An explication of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, with reference to the catechism of the Church of England to which are premised by way of introduction several general discourses concerning God's both natural and positive laws / by Gabriel Towerson ...

PART VI.

Of that Declaration of our Esteem which is made by Obedience to the Commands of Princes; the Necessity whereof is evidenc'd from their Legislative Power, as that again from the Scriptures attributing that Power to Princes, and from the impossibility of compassing otherwise the Ends of their Institution. The same Obedience evi∣denced to be necessary, from express Precepts of Scripture. That every Soul whatsoever is under the tie of this Obedience, as well of the Clergie as the Laity. The onely particular Limits of this Obe∣dience, an express Prohibition from the Almighty, or those which the Prince hath set to himself. Of the Authority of Princes in Re∣ligious Matters, which is either Indirect, or Direct; the former whereof is evidenc'd from the Influence Religious Matters have upon the State, and which therefore are to be so far under their Inspecti∣on, as the Weal of the State is concerned in them. The Result of this Power, the Calling or Limiting of Religious Assemblies, the Ap∣pointing those that shall serve at the Altar in them, or putting by those that are. That Princes have also a Direct Authority in Reli∣gious Matters; that is to say, an Authority in them consider'd as such: Where is also shewn, what that Authority is, and that it con∣sists rather in encouraging or compelling those that preside in Reli∣gious Matters, to do their respective Duties, than to take upon them∣selves the Administration thereof. The Result of which Authority is, the Defending the Church from all both Foreign and Domestick Enemies, the keeping the Members of it within their respective Du∣ties, and punishing with the Civil Sword those that shall refuse so to do; the calling Councils to determine of Matters of Religion, and giving force to those Things that shall be rightly determin'd by them. The Accordance both of the Practice of this Kingdom, and of the Doctrine of the Church, with the foregoing Determination. Of Submission to the Censures of Princes, which is another Declara∣tion of our Inward Esteem. The Necessity thereof evidenc'd from the Power of Coercion in them; which infers a like Necessity in the Sub∣ject, of submitting to it. Whether this Submission be to be under∣stood, where the Coercion is ill employ'd; which is answered by di∣stinguishing of Submission; to wit, as that is oppos'd to all Means of avoiding it, or onely to forcible ones. The former Submission no way necessary, as appears by our Saviour's exhorting Men to flee in Case of Persecution; and the Liberty that is given by the Laws to appeal to the Princes Courts of Judicature. The latter Submission is of indispensible Duty, as appears both by the Scripture, and the Practice of the Ancient and Purest Church. The like evidenc'd from the inconsistency of Resistance, with Princes being the immediate Ministers of God, with the End of their Institution, and the Coun∣sels of the Divine Providence: The first, because he who resisteth them, endeavours to subject those who are God's immediate Mini∣sters, and therefore subject to no other, so far at least unto himself, as may secure him from the Effects of their Violence: The second, because leaving it in the power of the Subject to resist when he will

himself; which will make the Power of the Prince precarious, and consequently, because, that depends upon it, the Weal of the People; which is the end for which all Governours were instituted: The third, because the Counsels of the Divine Providence are no less in∣teressed in the Violence of Evil Princes, than in the Power of Good. Of the paying of Tribute to Princes, and that it is both a Duty, and a Declaration of our Esteem. What Tribute to be paid, to be judg'd of by the Laws.

IT having been before shewn, That Honour, in the Latitude of the Word, comprehends Obedience to Commands; it remains, that we now inquire, whether the Honour of Princes does so also, by whom, and in what measure that Obedience is to be paid.

1. That Obedience is part of that Honour we are to give to Prin∣ces, is evident from that Legislative Power which God hath given them over their respective Subjects: For Laws being nothing else than Rules prescrib'd by those that give them, for the regulating the Actions of those to whom they are; if it be in the power of Princes to pre∣scribe such Laws, it must be the Duty of the Subject to obey them; because that Power would be otherwise in vain. Now, that it is in the power of Princes to give such Laws to their Subjects, will appear, first of all, from the Scriptures annexing this Power to them, as the main of that Authority by which they shine. Thus, for instance, when Jacob would describe the continuance of the Regal Dignity in Judah, till Shiloh or the Messiah should appear, he expresses it by affirming, that as the Scepter (which is an Ensign of Regal Power) should not depart from Judah, so neither a Lawgiver from between his knees, Gen. 49.10. In like manner as Homer (if we may joyn Pro∣fane Authors with Sacred) where he speaks of the same Regal Dig∣nity.

—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

But so also, that I may return to the Scripture, after it had been said, that Moses commanded a Law to the Inheritance of the Congregation of Jacob; to let us know by what Authority he did so, the Scripture adds, And he was King in Jesurun, when the Princes and Tribes of the People were gathered together to receive it, Deut. 33.4, 5. But not to content my self with these or the like Texts, which attribute the Power of Making Laws to Princes; let us (which will be a yet more convincing Topick, at least to some Men) consider the End of their Institution: For, if that End be not to be compass'd without the Power of Making Laws, Princes must consequently be suppos'd to be invested with that Power, and their Subjects under a necessity of obeying them. It is the Affirmation of St. Paul, Rom. 13.3, 4. That Rulers are appointed by God for the encouragement of those that do good, and the avenging of those that do evil. Now though each of these Ends may seem to be compass'd by having a regard in them to the Laws of God and Nature; yet, if we do more nearly consider it, we shall find they cannot compass either, unless they have

a Power of Making Laws. For, the Laws of Nature and Scripture descending not to all those Particulars which are necessary to be ob∣serv'd in order to the attaining of them, hence there ariseth the ne∣cessity of a Power to draw them down to particular Instances, and accommodate them to the Exigencies of their respective Governments. Thus, for instance, though the Laws of God require the Judging of Offenders, and inflicting on them such Punishments as they shall be found to deserve; yet inasmuch as they prescribe nothing concerning the Manner or Time of Judging them, and much less mark out the Punishments which are to be inflicted on particular Offenders, hence there ariseth a necessity in Princes to prescribe when and after what manner they shall be judg'd, and what Punishments they shall under∣go, if they be found guilty of the Crimes laid against them. In like manner, though the Laws of God and Nature prescribe the en∣couraging of the Good, and doing (as much as lies in Princes) to∣ward the securing and advancing of their several Properties; yet in∣asmuch as they prescribe nothing at all by what Means that is to be done, nor indeed can do, by reason of the multiplicity and variety of Humane Affairs; hence there ariseth a necessity of making Laws, by which they may be secur'd in their several Properties, or enabled to improve them to their and the States advantage. Forasmuch there∣fore as without Laws the Good cannot be secur'd, as neither Evil-do∣ers either judg'd or condemn'd, it follows, that they who are ap∣pointed both for the one and the other, are invested with a Power of Making Laws, and consequently the Subjects under a necessity of obeying them. But so that they are, is yet more evident from the express Declarations of the Scripture: For, beside that in the fore∣quoted place of St. Paul, Men are required to be subject to them, which, as Grotius hath well observ'd, imports* 1.1 Obedi∣ence to their Commands, as well as Submission to their Coercion: Beside that disobedience in Things lawful, is a resisting of their Authority, and therefore the con∣trary to be thought to be intended in that Subjection which is there requir'd: Beside, lastly, that he who re∣quires every Soul to be subject, doth it upon intuition of their receiving Praise from them, as well as not re∣ceiving Vengeance, the former whereof cannot in rea∣son be expected, where there is no compliance with their Commands: to cut off all doubt concerning Obedience to them, the same St. Paul admonisheth Titus, chap. 3.1. not onely to put his Charge in mind of being subject to Principalities and Powers, but to obey Magistrates, and to be ready to every good work, in compliance with their Com∣mands, as well as far from doing so much evil as to oppose themselves against their Power and Government.

2. That Obedience is to be given to Princes, we have seen alrea∣dy; inquire we now by whom, and after what measure. For the re∣solution of the former whereof, it may suffice to alledge that of St. Paul, Rom. 13.1. ••or requiring there every Soul to be subject to the Higher Powers; and neither he, nor any other of the Apostles, else-where making any Exception from it; he thereby plainly shews, that all are to be so, of what Rank and Condition soever. And accord∣ingly, as whatever is now pretended by the Papists for an Exemption

of the Ecclesiastical Order, yet no such Plea was ever made by the Priests or Prophets of the Old Testament; so till Luxury and Wan∣tonness made the Clergy forget their Duty, they also were of the same mind, and declar'd it both by their Actions and their Writings; St. Chrysostome* 1.2 in particular explaining every Soul by the Soul of an Apostle, as well as of a Layman; of one in the highest rank in the Church, as well as of the most inferiour Members of Church or State.

3. From the subjects of this Obedience, therefore pass we to the measure of it, which is both a more important question, and more difficult to be resolv'd. Where, first of all I shall observe, that it must be in such things as are not forbidden by the Almighty. For, as where God and Man's commands come in competition; it is so clear we are to prefer those of God, that St. Peter permits it to the judgment of those who commanded him to act contrary to it, Act. 4.19. So that we ought to obey God rather than Princes, the place they hold under God, may serve for an abundant Evidence. For, inasmuch as Princes are only the Ministers of God, they are in reason to be post-posed to him whose Ministers they are. Care only would be taken, first, That we do not fondly, and without just ground, pronounce those things as forbidden by God, which are imposed upon us by the commands of Princes. For though we may be excus'd for not obeying where the thing commanded by Princes is so forbidden, yet we cannot without sin refuse our Obedience to such commands, as are not any where coun∣termanded by the Almighty. Again, though we are not to obey, where the matter of the Command is evidently against that of God, because the Inferiour ought to give place to the Superiour, yet there is not the same reason, where the thing commanded is not evidently against the Law of God, but only doubted of, whether it be so or no. For, it being certainly a duty to obey the Magistrate in all things not forbidden, and but uncertain, whether the thing commanded by him be forbidden; reason would that that which is the more certain, should be preferr'd before that which is uncertain; and consequently a clear and express Command, before an uncertain scruple. But, as where the thing commanded by Princes, is apparently against that of God, there cannot be the least pretence of yeilding Obedience to it; so other limits of our Obedience I know none (saving those before-mentioned* 1.3 where we entreated of the Obedience due to Parents, and which are no less appliable here) unless it be where the Prince hath set bounds to his own Power by Laws, or accepted of them when tendred by others. In which case (because the Princes Laws are the most Authentick declarations of his Will) it is to be presum'd, that he wills not my obedience in any thing, which is contrary thereto, and consequently that in those things it is no sin to refuse it.

Now, though what hath been already said concerning the measure of our Obedience, may suffice any reasonable man in civil matters, yet because Princes do also challenge to themselves an Authority in Religi∣ous ones, and we of this Nation, in particular, are oblig'd under an Oath to acknowledge it; it will be necessary to enquire farther, whether they have any such Authority, and what obedience is due from us to it.

Now, the Authority of Princes in Religious matters may be two-fold, indirect or direct; by the former whereof, we are to understand that which pretends to have an oversight of them only in relation to the State; by the latter, that which pretends to have an Interest in Reli∣gious matters as such. If the question be, whether Princes are invest∣ed with such an Authority as pretends to an oversight of them in rela∣tion to the State, so no doubt can be made by those who shall consider the influence Religious matters may have upon the State. For, inas∣much as on the one hand the powers of the world were before the Church, and the Church it self is by the command of God oblig'd to revere them, and on the other hand, the things of Religion, according as they are constituted, may be profitable or hurtful to the State which is committed to their custody; those Powers must of necessity be invested with such an Authority therein, as may preserve the peace of the State entire. But from hence it will follow, That Princes have a power, so far, of calling or limiting Religious Assemblies, of appoint∣ing who shall serve at the Altars in them, or putting by those that are. For, inasmuch as the Peace of the State may be concern'd in all these particulars, they are of necessity so far to fall under the cognizance of those to whom the Government of the State doth appertain. And ac∣cordingly, as all Princes, of what perswasion soever in Religion, have in Profession or Fact, arrogated such an Authority to themselves; so, provided they do not entrench upon the Laws of Christianity, they cannot in the least be faulted for the exercise thereof, nor be disobey'd without a violation of the Ordinance of God that constitutes them: Because what they do is no more than necessary for the preservation of that State, which God hath committed to their charge. Thus for in∣stance, inasmuch as by means of the Assemblies of discontented Per∣sons, there may arise great prejudice to the State; no man in his right wits can deny but it may be lawful for a Prince to retrench the num∣ber, or appoint the manner of the holding of them. For, though Christianity enjoin upon Christians the assembling of themselves for Re∣ligious Worship, yet no Law of Christianity appoints, that they should meet by Thousands, but on the contrary assures them, that where even two or three meet together in his name, there Christ is in the midst of them. From the indirect Authority of Princes in Religious matters, pass we to that which we call direct, which interests it self in Religi∣ous matters as such. For the establishing whereof, I shall desire you in the first place to reflect upon that of St. Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. 2. from Verse 1. to 4. I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: For Kings, and all that are in Authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and ac∣ceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. From which words, as it is evident: that it is acceptable to God that Kings become Chri∣stians, (this, as will appear by comparing the first Verse and the fourth, being the thing he instructs Timothy to beg of God for them,) so also, that being made Christians, they should by their Authority procure to other Christians, a peaceable exercise of that Religion whereunto they are called: The reason assign'd by the Apostle for praying for their Conversion, being, that under them, and by their Arbitriment

they might lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all godliness and honesty. From the exhortation of St. Paul, pass we to that of David, which will both lend light to the former Exhortation, and more clearly disco∣ver to us that Authority wich we seek. Be wise now therefore, O ye Kings; be instructed ye Judges of the Earth, serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little:— For herein (as St. Augustine observes) do Kings serve the Lord as Kings, if in their Kingdom they command those things that are good, and forbid evil, and, that not only such as appertain to Humane Society, but such as appertain also to the Religion of God. And elsewhere, Wherein then doth Kings serve the Lord in fear, but by forbidding and punishing with a Religious severity those things which are done against the commands of the Lord Jesus? For one way doth a King serve the Lord as a man, and another way as a King; And a little after to the same purpose, though yet more closely; Herein therefore do Kings serve the Lord as Kings, when they do those things to serve him, which they could not do unless they were Kings. Add hereunto that known Prophecy of Isa. 49.23. where speaking of the times of the Church, he affirms that Kings should be its nursing Fathers, and Queens its nursing Mothers. Which, what other is it than that the Church should be taken care of by them, and consequently, that it should be com∣mitted to their trust? But from hence we may collect what the Au∣thority of Princes in Religious matters is, and wherein it ought to be exerted, to wit, not in determining of them according to their own will and pleasure, and much less in invading the Office of the Priest∣hood, which we know he that attempted was strucken with a Leprosie for, but in defending the Church from all, both Foraign and Domestick Enemies, in keeping the Members of the Church within their respective Duties, and punishing with the civil Sword those that shall refuse so to do, in calling Councils to determine of matters of Religion, and giving force to those things that shall be rightly determin'd by them. For, as more than these cannot be legitimately inferr'd from those pla∣ces we have made use of, to establish the Authority of Princes by, so that they cannot rightly claim more, the nature of the Church (according as I have before stated it) shews. For, since the Church, by the Institution of Christ is endow'd with a power in determining in things relating to it self, since also the secular Powers, as well by their Baptism as the precepts of the Scripture, are bound to be defenders of it, (for he who gives up himself to the Christian Religion, doth there∣by profess that he will perform his proper part in it, and therefore, if he be a King, the part of a King) it must needs be, that their Au∣thority in sacred matters, should consist rather in obliging the several members of it to their respective duties, than in determining of their own head concerning them. The same is no less evident from the practice of Christian Princes, in calling together a Council, as often as any thing hath stood in need of a definition. For, as Mr. Thorndike* 1.4 hath well observ'd, he who calls a Council, of Bishops to make a Decree, to receive a civil sanction from himself, doth thereby profess, as well, that it belongs to the Church to determine in it, as to himself to pass that Decree into a Law: Which is so true, (as the same Mr. Thorndike‖ 1.5 hath observ'd) that though Constantius the Emperour would fain

have undone what had been decreed by the Council of Nice, yet he never attempted it, but by Decrees of other Councils, which shews what opinion was had of the Authority of the Church, even by the Enemies of the Church it self. These two things only seem necessary to be subjoin'd, that we may give Christian Princes the whole of what is due to them.

1. That it belongs to Princes to judge what is rightly or not rightly decreed by the Church, and according as they shall judge either to give or withold their assent, and

2. That though in things dubious, or not at all determin'd by Coun∣cils, the Prince is to expect the decision of the Church, yet there is no necessity of so doing, where the thing is evident from the word of God, or hath been generally defin'd by former Councils. For as where the word of God is clear, the Prince need no other warrant, who by that word it self is call'd upon to serve the Lord, and add the force of his Sanction to the general Injunctions of it; so where the thing hath been generally defin'd, little doubt can be made of Princes pas∣sing what is so into a Law, partly because it hath been in some mea∣sure defined by the Church, and partly because it is to be presum'd the Church gives way to a more particular determination, where the thing doth require a present definition, or is not of such moment to require the calling of the Bishops from their several charges, with the far greater detriment of the Church over which they are appointed to preside. In the mean time, as it is not to be deny'd that those Prin∣ces shall best provide for the peace of their own Consciences, who shall not ordinarily determine of Ecclesiastical affairs without the con∣sent of the Church, or at least of some of the principal Bishops of it; so we can never sufficiently commend the Institutions of this King∣dom, whereas in the Parliament, the place where all Laws are framed, the Bishops have the principal place; so the commands of King and Parliament in Ecclesiastical Affairs, do for the most part follow the Ca∣nons dereed by our Convocations. For after this manner, both now and heretofore, the Book of Common Prayers underwent the Exami∣nation of a Convocation before the use of it passed into a Law, and extraordinary Forms of Prayers are approv'd by some Bishops, before they have the Kings Mandate affix'd to them. I will conclude this Dis∣course with the Doctrine of the Articles of our Church, because ex∣actly according with what I have before delivered. For as the 20th. of those Articles declares the Church to have power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Authority in controversies of Faith, so the 37th. not only excludes from Princes the ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments, but makes their Supremacy to consist in ruling all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Eccle∣siastical or Temporal, and restraining with the civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers. To which, as I know not what any reasonable man can oppose, because so exactly distinguishing between the Churches Power and that of Princes; so I see not how any reasonable man, where the Authority of Princes keeps within these bounds, can think himself exempted from yeilding obedience to it. He who commits the care of the Church to secular Princes, necessarily allowing them a superintendency over it, and consequently also, where that superin∣tendency is not manifestly made use of to the prejudice of Religion,

obliging all the Members of the Church to yield obedience to their Commands.

How we are to honour Princes by our Obedience, hath been at large declar'd: It remains that we also shew, both that we are, and how we are to honour them with submission to their Censures: Which will appear, first of all, from that Authority wherewith they are inve∣sted, of drawing the Sword of Justice against Offenders. For, as an Authority to Command, infers a necessity of Obedience in all those that are subjected to it; so, a Power of Coercion, a like necessity of Submission to it, in all those who are subjected to it. The onely thing of difficulty is, Whether that Submission be necessary, where the Power of Coercion is us'd against those who seem to themselves, and it may be not without reason, to have done nothing to deserve it: For, inasmuch as the Sword of Justice is committed to Princes for the avenging of such onely as are Eyil doers, it may seem but reasonable to infer, that they who are not Evil doers, are free from submitting themselves to the Stroke of it. And indeed, if the Question be con∣cerning the avoiding of it by Flight, there is no doubt it is in the power of the Subject, who conceives himself not to have deserv'd it, so to avoid, if he can, the falling under the Power of it: Our Saviour having expresly given leave, that if we be persecuted in one City, we should, to save our selves, flee from that unto another. As little difficulty should I find, if that were the thing in question, to license the avoiding of the Princes Severity, by appealing to his own Courts of Judicature, where that is by Law so allow'd, as it is in several Cases here; that being not to be look'd upon as a Resi∣stance, and much less as an injurious one, which is with the leave of him against whom it is directed. But if the Question be concerning resisting by Force of Arms, and so avoiding the Severity of the Prince; so it is as certain, both from the Scripture, and Reason, that we ought not to avoid it, but rather with all readiness submit to the Strokes of it. That it is certain from the Scripture, that known pas∣sage of St. Paul may serve for an abundant Evidence; he not onely affirming, Rom. 13.2. that whosoever resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; but also that they that resist, shall receive to them∣selves damnation. For though it be not there express'd in totidem terminis, that it is not lawful to resist where the Party suffers undeservedly; yet to resist being in that place indefinitely forbid∣den, and no Limitation being in that Chapter or elsewhere affix'd, nor deducible from any Principle of Reason or Nature, it is but rea∣son it be understood in its full Latitude, that is to say, so as to ex∣clude all Cases whatsoever; especially if we add thereto that of ano∣ther Apostle, even St. Peter, where Resistance, even by an innocent Person, is forbidden: For, What glory is it (saith that Apostle, 1 Pet. 2.20.) if when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it pati∣ently, this is acceptable with God: for even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Yet not withstanding, when he was revil'd, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatned not: but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, as to whom onely it was lawful for him to appeal, even

from the unjust Sentence of the High-Priest and Pontius Pilate. Which Instance shews by the way, that though the Apostle primarily intended to proscribe Servants resisting of their Tyrannical Masters, yet it is alike to be understood of resisting the Supreme Powers, be∣cause they were such, whom our Saviour is commended for suffering patiently under. And though it be true, that few now follow his Examples, and Men of all Professions almost take upon them to resist the Secular Power, as often as his Commands thwart either their Per∣swasions or Interest; yet it is clear from Tertullian and others, that the Ancient Christians were of the same temper with their Master Christ, and submitted themselves to the Penalties of those Laws, whose Injunctions they thought it not lawful to observe. And this they did too, not, as a Seditious Person would have the World believe, when they were not in a capacity to resist; but, as the same Tertullian in∣structs us* 1.6, when there were great numbers of them, and such too against which, if they would have rebell'd, their Persecuting Princes would not have been able to have stood. And accordingly, when the‖ 1.7 Thebean Le∣gion, which consisted of Six thousand six hundred sixty six Christian Soldiers, were by the Emperour Maximian commanded to offer Sacrifice to the Heathen Gods, though they refus'd to obey his Commands, yet when the Emperour, upon that refusal, commanded every Tenth Man to be slain, they suffered themselves to be so, without making any the least resistance. In like manner, when the Emperour, not satisficd with the former Slaughter, gave command to those that surviv'd to offer Sacrifice; though they refus'd, as their Fellows had done, to offer Sacrifice, yet they sub∣mitted themselves to his Coercion, in these following Words: We, in∣deed, O Caesar, are thy Soldiers, and have taken up Arms for the De∣fence of the Roman Commonweal; neither have we ever been Deserters of the Wars, or Betrayers of the Soldiery, or fallen under the imputa∣tion of any base and sluggish Fear. We would also obey thy Commands, if we were not forbid by the Laws of Christianity to pollute our selves with the Worship of Devils. We find that thou hast resolv'd either to pollute the Christians with them, or terrifie us by the slaughter of every Tenth Man. Do not inquire any longer after us, as Men that would conceal our selves; know, that we are all Christians. All our Bodies thou shalt have subjected to thy Power; but our Souls thou shalt never have, because remembring they belong to their Author Christ. In con∣formity whereto, as we find they did proceed, preserving themselves pure from the Sacrifices of Idols, so that when the Emperour gave order for the Slaughter of the rest, they threw away their Arms, and offered their naked Bodies to the Fury of his Executioners. What the Voice of the Scripture is, together with the Comment of the Primitive Christians, both Opinion and Practice, you have heard already: It remains that we evidence the same to be the Voice of Reason and Nature. In order whereunto, I shall first of all alledge Princes being the imme∣diate Ministers of God: For, being his immediate Ministers, they are subject to him onely whose immediate Ministers they are. Now, forasmuch as no Man can resist a Prince, without an intention of sub∣jecting him so far to himself, as may secure him from the Effects of

his Violence; it will follow, that no Man can, without Sin, resist him in any case, because endeavouring, by that Resistance, to subject the Minister of God to him. And here very opportunely comes in an Answer to that Objection, which I before alledg'd, in behalf of re∣sisting the Prince, where he endeavours to inflict an undeserved Pu∣nishment. For though it be true, that a Prince hath no Authority to inflict an unjust Punishment; yet he is privileg'd by the Place he holds under God, from being subjected unto Man; and ought not therfore, by any Force, to be brought into subjection to him. From the Place which Princes hold, pass we to the End of their Instituti∣on; which we shall find to be equally inconsistent with making resi∣stance to them. For, as if it be allow'd the Subject to resist in case of Innocency, you must leave it at liberty to him to resist when he will himself, because it must be also left to him to judge whether his be such or no: so, if you leave it at liberty to the Subject to resist when he will himself, you make the Power of the Prince precarious; and consequently, because that depends upon the Power of the Prince, the Safety of the People; which is the End for which all Governments were ordain'd. Lastly, As Resistance in any case is inconsistent with the End of Government, and therefore to be rejected by all those, I do not say, who believe it to be the Ordinance of God, but who believe it onely to be necessary to the Well-being of the World; so it is equally inconsistent with the Counsels of God's Providence, which are no less interessed in the Violence of Evil Princes* 1.8, than in the just Administration of God. For, as whoso∣ever believes that there is no Evil in a City which God hath not done, must believe also, that Evil Princes are from God, no less than Good: so, he that so believes, must conceive also, that God, who acts nothing with∣out Advice, must have some peculiar End in it, whether it be, as in the Case of Saul and many others, for the punishment of an Evil People; or, as is most probable in the Case of the Roman Emperours, for the trial of the Primitive Christians Faith, and the Honour of that Go∣spel which they believ'd. In consideration whereof, as whoever resisteth Evil Powers, must be thought in a particular man∣ner to fight against God; so I will leave you to judge, what a disap∣pointment must needs have been to the Counsels of the Almighty, if it had been permitted Christians to resist. For where then had been all those glorious Examples of Meekness, and Submission, and Pati∣ence, for which the Faith of Christ was then so renown'd, and by which we, who live at this distance from its first Institution, are in a great measure induc'd to embrace it? Forasmuch then as Evil Princes are from God, no less than God; forasmuch as God, by their inju∣rious Actions, doth not onely punish an Evil Nation, but brings Glo∣ry both to himself and to his Son: I think it not onely lawful to say, as Tacitus sometime did,‖ 1.9 That they ought to be tolerated as we do Barenness and Rains, and other such, the Evils of Nature; but submitted to with chearfulness, and as such; which, however now afflictive, may prove here∣after Matter of excess of Joy. If there be any thing that can enervate such an Inference, it must be, that such a Ground of Subjection would

oblige us to make no resistance to the injurious Actings of Private Per∣sons. But as I do no way doubt, that we are in some measure so ob∣lig'd, and shall not therefore go about to avoid the force of it alto∣gether; so there is not the same reason for the not resisting of Private Persons, though injurious, as there is for the not resisting of injurious Princes; because these are appointed by God for the Government of the World, which the other have no pretence to.

One onely Species of Honour remains, even the Honour of Tribute; concerning which I shall say the less, because it is so evidently both our Duty, and a Species of Honour. Witness for the former, not onely the reasonableness of our Contributing to the Maintenance of those who watch for the Publick Good, but also the clear and ex∣press Precepts of the Gospel: Our Saviour* 1.10, where he speaks of this very thing, commanding us to give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and St. Paul‖ 1.11, to render to all their dues, and particularly, Tribute to whom it is so, even to those Ministers of God who attend continually upon the Publick Welfare. But neither is there less Evi∣dence of Tribute being a Species of Honour, and consequently a part of that Duty which the Commandment calls for; the fore-named St. Paul representing Tribute not onely as due to the Higher Powers, but due to them as the Ministers of God, and as a Testimony of our Subjection to them. The onely difficulty is, what Tribute we are to pay: For the resolution whereof, we of this Nation shall not need to go any farther than our own Laws, by which that Tribute is ex∣acted, and beyond which our Princes do not pretend at all. For, as those Laws are a formal Declaration of the Pleasure of the Prince, who is the most competent Judge of the Necessities of that State, which is by God committed to his Tuition; so they do moreover in∣volve in them the Consent of those by whom that Tribute is to be paid; whether Implicit, as all those Tributary Laws do, which stand by the Usances of the Kingdom; or more Explicit, as those which are consented to by their several Representatives in Parliament. After which, to inquire whether we may pay a less Proportion, were to in∣quire whether it might be lawful for us to depart from that which we our selves have consented to perform: The Consent of particular Per∣sons being sufficiently imply'd in a general one, or in the Consent of those who are empower'd to act for them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. 8.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ephes. 5.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Pet. 3.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.2

  Hom 2.3. in Epist. ad Rom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—
• * 1.3

  Vid. Part 2. of the Explic. of this Com∣mandment.
• * 1.4

  De ratione ac jure finiendi controversias.
• ‖ 1.5

  Ibid.
• * 1.6

  Apolog. c. 37. Si enim & ho∣stes exertos, non Tantùm vindices occultos agere vellemus; deesset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum. Plures nimirum Mauri & Marco∣manni, ipsique Parthi vel quantae∣cunque, unius tamen loci & suo∣rum finium gentes, quam totius orbis. Heslerni samus & vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castalia, &c. Vid. ibid.
• ‖ 1.7

  Vid. Hug. Grot. de Jure Belli, &c. lib. 1. cap. 4. sect. 17.
• * 1.8

  Cujus enim jussu homines nascun∣tur, hujus jussu & Reges constitu∣untur apti his qui in illo tempore ab ipsis regantur. Quidam enim illo∣rum ad correctionem & utilitatem subjectorum dantur, & conserva∣tionem justitiae; quidam autem ad timorem & poenam & increpati∣onem; quidam autem ad illusio∣nem & contumeliam & superbi∣am, quemadmodum & digni sunt. Dei justo judicio, sicuti praedixi∣mus, in omnibus aequaliter super∣veniente. Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. 5. cap. 24.
• ‖ 1.9

  Quomodo sterilitatem aut nimi∣os imbres, & caetera naturae ma∣la, ita luxum vel avaritiam do∣minantium tolerate. Hist. l. 4.
• * 1.10

  Mat. 22.21.
• ‖ 1.11

  Rom. 13 6, 7.