Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A49117
|
The historian vnmask'd, or, Some reflections on the late History of passive obedience wherein the doctrine of passive-obedience and non-resistance is truly stated and asserted / by one of those divines, whom the historian hath reflected upon in that book ; and late author of the resolutions of several queries, concerning submission to the present government : as also of an answer to all the popular objections, against the taking the oath of allegiance to their present majesties.
|
Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing L2969; ESTC R9209
|
38,808
|
69
|
at Arms were not obliged to fight for the one or against the other in this Juncture their Duty was to stand still and wait for the salvation of God which they did and God wrought Deliverance for them as he did for David and they sate down peaceably every Man under his own Vine as free from sin as from danger Rumpatur quisquis rumpitur Invidia Now to remove the Prejudices which the Historian hath insinuated into the minds of some to make them of his own Opinion that such of our Clergy as have taken the late Oath are as wicked as he represents them And to state the present Case aright I shall premise these things to consideration There are Two Extream Opinions which some Men have espoused concerning Monarchy The First Sort hold I. That Monarchy is Jure Divino which would infer that all other Species of Government are unlawful II. That the Monarch hath such an indelible Character of Majesty and Soveraignty inherent in his Person as cannot be erazed or dissolved but by his Death III. That every Supreme Monarch hath an Absolute and Arbitrary Power over his Subjects independent on the People and paramount to all Laws which he hath Power to dispense with as he shall think fit and that the Laws are only Acts of Grace and Condescentions granted by the King. And consequently IV. That though at his Coronation he have Sworn to maintain such Laws yet he is not obliged by his Oath when he shall see cause to do otherwise The Second Sort would depress the Majesty of Kings too low And they hold I. That the Original of all Power is from the People and that they may resume it on Male-Administration The Papists hold That there is such a Power in the Pope who in Case of Heresie may depose one Prince and set up another in Ordine ad Spiritualia And some of the Presbyterial Perswasion affirm the same Power to be in their Synods That Democracy or the Government of the People by a Common-wealth is more eligible than that of Monarchy The Church of England walks in a middle way between these and holds That though the King be not strictly Jure Divina i e. so as to make other Species of Government unlawful yet is he the Minister of God and not of the People though the Power be conveyed Medias Populo That he is in all Causes and over all Persons both Ecclesiastical and Civil Supreme Governor That though he be Supreme yet he is not Absolute to do whatever he shall please That Kings are generally limited either by certain Laws and Agreements with their People or those Ends for which Government was appointed by God. That the Parliament of England have part of the Legislative Power without whose concurrence no Acts of the King do bind the Subject That Kings are bound by those Oaths which they have taken at their Coronation to defend the Religion Laws and Liberties of the People And that our Laws and Oaths are the Measures as well of Government to the King as of Obedience to the People That though the King may dispense with a particular Law pro hic nunc for the Publick welfare wherein Salus populi Supreme Leâ—â— yet he cannot ordinarily dispense with Fundamental Laws to alter Religion and the Species of Government and destroy the Liberties and Priviledges of the People particularly when by Law it is agreed how the Members of Parliament and Officers Militery and Civil ought to be qualified it is not in the Power of the King to dispense with unqualified Members and Officers That although no Degrees of Subjects have Power to co-erce resist or depose the King for Male-administration yet Cases may happen whereby he may exuere personam Regis cease to be King and the Obligation of his Subjects be made void As first in Case of Conquest in a just War when the Conqueror protects the People in their Laws and Liberties and is in a plenary possession especially if the conquered King flies to a professed Enemy of the Nation and seeks to subject or enslave his People to such a Forreign Power 2. In Case of Lunacy and a setled Distraction of Madness which makes him utterly unfit to Govern himself he hath only nomen fine Re no Power of Administration 3. In Case a King obstinately persists to Subvert the Species of Government to alter the Religion to subject his Dominions to the Pope or French King and for want of Power to effect it wholly deserts the Government and not only leaves his People in a state of Anarchy and confusion but he himself enters into a state of War and procures the assistance of Forreign Princes to spoil and destroy the People That no Precept of the Gospel nor any Law of God doth interfere with or annul the Constitutions of a Nation or the general Ends of Government viz. the welfare of the Community for as King James said The King is for the Commonwealth and not the Common-wealth for the King And the End is more Noble and Valuable than the Means That if any Laws be made on an emergent occasion which may prove destructive to the Fundamental Laws and the Publick Welfare such Laws are not obligatory by reason of a previous obligation for the preservation of our selves and of the Community These are the leading Rules which we of the Church of England have followed and which we hope will in the judgment of all sober Men excuse us from those black Characters of Time-Servers Apostates c. which the Historian would brand us with only for transferring our Allegiance from the late King upon whom the Jesuits had practised their Power of Transubstantiating and made him of a King to be No-King to the present King and Queen wherein only for ought I yet see the Historian differs from us for as to the Authorities and Reasons by him alledged we are very near of the same mind And because he says in the conclusion of his Preface That he should be sorry that he hath lost his Labour viz If we be not perswaded to deny and withdraw our Allegiance from King William and Queen Mary I do assure him I am as sorry that his Labour should be lost as he himself can be and to think with how much greater sorrow he may be overwhelmed if his Labour be not lost For what can follow if his Design should take the desired effect i. e. If the late King should return with full Power to execute his whole pleasure in such an arbitrary manner as he began but the total Destruction of our Religion Laws and Liberties in which Case if the Historian be yet a Protestant he must turn Apostate and declare for an arbitrary independant Power in the late King or prepare himself to suffer whatever that King and his Instruments shall think fit to inflict on him which will be no cause of Joy to him though his Labour be very successful Wherefore I desire him to consider whether
seeing we do still agree in those Doctrines of Non-Resistance and Passive Obedience rightly stated and understood it were not more advisable for him to submit his Opinion to the Judgment of those Divines upon their more mature and particular consideration of the Obligation of those Doctrines in such a Case as hath now hapned or at least to the Determination and Establishment by Publick Consent now happily setled and by all Christian Princes approved of the French only excepted than so resolutely to persist in his Opinion to scandalize such as have taken the Oaths and to affright others from doing the same and like Jeroboam to make Israel to sin To put a stop to this Gangreen my next endeavour shall be to find the Nature of Non-Resistance and Passive-Obedience In order whereunto I shall enquire first the Sense of the Scripture and secondly the Sense of our Laws As to the Scripture we find it in a Prohibition of our Saviour Matth. 5.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Not to resist an injurious person viz. So as to return the like Injury on him recompensing evil for evil it being unlawful for a private person to avenge himself and take an Eye for an Eye and this Precept obligeth only in lesser Injuries which are tolerable and supportable without any great damage to our Bodies or Estates such as a blow on the Cheek taking away a Coat and compelling a person to go with him a Mile which is but a small restraint of his liberty So Dr. Hammond in his practical Catechism expounding the Precept restrains it to matters of a light nature and to a light contumely and again such slight Injuries in which cases notwithstanding for prevention of greater Evils which we have just cause to fear it is permitted to seek such reparation as the Laws under which we live do allow But in cases of greater Injuries as in Exod. 22.2 when a Thief is found breaking up and be smitten that he die there shall be no Blood shed for him in such a Case the Law of Nature allows Moderamen inculpatae Tutelae And if I have assurance that a malitious person comes to take away my life I may kill rather than be killed So Dr. Hammond who proposing the Question What is the general nature of the Precept answers That the Injuries be tolerable and supportable in respect of what is already done and what may be consequent on our bearing them this concerns private persons As to our not resisting our Governours he that resisteth them is condemned by the Apostle and the word is by Hesychius parallel'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raising War against him where according to the former Exposition if the Injury done by a Prince be tolerable and supportable without destroying the Ends of Government and the Common Welfare they may not resist but in such desperate Cases they are bound by a Superior Law Salus Populi which being the End of Government is to be preferred before the Means it is lawful to defend themselves To this purpose Bishop Sanderson p. 216. De Consc A Subject is not ordinarily bound to obey a Law that is very grievous to the certain Ruin of himself and Family unless some great necessity or Publick danger do appear And if we are not bound to such Laws much less to such Governours as are highly injurious to their Subjects against Law. And thus in case of a lesser abridgment of the Subject's Liberty while it is tolerable and tends not to his utter Ruin the Subject must be passive but when the loss of their Liberty tends to the loss of their Lives and Estates and so the common Ruin of the present Subjects and their Posterity Quin resisti potest non dubito saith Grotius In such case Resistance may be made and yet we did not resist but only with-hold our assistance and only did not do what in truth was not in our power to do to which no Laws nor Oaths could oblige us to defend the late King in all his Extravagancies But because the Precepts of the Gospel do not interfere with the Civil Constitutions of a Nation let us consider how far the Laws of our Land do forbid Resistance There are two Laws made in the Reign of Charles the Second upon special occasions which forbid resistance by any persons on any pretence whatsoever the first is the Stat 13 Ch. 2. when the Parliament having fresh in their minds the War against Charles the First wherein many Members of both Houses as well as the Royal Family had been great Sufferers they made it unlawful for both Houses of Parliament to raise War Offensive or Defensive c. The second is the Corporation Act which says It is not Lawful on any Pretence whatsoever to raise War c. But both these Laws must be understood in a sense consistent with the Fundamental Constitutions for the Publick welfare and according to the intention of the Legislators which was to prevent the like Mischiefs as had happened in the long Civil War between the King and Parliament and which were then fresh in memory and which some Male-contents were endeavouring to renew and not to establish an Arbitrary Power in the King that by a standing Army he might exact all his Pleasure from the People destroy their Religions Laws and Liberties and if his Disposition lead him to it with a handful of Cut-Throats might enter into the two Houses of Parliament and destroy them by their own Law and so to go through the Nation and murther as many as they please which is the killing letter of the Law and of those Doctrines too taken in a strict sense in which they are contrary to all Laws Divine and Moral and therefore though delivered in general terms Aequitatem admittunt interpretem 3dly It is a needful Observation that de odiosis raro contingentibus Lex non decernit the Law makes no provision for such odious things as are not fit to be mentioned and rarely come to pass yet when at any time such cases do happen as under the late King they did we find our Legislators very Industrious and unanimous for the suppressing of them And when the Queen of Scots brought French Forces into Scotland to withstand the Reformation that Parliament and Convocation than which the Historian neither hath nor can mention a more August Assembly of the States agreed to give a Subsidy of six Shillings in the Pound to defray the Charge of that War and call the Design the Queen's using all Prudent and Godly means 5 Eliz c. 24. 27. And the Temporalty call it The Princely and upright preservation of the Liberty of the Realm and Nation of Scotland from iminent Captivity and Desolation And in 35 Eliz. c. 12. another Subsidy was granted by the Clergy for the Queen's Charges in the needful and prudent prevention of such Attempts as tended to the extirpation of the sincere Profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere And