Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	law_n	matter_n	2,980	5	5.2921	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85233	A reply unto severall treatises pleading for the armes now taken up by subjects in the pretended defence of religion and liberty. By name, unto the reverend and learned divines which pleaded Scripture and reason for defensive arms. The author of the Treatise of monarchy. The author of the Fuller answer his reply. By H. Fern D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F799; Thomason E74_9	75,846	101

the word Power So they page 3. which is the ground-work of their disti●ction between Resisting the Personall Commands and resisting the power of the Governour but we shall see the Apostle gives no ground for it I suppose they have taken the hi●t of this their Cavil from Th●ophylact or rather from Chrysostom's words upon this place who 〈◊〉 the Apostles speech is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of particular Princes but of the thing it selfe i.e. of the Office which words are nothing to the meaning of these men for Chrys●stome observing that the Prince then governing were not such 〈◊〉 the Apostle describes v. 3.4.6 did therefore say the Apostle speaks of the Office not of them that bore it i.e. not of those individuall Persons then in power who were farre from the performance of those duties out if we look to the duty there required of Subjects in regard of Obed●ence and resistance it was never i● Saint Chrysostomes mind to think that the Apostle did not speake of that as due to the Persons then Göverning Well to let the Commentator goe let us looke into the Text where it plainly appears that it is the Apostles intent to shew the duty of Subjects and for that purpose he speaks of the power it selfe and of the Person that beares it that is from the power which he shews to be of God he enforces obedience to the Persons that are in power yea with respect to the Persons then governing For first Those words the powers that are doe plainly include the Persons because Power in the Abstract cannot bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existent so as the Apostle speaks of it here making it the object of obedience Againe those that he calls Powers in the first verse he calls Rulers in the third and the Ministers of God in the fourth v. And thou shalt have praise of the power v. 3. What can Power in the Abstract give Praise or is tribute paid to the Power in the Abstract In a word The Power or Authority is the Reason why we yeeld Subjection and Obedience to any person but the Person that bears the Power is the Object of our Subjection and obedience and because he bears the Power and is set over us we must not resist him though he abuse the Power Their third observation or Conceit upon which their m●it Answer to this place depends and for which the Fuller Ausuerer has applauded them is the restraint of Subjection enjoyned here to Legall commands in Civill matters only their words are The things about which the Authority and so the subjection in this place is conversant are Civill matters belonging to the Second Table betweene Man and Man for then the Magistrates commanded not for but against Religion and the first table and therefore the Active subjection at least here required is limited to Civill Matters or at least passive yeelding to the pet nalty of the Lawes in case of not obeying actively and neither active nor passive subjection farther then to Legall Commands so pag. 4. Ans 1. How farre they extend those Civill matters to which they will have this Subjection here confined they have not distinctly skewen whether to things onely of indifferency determined by the Roman Lawes and belonging to the Second Table in regard of the generall end of it forasmuch as they were so determined for the more convenient proceeding of Justice and the better conserving of order and Peac●tor to thing also in themselves good or bad for it is certain the Roman Lawes also concerned these There are indeed that say by good workes in the 3. v. are not meant workes M●rally but Civilly good which is very answerable to these mens re●traint whom it concerned to make the way they will goe in for Obedience as narrow as they can for that will leave the way for Resistance so much the Wider only I must returne the blame of carlesnesse which they would often cast upon mee upon themselves that making such a restraint they would not more distinctly fix the bounds of it 2. It is true that the Apostle enjoynes them Subjection here to all Legall Commands in Civill matters but it is not to be so restrained for put the case If they that were in Authority should command contrary to their owne Lawes in Morall things or contrary to Religion the first Table were Christians bound to obey for active obedience the poynt is cleare they were not bound but were they bound then to suffer for not obeying actively These Divines tell us the Subjection here enjoyned by the Apostle concernes onely Civill Matters a thing of which there was lesse doubt and so Christians are left altogether without direction in regard of the other Matte●s which more concerned them unlesse they will take the desperate Resolution these men give as we had it above Neither active or passive Subjection is here required farther then to Legall commands So then Christians according to these Divines were free and might resist when they had such commands imposed on them but can we think the Apostle should give them so lame an instruction as to teach them Subjection only in Civill Matters and leave them either without direction what to doe in the other cases or permit them to make the inference for resistance as these men doe contrary to the very practice of Saint Paul himselfe and all the Apostles and all the Christians of those primitive Times who did yeeld passive obedience under the illegall commands of the then governing Powers But they endeavour to prove it pag. 4. 5. from the context by the inference Whosoever therefore resists c. which is made say they from Gods ordaining the power and if I be bound to be subject to Tyranny or to suffer violence of a Tyrant by vertue of the commandement here then is Tyranny the Ordinance of God and Magistrates have power ordained of God to use Tyrannous violence pag. 4. Answ It followes of Active Subjection not Passive If I be bound actively to obey such commands of Tyranny then would it be truly inferred that Tyranny it selfe were the Ordinance of God but if I be bound only to suffer patiently under the illegall commands of Tyranny then doth it not follow that Tyranny is theordinance of God but that those Tyrants do beare the power ordained of God though abufing it sometimes for the just punishment of those they are set over by God I would also defire these Divines to consider how finely they teach private men to resist by arguing as they doe here If I be bound to be subject to Tyranny c. The like instances repeated over and over they have in the beginning of pag. 5. which are satisfied by the like Answer but they enquire a little after in the same pag. Seeing the Doctor will not say that the most pereusptory refusing to obey actively Tyrannous Commands is resistance by what authority of Text or Context will he stretch the prohibition to the refusing

will against the Lawes but abusing of Authority It may be hee would salve at as M. Burrowes seemed to doe by telling us that he means by Authority abused the Authority imployed in Making sinfull Lawes for such Authority though abused this Author acknowledges to be the Ordinance of God and not to be resisted and disputes it against the Reverend Divines pag. 64. 65. I agree with him but further would have him shew why Authority abused in the Execution of Law that is in pursuing the Princes illegall will should not be also the Ordinance of God and secured from resistance Indeed there is a great difference betweene Resistance made against a Prince commanding according to Law and that which is against a Prince commanding contrary to Law but it doth not make the businesse as cleare as the day nay it doth not at all satisfie him that will enquire First concerning that government under which the Apostle lived might Subjects then resist If the Higher Powers commanded contrary to Law as they did often we find that the Christian Orthodox Religion was part of the Lawes in Constantines and the suceeding times and that Christians did not resist when Iulian persecuted them for it nor did the Orthodox Christians resist when the Arrian Emperours endeavoured to subvert the faith If he reply they were Absolute Emperours and that their Edicts made a change of the Law by which such Religion was established why then doth he speaking of these absolute Emperours distinguish the will of the Prince from the Law and think to satifie us by telling us Religion then was no part of the Law when with one breath they could make any thing Law and by another reverse it according to this Authors acknowledgement of their absoutenesse Secondly Nor will this exception satisie him that shall enquire concerning this Government 1. Whether the first Parliament in Q. Elizabeths Raigne might have resisted her endeavouring to change the then established Popish Religion Had those Popish Lords and Commons which Q. Mary left beene pleased to hold to that Religion which was then part of our Nationall Law they might have taken the Armes of the Kingdome and have used them in the defence of it by the Rule of this Authour and the pretences of the Armes now taken up I would very faine see how they will make this as cleare as the day 2. How can they be justified that did at first take Armes and doe still continue them as themselves sticke not to professe for the pulling downe of Episcopall Government that I may not say of the Church Liturgy and publique service too which is and alwaies hath been a part of the Law of this Nation So little can this Authour satisfie us in this first exception by saying Religion was then no part of the Law and therefore Christians might not resist but now it is part of our Nationall Law and therefore allowes the Resistance of these daies His other exception is they were Absolute Monarchs and therefore not to be resisted He who reads Tacitus saith he cannot but see the Senate brought to a condition of basest servitude and all Lawes and Lives depending on the will of the Prince They were become the sworne vassals of an absolute Lord we the Subjects of a Liege or Legall Prince pag. 59. Answ This is the Sword to cut the knot when it cannot be untied but the edge is easily taken off from it by enquiring whether those first Roman Emperours had de jure such absolute power and by considering whether the Apostle had any respect to such absolutenesse of their power in his reasons against resistance and lastly whether limitation of Power in the Soveraigne doth inferre power of resistance in the Subject 1. It cannot be cleared that those first Roman Emperours were so absolute de lure Legally by such consent and surrender of the People and Senate as is required to the estating them in such an absolute condition There seemes to be two Reasons inducing this opinion of their absolutenesse 1. Because they tooke upon them as absolute Lords That cannot be denyed indeed but it makes no right nay they crept into the power by degrees which argues they had it not by such consent as is pretended but got it by practice 2. Because of the Lex Regia which this man doth not mention but it is much spoken of to this purpose for thereby it is conceived that they were estated in such Absolute soveraignty thus it runs as Vlpian gives it us A Law quâ populus ei Principi in eum omne suum imporium potestatem contulit Tit. de Constitut-Principis That there was such a Lex Regia cannot be denied but the Question is when it was made and what or how much is granted by i● This has caused severall opinions among the Civilians some thinking the people onely gave away their power making the Prince their perpetuall Tribune Some that the Senate also parted with their power Some that neither of them parted wholly with their power but communicated it so farre forth to the Prince in the administration of the Commonwealth that they still kept the Summum imperium in themselves This variety of opinion is unfit to make a certaine ground for Conscience or to give interpretation to the Apostle as if then be forbad Resistance because those Emperours were Absolute I conceive it to be cleare that the draught of that Lex Regia appeares no where before Vespasians time that the people had before parted with their power but the Senate not wholly therefore Augustus to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Principate was granted for life as Srabo sai●h towards the end of his last booke tooke upon him as Tribune of the people and had it from ten yeeres to ten yeeres as Al●iate shewes in a little Tract de Magistratib Civilibus That the succeeding Emperours encroached by degrees upon the liberty and power of the Senate making their way by seare and flattery but had not that power which by fits they assumed from such a Covenant and Consent of the State as is required to make that Legem Regiam as Connanus shewes out of Dion Suetonius and Tacitus Also that the Emperours though they were for the more ready execution and ministration of the affaires of the Commonwealth sol●ti Legibus which was first granted to Augustus yet did they perquamdiu magnam potestatis partem cum Senatu communicare as Hotoman shewes de Constitutionib Princip and cut of that power which the Senate did still conceive to be in them they declared Nero an Enemy to the State Adde to this that though we read not of Plebiscita after the beginning of these Emperours yet we meet with Senatus Consulta and of the power of the Senare in passing their Decrees ●acitus saith They did it sometime inscio absente Principe but never indeed invito against his will Suetonius also tells us that Caligula intended to assume the Diade● which was a

endangered Religion and Liberties and now they thinke much it should be called in question or be made a Controversie It had beene happy for them if they could have carried the matter so clearly without being put to a Reply or if now being put to Answer they could make others the Inc●ndiaries for the kindling of that fire which they have begun and fomented with seditious doctrines blowne over all the Kingdome Surely if the Divines and Lawyers that are of contrary judgement to them throughout the Kingdome had in good time declared themselves herein it would have given a seasonable and happy check to these seditious principles and to the unhappy Rebellion that has been raised thereon I for my part thought it concerned mee to examine a doctrine so much Preached and published and could not think it possible that Conscience should be truly satisfied in the Conclusion without being secured of the truth of both the Promises of which this seditious doctrine is the first That Subjects may take Armes against their Soveraigne for the defence of Religion and Liberties when in danger of subversion for which as then I could see no warrant that Conscience might rest on no more can I now but doe finde it a Doctrine destitute of Scripture and true Reason as will be cleared in the processe of this book For First Upon the examination of places of Scripture it wil appeare that Gods People were continually under such Kings against whom they might not resist and that Gods word as it affords us no precept so nor any just example for resistance but much every way against it Secondly Upon the Examination of Reason it will appeare how inconsistent such a power of resistance in Subjects is with Government and that which seemes to be the reason of the Wisdome of God putting his people under Kings without any power of Resistance moe inconveniences and mischiefes would follow upon such a power placed in the People then if they were left without it I must needs say it doth at first sight seeme unreasonable that Subjects should be left without this Remedy and I confesse my owne thoughts according to that naturall inclination wee all have to Liberty have been heretofore ready to suggest as much till seeking warrant for conscience from Gods word I could meet with none but found Reason presently checked with that saying of our Saviour Mat. 10.25 It is enough for the Disciple that he be as his Master It is enough for us now if by the denial of Resistance and Armes we can be in no worse condition then our Saviour was and the Christians of the Primitive times and Gods people were ever in Likewise when I expect the Adversaries should bring expresse Scripture without which they professe not to attempt any thing of such moment for commanding or allowing this supposed Duty of Resistance I find them altogether failing and in their Answers to places of Scripture much disagreeing among themselves So that indeed all their faith and perswasion here is resolved into an appearance of Reason raised upon Aristotles grounds or Principles laid for the framing of a government and the meanes of restraining Tyranny Upon those grounds and Principles Buchanan and Iunius Brutus goe so farre as to the Deposing and taking away of an Exorbitant or Tyrannous Monarch The writers of these dayes though they will not seem to harbour such an intention and the Author of the Treatise of Monarchie doth expresly pronounce it unlawfull yet do they all agree to use what force they can against such a Monarch for the suppressing of his Tyrannie to give him battell in the field and make him accessary to his own death if he fall by their hand To cleare the way in the entrance of this Cause I am called by the Learned Divines and the Author of the treatise of Monarchie in the first place to consider the severall Cases of Resistance and the severall kinds of Governments and Monarchies SECT II. Cases of Resistance THe Reverend and Learned Divines who plead for Defensive Armes to shew what great paines they have taken for the satisfying or rather troubling of the Consciences of the people doe every where blame the Resolver as indiligent and carelesse First in the explication of the Question propounded that he undertaking to resolve Conscience about Resistance did not set down all possible Cases which they by laying their heads together have found out Then in the clearing of the 13. to the Rom. that he mainly insisting upon that place did not Analyse the Chapter as they have done by breaking it into so many pieces as if they had meant to draw out so many points to preach upon rather then arguments to dispute by My Answer is I did not intend that Treatise as a just Tractate of Resistance but as a Resolution of a particular Case and therefore did not undertake or endeavour to satisfie all doubts which every working braine that ha's strained it selfe to the disturbance of this State and people might raise concerning Resistance in generall but to resolve the Consciences of misled People in relation to the resistance now made Now because they must have things delivered in grosse to them if we meane they should apprehend them I did therefore think it sufficient first in the Explication of the Question to direct their thoughts upon the notorious Resistance then used viz. by setting up a Militia raising Armies every where and using them in Battell against His Majesty for unto that Resistance the Case propounded did relate as was intimated SECT I. and then in the clearing of the 13 to the Rom. it seemed sufficient to let the people understand That the King was the Higher or Supream power in this Kingdom that All under the higher power were forbidden to resist that Tyranny and persecution were not sufficient causes of Resistance which appeared upon the consideration of those times lastly that the prohibition of Resistance concerned all times because the Apostle's Reasons against it being drawn from the institution of the Power and the end or benefit of it are perpetuall and concerne all Governments These few necessary particulars deduced out of the Apostle I thought more fit to let the People understand then to puzzle them with many needlesse termes of analyse and division And now let us consider the Cases propounded by the Pleaders amonst them all that onely is pertinent which enquires whether the resisting of a Captain of the Souldiery having his commission from the King and comming to act any illegall commands with his bands of armed men be a resisting of the King and so forbidden pag. 1. Ans They might easily have answered themselves who I know are perswaded that the resisting of Captains having Commission from the Houses and comming to plunder or take away the Estates of Malignants is a resisting of the Parliament but more to this case presently Onely let us consider their leading Cases first What if it be doubted say they whether