The history of passive obedience since the Reformation

SECT. VII.

The treasonable Design of Garnet, and his Accomplices, gave occasion to the making, and imposing the Oath of Allegiance, as good Laws generally owe their Rise, and Original to men's ungo∣verable Passions, and irregular Manners; but no sooner did the Oath appear, but out came two Breves of Pope Paul the Fifth, to forbid the taking of it: and Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter to the Arch∣priest Blackwel upon the same Account. To these Adversaries that Learned King wrote an Answer, Tripici nodo triplex cuneus, and im∣mediately Books multiplied on both sides to a great number, Bellar∣mine, Gretser, Suarez, Eudaemon, Johannes, Scioppius, Becanus, Par∣sons, and others attempting to relieve the baffled Papacy; while Bishop Andrews, Bishop Barlow, Bishop Buckeridge, Bishopt Abbot, Bishop Moreton, Bishop Prideaux, Isaac Casaubon, Burhil, Thompson, Collins, and others, stoutly defended their King, as they ought. And tho their Arguments seem particularly levelled against the Pa∣pists, yet by parity of reason they condemn all such for the like Opinions and Practices, whoever asserts, or is guilty of them. It were a Subject worth a wise man's pains, who had abilities and lei∣sure, to give an accurate Account of that Controversie; but I shall only cite the Authors, as they occur, and make for the present pur∣pose. The King's Opinion we need not doubt of, since the severest Enemies of this Doctrin confess, that it hath been a commendable policy in Princes to popagate such Opinions, nor have the Atheisti∣cal Politicians spared even Solomon himself, as he served his own, and not the interest of Truth, when he said, By me Kings reign. Bishop Andrews's Sentiments have been published in the first part of this History, to which may be added other Passages in the Writings of the same Author: Upon misconceiving this point, some have fallen into a fancy, that his anointed may forfeit their Tenure, and so cease to be his. — If after he is anointed he grow defective, — prove a Tyrant, fall to favor Hereticks, his anointing may be wiped off, or scraped off, then you may write a Book de justa abdicatione, make a holy League, &c.—but it is not Religion, nor Virtue, nor any spiritual Grace, this Royal Anointing. Christus Domini is said, not only of Josias, a King truly Religious, but of Cyrus, a mere Heathen; not only of David, a good King, but of Saul, a Tyrant, even when he was at the worst. — Unxit in Regem, Royal Unction gives no Grace, but a just Title only; it includes nothing, but a just Title; it excludes no∣thing,

but usurpation; God's claim never forfeits, his Character never to be wiped out, or scraped out; nor Kings lose their Rights, no more than Pa∣triarchs did their Fatherhood. — Never was any truly partaker of the inward anointing of a Christian Man, but he was ever fast and firm to the Royal Anointing.

The same excellent Prelate in his Answer to Tortus (or Cardinal Bellarmin's Book against King James's Apology for the Oath of Al∣legiance, says, That Subjects are bound to obey their Prince by all Law, Natural, Moral, Civil, Municipal, That Christ never interdicted any Subjects Obedience; his Father sent him not into the World on this Errand, nor did he send any of his Followers; — Let the King be a Hea∣then, he ceases not to be a King; let him be a Julian, an Apostate, which is worse than a Heathen,—yet he is a King still, and against even such it is not lawful to take Arms, nay, it is a sin, not to take Arms in their defence, when they command us. — Both Papists and Puritans con∣spire the hurt of Kings, as Herod and Pilate agreed to murther Christ; — both being equally injurious to Kings, in striving to rob them of their Au∣thority. — Kings in their Kingdoms are God's Vicars. — And the ancient Christians cheerfully obeyed them — A forced Obedience rather becomes the Devil, than a Christian, for they are subject against their wills; but to the praise of Christianity, the Christians in the Infancy of the Church were so sincerely obedient, that their Enemies could not bespatter them; and so cheerfully patient, that their Enemies were forced to admire them. — And it is blasphemy against Christ to think, or say, that he would have any one, that is his Vicar, to hinder Subjects from being true to their Prince, or Kings from being safe. — Kings derive their Authority from God, the people confer nothing upon them, they are God's anointed, not the people's; — the Form of Government may be from men, but the Authority is always from Heaven.

Anno 1610, The same Learned Prelate published his Answer to Cardinal Bellarmin's Apology, and therein avers, † That every Subject is bound by his Allegiance, not to suffer any one who shall endeavour ei∣ther to depose his Prince, or to dispose of his Kingdom; he is bound to op∣pose himself against any Invader, neither to absolve himself from his Alle∣giance, nor to suffer himself to be absolved by any other; not to take Arms against his Sovereign, but to defend him from all violence in his Crown and Person, and to discover all Conspiracies. —To render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The Apostles did so to Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Domitian. The Martyrs did so to Commodus, Severus, Decius, Dioclesian. The Fathers did so to Constantius, Va∣lens and Anastasius. Nay, the Popes themselves did so to the Arians,

to Theodoric, and the Goths; in their times the contrary Doctrin was reckoned to be Heresie. These were the Sentiments of that great man, than whom, while he lived, the King had not a more Loyal Servant, nor the Church a more Learned Prelate, as the Editors ‖ of his Opuscula, with Justice, aver.

When Becanus, a busie Jesuit, had undertaken to answer this admi∣rable Prelate's Books against Bellarmin, Rich. Thompson, an. 1611. wrote his Vindication, and smartly censures his Adversary, for saying, That in England we swear Allegiance to our Kings upon these two conditions: 1. As long as we stay in England. 2. As long as he maintains the true Religion. Both which Propositions, as he says, are most false; and then he proceeds to confirm his Hypothesis, proving, in pursuance of his Design, That to the Oath of a Papist no regard ought to be had; for who can believe, whether he swears truly, and from his Heart, who defends the Lawfulness of a mixt Proposition, of which one part is spoken, the other reserved? — The Text, Touch not mine anoint∣ed, only concerns Kings, and in the whole Bible none are called the Lord's anointed, but Kings. And Rabbi Levi Ben Gershon, the Jew, hath commented more honestly, and more like a Christian, on 1 Sam. 12.24. than the Fathers of the Society of the Jesuits. All Princes, even Pa∣gans, have a supreme Power over all their Subjects, and in all Causes, and Proscribere, & non posse proscribi propria sunt Regum timendo∣rum in proprios greges, & ad ipsos coelitùs delapsâ autoritate, ac pe∣culiari quâdam ratione spectant, i. e. To punish others, and not to be punishable themselves is the peculiar Right of Kings, derived un∣to them from above.

Nor was Becanus the only Antagonist, that Bishop Andrews met with in this Cause, Eudaemon Johannes, a Cretan, and a Jesuit (and he needs no other Character) undertakes the Defence of Garnet, and the Censure of Allegiance, him Dr. Samuel Collins, the publick Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, undertakes, wherein he averrs, That the Jesuit had belyed King James, when he called him a Follower of Knox, to whose Opinions he was always most averse, detesting both him and his Followers, whom he, upon all occasions, rather punished, than countenanced,— † Shew me, that there is any such power, I do not mean only in private persons, but in the Pope, or in any other mortal, to depose, or to murder a King. — If a King do not his Duty, he is to be left to the Divine Tribunal: Against thee only have I sinned, says David; for he was a King, says S. Hierom, and had no one whom he might fear. Understand it of coercive power, not only not to punish, but also not to upbraid him, for who shall say to a King, why dost thou

so? Eccl. 8.4. And who can resist him? Prov. 30. — But you have found out this pretty Distinction, that as long as a King remains a King, let him be never so tyrannical, his Subjects dare not oppose him, but when the Pope deposes him, then it is lawful boldly to oppose him: (And I would fain know, where the odds is, if the Pope, or the people depose him) so that if the Commons have power, and the Pope consent, and no danger of scandal follow, the murder of Kings is lawful and honorable. — Consider with your self, what a gap you open to popular Licentiousness, when you praise those Men, who magnifie the par∣ricides of Princes?

The same Author in his Epphata to F. T. being a Vindication in English of the same Prelate, vindicates the same Doctrin; in his Epistle Dedicatory he says, That tho Kings die like men (i. e. Quate∣nus homines, non quatenus Reges) yet we are to remember, that they fall like one of the Principes, i. e. one of the Angels, says the Cardinal himself, among others, on that Psalm, who, we know, are not judged, till God judges them: though no doubt but that aggravates their Judgment so much the sooner. — It were worth the considering, what correspondence such Grounds have with the ancient Doctrine, which the Cardinal, and his Followers would seem so close to follow. Of Chry∣sostome, that a Sovereign King is accountable to none (not only to his Subjects, but) not so much as to his Successor (as David said, that he is to be judged by God only.) The same Chrysostom noting, that whereas the Psalmist passes over other miracles of the Wilderness in deep silence, he insists only on the Death of Og and Sehon, two mighty Monarchs, because Kings lives are so wholly in God's Hands, and the Disposition of them is alway miraculous, reserved and appropriated to God himself. Of S. Basil, that a King is subject to no Judge. Of Ambrose, that nullis tenetur Legibus, not only the King of Israel, but not the King of Egypt. Of the Pope in Theodoret, who told Theodosius, that it was not lawful to implead a King, not only in his person, but not personating another, not fictione juris, as the Lawyers say. — ‖ Now Obedience is become among the Ceremonies, and the honoring of our Pa∣rents, i. e. in truth, of our Princes, Patres Patriae, by ancient stile, (and so Ezechias called the Priests his children, 2 Chron. 29.11.) is as sub∣ject to alteration, as the Sabbath Day. — And because the Jewish Ce∣remonies may not only be omitted, but may not be retain'd without heinous crime, therefore it shall be Conscience to wax wanton against Princes, to shake off their Yoke, yea, merit, virtue, and what not? — as if the Precept of honoring Parents, which is the primum in promissione, Ephes. 6. were now secundum in omissione, after that against Images, which is usually cancelled in the Popish Catechisms. — Against the

Emperors under the Old Testament there was no rising up;—and as for the Emperors in the New Testament, tho as they were Heathen, they were neither by Christ, nor his Apostles obey'd, I hope, Sir, 'tis enough that they were not resisted. — Kings, when transported by Error, they forsake their Duty, yet forfeit not their Supremacy;—We yield no Abdication of our King, tho his Fault be Heresie, remembring that, Deus defendit oleum suum, as Optatus says, and Caesar non desinit esse Caesar, even in Alto Gentilisino, as our Saviour acknowledg'd of him, Matt 22.—So beinous is the Heresie of Deposing Magistrates for moral Misdemeanours.—A bad Head, I should think, which the Body will be the better for the cutting off.—No Iniquity can abolish Authority:—And if it be objected, that Kings must be hamper'd with a coercive Power, or all must run to nothing, and the Church be clean extinguish••d:—It is answered, The Church gains by Patience in Persecution, therefore she loses by Resistance and Opposition.

Notes

• Vol. of Serm. p. 803, 804.
• P. 809.
• London 1609. p. 16. 36.
• P. 43.
• ☜
• P. 110.
• P. 158, 161.
• P. 321.
• P. 384, 385.
• †

  C. 2. p. 58.
• P. 132.
• ‖

  Ep. Ded. R••gi.
• P. 20.
• P. 27.
• ☞
• P. 44.
• P. 78, 79, 83.
• Cantab. 1612.
• Par. 2. p. 52.
• †

  Par. 3. c. 72. p. 252.
• ☞
• P. 2.3.
• P. 254.
• Cambr. 1617.
• ☜
• ‖

  Ch. 1. p. 58, 59.
• ☜
• P. 60, 61, 62.
• Pag. 75.
• ☞
• Pag. 94. P. 137. 139.