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indeed of their being well-governed and bound to nothing but what is for their Benefit no Law being to be made or repealed without their own Consent But this Liberty of consulting and Authority of Negative is still under the King the only Sovereign nor on equal Terms with him as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
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
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