Direct.XXII. The more religious any are, the more obedient should they be in all things lawful. Excel others in loyalty, as well as in piety. Religion is so far from being a just pretence of rebellion, that it is the only effectual bond of sincere subjection and obedience.
Direct.XXIII. Therefore believe not them that would exempt the clergy from subjection to the civil powers. As none should know the law of God so well as they, so none should be more obedient to kings and states, when the law of God so evidently commandeth it. Of this read "Bilson of Christian Subjection" (who besides many others, saith enough of this). The arguments of the papists from the supposed incapacity of princes, would exempt physicians, and others arts and sciences, from under their government, as well as the clergy.
Direct.XXIV. Abase not magistrates so far, as to think their office and power extend not to matters of religion and the worship of God. Were they only for the low and contemptible matters of this world, their office would be contemptible and low. To help you out in this, I shall answer some of the commonest doubts.
Quest.I. Is the civil magistrate judge in controversies of faith or worship?
Who shall be judge in points of faith and worship?
Answ.It hath many a time grieved me to hear so easy a question frequently propounded, and pitifully answered, by such as the public good required to have had more understanding in such things. In a word, judgment is public or private. The private judgment, which is nothing but a rational discerning of truth and duty, in order to our own choice and practice, belongeth to every rational person. The public judgment is ever in order to execution. Now the execution is of two sorts, 1. By the sword. 2. By God's word applied to the case and person. One is upon the body or estate; the other is upon the conscience of the person, or of the church, to bring him to repentance, or to bind him to avoid communion with the church, and the church to avoid communion with him.[66]And thus public judgment is civil or ecclesiastical; coercive and violent in the execution; or only upon consenters and volunteers. In the first, the magistrate is the only judge, and the pastors in the second. About faith or worship, if the question be, Who shall be protected as orthodox, and who shall be punished by the sword as heretical, idolatrous, or irreligious? here the magistrate is the only judge. If the question be, Who shall be admitted to church communion as orthodox, or ejected and excommunicated as heretical or profane? here the pastors are the proper judges. This is the truth, and this is enough to end all the voluminous wranglings upon the question, Who shall be judge? and to answer the cavils of the papists against the power of princes in matters of religion. It is pity that such gross and silly sophisms, in a case that a child may answer, should debase christian princes, and take away their chief power, and give it to a proud and wrangling clergy, to persecute and divide the church with.[67]
Of the oath of supremacy.
Quest.II. May our oath of supremacy be lawfully taken, wherein the king is pronounced supreme governor in all causes ecclesiastical as well as civil?
Answ.There is no reason of scruple to him that understandeth, 1. That the title causes ecclesiastical is taken from the ancient usurpation of the pope and his prelates, who brought much of the magistrate's work into their courts, under the name of causes ecclesiastical. 2. That our canons, and many declarations of our princes, have expounded it fully, by disclaiming all proper pastoral power. 3. That by governor is meant only one that governeth coercively, or by sword; so that it is no more than to swear That in all causes ecclesiastical, so far as coercive government is required, it belongeth not to pope or prelates under him; but to the king and his officers or courts alone: or, That the king is chief in governing by the sword in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil. So that if you put spiritual instead of ecclesiastical, the word is taken materially, and not formally; not that the king is chief in the spiritual government, by the keys of excommunication and absolution, but that he is chief in the coercive government about spiritual matters, as before explained.[68]
Quest.III. Is not this to confound the church and state, and to give the pastor's power to the magistrate?
Answ.Not at all; it is but to say that there may be need of the use both of the word and sword against the same persons, for the same offence; and the magistrate only must use one, and the pastors the other. An heretical preacher may be silenced by the king upon pain of banishment, and silenced by the church upon pain of excommunication. And what confusion is there in this?
Quest.IV. But hath not the king power in cases of church discipline, and excommunication itself?
Answ.There is a magistrate's discipline, and a pastoral discipline. Discipline by the sword, is the magistrate's work; discipline by the word is the pastor's work. And there is a coercive excommunication, and a pastoral excommunication. To command upon pain of corporal punishment, that a heretic or impenitent, wicked man shall forbear the sacred ordinances and privileges, a magistrate may do; but to command it only upon divine and spiritual penalties, belongeth to the pastors of the church. The magistrate hath power over their very pastoral work, though he have not power in it, so as to do it himself. Suppose but all the physicians of the nation to be of divine institution, with their colleges and hospitals, and in the similitude you will see all the difficulties resolved, and the next question fully answered.[69]
Quest.V. Seeing the king, and the pastors of the church, may command and judge to several ends in the same cause, suppose they should differ, which of them should the church obey?
Answ.Distinguish here, 1. Between a right judgment and a wrong. 2. Between the matter in question; which is either, 1. Proper in its primary state to the magistrate. 2. Or proper primarily to the pastor. 3. Or common to both (though in several sorts of judgment). And so I answer the question thus.
1. If it be a matter wherein God himself hath first determined, and his officers do but judge in subordination to his law, and declare his will, then we must obey him that speaketh according to the word of God, if we can truly discern it; and not him that we know goeth contrary to God.[70]As if the magistrate should forbid communion with Arians or heretics, and the pastors command us to hold communion with them as no heretics; here the magistrate is to be obeyed (because God is to be obeyed) before the pastors, though it be in a matter of faith and worship. If you say, Thus you make all the people judges; I answer you, And so you must make them such private judges, to discern their own duty, and so must every man; or else you must rule them as beasts or madmen, and prove that there is no heaven or hell for any in the world but kings and pastors; or, at least, that the people shall be saved or damned for nothing, but obeying or not obeying their governors; and if you could prove that, you are never the nearer reconciling the contradictory commands of those governors.
2. But if the matter be not fore-determined by God, but left to man; then, 1. If it be the magistrate's proper work, we must obey the magistrate only. 2. If it be about the pastor's proper work, the pastor is to be obeyed; though the magistrategainsay it, so be it he proceed according to the general rules of his instructions, and the matter be of weight. As if the magistrate and the pastors of the church do command different translations or expositions of the Bible to be used, or one forbiddeth and another commandeth the same individual person to be baptized, or receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper, or to be esteemed a member of the church; if the people know not which of them judgeth right, it seemeth to me they should first obey their pastors, because it is only in matters intimately pertaining to their office. I speak only of formal obedience, and that of the people only, for, materially, prudence may require us rather to do as the magistrate commandeth,quod,non quia, to avoid a greater evil. And it is always supposed that we patiently bear the magistrate's penalties, when we obey not his commands. 3. But in points common to them both, the case is more difficult. But here you must further distinguish, first, between points equally common, and points unequally common; secondly, between determinations of good, or bad, or indifferent consequence as to the main end and interest of God and souls. 1. In points equally common to both, the magistrate is to be obeyed against the pastors; because he is more properly a commanding governor, and they are but the guides or governors of volunteers; and because, in such cases, the pastors themselves should obey the magistrate; and therefore the people should first obey him.[71]2. Much more in points unequally common, which the magistrate is more concerned in than the pastors, the magistrate is undoubtedly to be first obeyed. Of both, there might instances be given about the circumstantials or adjuncts of God's worship. As the place of public worship, the situation, form, bells, fonts, pulpits, seats, precedency in seats, tables, cups, and other utensils; church bounds by parishes, church ornaments, gestures, habits, some councils, and their order, with other such like; in all which,cæteris paribus, for my part I would rather obey the laws of the king, than the canons of the bishops, if they should disagree. 3. But in cases common to both, in which the pastor's office is more nearly and fully concerned than the magistrate's, the case is more difficult: as at what hour the church shall assemble; what part of Scripture shall be read; what text the minister shall preach on; how long prayer, or sermon, or other church exercises shall be; what prayers the minister shall use; in what method he shall preach; and what doctrine he shall deliver, and the people hear; with many such like. These do most nearly belong to the pastoral office, to judge of as well as to execute; but yet in some cases the magistrate may interpose his authority. And herein, 1. If the one party do determine clearly to the necessary preservation of religion, and the other to the ruin of it, the disparity of consequents maketh a great disparity in the case; for here God himself hath predetermined, who commandeth that "all be done to edification." As for instance, if a christian magistrate ordain, that no assembly shall consist of above forty or a hundred persons, when there are so many preachers and places of meeting, that it is no detriment to men's souls; and especially, when the danger of infection, or other evil, warranteth it, then I would obey that command of the magistrate, though the pastors of the church were against it, and commanded fuller meetings. But if a Julian should command the same thing, on purpose to wear out the christian religion, and when it tendeth to the ruin of men's souls, (as when preachers are so few, that either more must meet together, or most must be untaught, and excluded from God's worship,) here I would rather obey the pastors that command the contrary, because they do but deliver the command of God, who determineth consequently of the necessary means, when he determineth of the end. But if the consequents of the magistrate's and the pastor's commands should be equally indifferent, and neither of them discernibly good or bad, the difficulty then would be at the highest, and such as I shall not here presume to determine.[72]
No doubt but the king is the supreme governor over all the schools, and physicians, and hospitals in the land, that is, he is the supreme in the civil coercive government: he is supreme magistrate over divines, physicians, and schoolmasters; but not the supreme divine, physician, or schoolmaster. When there is any work for the office of the magistrate, that is, for the sword, among any of them, it belongeth only to him, and not at all to them: but when there is any work for the divine, the physician, the schoolmaster, or if you will, for the shoemaker, the tailor, the watchmaker, this belongeth not to the king to do, or give particular commands for: but yet it is all to be done under his government; and on special causes he may make laws to force them all to do their several works aright, and to restrain them from abuses. As (to clear the case in hand) the king is informed that physicians take too great fees of their patients, that some through ignorance, and some through covetousness, give ill compounded medicines and pernicious drugs: no doubt but the king, by the advice of understanding men, may forbid the use of such drugs as are found pernicious to his subjects, and may regulate not only the fees, but the compositions and attendances of physicians. But if he should command, that a man in a fever, or dropsy, or consumption, shall have no medicine, but this or that, and so oft, and in such or such a dose, and with such or such a diet; and the physicians, whom my reason bindeth me to trust, (and perhaps my own experience also,) do tell me that all these things are bad for me, and different tempers and accidents require different remedies, and that I am like to die, or hazard my health, if I obey not them contrary to the king's commands, here I should rather obey my physicians: partly, because else I should sin against God, who commandeth me the preservation of my life; and partly, because this matter more belongeth to the physician, than to the magistrate. Mr. Richard Hooker, Eccles. Polit. lib. viii. p. 223, 224, giveth you the reason more fully.[73]
Direct.XXV. Give not the magistrate's power to any other; whether to the people, on pretence oftheirmajestatis realis, (as they call it,) or the pope, or prelates, or pastors of the church, upon pretence of authority from Christ, or of the distinction of ecclesiastical government and civil. The people's pretensions to natural authority, or real majesty, or collation of power, I have confuted before, and more elsewhere. The pope's, prelate's, and pastor's power of the sword in causes ecclesiastical, is disproved so fully by Bishop Bilsonubi supra, and many more, that it is needless to say much more of it.[74]All protestants, so far as I know, are agreed that no bishop or pastor hath any power of the sword, that is, of coercion, or force upon men's bodies, liberties, or estates, except as magistrates derived from their sovereign. Their spiritual power is only upon consenters, in the use of God's word upon the conscience, either generally in preaching, or with personal application in discipline. No courts or commands can compel any to appear or submit, nor lay the mulct of a penny upon any, but by their own consent, or the magistrate's authority. But this the papists will few of them confess: for if once the sword were taken from them, the world would quickly see that their church had the hearts of few of those multitudes, whom by fire and sword they forced to seem their members; or at least, that, when the windows were opened, the light would quickly deliver poor souls from the servitude of those men of darkness. For then few would fear the unrighteous excommunication of mere usurpers.[75]It is a manifold usurpation by which their kingdom is upheld. (For a kingdom it is rather to be called than a church.) 1. They usurp the power of the keys or ecclesiastical government over all the world, and make themselves pastors of those churches, which they have nothing to do to govern. Their excommunications of princes or people, in other lands or churches that never took them for their pastors, is a usurpation the more odious, by how much the power usurped is more holy, and the performance in so large a parish as the whole world, is naturally impossible to the Roman usurper. 2. Under the name of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, they usurp the magistrate's coercive power in such causes as they call ecclesiastical. 3. Yea, and they claim an immunity to their clergy from the civil government, as if they were no subjects of the king, or the king had not power to punish his offending subjects. 4.In ordine ad spiritualia, they claim yet more of the magistrate's power. 5. And one part of them give the pope directly in temporals a power over kings and kingdoms. 6. Their most eminent divines do ordinarily maintain, that the pope may excommunicate kings and interdict kingdoms, and that an excommunicated king is no king, and may be killed. It is an article of their religion, determined of in one of their approved general councils, (Later. sub. Innoc. III. can. 3,) That if temporal lords will not exterminate heretics from their lands, (such as the Albigenses, that denied transubstantiation, mentioned can. 2,) the pope may give their dominions to others, and absolve their vassals from their fealty. And when some of late would have so far salved their honour, as to invalidate the authority of that council, they will not endure it, but have strenuously vindicated it; and indeed whatever it be to us, with them it is already enrolled among the approved general councils. Between the Erastians, who would have no government but by magistrates, and papists, who give the magistrate's power to the pope and his prelates, the truth is in the middle; that the pastors have a nunciative and directive power from Christ, and a discipline to exercise by the word alone, or volunteers; much like the power of a philosopher in his school, or a physician in his hospital, supposing them to be by divine right.
Direct.XXVI. Refuse not to swear allegiance to your lawful sovereign. Though oaths are fearful, and not to be taken without weighty cause, yet are they not to be refused when the cause is weighty, as here it is. Must the sovereign be sworn to do his office for you, and must he undertake so hard and perilous a charge for you, which he is no way able to go through, if his subjects be not faithful to him? And shall those subjects refuse to promise and swear fidelity? This is against all reason and equity.
Direct.XXVII. Think not that either the pope, or any power in the world, can dispense with this your oath, or absolve you from the bond of it, or save you from the punishment due from God, to the perjured and perfidious. Of this see what I have written before against perjury.
Direct.XXVIII. Do nothing that tendeth to bring the sacred bonds of oaths into an irreligious contempt, or to make men take the horrid crime of perjury to be a little sin. Sovereigns have no sufficient security of the fidelity of their subjects, or of their lives, or kingdoms; if once oaths and covenants be made light of, and men can play fast and loose with the bonds of God, which lie upon them. He is virtually a traitor to princes and states, who would bring perjury and perfidiousness into credit, and teacheth men to violate oaths and vows. For there is no keeping up human societies and governments, where there is no trust to be put in one another. And there is no trust to be put in that man, that maketh no conscience of an oath or vow.[76]
Direct.XXIX. Be ready to your power to defend your governors, against all treasons, conspiracies, and rebellions.[77]For this is a great part of the duty of your relation. The wisdom and goodness necessary to government, is much personal in the governors themselves; but the strength (without which laws cannot be executed, nor the people preserved) is in the people, and the prince's interest in them; therefore if you withdraw your help in time of need, you desert and betray your rulers, whom you should defend. If you say, it is they that are your protectors. I answer, true; but by yourselves. They protect you by wisdom, council, and authority, and you must protect them by obedience and strength. Would you have them protect you rather by mercenaries or foreigners? If not, you must be willing to do your parts, and not think it enough in treasons,invasions, or rebellions, to sit still and save yourselves, and let him that can lay hold on the crown, possess it. What prince would be the governor of a people, that he knew would forsake him in his need?
Direct.XXX. Murmur not at the payment of those necessary tributes, by which the common safety must be preserved, and the due honour of your governors kept up. Sordid covetousness hath been the ruin of many a commonwealth. When every one is shifting for himself, and saving his own, and murmuring at the charge by which their safety must be defended, as if kings could fight for them, without men and money; this selfishness is the most pernicious enemy to government, and to the common good. Tribute and honour must be paid to whom it doth belong. Rom. xiii. 6, 7, "For they are God's ministers, attending continually on this very thing." And none of your goods or cabins will be saved, if by your covetousness the ship should perish.
Direct.XXXI. Resist not, where you cannot actually obey: and let no appearance of probable good that might come to yourselves, or the church, by any unlawful means, (as treason, sedition, or rebellion,) ever tempt you to it. For evil must not be done that good may come by it: and all evil means are but palliate and deceitful cures, that seem to help a little while, but will leave the malady more perilous at last, than it was before. As it is possible, that lying or perjury might be used to the seeming service of a governor at the time, which yet would prepare for his after danger, by teaching men perfidiousness; even so rebellions and treasons may seem at present to be very conducible to the ends of a people or party that think themselves oppressed; but in the end it will leave them much worse than it found them.[78]
Object.But if we must let rulers destroy us at their pleasure, the gospel will be rooted out of the earth: when they know that we hold it unlawful to resist them, they will be imboldened to destroy us, and sport themselves in our blood; as the papists did by the poor Albigenses, &c.
Answ.All this did signify something if there were no God, that can easilier restrain and destroy them at his pleasure, than they can destroy or injure you. But if there be a God, and all the world is in his hand, and with a word he can speak them all into dust; and if this God be engaged to protect you, and hath told you, that the very hairs of your head are numbered, and more regardeth his honour, and gospel, and church, than you do, and accounteth his servants as the apple of his eye, and hath promised to hear them and avenge them speedily, and forbid them to avenge themselves; then it is but atheistical distrust of God, to save yourselves by sinful means, as if God either could not or would not do it: thus he that saveth his life shall lose it. Do you believe that you are in the hands of Christ, and that men cannot touch you but by his permission; and that he will turn all your sufferings to your exceeding benefit? And yet will you venture on sin and hell to escape such sufferings from men? Wolves, and bears, and lions, that fight most for themselves, are hated and destroyed by all; so that there are but few of them in the land. But though a hundred sheep will run before a little dog, the master of them taketh care for their preservation. And little children that cannot go out of the way from a horse or cart, every one is afraid of hurting. If christians behaved themselves with that eminent love, and lowliness, and meekness, and patience, and harmlessness, as their Lord hath taught them and required, perhaps the very cruelty and malice of their enemies would abate and relent; and "when a man's ways please God, he would make his enemies to be at peace with him;"[79]but if not, their fury would but hasten us to our joy and glory. Yet note, that I speak all this only against rebellion, and unlawful arms and acts.
Direct.XXXII. Obey inferior magistrates according to the authority derived to them from the supreme, but never against the supreme, from whom it is derived. The same reasons which oblige you to obey the personal commands of the king, do bind you also to obey the lowest constable, or other officer: for they are necessary instruments of the sovereign power, and if you obey not them, the obedience of the sovereign signifieth almost nothing. But no man is bound to obey them beyond the measure of their authority; much less against those that give them their authority.
Direct.XXXIII. No human power is at all to be obeyed against God: for they have no power, but what they receive from God; and all that is from him, is for him. He giveth no power against himself; he is the first efficient, the chief dirigent, and ultimate final cause of all.[80]It is no act of authority, but resistance of his authority, which contradicteth his law, and is against him. All human laws are subservient to his laws, and not co-ordinate, much less superior. Therefore they areipso factonull, or have no obligation, which are against him: yet is not the office itself null, when it is in some things thus abused; nor the magistrate's power null, as to other things. No man must commit the least sin against God, to please the greatest prince on earth, or to avoid the greatest corporal suffering.[81]"Fear not them that can kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but fear him, who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell: yea, I say unto you, fear him," Luke xii. 4. "Whether we ought to obey God rather than men, judge ye," Acts v. 29. "Not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him that is invisible.—Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance," &c. Heb. xi. 27, 35. "Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image," &c. Dan. iii. 18.
Object.If we are not obliged to obey, we are not obliged to suffer; for the law obligeth primarily to obedience, and only secondarilyad pœnam, for want of obedience. Therefore where there is no primary obligation to obedience, there is no secondary obligation to punishment.
Answ.The word obligation, being metaphorical, must in controversy be explained by its proper terms. The law doth firstconstituere debitum obedientiæ, et propter inobedientiam debitum pœnæ. Here then you must distinguish, 1. Between obligationin foro conscientiæ, andin foro humano. 2. Between an obligationad pœnamby that law of man, and an obligationad patiendumby another divine law. And so the answer is this: first, If the higher powers, e. g.forbid the apostles to preach upon pain of death or scourging, the dueness both of the obedience and the penalty, is really null, in point of conscience; howeverin foro humanothey are both due; that is, so falsely reputed in that court: therefore the apostles are bound to preach notwithstanding the prohibition, and so far as God alloweth they may resist the penalty, that is, by flying: for properly there is neitherdebitum obedientiæ nec pœnæ. Secondly, But then God himself obligeth them not to "resist the higher powers," Rom. xiii. 1-3, and "in their patience to possess their souls." So that from this command of God, there is a true obligationad patiendum, to patient suffering and non-resistance, though from the law of man against their preaching, there was no true obligationaut ad obedientiam, aut ad pœnam. This is the true resolution of this sophism.
Direct.XXXIV. It is one of the most needful duties to governors, for those that have a call and opportunity, (as their pastors,) to tell them wisely and submissively of those sins which are the greatest enemies to their souls; and not the smallest enemies to their government, and the public peace.[82]All christians will confess, that sin is the only forfeiture of God's protection, and the cause of his displeasure, and consequently the only danger to the soul, and the greatest enemy to the land. And that the sins of rulers, whether personal, or in their government, have a far more dangerous influence upon the public state, than the sins of other men. Yea, the very sins which upon true repentance may be pardoned as to the everlasting punishment, may yet be unpardoned as to the public ruin of a state: as the sad instance of Manasseh showeth. 2 Kings xxiii. 26, "Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal." Chap. xxiv. 3, 4, "Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight for the sins of Manasseh according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood that he shed, (for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood,) which the Lord would not pardon." And yet this was after Josiah had reformed. So Solomon's sin did cause the rending of the ten tribes from his son's kingdom: yea, the bearing with the high places, was a provoking sin in kings, that otherwise were upright. Therefore sin being the fire in the thatch, the quenching of it must needs be an act of duty and fidelity to governors; and those that tempt them to it, or soothe and flatter them in it, are the greatest enemies they have. But yet it is not every man that must reprove a governor, but those that have a call and opportunity; nor must it be done by them imperiously, or reproachfully, or publicly to their dishonour, but privately, humbly, and with love, honour, reverence, and submissiveness.
Object.But great men have great spirits, and are impatient of reproof, and I am not bound to that which will do no good, but ruin me.
Answ.1. It is an abuse of your superiors, to censure them to be so proud and brutish, as not to consider that they are the subjects of God, and have souls to save or lose, as well as others: will you judge so hardly of them before trial, as if they were far worse and foolisher than the poor, and take this abuse of them to be an excuse for your other sin? No doubt there are good rulers in the world, that will say to Christ's ministers, as the Prince Elector Palatine did to Pitiscus, charging him to tell him plainly of his faults, when he chose him to be the Pastor Aulicus.[83]
2. How know you beforehand what success your words will have? Hath the word of God well managed no power? yea, to make even bad men good? Can you love your rulers, and yet give up their souls in despair, and all for fear of suffering by them?
3. What if you do suffer in the doing of your duty? Have you not learned to serve God upon such terms as those? Or do you think it will prove it to be no duty, because it will bring suffering on you? These reasons savour not of faith.
Direct.XXXV. Think not that it is unlawful to obey in every thing which is unlawfully commanded. It may in many cases be the subject's duty, to obey the magistrate who sinfully commandeth him. For all the magistrate's sins in commanding, do not enter into the matter or substance of the thing commanded: if a prince command me to do the greatest duty, in an ill design, to some selfish end, it is his sin so to command; but yet that command must be obeyed (to better ends). Nay, the matter of the command may be sinful in the commander, and not in the obeyer. If I be commanded without any just reason to hunt a feather, it is his sin that causelessly commandeth me so to lose my time; and yet it may be my sin to disobey it, while the thing is lawful; else servants and children must prove all to be needful, as well as lawful, which is commanded them before they must obey. Or the command may at the same time be evil by accident, and the obedience good by accident, andper se. Very good accidents, consequence, or effects, may belong to our obedience, when the accidents of the command itself are evil. I could give you abundance of instances of these things.
Direct.XXXVI. Yet is not all to be obeyed that is evil but by accident, nor all to be disobeyed that is so: but the accidents must be compared; and if the obedience will do more good than harm, we must obey; if it will evidently do more harm than good, we must not do it. Most of the sins in the world are evil by accident only, and not in the simple act denuded of its accidents, circumstances, or consequents. You may not sell poison to him that you know would poison himself with it, though to sell poison of itself be lawful. Though it be lawful simply to lend a sword, yet not to a traitor that you know would kill the king with it, no nor to one that would kill his father, his neighbour, or himself. A command would not excuse such an act from sin.[84]He was slain by David, that killed Saul at his own command, and ifhe had but lent him his sword to do it, it had been his sin. Yet some evil accidents may be weighed down by greater evils, which would evidently follow upon the not doing of the thing commanded.
Direct.XXXVII. In the question, whether human laws bind conscience, the doubt is not of that nature, as to have necessary influence upon your practice. For all agree, that they bind the subject to obedience, and that God's law bindeth us to obey them. And if God's law bind us to obey man's law, and so to disobey them be materially a sin against God's law, this is as much as is needful to resolve you in respect of practice: no doubt, man's law hath no primitive obliging power at all, but a derivative from God, and under him; and what is it to bind the conscience (an improper speech) but to bind the person to judge it his duty, (conscire,) and so to do it. And no doubt but he is bound to judge it his duty, that that is immediately by human law, and remotely by divine law, and so the contrary to be a sin proximately against man, and ultimately against God. This is plain, and the rest is but logomachy.
Direct.XXXVIII. The question is much harder, whether the violation of every human penal law be a sin against God, though a man submit to the penalty. (And the desert of every sin is death.) Master Richard Hooker's last book unhappily ended, before he gave us the full reason of his judgment in this case, these being the last words: "Howbeit, too rigorous it were, that the breach of every human law should be a deadly sin: a mean there is between those extremities, if so be we can find it out—."[85]Amesius hath diligently discussed it, and many others. The reason for the affirmative is, because God bindeth us to obey all the lawful commands of our governors; and suffering the penalty, is not obeying; the penalty being not the primary intention of the lawgiver, but the duty; and the penalty only to enforce the duty: and though the suffering of it satisfy man, it satisfieth not God, whose law we break by disobeying. Those that are for the negative, say, That God binding us but to obey the magistrate, and his law binding butaut ad obedientiam, aut ad pœnam, I fulfil his will, if I either do or suffer: if I obey not, I please him by satisfying for my disobedience. And it is none of his will, that my choosing the penalty should be my sin or damnation. To this it is replied, That the law bindethad pœnam, but on supposition of disobedience; and that disobedience is forbidden of God: and the penalty satisfieth not God, though it satisfy man. The other rejoins, That it satisfieth God, in that it satisfieth man; because God's law is but to give force to man's, according to the nature of it. If this hold, then no disobedience at all is a sin in him that suffereth the penalty. In so hard a case, because more distinction is necessary to the explication, than most readers are willing to be troubled with, I shall now give you but this brief decision.[86]There are some penalties which fulfil the magistrate's own will as much as obedience, which indeed have more of the nature of a commutation, than of penalty: (as he that watcheth not or mendeth not the highways, shall pay so much to hire another to do it: he that shooteth not so oft in a year, shall pay so much: he that eateth flesh in Lent, shall pay so much to the poor: he that repaireth not his hedges, shall pay so much:) and so in most amercements, and divers penal laws; in which we have reason to judge, that the penalty satisfieth the lawgiver fully, and that he leaveth it to our choice. In these cases I think we need not afflict ourselves with the conscience or fear of sinning against God. But there are other penal laws, in which the penalty is not desired for itself, and is supposed to be but an imperfect satisfaction to the lawgiver's will, and that he doth not freely leave us to our choice, but had rather we obeyed than suffered; only he imposeth no greater a penalty, either because there is no greater in his power, or some inconvenience prohibiteth; in this case I should fear my disobedience were a sin, though I suffered the penalty. (Still supposing it an act that he had power to command me.)
Direct.XXXIX. Take heed of the pernicious design of those atheistical politicians, that would make the world believe, that all that is excellent among men, is at enmity with monarchy, yea, and government itself; and take heed on the other side, that the most excellent things be not turned against it by abuse.
Here I have two dangers to advertise you to beware: the first is of some Machiavelian, pernicious principles, and the second of some erroneous, unchristian practices.
For the first, there are two sorts of atheistical politicians guilty of them. The first sort are some atheistical flatterers, that to engage monarchs against all that is good, would make them believe that all that is good is against them and their interest. By which means, while their design is to steal the help of princes, to cast out all that is good from the world, they are most pernicious underminers of monarchy itself. For what readier way to set all the world against it, than to make them believe that it standeth at enmity to all that is good. These secret enemies would set up a leviathan to be the butt of common enmity and opposition.
The other sort are the professed enemies of monarchy, who in their zeal for popular government, do bring in all that is excellent, as if it were adverse to monarchy. 1. They would (both) set it at enmity with politicians. 2. With lawyers. 3. With history. 4. With learning. 5. With divines. 6. With all christian religion. 7. And with humanity itself.
Object.I. The painters of the leviathan scorn all politics, as ignorant of the power of monarchs, except the atheistical inventions of their own brains. And the adversaries of monarchy say, The reading of politics will satisfy men against monarchy; for in them you ordinarily find that themajestas realisis in the people, and themajestas personalisin the prince; that the prince receiveth all his power from the people, to whom it is first given, and to whom it may be forfeited and escheat: with much more of the like, as is to be seen in politicians of all religions.
Answ.1. It is not all politics that go upon those principles: and one mistake in writers is no disgrace to the true doctrine of politics, which may be vindicated from such mistakes. 2. As almost all authors of politics take monarchy for a lawful species of government, so most or very many (especially of the moderns) do take it to be the most excellent sort of unmixed government. Therefore they are no enemies to it.
Object.II. For lawyers, they say, That, 1. Civilians set up reason so high, that they dangerously measure the power of monarchs by it; insomuch, that the most famous pair of zealous and learned defenders of monarchy, Barclay and Grotius, do assign many cases, in which it is lawful to resist princes by arms, and more than so.[87]2. And the common lawyers, they say, are all for the law, and ready to say as Hooker,Lex facit regem; and what power the king hath, he hath it by law, The bounds are known, p. 218. He issingulis major, et universis minor, &c.
Answ.1. Sure the Roman civil laws were not against monarchy, when monarchs made so many of them. And what power reason truly hath, it hath from God, whom none can over-top; and that which reason is abused unjustly to defend, may be well contradicted by reason indeed. 2. And what power the laws of the land have, they have by the king's consent and act: and it is strange impudence to pretend, that his own laws are against him. If any misinterpret them, he may be confuted.
Object.III. For historians, say they, Be but well-versed in ancient history, Greek and Roman, and you shall find them speak so ill of monarchy, and so much for popularity, and liberty, and magnifying so much the defenders of the people's liberty against monarchs, that it will secretly steal the dislike of monarchy, and the love of popular liberty into your minds.[88]
Answ.It must be considered in what times and places the ancient Greek and Roman historians did live.[89]They that lived where popular government was in force and credit, wrote according to the time and government which they lived under; yet do they extol the virtues and heroic acts of monarchs, and often speak of the vulgar giddiness and unconstancy. And for my part, I think he that readeth in them those popular tumults, irrationalities, furies, unconstancies, cruelties, which even in Rome and Athens they committed, and all historians record, will rather find his heart much alienated from such democratical confusions. And the historians of other times and places do write as much for monarchy, as they did for democracy.
Object.IV. Some of them revile at Aristotle and all universities, and say, That while multitudes must be tasters and pretenders to the learning which they never can thoroughly attain, they read many dangerous books, and receive false notions; and these half-witted men are the disturbers of all societies. Do you not see, say they, that the two strongest kingdoms in the world, are kept up by keeping the subjects ignorant. The Greek and Latin empires were ruined by the contention of men that did pretend to learning. The Turk keepeth all in quiet by suppressing it: and the pope confineth it almost all to his instruments in government, and keepeth the common people in ignorance; which keepeth them from matter of quarrel and disobedience.[90]
Answ.I hope you will not say, that Rome or Athens of old did take this course. And we will not deny, but men of knowledge are more subject to debates, and questionings, and quarrels about right and wrong, than men of utter ignorance are. Beasts fall not out about crowns or kingdoms, as men do. Dogs and swine will not scramble for gold, as men will do, if you cast it among them: and it is easier to keep swine or sheep, than men; and yet it is not better to be swine or sheep, than men; nor to be governors of beasts, than men. Dead men are quieter than the living, and blind men will submit to be led more easily than those that see; and yet it is not better to be a king of brutes, or blind men, or dead men, than of the living that have their sight. A king of men that have many disagreements, is better than a king of beasts that all agree. And yet true knowledge tendeth to concord, and to the surest and constantest obedience.
Object.V. But their chief calumniations are against divines. They say, That divines make a trade of religion; and under pretence of divine laws, and conscience, and ecclesiastical discipline, they subjugate both prince and people to their will, and set up courts which they call ecclesiastical, and keep the people in dependence on their dictates, and teach them to disobey upon pretence that God is against the matter of their obedience; and also by contending for their opinions, or for superiority and domination over one another, they fill kingdoms with quarrels, and break them into sects and factions, and are the chief disturbers of the public peace.[91]
Answ.We cannot deny that carnal, ignorant, worldly, proud, unholy pastors, have been and are the great calamity of the churches: but that is no more disgrace to their office, or to divinity, than it is to philosophy or reason, that philosophers have been ignorant, erroneous, divided, and contentious; nor than it is to government, that kings and other rulers have been imperfect, bad, contentious, and filled the world with wars and bloodshed. Nay, I rather think that this is a proof of the excellency of divinity: as the reason of the aforesaid imperfections and faultiness of philosophers and rulers, is because that philosophy and government are things so excellent, that the corrupt, imperfect nature of man, will not reach so high, as to qualify any man to manage them, otherwise than with great defectiveness; so also divinity, and the pastoral office, are things so excellent and sublime, that the nature of lapsed man will not reach to a capacity of being perfect in them. So that the faultiness of the nature of man, compared with the excellency of the things to be known and practised by divines, is the cause of all these faults that they complain of; and nature's vitiosity, if any thing, must be blamed. Certainly, the pastoral office hath men as free from ignorance, worldliness, pride, and unquietness, as any calling in the world. To charge the faults of nature upon that profession, which only discovereth, but never caused them, yea, which would heal them, if they are to be healed on earth, judge whether this dealing be not foolish and injurious, and what will be the consequents if such unreasonable persons may be heard. And therefore, though leviathan and his spawn, among all that is good, bring down divines, and the zealots for democracy have gloried of their new forms of commonwealths, as inconsistent with a clergy, their glory is their shame to all but infidels. Let them help us to take down and cure the ignorance, pride, carnality, worldliness, and contentiousness of the clergy, and we will be thankful to them; but to quarrel with the best of men for the common pravity of nature, and to reproach the most excellent science and function, because depraved nature cannot attain or manage them in perfection, this is but to play the professed enemies of mankind.
Object.VI. These atheists or infidels also do spit their venom against christianity and godliness itself, and would make princes believe, that the principles of it are contrary to their interest, and to government and peace: and they fetch their cavils, 1. From the Scripture's contemptuous expressions of worldly wealth and greatness. 2. From its prohibition of revenge and maintaining our own right. 3. From thesetting it above all human laws; and by its authority and obscurity, filling the minds of men with scrupulosity. 4. From the divisions which religion occasioneth in the world: and, 5. From the testimonies of the several sects against each other. I shall answer them particularly, though but briefly.
Object.I. Say the infidel politicians, How can subjects have honourable thoughts of their superiors, when they believe that to be the word of God, which speaketh so contemptuously of them?[92]As Luke vi. 24, "Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." Jam. v. 1-3, "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you." Ver. 5, 6, "Ye have lived in pleasure on earth, and been wanton—Ye have condemned and killed the just."—Luke xii. 21. Chap. xvi. the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is spoken to make men think of the rich as miserable, damned creatures. Ezek. xxi. 25, "Thou profane, wicked prince of Israel." Prov. xxv. 5, "Take away the wicked from before the king." Prov. xxix. 12, "If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked:" the contempt of greatness is made a part of the christian religion.
Answ.1. As if there were no difference between the contempt of riches and worldly prosperity, and the contempt of government. He is blind that cannot see that riches and authority are not the same: yea, that the overvaluing of riches is the cause of seditions, and the disturbance of governments, when the contempt of them removeth the chief impediments of obedience and peace. 2. And may not governors be sufficiently honoured, unless they be exempted from the government of God? and unless their sin must go for virtue? and unless their duty, and their account, and the danger of their souls, be treacherously concealed from them? God will not flatter dust and ashes; great and small are alike to him. He is no respecter of persons: when you can save the greatest from death and judgment, then they may be excepted from all those duties which are needful to their preparation. 3. And is it not strange, that God should teach men to contemn the power which he himself ordaineth? and which is his own? Hath he set officers over us, for the work of government, and doth he teach us to despise them? There is no show of any such thing in Scripture: there are no principles in the world that highlier advance and honour magistracy, than the christian principles, unless you will make gods of them, as the Roman senate did of the Antonines, and other emperors.
Object.II. How can there be any government, when men must believe that they must not resist evil, but give place to wrath, and turn the other cheek to him that smiteth them, and give their coat to him that taketh away their cloak, and lend, asking for nothing again? Is not this to let thieves and violent, rapacious men rule all, and have their will, and go unpunished? What use is there then for courts or judges? And when Christ commandeth his disciples, that though the kings of the nations rule over them, and exercise authority, and are called benefactors, yet with them it shall not be so.[93]
Answ.These were the old cavils of Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian; but very impudent. As though love and patience were against peace and government. Christ commandeth nothing in all these words, but that we love our neighbour as ourselves, and love his soul above our wealth, and that we do as we would be done by, and use not private revenge, and take not up the magistrate's work: and is this doctrine against government? It is not magistrates, but ministers and private christians, whom he commandeth not to resist evil, and not to exercise lordship, as the civil rulers do. When it will do more hurt to the soul of another, than the benefit amounteth to, we must not seek our own right by law, nor must private men revenge themselves. All law-suits, and contentions, and hurting of others, which are inconsistent with loving them as ourselves, are forbidden in the gospel. And when was government ever disturbed by such principles and practices as these? Nay, when was it disturbed but for want of these? When was there any sedition, rebellion, or unlawful wars, but through self-love, and love of earthly things, and want of love to one another? How easily might princes rule men, that are thus ruled by love and patience!
Object.III. Christianity teacheth men to obey the Scriptures before their governors, and to obey no law that is contrary to the Bible; and when the Bible is so large, and hath so many passages hard to be understood, and easily perverted, some of these will be always interpreted against the laws of men; and then they are taught to fear no man against God, and to endure any pains or death, and to be unmoved by all the penalties which should enforce obedience; and to rejoice in this as a blessed martyrdom, to the face of kings; and those that punish them, are reproached as persecutors, and threatened with damnation, and made the vilest men on earth, and represented odious to all.[94]
Answ.The sum of all this objection is, That there is a God. For if that be not denied, no man can deny that he is the Universal Governor of the world; and that he hath his proper laws and judgment, and rewards and punishments, or that magistrates are his ministers, and have no power but from him; and consequently, that the commands, and threats, and promises of God, are a thousand-fold more to be regarded, than those of men.[95]He is a beast, and not a man, that feareth not God more than man, and that feareth not hell more than bodily sufferings: and for the Scriptures, 1. Are they any harder to be understood than the law of nature itself? Surely the characters of the will of Godin natura rerum, are much more obscure than in the Scriptures. Hath God sent so great a messenger from heaven, to open to mankind the mysteries of his kingdom, and tell them what is in the other world, and bring life and immortality to light, and yet shall his revelation be accused as more obscure than nature itself is? If an angel had been sent from heaven to any of these infidelsby name, to tell them but the same that Scripture telleth us, sure they would not have reproached his message with such accusations. 2. And are not the laws of the land about smaller matters, more voluminous and difficult? And shall that be made a reproach to government? And for misinterpretation, it is the fault of human nature, that is ignorant and rash, and not of the Scriptures. Will you tell God, that you will not obey him, unless he will make his laws so, as no man can misinterpret them? When or where were there ever such laws? God will be God, and Judge of the world, whether you will or not; and he will not be an underling to men, nor set their laws above his own, to avoid your accusations. If there be another life of joy or misery, it is necessary that there be laws according to which those rewards and punishments are to be adjudged. And if rulers oppose those who are appointed to promote obedience to them, they must do it at their perils; for God will render to all according to their works.
Object.IV. Doth not experience tell the world, that christianity every where causeth divisions, and sets the world together by the ears? What a multitude of sects are there among us at this day; and every one thinketh that his salvation lieth upon his opinion! And how can princes govern men of so contrary minds, when the pleasing of one party is the losing of the rest? We have long seen that church divisions shake the safety of the state. If it were not that few that are called christians are such indeed, and serious in the religion which themselves profess, there were no quietness to be expected; for those that are most serious, are so full of scruples, and have consciences still objecting something or other against their obedience, and are so obstinate in their way, as thinking it is for their salvation, that all ages and nations have been fain to govern them by force as beasts, which they have called persecution.[96]
Answ.1. There is no doctrine in the world so much for love, and peace, and concord as the doctrine of Christ is. What doth it so much urge and frequently inculcate? What doth it contain but love and peace from end to end? Love is the sum and end of the gospel, and the fulfilling of the law. To love God above all, and our neighbours as ourselves, and to do as we would be done by, is the epitome of the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. 2. And therefore christianity is only the occasion, and not the cause of the divisions of the earth. It is men's blindness and passions and carnal interests rebelling against the laws of God, which is the make-bate of the world, and filleth it with strife. The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits; it blesseth the peace-makers and the meek. But it is the rebellious wisdom from beneath, that is earthly, sensual, and devilish, which causeth envy and strife, and thereby confusion and every evil work, James iii. 15-17; Matt. v. 6-8. So that the true, genuine christian is the best subject and peaceablest man on earth. But seriousness is not enough to make a christian; a man may be passionately serious in an error; understanding must lead and seriousness follow. To be zealous in error is not to be zealous in christianity; for the error is contrary to christian verity. 3. As I said before, it is a testimony of the excellency of religion that it thus occasioneth contention. Dogs and swine do not contend for crowns and kingdoms, nor for sumptuous houses or apparel; nor do infants trouble the world or themselves with metaphysical, or logical, or mathematical disputes; idiots do not molest the world with controversies, nor fall thereby into sects and parties. Nor yet do wise and learned persons contend about chaff, or dust, or trifles. But as excellent things are matter of search, so are they matter of controversy, to the most excellent wits. The hypocritical christians that you speak of, who make God and their salvation give place to the unjust commands of men, are indeed no christians, as not taking Christ for their sovereign Lord; and it is not in any true honour of magistracy that they are so ductile, and will do any thing, but it is for themselves, and their carnal interest; and when that interest requireth it, they will betray their governors, as infidels will do. If you can reduce all the world to be infants, or idiots, or brutes, yea, or infidels, they will then trouble the state with no contentions for religion or matters of salvation. But if the governed must be brutified, what will the governors be? 4. All true christians are agreed in the substance of their religion; there is no division among them about the necessary points of faith or duty. Their agreement is far greater than their disagreement; which is but about some smaller matters, where differences are tolerable; therefore they may all be governed without any such violence as you mention. If the common articles of faith, and precepts of christian duty, be maintained, then that is upheld which all agree in; and rulers will not find it needful to oppress every party or opinion save one, among them that hold the common truths. Wise and sober christians lay not men's salvation upon every such controversy; nor do they hold or manage them unpeaceably to the wrong of church or state, nor with the violation of charity, peace, or justice. 5. Is there any of the sciences which afford not matter of controversy? If the laws of the land did yield no matter of controversy, lawyers and judges would have less of that work than now they have. And was there not greater diversity of opinions and worship among the heathens than ever was among christians? What a multitude of sects of philosophers and religions had they! And what a multitude of gods had they to worship! And the number of them still increased as oft as the senate pleased to make a god of the better sort of their emperors when they were dead. Indeed one emperor, (of the religion of some of these objectors,) Heliogabalus, bestirred himself with all his power to have reduced all religion to unity, that is, he would have all the worship brought to his god to whom he had been priest: saith Lampridius in his life,Dicebat Judæorum et Samaritanorum religiones et christianam devotionem, illuc transferendam, &c.And therefore he robbed, and maimed, and destroyed the other gods,id agens ne quis Romæ Deus nisi Heliogabalus coleretur. But as the effect of his monstrous, abominable filthiness of life was to be thrust into aprivy, killed, and dragged about the streets, and drowned in the Tiber; so the effect of his desired unity, was to bring that one god or temple into contempt, whereto he would confine all worship. The differences among christians are nothing in comparison of the differences among heathens.[97]The truth is, religion is such an illustrious, noble thing, that dissensions about it, like spots in the moon, are much more noted by the world, than about any lower, common matters. Men may raise controversies in philosophy, physic, astronomy, chronology, and yet it maketh no such noise, nor causeth much offence or hatred in the world; but the devil and corrupted nature have such an enmity against religion, that they are glad to pick any quarrel against it, and blame it for the imperfections of all that learn it, and should practise it. As if grammar should be accused for every error or fault that the boys are guilty of in learning it; or the law were to be accused for all the differences of lawyers, or contentions of the people; or physic were to be accused for all the differences or errors of physicians; or meat and drink were culpable because of men's excesses and diseases. There is no doctrine or practice in the world, by which true unity and concord can be maintained, but by seriousness in the true religion. And when all contention cometh for want of religion, it is impudence to blame religion for it, which is the only cure. If rulers will protect all that agree in that which is justly to be called the christian religion, both for doctrine and practice; and about their small and tolerable differences, will use no other violence but only to compel them to live in peace, and to suppress the seditious, and those that abuse and injure government or one another; they will find that christianity tendeth not to divisions, nor to the hinderance or disturbance of government or peace. It is passion, and pride, and selfishness that doth this, and not religion; therefore let these and not religion be restrained. But if they will resolve to suffer none to live in peace, but those that in every punctilio are all of one opinion, they must have but one subject that is sincere in his religion, (for no two will be in every thing of the same apprehension, no more than of the same complexion,) and all the rest must be worldly hypocrites, that while they are heartily true to no religion, will profess themselves of any religion which will serve their present turns; and these nominal christians will be ready to betray their rulers, or do any mischief which their carnal interest requireth.[98]
Object.V. What witness need we more than their own accusations of one another?[99]For the papists, how many volumes have the protestants written against them as enemies to all civil government; alleging even the decrees of their general councils, as Later. sub Innoc. III. Can. 3. And for the protestants, they are as deeply charged by the papists, as you may see in the "Image of both Churches," and "Philanax Anglicus," and abundance more. For Calvin and the presbyterians and puritans, let the prelates tell you how peaceable they are. And the papists and puritans say that the prelatists are of the same mind, and only for their own ends pretend to greater loyalty than others. There are no two among them more famous for defending government, than Hooker and Bilson. And what Hooker saith for popular power, his first and eighth books abundantly testify: and even Bishop Bilson himself defendeth the French and German protestant wars; and you may judge of his loyal doctrine by these words, p. 520, "Of Christian Subjection:" "If a prince should go about to subject his kingdom to a foreign realm, or change the form of the commonwealth from impery to tyranny, or neglect the laws established by common consent of prince and people, to execute his own pleasure; in these and other cases which might be named, if the nobles and commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed liberty, regimen, and laws, they may not well be counted rebels."[100]
Answ.1. If it be clear that christianity as to its principles, is more for love, and concord, and subjection, than any other rational doctrine in the world, then if any sect of christians shall indeed be found to contradict these principles, so far they contradict christianity: and will you blame religion because men contradict it? or blame Christ's doctrine because men disobey it? Indeed every sect that hath something of its own to make a sect, besides christian religion, which maketh men mere christians, may easily be guilty of such error as will corrupt the christian religion. And as a sect, they have a divided interest which may tempt them to dividing principles; but none more condemn such divisions than Christ. 2. And indeed, though a christian as such is a credible witness; yet a sect or faction as such, doth use to possess men with such an envious, calumniating disposition, that they are little to be believed when they accuse each other! This factious zeal is not from above, but is earthly, sensual, and devilish; and therefore where this is, no wonder if there be strife, and false accusing, and confusion, and every evil work. But as these are no competent witnesses, so whether or no they are favoured by Christ, you may judge if you will read but those three chapters, Matt. v. Rom. xii. James iii. I may say here as Bishop Bilson in the place which is accused, p. 521. "IT IS EASY FOR A RUNNING AND RANGING HEAD TO SIT AT HOME IN HIS CHAMBER AND CALL MEN REBELS, HIMSELF BEING THE RANKEST." 3. For the papists I can justify them from your accusation,so far as they are christians; but as they are papists let him justify them that can. Indeed usurpation of government is the very essence of popery; for which all other christians blame them; and therefore there is small reason that christianity should be accused for them. 4. And for the protestants, both episcopal and disciplinarians, the sober and moderate of them speak of one another in no such language as you pretend. For the episcopal, I know of none but railing papists, that accuse them universally of any doctrines of rebellion: and for the practices of some particular men, it is not to be alleged against their doctrine. Do you think that Queen Elizabeth, to whom Bishop Bilson's book was dedicated, or King Charles, to whom Mr. Hooker's book was dedicated, took either of them to be teachers of rebellion? It is not every different opinion in politics that proveth men to be against subjection. He that can read such a book as Bilson's for "Christian Subjection against Antichristian Rebellion," and yet deny him to be a teacher of subjection, hath a very hard forehead. For the controversies, I shall say no more of them here, but what I have said before to Mr. Hooker. And as for Calvin and the disciplinarians, or puritans, as they are called, they subscribe all the confessions for magistracy, and take the same oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as others do; and they plead and write for them: so that for my part I know not of any difference in their doctrine. Hear what Bishop Andrews saith, (who was no rebel,) in his "Tortura Torti," p. 379, 380.Calvinus autem ut papam regem; ita regem papam non probavit; neque nos quod in papa detestamur, in rege approbamus; at et ille nobiscum, et nos cum illo sentimus, easdem esse in ecclesia christiana regis Jacobi partes, quæ Josiæ fuerunt in Judaica; nec nos ultra quicquam fieri ambimus—: that is, "But Calvin neither liked a pope-king, nor a king-pope; nor do we approve of that in the king, which we detest in the pope. But he with us, and we with him, do judge, that King James hath as much to do in the christian church, as Josias had in the Jewish church; and we go not about to get any more." And after,Sub primatus nomine, papatum novum rex non invehit in ecclesiam; sic enim statuit, ut non Aaroni pontifici, ita nec Jeroboamo regi, jus ullum esse conflatum a se vitulum populo proponendi, ut adoret, (id est,) non vel fidei novos articulos, vel cultus divini novas formulas procudendi: that is, "The king doth not bring into the church a new papacy, under the name of primacy; for thus he judgeth, (or determineth,) that neither Aaron the priest, nor Jeroboam the king, had any right to propose the calf which they had made, to the people to be adored; that is, neither to hammer (or make) new articles of faith, or new forms of divine worship." And p. 379, 380.Quos vero puritanos appellat, si regium primatum detestantur, detestandi ipsi. Profitentur enim, subscribunt, jurant indies; sed et illi quod faciunt ingenue faciunt, et societatem in hoc Torti, ipsumque adeo Tortum, tanquam mendacem hominem, (et alibi de aliis, et hic de se,) ac sycophantem egregium detestantur: that is, "And for those he calleth puritans, if they detest the king's supremacy, they are to be detested; for they daily profess, subscribe, and swear to it; and what they do, they do ingenuously; and they detest the society of Tortus in this, and Tortus himself, as a lying man, (elsewhere of others, and here of themselves,) and an egregious sycophant." By these testimonies judge what protestants think of one another in point of loyalty.
5. And why are not all the other christians taken into your enumeration? the Armenians, Abassins, and all the Greek churches? whom the papists so frequently reproach as flatterers or servile, because they still gave so much to their emperors. Have you any pretence for your accusation as against them? Unless perhaps from the tumults which Alexandria in its greatness was much addicted to, which is nothing to the doctrine of christianity, nor to the practice of all the rest.