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 |
|
A92496
|
Natures dowrie: or The peoples native liberty asserted. By L.S.
|
L. S.
|
1652
(1652)
|
Wing S111; Thomason E668_19; ESTC R206988
|
50,283
|
65
|
us rather trust God for the backing of his vice-gerents here upon earth so long as they approve themselves to him than make a lye our refuge And though God may sometimes seem to sleep and not appear in his own cause to wit when due authority is opposed upon empty pretences Talera veritatem licit amara sit pick not quarrels with truth because it is bitter being wrested by mis application to countenance selfish designes and unjust proceedings What I have hitherto spoken touching the lawfulness of resisting Princes upon the occasion now mentioned is plentifully confirmed by some examples in Scripture and by the demenours of the Iews towards those who reigned over them without Gods immediate appointment and likewise by the practices of Christians I shall premise that if it be lawfull foâ— one subject or for one inconsiderable number to resist a Prince then much more for a whole state David should have troubled God with a needless and impertinent question asking whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up into Sauls hand unless he intended there to secure himself from Sauls mischievous practices and to offend him rather than not to defend himself Saul and his men might easily have sealled the walls of Keilah should David have used no resistance and in case he had resisted Sauls force an arrow or a stone would have made no distinction between Saul and his men Did not Azariah the Priest think it lawfull to resist King Uzziah in the defence of the Ceremoniall Law * 2 Chron. 26.17 when he followed him into the Temple attended with no fewer then 80 Priests and those valiant men Were not the 80 Priests which accompanied Uzziah of the same sense and judgement The Iewes themselves by their demeanors towards Alexander Iannaeus who together with his Predecessor and those who succeeded him are in the Talmud called Kings of Israel because they were not of the Family of David declare that they thought it lawfull for them not only to depose but also to inflict capitall punishment upon those who reigned over them without Gods immediate appointment Alexander Iannaeus was King over the Iewes Ioseph Antiq. Indaic l. 13. c. 20. Gem. Sanhed c. 2. He was convented by the Sanhedrim Gem. Sanhed c. 2. The Iewes raised warre against him neither would be satisfied with any terms without his death Ioseph Antiq. Iudaic. l. 13. c. 21 22. Schammai rebuked the rest of the Sanhedrin and King Hireanus shewing favour to Herod Ioseph Antiq. Iudaic. lib. 14. cap. 17. I shall now briefly explain how Gods people in the younger times of Christian Religion by their practices testified that they thought it lawfull to resist those who were in authority over them when they went about to destroy or to deprave Religion or to impedite the advancement thereof Whereas the Christians in Constantinople who beleeved that the Son was con-substantiall to the Father after the death of Eusebius their Bishop made choice of one to succeed him who had been his Predecessor but was ejected by a Council which the Emperour convocated to that purpose Paul by name but the Arians of Constantinople at the same time elected Macedonius into the Patriarkship * Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 12. And Constantius sent Hermogenes with a military force to expell Paul from the Church of Constantinople some who adhered to Paul fired the house in which Hermogenes quartered and haling him out slew him Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. Sozomen Hist. Eccles l. 3. c. 6. The Constantinopolitans endeavoured to defend Paul their Patriark aforenamed against Philip President of Constantinople when they suspected somthing to be decreed against him by their Emperor Constantius Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 16. The Romans by violence ejecting Felix out of the See of Rome Constantius against his mind restoreth unto them Liberius whom he had banished Socrat. Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 37. The Inhabitants of Mantinium out of their fervent zeal for Religion resisted four troops of Soldiers which were sent against them according to the Emperors order and were victorious Socrat Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 38. The Samosateans would by force have attempted to preserve their Bishop Eusebius from banishment to which Valens their Emperour had destinated him had they not been diswaded by the same Eusebius Theodorit Hist Eccles l. 4. c. 13. The Christians of Alexandria resisted the Emperour Martian and his military force Evagrius Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 5. It is sufficiently known how Ambrose Bishop of Millain opposed the Emperor See Niceph. Calistius l. 12. c. 42. It is observable that the Christians whom I have now mentioned when omnia Caesar erat and whilst the profession of Christian Religion was confirmed by no humane lawes but the Edicts of Emperours in the behalf of Religion resisted those who had the Posse of the world in their hands That in the elder times of Christian Religion the Papists and likewise many Protestants of the Church of Scotland have approved these practices of the primitive Christans and other of higher opposition against Princes for default in Government whether respecting Religion or civill affairs is sufficiently discovered by Lysimachus Nicanor in his Epistle congratulatory to the Covenanters in Scotland See especially p. 12. 40. 41. 54. Ridentem dicere verum Quid vetat The sense of our English Senators touching the liableness of Kings to forcible resistance and deposition is so clear from that Vote in the beginning of our Civill dissentions to wit That the King if he raised Forces against his Parliament forfeited his Trust and by some other Votes and Actions that it needeth no Comment to explain it He that desireth to read more touching the Peoples Libertie in point of resistance to be made against those that invade their right may see Plutarch in the Lives of the Gracehi CHAP. 11. Kings may render themselves obnoxious to the penalty of death according to the Law of God in some cases to be inflicted by publick authority in other by private men THat Law Gen. 9.6 Whose sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed reacheth all the Sons of Noah Princes themselves though they be taller than their Brethren by the head and shoulders Whoso sheddeth mans blood voluntarily and of his own accord not out of an error nor as an executioner of a penaltie nor yet in his own defence his blood shall be shed * See Oakelos his Chaldee Paraphrase and the Mauritanian Jewes Arabick translation set out by Erpenius by a judiciary sentence This is the meaning of that Law The Hebrew Doctors have some glosses here which destroy the Text. According to some of them he who by himself shedded mans blood was to be punished with death but if he hired another or imployed his servants to shed blood or exposed one bound to a Lion or other savage beasts he was to be esteemed an homicide and deserved death to be inflicted of God but was not necessarily