Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	new_a	old_a	testament_n	3,965	5	8.0680	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65716	Three sermons preach'd at Salisbury the first, A.D. 1680, and again before the militia, at their going against the late Duke of Monmouth ... the second preach'd before the Right Reverend Father in God, Seth, Lord Bishop of Sarum, A.D. 1681 ... the third, preach'd A.D. 1683, at the election of the mayor ... / by Daniel Whitby.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1685 (1685)	Wing W1737; ESTC R28389	88,809	79

his Subjects that therefore Subjects may do the like to their Superiours That because Jeroboam might do this by an especial and particular Grant and Commission from the God of Heaven That therefore others may do the like tho they have no Commission of like nature from God is as absurd as it would be for us to rob and spoil our Neighbours and keep what we have borrowed of them without Restitution because upon a special and particular Commission from the great Lord of all things the Israelites did innocently deal so with the Aegyptians or salvagely to butcher or to cut off all Papists that do dwell among us because they were commanded to do thus to the Idolaters in the Land of Canaan 2. I answer 1 Kings 12.19 It is not said in Scripture that Jeroboam rebelled against the House of David but that Israel did so their Action plainly seemeth to have been Rebellion because it was an actual renouncing of their lawful Sovereign without God's Warrant to them so to do for they do with one Voice cry out What Portion have we in David and what Inheritance have we in the Son of Jesse and thereupon depart from Rehoboam and appoint Jeroboam to be their King without any Commission from God to do so Moreover they do this not out of any pretence of God's rejecting Rehoboam but only for this Cause That he refused to make their Yoke easie and to remove the pretended Burthens which his Father had laid upon them and therefore they revolted upon Rebellious Principles For as a Father doth not forfeit his Authority over his Children nor are they freed from that Obedience which they owe unto him by virtue of the Fifth Commandment because he deals severely with them and is not to indulgent to or careful of them as he ought to be so neither can the King i. e. the Father of his Country lose his Authority over his Subjects because he governs them severely or lays afflicting Burthens on them nor can their Subjects be disobliged from that Obedience which they owe unto them upon those Accounts for if Servants as St. Peter saith are to obey such Masters who are froward and perverse i. e. severe in their Commands 1 Pet. 2.18 19. and cruel in chastising them if they with Patience were to endure Grief and suffer wrongfully for Conscience towards God if the Angel commanded Hagar even when her Mistress afflicted her Gen. 16.6 9. and dealt hardly with her to return and submit her self unto her Hands much more are Subjects to obey and to continue in Obedience to their Sovereign tho they be never so severely dealt with by them But as for Jeroboam he only took what God had promised to give him by rending of ten Tribes out of the hands of Rehoboam and in that very method in which it pleased God to make good his Promise for the Text doth expresly say this matter was from God that he might perform the Saying which the Lord spake by Ah●jah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the Son of Nebat 1 Kings 12.15 and when the Subjects of Rehoboam assembled to fight with the Children of Israel God by his Prophet doth forbid them saying v. 24. Ye shall not go up nor fight against your Brethren the Children of Israel for this thing is from me I therefore think of this whole matter thus That Jeroboam was not guilty of any Usurpation which might render him a Rebel against Rehoboam that the People were Rebellious in the Principle which moved them to revolt and in revolting without Commission from God but that upon this Declaration made by God's Prophet it became their Duty to own and to submit to Jeroboam as their King Now seeing Christ came not to take away or to diminish any of the Rights of Princes but rather to establish and confirm them Hence I infer That the Resistance whether in Word or Deed which was forbidden in the Old cannot be rationally thought to be approved in the New Testament but rather we may rationally judge that as our Saviour came to advance the other Duties of the Moral Law so much more by his suffering Religion to advance this moral Precept of Honour and Submission to our Superiours To which effect it is excellently observed by a very Learned Prelate The Lord Bishop of Sarum That we find Christ and his Apostles frequently labouring to settle in the Consciences of men their Obligations to Obedience and patient suffering where they cannot actively obey but no where restraining limiting or particularly regulating the Office of Sovereign Powers much less permitting or giving Power to their Subjects to limit or restrain their Power but leaving them to those general Rules which concern the Account and Duty of all Men in their several Stations and to the terms whereupon the Providence of God was wont to settle the Princes and Governours of the World Let the Rights of Caesar be what they will in reference to Tribute Christ will not determine them this he will Those things which belong to Caesar according to Jus gentium must be reudred to him He doth not examine Pilate 's Power in case of Blasphemy and Treasen but acknowledges it to be of God and submits And so likewise the Apostles seem to be unconcerned as it were in the governing part of Civil Policy No word is found in all their Writings enquiring into the Rights of the Roman Emperours who were Sovereign or limiting the exercise of their Power only thus much they take for certain such as they were they were ordain'd of God and they spend all their labour in founding deeply and firmly establishing that other part which concerns Obedience For the Scriptures of the New Testament do most expresly call for our Subjection to and as expresly do forbid resistance of the Higher Powers Rom. 13.1 2. Let every Soul be subject to them saith St. Paul so let him yield Subjection to them as never to resist on any Provocation Temptation or specious Pretence whatsoever for Whosoever doth resist the Power resists the Ordinance of God and they that resist his Ordinance shall receive to themselves Damnation 1 Pet. 2.13 14 15 16. Be subject to every Ordinance of Man saith Peter i. e. to every Power daily ordained among men for the Lord's sake or for the sake of him whose Ordinance they are whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto them that are sent by him for this is the Will of God this is well-doing this is acting as the Servants of God And though their Government should be unjust and they should punish you only for keeping a good Conscience do you bear it patiently for this is thank worthy v. 19. if a Man for Conscience toward God endure Grief suffering wrongfully v. 20. If when we do well and suffer for it we take it patiently this is acceptable with God this is to act according to our Christian Calling v. 21. and the

Jeroboam according to the Sentence of his Prophet Hoc crimen poenam à deo merebatur cum nullo dei jussu idfecisset Grot. yet was not this his action acceptable in the sight of God because he here resolves to punish him 1 Kings 16.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he slew him Again the instances of the Idolatrous King of Judah from the days of Rehoboam till the time of their Captivity afford a further confutation of this new Apology for Treason and Rebellion For First it cannot be denied but that the Law of Moses and the Religion prescribed by it was the Religion established in the Kingdom of Judah Secondly The Scripture notwithstanding doth inform us that when Rehoboam had established his Kingdom 2 Chr. 12.1 1 Kings 15.3 he forsook the Law of the Lord and all Israel with him That Abiiah who succeeded him walked in all the sins of his Father which he had done before him 2 Chr. 21.11 That Jehoram made High Places in the Mountains of Judah 2 Chr. 24.16 17. and caused the Inhabitants of Judah to commit Fornication and compelled Judah thereto That Jehojada and the Princes of Judah left the House of the Lord God of their Fathers and served Groves and Idols 2 Chron. 28.24 25. That Ahaz did shut up the doors of the House of the Lord and he made him Altars in every Corner of Jerusalem 2 Chron. 33.5 6. and in every several City of Judah he made High places to burn Incense unto other Gods That Manasseh built Altars in the house of the Lord whereof the Lord had said in Jerusalem shall my name be for ever and he built Altars for all the Host of Heaven in the two Courts of the house of the Lord That Hezekiah with relation to some of these Enormities confessed after this manner Our Fathers have trespassed 2 Chron. 29.6 7. and done that which was evil in the Sight of the Lord and have forsaken him and have turned away their faces from the Habitation of the Lord and turned their Backs also they have shut up the Doors of the Porch and put out the Lamps and have not burnt Incense nor offered burnt Offerings in the Holy place unto the God of Israel by all which sayings it is evident that the exercise of the established Religion wholly was obstructed and the people were compelled not only to neglect but act in opposition to it Thirdly 2 Kings 17.13 2 Kings 14.25 26. 2 Chron. 12.4 8 9. 'T is further evident that God testified against these Abominations done in Judah by all his Prophets and his Seers that he chastised them for it 1. by Shisak King of Egypt who in the days of Rehoboam took the fenced Cities of Judah and came up against Jerusalem and took away the Treasures of the house of the Lord and of the King's house and the Shields of Gold which Solomon had made and caused Judah to be tributaries to him because they had transgressed against the Lord. 2. By the revolt of Edom and of Libnah because Jehoram had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers And 3. 2 Chron. 21.10 Vers 16 17. by stirring up against Jehoram the Spirit of the Philistins and of the Arabiams that were near the Aethiopians who came up into Judah and brake into it and carried away all the Substance that was found in the King's house and his Sons also and his Wives 4. By the Host of Syria which came to Judah and Jerusalem and destroyed all the Princes of the People from among the People and sent all the Spoyl of them to the King of Damascus 2 Chron. 24.24 25. Zach. 14.5 Joel 1.2 3. a Great Host of Judah being delivered into the hands of their small Company because they had forsaken the Lord God of their Fathers 5. By a terrible Earth-quake in the days of Vzziah 6 By the dreadful plague of Locusts Caterpillars and Canker-worms 7. By sending against Judah Rezin the King of Syria 2 Chron. 28.6 and Pekah Son of Remaliah who slew in Judah 120000 valiant men in one day because they had for saken the Lord God of their Fathers and the King of Israel who carried away captive two hundred thousand Women Sons and Daughters Verse 8. And yet we read not of any Prophet stirring up these People to Rebel on the account of the Religion by Law established or on the account of all the miseries they suffered by the neglect of God's true Worship and by the introduction of Idolatry whence it is evident that private Persons or Subjects were then thought to have done their Duty when they had sighed and mourned for these abominations and kept themselves from any fellowship with these iniquities We find indeed 2 Chron 25.27 that after the time that Amaziah turned away from following the Lord they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish but they sent to Lachish after him and slew him there But who made this Conspiracy the Text doth not inform us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiq. Jud. lib. 9. c. 10. Josephus saith that some of his own Friends were the Contrivers of it the Syriack and Arabick Version that his Servants thus conspired against him as did the Servants of his Father Joash against him 2 Chr. 25.3 and as the Servants of Ammon did afterwards against their Lord and if so no doubt these Servants of Amaziah deserved the same punishment those other Murtherers received 2 Chron. 33.25 though by reason of the infancy of Vzziah who was then but four years old as good Interpreters conjecture and by reason of the interregnum of eleven years they scaped their condign punishment Moreover the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports Conspiracy and Treason being generally used in an ill sense gives us just reason to believe the Holy Ghost did not approve this Treachery and much less the ensuing Murther Fifthly Argument 5 According to this Principle Christians might lawfully rebel against those Arian Emperors who succeeded Constantine the Great viz. against Constantius and Valens for evident it is 1. That the Nicene Faith was fully established by Constantine the Great (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb de vit Const l. 3. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. c. 32. Eusebius informs us that He confirmed the Doctrine of the Nicene Synod and made Laws against Arius and those of his Perswasion (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 8. p. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 9. Socrates saith the same and (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 20. Sozomen adds that he condemn'd to banishment those who did contradict the Suffrage of the Nicene Council and that He made a Law against all Heresies not suffering them to Assemble any where but in the Catholick Church and declaring that the (d) Privilegia quae contemplatione Religionis indulta sunt Catholicae

tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet Haereticos autem atque Schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi subjici Imperator Constantinus A. ad Drucilianum Cod. Theodos l. 16. Tit. 5. l. 1. Privileges He granted to the Clergy should belong only to the Catholicks not to the Hereticks or Schismaticks i. e. the Arians or Meletians 2. 'T is also evident that notwithstanding all these Edicts the Arian Emperors did often persecute the Orthodox Professors of the Faith For (e) Socr. Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 7.13 Soz. l. 3. c. 4 7. Constantius expelled Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and appointed Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to succeed him yea he afterwards (f) Socr. l. 2. c. 16. banished him and placed Macedonius in his room He threatned (g) Socr. l. 2. c. 17. Soz. l. 3. c. 9. death to Athanasius and when both Paul and Athanasius were restored to their Sees by the Council of Sardica though whilst his Brother Constans lived he durst not gainsay that Decree after his death He (h) Socr. l. 2. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. c. 27. again expelled them He was saith Socrates perswaded by Macedonius to assist him in wasting of the Churches at least as (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 4. c. 20. Sozomen informs us Macedonius pretended his Commission so to do whereupon all the Oratories of the (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 4 c. 20. Catholicks were taken away and they were expelled both from their Churches and their Cities who held the (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. lib. 2. c. 27. Son to be of the same Substance with the Father and were persecuted in like manner as the Heathen Emperors had persecuted Christians and with equal cruelty These Persecutions did prevail (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. c. 28 throughout the East in Alexandria also in Egypt and in both the Libya's some of the Bishops were exiled some manacled and others did by (n) Socr. l. 2. c. 28. slight endeavour to consult their fafety all this was done before the Council of Ariminum and so before any Decree was made for the establishment of the Faith there propounded The next Emperors infected with the Arian Heresy were Valens and Valentinian who as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccl. Hist l 4. c. 8. Theodoret informs us at first asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Consubstantial Trinity and by their Edict commanded all men to profess it and by so doing made that to be the Established Religion of the Empire But afterwards we learn from (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 1. Socrates that Valens did grievously treat those who consented not unto the Arians that he raised an (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. implacable War against the Orthodox that he (r) Socr. l. 4. c. 3. persecuted them in the East and (ſ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 6. shewed his inclinations that all Christians should arianize that he (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 6. c. 9. persecuted the Novatians because they were Orthodox and deprived them and others of the like judgment with them of their Churches that the (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 4. c. 15. Arians did beat reproach imprison and committed intolerable outrages upon them and these or at least many of these things were done before any new Edict was set forth for the establishment of the faith taught by the Council of Ariminum or for reversing of the forementioned Decree 3. The Christians who lived under these Arian Emperors and suffered so much by them did constantly declare They thought themselves obliged in Conscience to be subject to them that they could not lawfully resist them and therefore were content to suffer Martyrdom thus when Constantius the Emperor did persecute the Christians of Alexandria Pop. Alex. protestuo apud Athan. Tom. 1. p. 868. they never thought of fighting for the established Religion but only of patient suffering for it for say they if it be the Emperors Command we should be persecuted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are all in a readiness to suffer Martyrdom so well instructed in that Doctrine of passive obedience were the Ancient Christians which this late Author doth Burlesque And though * Socr. l. 2. c. 25. Vetranio Magnentius and Gallus rebelled against Constantius and † Socr. l. 4. c. 5. Soz. l. 6. c. 8. Procopius against Valens none of them were assisted or countenanced by the Orthodox Professors but they were still reputed by them Tyrants and Rebellious persons Sixthly Consider the Absurdities which do attend this Doctrine It makes that Treason and Damnation after an humane constitution a Law or Act of Parliament which before was a Christian Duty for surely insurrections are never things indifferent they never can be lawful but when they by some Law of God or nature become necessary and they are wanting in their duty who do not rebel Now though a Humane Law or Act of Parliament may make that sinful in its exercise which was before indifferent it is not easie to conceive how it should turn a necessary duty into the worst of sins and transform the Glorious Martyr into the damned Rebel 2. What Conviction so ever any Prince may have that the established Religion is New and Schismatical or justly charged with Superstition and Idolatry he cannot by this Doctrine attempt to change it and to establish true Religion in its place by any penalties imposed upon the Superstitious or Schismatical but he must be in danger of an Insurrection and by this very Act must authorize his Subjects to enquire with Sword and Pistol in their hand By what law must we suffer for professing the established Religion 3. This strange Assertion justifies those Rebels who endeavoured to hinder Queen Mary whose inclinations and disaffection to the then established Religion they well knew from coming to the Crown and it condemns the Reformation both in this and in all other Kingdoms as being that by which the Roman Catholicks did suffer in their estates and Persons for professing of the established Religion if then this be sufficient Ground for any Subjects to rebel against their lawful Soveraign that their Religion is established by Law and they are like to suffer by his attempt to change it Jul. p. 69. and that 't will be too late for them to help themselves should they be quiet till there Reformers strengthen their Innovations by a Law there must have been sufficient cause for the Rebellion of Roman Catholicks in all those Countries and if the introduction of the Reformation by which they suffered could warrant their Rebellion the Reformation must be an evil thing that being evil with a Witness which can make Rebellion good So evident is it that this Doctrine tends more to turn a