the erection of the Empire had taken the force of that off they had the Lex Valeria or Valerian Law to secure those Rights That is a Law of Valerius from this and other such like Laws passed in his Consulship sirnamed Publicola as Livy says who upon the Expulsion of the Kings and change of Government to a popular state enacted That it should be lawful for any one to kill him who took upon him any Magistracy without the Peoples order and consent And indeed the meaning of all the Gospel Precepts of taking up the Cross Patience and Non-resistance must needs be meant of Invaders of Rights whether natural or civil matters not much as I shall shew afterwards For where are the Crosses what place for Patience or what provocation to Resistance under the Maintainers of Rights or righteous Rulers There is difference between the Patience and Non-resistance of Criminals and the Patience and Non-resistance of Christians That is when they suffer according to Right this when against Right that when they suffer for ill this when for good and rewardable things If when ye suffer for your faults ye take that patiently what glory is it to you But if when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently that is acceptable with God 1 Pet. ii 19 20. So that to pretend we are for Passive Obedience and yet not to be for suffering but resisting when our Rights are invaded seems as much as to say we are always for it but when we are call'd to use it Good Kings will not punish but reward good men and well-doers and that will afford but very little tryal of their Passive Obedience Under the Successors of these Emperors the Persecutions of the Christians were carried on still by the breach of Rights Not only the Rights of God and Religion as all their Persecutions were a reverse of his Orders and usurping a Power to punish and torment his servants for obeying him But by a breach of the Rights of the Empire too To clear this I observe that though the Roman Emperor had a very large and extensive Power much wider than is injoyed by our Kings and as absolute by the Lex Regia as could well consist with the Government of a Free People yet was this Imperial Power to be administred by stated Laws and to consist with popular freedoms and immunities In several things the Emperor was bound up to the consent of the Subject not having a plenary Power to act alone without the concurrence of the Senate Such was the Consecrating of any new God which as Tertullian notes was not to be done nisi à Senatu probatus without the approbation of the Senate On which account though on the credit of Letters he received out of Palestine declaring his Divinity Tiberius was for it and brought it into the Senate as that Father observes with the prerogative of his Suffrage yet the Senate refusing our Saviour Christ was not admitted into the List of the Roman Deities To say nothing now how by the Original Constitution he was to bring before them several great matters of State as about raising Taxes and Soldiers and answering Ambassadors and the like as I observed before Such also was that Creation of Magistrates reserved at first by the Lex Regia to the Senate and People the Emperor as Head of the Senate giving his Suffrage which Tiberius first took away from the People in the Assembly of their Tribes to restrain it to the Senators as is observed by Tacitus and which Caligula was afterwards for restoring to them as we are told by Suetonius The Imperial Power was Established by Law in Augustus on his Speech to deliver it up to the Senate and People as I shewed before And cannot be thought to have been such a Power as should set aside all their Laws since in that very Speech he exhorted them firmly to retain and make no change in their received Laws as Dio says
refers And therefore in that Law it is declared not only to be the Privilege of the Emperors but to be communicable by them to the Emperesses The Prince is loose from the Laws But the Emperess tho she is not loosed from the Laws yet the Princes give her the same Privileges which they have themselves Thus as to place of Sepulture when not allow'd by Law within the City yet Imperatores Virgines Vestae quia Legibus non tenentur in Civitate habebunt sepulchra The Emperors and Vestal Virgins being they are not bound by the Laws shall have their Sepulchres in the City says Servius Or their loosness from Laws was from the punishments of Laws or not being coercible by their Penalties Thus Harmenopulus expounds it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. The Prince is loose from the Laws because not punishable by any on Earth when he breaks them And so as Grotius observes doth S. Ambrose too who had been a Judge of the Empire in his Apologia Davidis Rex utique erat c. i.e. He was a King and so not bound by the Laws because Kings are free from the bond of their offences For they cannot be called to punishment by any humane Laws being secure by the Authority of Empire But tho thus loosed from the direct Authority and Restraint of Laws in their private Actions yet were the Emperors tyed to Laws as well as others and to have only what the Law gave them in any claims of Rights and Properties If the Testament is imperfect and not valid the Emperor himself cannot claim the Inheritance thereby as has often been determined says the Law Tho loose from all Coercion and suffering punishment by them as Subjects yet were they not loose from the tye of administring by them as Rulers it being a voice worthy of the Majesty of one that reigns as to this matter as I noted from the Law before to profess himself a Prince not left to Rule at Will but tyed to the Laws The Emperors were to Rule and administer Justice not after their own Will and arbitrary Pleasure but ut Dominatio Civilis as I observed from Tertullian or according to Laws till they were taken off by regular Repeals And what possession they had of the Legislative was to be Legislators to a Free People Tho altering in other matters as might make most for the good of their Subjects yet having no Power to vacate those Laws which were the Guard of Roman Liberty and Property They were not free by Law to make the Free-born Romans Slaves or ordain any thing but what was suitable to a People of Free condition For the Roman Subjects had both their Laws and Customs their jus-scriptum and non scriptum written and unwritten Laws as Justinian calls them They were not as the Emperors Slaves who as 't is in the Institutes have no head in Law nor can acquire or receive any thing for themselves but all for their Masters But as Free-men had their several Properties and were Masters of Estates some vastly great and others less according to their several Degrees and Qualities Whereof they could dispose as Proprietors by Sale or Gift either in their Lives or by their Testament at their Deaths They had their Rights and Freedoms and distinct Steps and Degrees of Immunity and Privilege some having the Rights of Liberty others of Citizens or of the City which Augustus was careful to keep in great price and dispens'd so very sparingly others of Dignity And in Dignities the several Degrees had their proportionable Privileges and Exemptions And indeed since the Romans were such unmeasurable Affecters of Liberty and prided themselves above all the World on the score of their Freedoms and Privileges when on Augustus's offer to restore the Power and Authority back into their hands both Arms Laws and Provinces as Dio says they chose rather to erect the Imperial Power by the Lex Regia no man can imagine that by this Law they would pass away not only their former Power as Rulers but also their Freedoms and Immunities as Subjects and make themselves and their Posterities instead of priviledg'd and Free-born Romans to be all thenceforward mere Slaves The Freedoms of Romans they still kept on and a great price was set upon these Freedoms to those who needed to purchase and were not born to them as well under the Emperors as it had been before their time With a great sum of money obtain'd I this Freedom viz. of being a Roman saith the Chief Captain but I says S. Paul was Free born Act xxii 27 28. Among these Freedoms and Immunities of Roman Citizens one was that they should not be put in Bonds Another that they should not be punish'd with Stripes and Scourges A third that it was not lawful to fix any of them upon a Cross which were Servilia Supplicia or Punishments appointed for their Slaves 'T is a great offence to bind a Roman a more heinous one to scourge him and what name can be hard enough for the Crucifixion of him says Cicero What cause adds he could Verres have for treating any Citizen of Rome thus Tho indeed in asking for what cause I do an injury to the Common Cause and to the Rights and Liberties of the City as if there could be any cause for which the Magistrate might deal thus by Roman Citizens This says he again is the sweet of Liberty and the singular Right and Privilege of our City secured to us by the Lex Porcia and the Leges Semproniae which no Praetor or other Person whomsoever should impunely transgress Another of their Rights and Privileges was not to be condemn'd unheard or suffer without a Tryal which was not only the Law of Rome but of all civiliz'd Nations No Malefactor is to be condemn'd till he has first been accused and had his Tryal says Cicero And the Law of the twelve Tables forbids interfici indemnatum quemcunque hominem any man to suffer before hearing and Condemnation as Salvian notes Not to mention the Lenity and Temper in other Respects which Cicero observes of the Roman Law towards accused Persons These were popular Rights and Immunities not only under the Commonwealth but afterwards under the Emperors S. Paul pleads them under Nero and tells the Chief Captain he had infringed his Roman Privileges and acted illegally by him both in binding and scourging him being a Roman and in inflicting all this upon him unheard and before Condemnation Is it lawful for you says he as they bound him with Thongs to scourge a Man that is a Roman and uncondemn'd And the Chief Captain was afraid because he was a Roman and because he had bound him Act. xxii 25.29 The like plea of Privilege he also makes and therewith put the Invaders thereof in fear upon a like Violation of these Rights of a Roman Subject before the Magistrates of Philippi
publick Enemies and the like against the now exploded Doctrine of Faith and Patience and Non-resistance under the fiery tryal of the primitive Persecutions But those blessed Martyrs and Confessors had not so learned Christ. These illegal Invaders of Rights and bloody Persecutors of Religion they still own'd and suffer'd as Gods Vicegerents And as our Lord himself and his blessed Apostles taught and practised so these their true Followers took care even in such Violators of Rights never to resist the Ordinance of God which by S. Paul has Damnation annex'd to it but to submit to them not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake They stuck to the Faith and Laws of Christ with Courage and Resoluteness and bore and broke all the unjust violence of the persecuting Powers with Patience and never countenanced or joyn'd in any of the numerous Insurrections made against them tho they had so much Temptation to it for their own fleshly ease as appears from Tertullian Origen Cyprian c. in the forecited Testimonies And the like will be done by all others who are for trusting their Souls with theirs and think them safer in those primitive and first taught ways than in any of the so much fancied and magnified new Inventions CHAP. V. Of passive Obedience under Invasions of Legal Rights among the Jews AGreeable to this belief and practice of the Christians under the New Testament was that also of the Jews under the Old Testament in this case This was seen in their Carriage towards those Kings both in Judah and Israel who introduced and set up an Idolatrous Worship To bring in or to maintain Idolatry was an Invasion upon the Law of their Land as well as upon the Rights of God Yea and that in a point which may seem the very ground and bottom of their Law and among the most fundamental as many now to move Stirs would have taught them in the Jewish Constitution For the Civil State of Jury was at first a Theocracy The true God was not only their God whom they were to observe in regard to another World but their King too under whom they were incorporated and to unite together as a Society of this World As a Polity of this World they were Gods People who modell'd their Constitution and prescribed them their Laws from whom and in whose Name was Legislation and Judicature and who as their supreme Orderer and Director was to be consulted for Peace and War The Law of Moses whom Longinus calls the Legislator of the Jews was the Law of their Land And this Law was a political Covenant betwixt them and the true God all to be observ'd in keeping under him not in Defection from him Hence the going to serve other Gods is by way of eminence call'd working Wickedness in breaking or transgressing his Covenant Deut. 17.2 3 c. And accordingly Moses having the two Tables of the Law in his hands which he calls the Tables of Gods Covenant with the Jews brake both the Tables before their eyes when he saw them fallen from the Worship of God to the Golden Calf Thereby noting the Covenant to be broken by Idol Worship and that these Laws or Tables were a Charter or Covenant to incorporate them under the true God not under Idols Deut. 9.17 And answerably on any such defection such Inquisition and Procedure both towards Seducers and Seduced was appointed thereby without any Allowance of Misprision or Concealment even of the dearest person as is proper for the highest State Crime c. 13. and c. 17. So that for any King to go to set up other Gods in Jury was not only to act illegally or break thro Laws and Statutes among them but to undermine the very bottom of all their Laws and break in upon the main and most important things in the Jewish Law or Constitution Now Ahab suppressed the Worship of the true God in Israel which was the legal and establish'd Religion banish'd and put to death the Prophets extirpated the Professors in Appearance so far as that they seem'd even clean gone to Elijah himself And having pull'd down the Worship of God prescribed by Law set up the Worship of Baal that was forbid by Law and all by his own Authority Here was mere Will and Power over-ruling Laws and illegal Invasion and arbitrary Power in the most tender and fundamental points and all this acted to the highest Extremities and with greatest Outrage But yet all this would not authorize their levying War and rising in Arms against this impious and illegal Invader of Religion and Laws Even Elijah whose Spirit goes further in opposition and return of ill than Christs doth calling down fire from Heaven to consume those that were sent to take him yet opposes all this only by freedom of Confession and saves himself by flight and enjoys his Soul in Patience and seeks Redress by Prayers and Trust in Providence But never sollicits nor seeks to stir up the many Thousands in Israel both Priests and People who possibly might have some Remains of Faith and Zeal for the Lord of Hosts to defend their legal and establish'd Worship and keep out Heathenism against their King by Insurrection and Rebellion But wicked idolatrous and illegally administring Ahab and his House were to hold his Crown till God himself who is the rightful Judge of Princes expresly deposed and disauthorized them and not by mere course of Providence but by particular Nomination and the anointing of a Prophet set Jehu upon his Throne What more common among the Kings of Israel and Judah than to persecute the true Worship of God and to set up and impose a false one in its stead All the Kings of Israel were open and plain Idolaters And so were several of the Kings of Judah Particularly Ahaz shut up the doors of the House of the Lord fell to the Abomination of the Heathen and made him Altars in every corner of Jerusalem And Manasseh brought the Heathen Idols into the very Temple of Jerusalem excluding and banishing the true God whole Worship was setled by Law from his own House and setting up the Abomination of Idols which the Law forbad in the most publick places Here is legal Truth arbitrarily turned out and illegal Error as arbitrarily set up even in the authorized and most publick places the Churches and Temples of the Land And this against all Religion and National Laws even those that in the style of many now to stir up Insurrection would be call'd most essential to the Civil Constitution it self and which were not dependant on the King either to make or to repeal them But Elijah and Elisha Micha and Isaiah and all the other holy Prophets who of all persons were the fittest as the Trump of God to sound to Arms and call men to rise in Gods Cause yet when sent to cry out against this dishonor of God and breach of Laws they did it only as
Confessors not as Ring-leaders to Rebellion They never attempted this course for redress nor stirr'd up the People to defend God and the Laws against their Kings by armed Resistance or by Deposing of those impious and arbitrary Princes To descend now from Religion when taken into the Law and made a Civil Right to Property Saul persecuted David not in any way of Law and Justice but of mere wilful Fury and Cruelty to shed his innocent Blood as he had already done by the Blood of a Number of Priests without any regard either to the Innocence of the Men or the Sacredness of their Function This sure was an Invasion of Rights not only the common Rights of Humanity but of their Civil Rights of the sixth Commandment saying Thou shalt not kill which was not only the Law of God but the Law of their Land or of Jury Now whilst Saul was acting thus against Law and invading Rights doth David think he has lost all claim to his former Submission and may be looked on thenceforward and opposed as a mere unauthorized person No but owns him for the Lords anointed at that very time and thereupon that he could not do against him what was unlawful against one of that Character and Denomination How can I stretch forth my hand against him and be guiltless seeing he is the Lords anointed 1 Sam. xxvi 9 Like as afterwards whilst Pilate was passing an unjust Sentence in a Case of Blood and that against his own Conscience and Confessions our Lord still owns him as one that had Power over him from above Jo. xix 11 Such likewise was the breach of Property when Ahab against all Law and Justice seized Naboth's Vineyard together with his Life which was a much more valuable Freehold And when Jezabel fill'd all places with illegal Executions keeping alive the Priests of Baal whom the Law utterly and inexorably destroy'd and destroying all the Prophets of the Lord she could find good Obadiah venturing his life to hide and maintain an hundred of them by Fifties in a Cave from her fury all whom the Law protected And when the Kings and Princes of Judah and Israel were complained of by Isaiah for Exactions and Oppressions and perverting of Justice As others were by Jeremy Ezekiel Hosea Amos Micha Zephaniah c. for Grinding the Faces of their Subjects shedding innocent Blood and turning aside the Poor in the Gate from their Right But tho here was breach of Laws and legal Properties yet was this never allow'd as a just Pretence for the injured Subjects by force of Arms to do themselves Right and rebel against such invading Princes The holy Prophets talked of no Forfeitures of Crowns or Depositions of Kings or discharge of Duty and Allegiance on these Accounts but refer'd them to God the Supreme Judge to right them against their invading Sovereigns This in those days was their Maxim as it is in the Words of Rabbi Jeremiah No creature may judge the King but the holy and blessed God alone Some indeed think to turn by the Scriptures of the Old Testament forbidding this Resistance among the Jews as of no force with us because they had Kings immediately delegated by God either in Answers from the Cloud of Glory or Unction by Prophets And what was there forbid against such a King they think is only of force under others who come in by like special prophetical Delegation Now as to this it solves not the Argument from the Dueness of Non-resistance to Jewish or Israelitish Kings for that was as due to those that wanted as to those that had these immediate Nominations It was as due to Ahab and all those other Kings of Israel that were such Invaders of Laws and Rights as I observed as to Jeroboam or to Jehu And yet among the Kings of Israel Jeroboam and Jehu alone had this prophetical Nomination all the rest coming in by humane Titles like the Kings of other Nations And as due to Hezekiah and Josiah and all the other Kings of Judah that were Kings by descent as to Saul or David who were set up by immediate Message from God And yet after David and Solomon the Crown in Judah went by the course of Descent in the Royal Blood without any Interposition so far as we can see in Scripture of Gods personal Nomination Even in Joash's Case who was set up against Athaliah after six years possession no such thing was pretended Jehoiada the Priest who managed that Revolution not pretending for young Joash any Message of a Prophet or Answer from the Cloud of Glory which had that been their method of setting up Kings in those days he as chief Priest should have consulted but only his heritable Right according to the Constitution of Jury or being of the House of David Besides Non-resistance and other Duties to Sovereign Governors do not depend upon the method or way of coming into Power but only on that rightful Power and Authority they are come into Honor thy Father obey Magistrates submit to the King as supreme be subject to the Higher Powers and other like Sayings of Scripture requiring these Duties look only at the Authority If a Man is the true Father the rightful Power and the lawful King they ask no more to make all these due to him making no difference whether he comes to have this Right by an Humane Title or by a Divine Now all that Gods personal Nomination doth is as other personal Titles do to fix the Power in a certain person It gives no inlargement of Power or greater extent of Prerogative And not widening or enlarging the Authority it can make or call for no more Duty And accordingly these Duties were as much the due of those Kings that came in by humane Titles among the Jews as of those who were personally named by God himself And they are as due to any Kings of other Nations as they were to Jewish Kings For Government is instituted of God for all Nations as well as Jury And Obedience to Governors is a natural Duty So that Subjects of all Governments are call'd to pay these Duties as much as the Jewish Subjects were Now to bid men be subject and submissive and obedient and not to resist and the like are as plain and full as I noted at first as the most ordinary Understandings need to be taught against all Resistance What said God more than this against Resistance to the Jews when he named any King himself Nay if we come to make Comparisons where are the Sayings against it under any such Kings so numerous and express And these are as plain if Men are willing to understand what God plainly tells them when spoken in case of a Roman Emperor who had a humane Title as they would have been in case of Saul who had a divine Title They are due to any persons as having Gods Authority and being his Vicegerents Thus S. Paul notes
in Laws that say themselves they do not except any Cases And this the foresaid Declarations do in this point of Resistance declaring it to be unlawful to take up Arms against the King on any Pretence whatsoever Yea being made with a particular Eye against these Pretences of Invasion of Laws Religion c. So that they must needs be understood to comprehend and not to except them as I noted before Besides Military Resistance of Sovereign Powers stands forbid by the Letter not only of our Laws but also of Nature and Scripture the Fifth Commandment and other Scripture Precepts calling indispensibly for Subjection and Obedience which bars all such Resistance to Sovereign Princes from all Persons and at all times And there is no pleading Equity to exempt any Cases from the Generality of their Expressions For there is no urging Equity against Natural Duties In mere Positives or in things of mere Human Obligation it may have more Place But in Matters of intrinsick Goodness and Natural Obligation it has none They are standing Rules that admit of no exception and the Plea of Equity must always and only be for the keeping but never for the breaking of them No Man must ever pretend Equity for leave to commit Murder or Adultery or to Steal or to Rebel or to Transgress any other Law of Nature For the main care of Equity is to make these Duties inviolable and so the Argument to be drawn from thence is in every Case to Act according to them but in no Case to Act against them The Pretence for Equities exempting some Cases from the Prohibitions of Resistance is for the safety of Subjects because say some no Man can owe so much Duty to his Prince as not to have a Salve for his Safety especially for his Life But what a Man owes or is oblig'd to by the Law of Nature not only to his Prince but to the meanest Fellow-Subject or to any of Mankind is without any such Salvo even for Life and he may not transgress such Natural Duty towards them tho it were to save his Life It not being lawful to Steal or Murder or commit Adultery or Transgress any other Natural Duties against our Neighbours no not when we are the most put upon it and tempted thereto to save our selves I add whatever People spurr'd on by a desire of Revenge may vainly fancy in Favor of their own Passions that Equity sets more by Submission in all Cases than by this desired Liberty of Resistance Its first Precept about this Matter is whatever the Governor be to have Government kept up which is by holding on Submission that is always cast off by Resisting And this not only in Regard to Gods Authority whereto it calls for Justice and Submission tho in an evil Prince but also in Care of the Subjects own Good Which amidst all the hazards Men may think the Doctrine of Non-Resistance to be attended withal is much more and much safer in this Constancy of Submission and Non-Resistance than it would be in the contrary Liberty of Resisting and running to Arms on the foresaid Pretences Lastly that Equity doth not exempt from this Non-Resistance is plain because it is a general Principle and what exemption it gives would be General under all Governments absolute as well as limited and in all times and Places one having as much Claim to Natural Equity as another has And so there would have been Exemption thereby under the Roman Emperors fancied tho without Ground to have been absolute and arbitrary Governors and in the Primitive Scripture Times as well as under our Kings and in this present or the preceding Age. Whereas our Blessed Saviour and his Holy Apostles and the Primitive Saints plainly admit of no exemption under those Emperors And the Managers of this Plea own there was none nor allow any Liberty of Resisting under any absolute and arbitrary King They appeal likewise from these Declarations of our Laws to the Nature of our Constitution and the end of our Frame and think it will justifie that Resistance which these Sayings and Declarations of Law Condemn But as to our Constitution thereby the Supremacy is fixed solely in the King and therein is an express denyal of all Coercive Power over him and a Declaration or Maxim that he can do no Wrong what he doth being by Ministers and they only and not he being accountable in any Court here for the same All which leaving neither Fault imputable to him to deserve it nor Autority in any others to Try and Judge him for the same must needs bar all Forfeitures of the Crown The whole power of the Militia or of Listing Soldiers the Law declares to be only in him And loudly asserts the unlawfulness and Treasonableness of all Levying War against him Nay that even the Parliament themselves as I noted have no Power to make any War either Offensive or Defensive against him And in a Government of this Frame owning one irresistible Sovereign and thus carefully excluding all taking Arms against him I do not see whence any should hope to fetch this Liberty of Resisting And as for the end of that part of our Constitution which lies in securing our Liberties and Properties that is plainly with limitation and so far only as they can be secured to Subjects continuing Subjects i.e. in Consistence with Submission which is thrown off by Military Resisting They are to be secured thereby to the Subjects of these Realms so far as they can be secured under a Sovereign and irresistible Prince as our Constitution makes ours to be and by Men keeping to their Duty and Obedience CHAP. VII Of Passive Obedience under Invaders of Natural Rights And these as Defensable by Arms as Civil Rights HAving hitherto shewn that the Invasion of Civil Rights and Laws gives no exemption from the Gospel Duties of Obedience and Non-Resistance which I think I have made pretty plain both from the Case of Jews and Gentiles and from our own Laws themselves I now proceed to shew in the Fourth and last place that if this defensibleness of Legal Rights would exempt us a like Defensibleness of Natural Rights would as well have exempted all other Subjects of Sovereign Powers And so contrary to what the Advocates of Resistance themselves affirm would have left no such Duty in the World as Passive Obedience The true Christian and Thank worthy Passiveness as S. Peter observes not being that of Malefactors who suffer for their real Faults but of Righteous Persons and Well-Doers who cannot suffer but by an Invasion of Rights or unrighteous usage All Oppressors invade Mens Natural Rights if they have no Civil Laws to make them Civil Rights That Ruler who has no Civil Laws to guide him is yet bound to guide himself by the Law of Nature and Reason Now Nature makes Right and Wrong and appoints Laws for them Else by the mere Law of Nature there could be no such thing as
unrighteousness or wronging of our Brethren Thou shalt not Kill and thou shalt not Steal are some of Natures Laws And all shedding of innocent Blood all Theft Lies and breach of Faith are by Nature violations of Right and so unrighteous Actions Now Natural Rights are as Defensible this way as any Civil Rights are I do not only say they are as Sacred and Inviolable yea having God and not man for their Author and a Divine Law not an Human for their Guard they must needs be more inviolabe But also that they are as Defensible by Force as any Civil Rights Thus Princes and Sovereign States take Arms against each other to defend their Natural Rights And so may Private Persons under like moderation of Christian Charity as they are to shew in quarrelling for any other Rights when assaulted by Thieves Murderers or other unrighteous Attempters and have no leisure or opportunity to call in the Protection of Government and Guard of Civil Laws one private Person having Liberty to fight another in these Cases in defence of their Lives Persons Liberty and other things which are Natural Rights And this is the Liberty of Self-Defence which is a Liberty of defending these Natural or other Rights by our own Natural Force when being out of the Cover of Laws we are left as in a State of Nature to defend our selves Indeed mere Natural Rights have no Civil Defence till they are taken in to be Civil Rights That is there is no Commencing an Action and suing for them in any Civil Courts till they are backed and defended by Civil Laws But this way of Defending by force of Arms is a Natural Defence in which Laws give a Man no help at all but he is left purely to the strength of his own Natural Powers And for Natural Rights a Man may make his Natural Defence which is no more than the liberty of Self-Defence Nay when Men come to defend their Civil and Legal Rights this way viz. by running to Arms they defend them not as Civil Rights For what Defence any thing gets by having a Civil Law for it and being a Civil Right is a Legal Defence or Defence by Legal Process It may be pleaded in a Law Court and whilst Courts have Autority and Law can be heard in them that will defend it But when Men leave contesting these Rights at Law and fall to Arms they absolutely throw off this Civil Defence there being no Cover or Defence from Law among drawn Swords nor any use in War of Witness Judge and Juries And instead of that they come back to Natural Defence or by their own Natural strength which is to defend them as Natural Rights So that Natural Rights must needs be as defensible by Arms I conceive as Civil Rights since Civil Rights as Civil are not at all defensible by Arms but by Law Suits and to defend them this way Men must bring them out of the State of Civil which lies in being under Government and in Courts into the State of Natural Rights And when in any Case the Law justifies this Defence afterwards it is not as needing a Civil Law but under the Notion of a Natural Right or as being the Natural Liberty of Self-Defence But now if Subjects might have recourse to this forcible Defence and Levy War against their Sovereigns upon their violation of Natural Laws and Invasion of Natural Rights which are as defensible this way as any Civil Rights then there is no such thing as Passive Obedience nor ever was any Submission and Non-Resistance due to ill and injust Kings And so in reality there should have been none due in those times when God always required it both among Jews and Christians whose Passive Obedience was never tried but when they suffered unrighteously by an Invasion of their Natural and Divine however if not also of their Civil and Human Rights So that this Plea of the Defensibleness of these Rights by Force will afford no ease peculiar to us nor alter the Case of Non-Resistance with us from what has been so long since determined of it in the Scriptures and the Primitive Church Had it been true it would have set the suffering Subjects loose in those days And as the Inspired Men and Holy Fathers taught Non-Resistance as a Truth then they would were they now alive tell us it is as true now and bid us do the same in ours This forcible defence of Civil Rights then as well as a like forcible defence of Natural Rights must be limited to Private Persons If Men were under no Civil Governors they would be left each to defend their own Rights And when they are under Government they are still left to it against other Private Persons in Cases that will not stay for the defence of Laws or for recourse to Governors But there is no liberty for Subjects to defend their Rights thus by joyning in Arms against their lawful Sovereigns The Holy Scriptures and our own Laws as I have shown plainly forbidding this way of Defence when Subjects suffer Invasion of Rights And the Pleaders for Resistance allowing they may not take it in defence of Natural and Divine Rights no not in defence of Religion it self till it is taken in to stand by Civil Law and Civil Rights are not more defensible by force of Arms than Natural and Divine Rights are To the Sovereign Power the Command of God is to be Subject Then there is no Resisting since warlike Resistance throws off Subjection So Levying War in Subjects can be no way of defending Rights against their Sovereign Nor can they take any ways of Defence but what are consistent with Subjection Therefore their Defence of Rights must only be in those ways which keep in the Order of Government and Justice If they are oppressed by a lower Power they may seek to a higher and so rise till in this way they have tried the Sovereign himself beyond whom in Subordination of Government there can be no Appeal but to God himself So there is Human help this way against all Governors but the Supreme Yea some Kings themselves are but imperfect Sovereigns They have reserved Cases and though they are Supreme in all others yet in these they have Superiors to take Cognizance of and declare their Failures and discharge their Subjects from bearing them any more Allegiance And here is Human Redress and that by force even against the King not by breaking and casting off the Order of Government but by keeping under and paying subjection to those whom in these Cases the Laws have made Superior unto him This may seem the Case of Poland where a Clause said to be in the Coronation Oath sounds to this purpose But where a King is the Sole Supreme both over all Persons and in all Causes that can come under Judicial Cognizance he can only have God above him And when he Invades the Rights and stands in it after we have sought to Courts and made
Supplications and used all ways for a Subjects Redress there is no way but to be content with so much Right as we can have by continuing under his Government and for the rest to leave it to God who will be sure to do it first or last either to redress or avenge our Cause But the way of Subjects by order of God who requires them for all this to continue subject cannot be to resume the liberties of ungoverned Persons and fall every one to right themselves against him by force of Arms which is to throw off the state of Subjects and set up to be their own Governors Nay this way of defending Rights would be the most unwise and opposite to that securing of Rights they aim at as well as most offensive to Almighty God For however in their heat and uneasiness under Wrongs Men are apt to think this a way of recovering and defending such Invaded Rights in the end they will find it is the way to leave both them and all their other Rights defenceless and under no Guard or Security at all For Government is the best safe Guard of our Liberties and Properties And if once we go to pull it down we go at the same time when we do not think it to pull down our selves and to set open our own Freedoms The Fence being broken down the Inclosure becomes common and our Rights lie open to all Intruders From this Discourse I shall observe that as to the Point of using Forcible Defence it seems no great difference when Religion is Persecuted whether it stand upon its own Right or be taken into the Law of the Land and stand on Civil Right Every Man has a Right to be truly Religious and to serve God He has a Right to seek Eternal Happiness and to Truth in Religion as the way to it And every Prince Invades this Right yea I add and God's too who denies him this and Persecutes him for it If God has a Right to our Service we must needs have a Right nay be under Duty and Obligation which I think is more than a Right to serve him And this Right is unalienable no Prince or Power on Earth who are all Authorized to Rule us under God not to Rule over him can or ought to set it aside or deprive us thereof And as no Prince can so can no Law do it For whence must that Law have such Authority Is it from God No sure he cannot Authorize any Human Laws to set aside his own Laws for that were to give Men Autority over himself It is only the Power of the Law Maker that gives the Law its Power And if the Human Power that made the Law cannot take away this Right the Stream cannot rise higher than the Spring nor the Effect have what the Cause had not so that the Law made by him cannot do it If a Law attempts to take away this Right it is as bad as if a Prince doth it As he is an unrighteous Prince so is it an unrighteous Law and we do not cease to have this Right for either but suffer equally an Invasion of an unalienable Right in both Now since Religion however Persecuted whether with or without Law is an unalienable Right how should its having or wanting a Civil Law either give or take away this forceable Defence of it For its own Natural and Divine Right is as defensable by Natural Force as I have shown as any Civil Right the Law will add to it And what is it that a Civil Law doth towards this way of its Defence It maks it say they a Civil Right and Property And a Persecuting Law against it though as it is wicked it cannot command our Obedience yet as it is a Law it may dispose of our Civil Rights True a Civil Law will make or unmake a Civil Right which gives or takes away a Civil Defence by Courts and Law Suits When it has a Civil Right it will have Redress in Courts and have Men punished for invading of Civil Liberties And when it has lost this by a Law against it its Professors must not come to Sue for in Court or hope to find any help there But what is this Defence of Courts by being a Civil Right to Natural Defence or defending it by Force of Arms Were the Doctrine of Resistance true as I have shewn it need not go to Civil Right to have this Natural Defence or if it did Civil Right would send it back again to Natural Right Civil Rights when they come to this way of Defence throwing aside what they have by being Civil and coming into the State of Natural Rights So that whilst it remains a Natural or Divine Right it is Defensible by Arms as if it were a Civil Right And such a Right true Religion always is and however Persecuted whether with Law or without or against it It holds this Right unalienably under the unrighteous Invasion of Laws as much as under the illegal Invasion of Rulers And having the Right as fully if it were Defensible this way it might Defend it as lawfully against their Invasions as against his And then the Professors of True but Persecuted Religion might fight for it against their Persecuting Sovereigns not only for the Laws but for the Truths sake and be as Free to make this Defence for it when it is driven out by the Law of the Land as when it has that Law on its side Which besides what is said thereto above I note against those who make an armed Defence of Religion among us different from a like Defence in the days of the Apostles and Primitive Persecutions on account Religion than had the Laws against it but now through the blessing of God it has the Laws on its side What has been offered upon this last Point is sufficient also over and above what has been said to that before against those who make our case different from that of the Primitive Saints either Jews or Christians because the Non-Resistance they paid was not say they to limited Rulers as our Kings are being bound up by Laws but to Absolute Governors For though some are more Absolute i.e. more left to Discretion and have fewer Human Laws to direct them than others yet were no Governors ever perfectly so There were both Laws and Popular Freedoms and Immunities under the Roman Emperors as I have shew'd And Laws not to be alter'd under the Medes and Persians And a body of Laws which God commanded them to keep always by them to be well studied and vers'd therein to rule the Administration of the Israelitish and Jewish Kings And where Monarchs were left most to themselves Governing ut libitum as Tacitus says of Romulus when arbitria Principum pro Legibus erant as Justin testifies of the first Ages and they did jura Dare as Virgil says of Priamus and the ancient Kings i.e. when they ruled and judged their Subjects
mostly not by any written Laws but by their own Reason and Equity yet even then were the Laws of God and Nature always to be a Rule to them in their Administrations Besides all the Power of People and the Liberty of resuming their primitive natural Rights and standing up to right themselves when wrong'd by their Governors is grounded by the Advocates for Resistance on the Original Contract whereby in the first Framing and Constitution of every Government when the People as they say parted each with their native Liberty and set Governors over them they every where made these Reserves for themselves This Original Contract is the last Ground when things are run up to the top of all Peoples rising in Arms against unjust Powers thus reassuming the Autority they had formerly intrusted when they see it misemployed and deposing those Kings who had abused their Trust. Now this Original Contract particularly as to our own Nation will not be pretended I believe to be any where extant upon publick Record And the rather for that in Magna Charta it self the grand Record of our Liberties those Liberties are not fetch'd from the Peoples own Reserves as if originally we came by them that way but from the Kings Grants and Donations Of our free and mere Will we have given and granted to our Bishops c. and to all Free Men of our Realm these Liberties following to have and to hold to them and their Heirs of us and our Heirs for ever says the Charter And much less I think are we to expect any Records of such Reserves under the first and most ancient Governments For under them the People were so far from making or recording any such fancied Reserves of Rights and Privileges that they had not any Record of Laws but what were in their Princes Breasts not so much as stipulating for any Rules whereby they would be govern'd but trusting and submitting themselves to the Justice and Discretion of their Rulers as I have noted of the first Kings But this Contract is fetch'd from the common Reason and Nature of things there being no other way possible as these Men say whereby Civil Government should take Rise Now the Nature of things is one and the same to all Times and Places And common Reason must be as common to East as West to the Persians and Romans under those more absolute Powers as to the Goths or Germans or other Northern Nations who have provided better for popular Liberties And therefore if common Reason and the Nature of things will carry such an Original Contract the ground of Resistance for us it would have done as much for them And if it was not sufficient to authorize Resistance in their Case as these men themselves affirm asserting them to have been under a tye of Conscience to Passive Obedience it cannot suffice any more to do it in ours Common Reason and Nature of Government gives equal provision to all and as much Original Contract to the Subjects of absolute Emperors as to those of legal Monarchs who whatever Liberties and Provisions they have more have them not from common Reason but the special limitations of their own Laws So that on this account we must not take more liberty to our selves or make our Case in point of Resistance different from theirs CHAP. VIII No Resistance on Pretence that acts against Law are inautoritative BUT when our Rulers invade us against Right say some What Authority is there in their Invasions Has any Man Authority to invade our Rights And if our Governors have no Authority for their Invasion since we are to be subject only to Authority is there any Obligation on us for Submission And may we not make Resistance against unautoritative Acts A Liberty for Resistance needs not Superiority but Parity for we may defend our selves against our Equals And when Kings act illegally and invade Rights in those Acts say some they have no Authority and Acts done against Law which are the Rule of the Polity are politically powerless So that we may resist them in such Case as we may our Equals they acting there without Authority which is the same as private Persons No say I under those illegal Actings they are still Kings and Sovereigns Tho there be no Authority derived into the Action which if it be against the Laws of God and the Land is condemn'd and vacated not authorized and enforced by either of them yet the Authority abides still in the Person And as to the dueness of Non-resistance in such illegal Actings the Question is not whether the illegal Act has any Authority but whether the Sovereign that acts so retains his Authority For Passive Obedience is due to the Person in Authority and whatever liberty we might otherwise take to oppose such an Action we must keep passive under such a Person If for all his illegal Act he is still thy Father the fifth Commandment says Honor and obey him If he retains his Authority over us and continues to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Higher Power S. Paul tells us that in Conscience towards God we must needs be subject to him And whilst we are to be subject we must not resist for when once we fall to warlike Resisting there is an end of Subjection So that it is not enough to say the Illegality doth disauthorize the Action or hinder it from being binding unless it also disauthorize the Person and make a Forfeiture of his Authority over us For whilst his Authority lasts we are bound to continue his Subjects and that tyes us to be passive in such Cases Now a King may keep his Autority for all he doth some inautoritative and illegal Actions He doth not lose Power by abusing his Power or stretching to make it more nor make away that real Autority which he has by going beyond it in an unautoritative Act or pretending to some Authority which he has not What Autority have any Sovereign Powers to make Laws against the true Religion If their Autority is from God I am sure he has given them no Commission to forbid what he has commanded They go quite against the Rule of Legislation when they employ it in making Laws against him And those Laws carry no binding Force from God along with them to oblige Subjects to their Observance So that if by inautoritative Acts be meant Acts against the Rule of Administration or without any real Right to warrant the King himself in commanding and to oblige others to obey them all Laws are inautoritative Acts which are made against the true Religion But yet they that urge this Objection will not say that any Kings forfeit their Crowns or ease their Subjects of the Duty of Passive Obedience by making persecuting Laws Nay they say there is a necessity of not resisting but being passive under them because they have such Laws whereby to persecute them What is the real and intrinsick Authority or
Legality of a Sentence grosly unjust and apparently contrary to Law I mean not only contrary to Legal Forms as a Judgment would be without a Jury but contrary to those particular Laws in any Case which the Judge proceeding in Form ought to pronounce by A Man comes to a Judge and Jury to have Law or the benefit of those particular Laws which he grounds his Claim upon And the Judge is to pass Sentence according to these Laws and to give what the Laws give him And I suppose those Laws do not authorize this Sentence if it grosly and corruptly perverts what they say In this Case if they authorize what the Judge says I think they must no longer authorize what they say themselves since his Saying is directly contrary to theirs And accordingly instead of authorizing they will reverse it so soon as they fall into the hands of a more upright Judge and Jury that will find and pronounce aright So that here is a Sentence against the Laws that should have ruled it which not having the Laws concern'd therein to autorize and bear it out if Autority must come from Law I think will be an inautoritative Act. But I imagine these Objectors do not believe he ceases thereupon immediately to be a Judge which would vacate all the Sentences he passes afterwards Or that the aggrieved Parties have Remedy any other way than by legal Appeals Wherein if they can find no Redress at last from the Supreme Power it self yet are they not thereby set loose from being any longer his Subjects nor have any Discharge as I think is confess'd on all hands from their Passive Obedience How many illegal and unautoritative Acts were done by Saul and Ahab Ahaz and Manasse and other ill Kings among the Jews which yet did not unking them And by the Roman Emperors as I have shown which yet did not disrobe them of their Purple or free the poor oppressed Christians and other Subjects of the Empire from being subject to and passive under them Among these are instances enow as may appear from what is said above of illegal Acts against the Autority of all Laws both of God and of their own Realms And yet of the Sovereigns who were the illegal Actors still retaining their Sovereign Autority and holding the Sufferers in their former state of Subjects and under an obligation of Conscience to Passive Obedience And this is a clear proof that God tho he has given Rules to higher Powers which are Duties of Governors and according to which at the great Day he will judge them himself Yet has not made these Rules of exercising Power Conditions of their holding Power or Grounds of Forfeiture He himself under the most enormous Breaches of these Rules having plainly declared by the inspired Pen-men of those Princes that broke them that they were still in Autority and that their Subjects as they would answer the contrary to him were to keep in their Obedience and Duty to them notwithstanding So that wheresoever any Forfeiture of Crowns comes in it must be by some special provisions in a Peoples own Laws And where Law makes a Forfeiture it will make a Prince forfeit in a legal way by appointing some superior Power to try the Fact and judicially to declare the Forfeiture But I do not conceive how there can be any legal way of forfeiting where the Prince is declared by Law to be the Sole Supreme Now if unautoritative Acts do not disautorize the person and make him sink into a private Man but for all them a King continues still to be a King where is the Argument for Resistance from such inautoritative Acts Yes say they when unjust Acts have no Autority in virtue of Self-defence we may resist and defend our selves against them True where there is no other hindrance to resisting and defending our selves by Arms but what is to be looked for in the Action But Resistance and warlike Defence tho it be for an Action must be of some Person And what if there is something to bar such Resistance in the Person As I think the Law appoints in the Persons of Father and Mother when it declares he shall surely be put to death that smiteth them Exod. xxi 15 And in the Persons of Higher Powers when it calls us to honor to keep subject and not to resist them So there is something in his person to keep out all Resistance and arming against our Sovereign The Argument for not resisting or making a warlike Defence against him is because he is King And then what takes off this and can be an Argument for Resistance must be something that doth unking him And since such unautoritative Acts are no Forfeitures of Crowns 't is plain whatever other Immunities they are a ground of they are no ground of levying War or armed Resistance This I take to be a very good and sufficient Ground and I think it is the true Ground of Submission and Passive Obedience under illegal Violence and Persecutions The illegal Act I conceive has nothing in it self to bar Self-defence having no Autority to bear out and inforce it as may seem either from God or Man Not from God for if his Law carries his Autority and where doth he display his Autority if not in his Laws what is against his Law is against his Autority Nor from Man for the same Reason of its being against humane Laws which carry their Autority But the Autority of the Person is a Bar to this way of Defence against our Sovereign And when the Sovereign will do such illegal Acts tho he has no Autority to justifie himself therein nor to make his unrighteous or illegal Commands really obligatory and binding yet because he is a Person under whose Autority and Obedience we all are this will be the effect of them Seeing Subjects under Government can have no Remedy but what keeps the order of Government and must be content with so much as keeping to that Order allows till God alter his mind we can have no present Redress And being his Subjects we cannot go to arm against him to defend or right our selves And this is Passive Obedience So that when the irreligion or illegality of the Command exempts us from any Obligation to active Performance this Autority of his Person doth notwithstanding lay on us an Obligation of keeping under his Obedience and making no warlike Resistance And on these Grounds it will be easie to give a rational and plain Answer to those Questions which the Disputers for Resistance shall think most posing about the Authority of Kings when they act against Laws If it be asked What is a Kings Autority when he doth such illegal Acts 'T is just the same it was before he did them for as he doth not get so he doth not lose any rightful and real Autority thereby But what doth his Autority give to the illegal Act or Order Doth it authorize the Subjects in an illegal
thing or make the Law which forbids it cease to be a Rule to them No the Laws of God and Men are to be the Rules of conscionable acting The Autority of the Law is the Autority of a Rule And for a Rule it is the best Autority And an humane Law is the best Humane Autority And where Kings neither make nor unmake and repeal Laws alone the King commanding in the Laws is of more Autority to rule the Subjects Actings than the King commanding against them And what doth his Autority give him as to that particular illegal Act Not to be questionable or accountable for it among Men or coercible by Force and armed Opposition And that because for all that act he is still our King and we owe him Subjection Receiving such illegal Acts from our King we must receive them as Subjects And the obligation of continuing Subjects excludes all Liberty of armed Resistance Whence say they in an illegal Act has a Sovereign Prince this Autority From the Fifth Commandment and from all those Commandments that require Submission and Obedience and being subject unto Princes For the plain intent of all those Precepts as may sufficiently appear I think from what I have said on this Argument is to require these to Princes that break as well as to those that keep Laws to unjust as well as to righteous Sovereigns And if God commands us to submit and keep in Subjection to a Sovereign Prince that acts against Laws he must forbid us to resist such for men put off Subjection when they fall to Resisting It may be asked still has he it from the Law of the Land Yes What from the Law he invades Doth the Law give him Autority to break it self No but by all those Laws that declare he incurs no Forfeiture by such Invasions For all those Laws that own and declare such Invader to be still our King determine our Subjection to him and forbid us to resist him For Men are no longer in the state and posture of Subjects when they come to arm against their Sovereigns If a Man suffers illegally they will demand by what Law By none surely for then there is an end of the Illegality But to ask for a Law for his suffering is to ask for something to justifie or make it just in the eye of Law that he should suffer But this is not pretended from the Kings Autority and it is supposed to be an unjust and illegal Suffering But if the King has no Autority to justifie the illegal Suffering has he any Autority to bar the illegal Sufferers resisting Yes the Regal Autority not being lost by that illegal Act but still abiding in him For all he makes a Man suffer against Law he is still his King And that is a Reason against Resisting For by all Law both of God and Man we must be subject to our King And he ceases to be subject that draws his Sword against him CHAP. IX The Reasons of Non resistance And how it makes not Arbitrary Government I Shall only add now in the last place concerning this Non-resistance or not arming against invading Princes required of and practised by the first and best Christians what Regards they were guided by and what Reasons they looked at for this Observance 1. The first and chiefest was in Reverence to God's Ordinance insomuch as those Rulers were Gods Anointed his Ministers or his Vicegerents How can I stretch forth my hand against Saul says David and be guiltle§ seeing he is the Lords anointed 1 Sam. xxvi 9 and c. xxiv 6 And he that resists shall receive Damnation saith S. Paul as resisting the Ordinance of God Rom. xiii 2 And he is the Minister of God wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake v. 4 5. And like to these are the Sayings of the Primitive Fathers for Submission to the persecuting Emperors Tertullian grounds the Duty of Allegiance we owe the Emperor on this that he is deputed by God and has his Power from the same from whom he has his Spirit that he is one quem Deus eligit qui à nostro Deo constitutus i.e. whom God has appointed à Dominus Dei vice Gods Vicegerent or a Lord over us in Gods place and stead whom knowing à Deo constitui to be Gods Ordinance every Christian ought of necessity to love reverence and wish safe This made the Sacredness and Autority of the Emperor in their eyes because as Athenagoras tells Marcus and his Son Commodus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Empire they had received from God The same which Dionysius of Alexandria said afterwards of Valerianus and Gallienus to Aemilian the Praesect And because as Theophilus says in his Book to Autolycus under the Emperor Commodus tho the Emperor is not God yet he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Man ordained of God and under him to do Judgment and Justice And this also is the ground of Subjects Duty and Allegiance in the Doctrine of our Church All Subjects do owe of bounden Duty Obedience Submission and Subjection to the Higher Powers for as much as they be Gods Lieutenants Gods Praesidents Gods Officers c. says the Homily of Obedience Part 1. And again all Subjects are bound to obey them yea though they be evil and that for Conscience sake as Gods Ministers Though they be wicked and abuse their Power yet therefore it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them because even wicked Rulers have their Power and Autority from God Homily of Obedience Part 2. Now all these are Reasons not to Resist the worst as well as the best Kings the infringers of Rights as well as the maintainers of them For all Men rightfully invested with Power are Gods Ministers his Anointed and his Ordinance however they employ their Power The bad are as well as the good at their worst as well as at their best times Saul is the Lords Anointed as well as David Zedekiah as well as Josiah Nero Domitian Dioclesian or other bloody Persecuting Emperors as well as the most just and godly Kings The same that gave the Power says S. Austin to Marius gave it also to C. Caesar he that conferred it on Augustus gave it also to Nero he that bestowed it on the Vespasians Father and Son those most obliging Emperors bestowed it also on Domitian so infamous for his Cruelties And not to particularize any further he that set up Constantine the Christian Emperor set up Julian too who Apostatized from Christ. In reading the Holy Scriptures says our Church in the Homily against willful Rebellion 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 Gods Ordinance c. They have their Power and Authority from God says the Homily of Obedience and are