Monsieur JƲRIEƲ's Judgment Upon the Question of Defending our Religion by Arms, WITH REFLECTIONS UPON THE Affairs of England, IN HIS Ninth Pastoral LETTER of the Third Year.
Faithfully Translated out of French.
Licensed, and Entered according to Order.
LONDON: Printed for John Lawrence, at the Angel in the Poultrey, and are to be sold by Richard Baldwin, next the Black Bull in the Old-Bayly. MDCLXXXIX.
THE Translator TO THE READER.
'TIS said by the Prophet Daniel, That many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be encreased: The Commerce of Nations, the Translating from one Language to another, is this running to and fro, whereby Mankind communicate their general Sentiments, improve by the Correspondence, and are absolved from the Curse of Babel.
People that only measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves among themselves, take very scanty measures, and make very fond comparisons: when they are mistaken, they have no way of rectifying themselves, but enjoy a very great satisfaction in being positive and immovable, tho' they are never so much in the wrong.
In opposition to this, the World has always had a great deference to a Catholick Sence; so soon as ever Christianity enjoyed its liberty under the Glorious Emperour Constantine, there was such an assembling of Councils, communicating the Judgment of particular Churches for Agreement of the whole, that the Heathens were wont to [Page]deride the Christians for tiring the Post-horses, and wearing out the Stage-Coaches of the Empire.
When Christianity was Transubstantiated into Popery, and all the Methods of Religion turn'd against it self, then was Catholicism made use of as the grand Instrument of its own Ruine: The general falling away, which was the Prediction of a false Religion prevailing was the chief argument, why that Religion was not false which had prevailed.
So that we have the Judgment both of Friends and Enemies, those who first setled Religion, and those who afterwards overthrew it, that the general Opinion of the Church of God ought to be of the greatest esteem, especially in those difficult Cases, where we are not our selves able to determine our Duties out of the Holy Scriptures.
'Tis then only disputed, which is the Catholick Church; that which shone bright immediately after our Saviour's time, or that prevailing Faction of Apostates which clouded the Heavens, and cast a mist over the face of the Earth? But the Light of Truth is so sprung forth again, that the Question vanishes; 'tis easy to distinguish between Day and Night.
Now if the Christians had so great an Opinion of their common Agreement, before their Religion was corrupted, why should not we honour the same way? And, since Reformation is but the Restoration of Primitive Religion, be glad to hear what foreign Churches say of those Doctrines which are disputed amongst us.
He is an Enemy to the Church of England, who would set it up against the Reform'd Churches of France and Germany, and of the Northern Crowns, where God is worshipped also after the manner which his Enemies call Heresy: Why should not the Church of God be esteemed one Catholick Church since its Reformation as well as before its grand Depravation? There were as many Heresies and Schisms [Page]and Errours within its bowels then as now, but the common Agreement of the greater part in substantial Truths, made the Advice of one Church to another, to be very much reverenced and regarded.
The Judgment of Monsieur Jurieu is not to be looked upon as his private Opinion, but as the general Sence of the good Christians of France; for the Papists had an Intrigue to destroy the whole Reform'd Religion all over Europe, by perswading the Protestants to stand still while they were ruined; and to this purpose Monsieur de Meaux picks up and ridicules the Decisions of their Synods, That it was lawful to make use of Arms in favour of Religion. So that this is a Defence of their ancient Doctrine, and rescuing the Right of Self-preservation from the hands of their Enemies, in a most needful time when they would have taken it away from all men, in order to an Ʋniversal Destruction of the Truth. Certainly the French have demonstrated such eminent Loyalty and Patience, that they well deserved to be heard upon the Question.
We may in England look back with some horror upon the danger we have escaped; this piece of Policy was framed also for the finest and strongest Intrigue that could bring about our Destruction; it was the presumption of Arbitrary and Irresistible Power, of Absolute and undeniable Obedience, which heartned our Enemies to such attempts, as they durst not otherwise have thought upon.
They had the advantage of many Years to make preparation, by preferring such to Places of Honour and Power, who were themselves generally the greatest Slaves, and so were willing to enslave others. The choice was made with a great deal of Judgment and Curiosity; either of such whose Atheism and Debauchery made them ready to do any thing, or of such who had suffer'd under the Pretenders to Liberty, and therefore were inclined to an excess of Duty.
The former run into all the extravagancies of Blasphemy, [Page]having their mouths full of great swelling words, That the King was above Jesus Christ; that Tyranny and Oppression themselves, if acted by Persons in Authority, were the Ordinances of God, and not to be resisted under pain of Damnation. But Death has eased some places of their burdens, and called those Followers of Balaam before a Tribunal, where they shall behold him whom they pierced.
The better part consider'd the Glories of suffering Relion, how much it was able to bear, and that Passive Obedience had first made its triumphant entry into the World; they therefore encouraged the inferiour Clergy to such a degree, that it was almost received as the Doctrine of the Church of England, that an Ʋnlimited Authority was of Divine Right; and that tho' Religion was never so much our Property, yet it had a property in it, to yield up itself and every thing else to the will of the first Invader.
But so soon as the Rights of our Religious and Civil Liberties were found to be mortally wounded, and that its Interest was to be destroyed by such Sufferings as neither the Laws of God or Man required, then could the Fathers of the Church no longer conceal a Truth, the neglect whereof had near cost them, that which was dearer to them than their Lives; the tenderness they bore to their Children would not expose them to an unnecessary Destruction.
After their personal Sufferings, and the Day-break of our Deliverance appear'd, the late King James was alarm'd with an expression in the Prince of Orange's Declaration, That he was most earnestly Invited hither by divers of the Lords both Spiritual and Temporal, and by many Gentlemen and others. He therefore sent for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Peterborough, and Rochester, to sign an Abhorrence under their hands of the intended Invasion.
But this they refused to do; not being able to give up [Page]a Church, which by the Providence of God was by Law established, and which they had the Care of committed to them: They durst not discountenance a Deliverance which (every body was then sensible) was so divinely offer'd, and wherein all the Protestant Interest of Europe was embarked. This Refusal the Bishop of Rochester has lately published, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has favoured with a License under his own hand.
So soon as the late King James had thrown up the Government, cancell'd the Writs of Parliament, and withdrawn himself from the Kingdom, then did the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough, with the Lords Temporal that were about London, assembled at Guild-hall, devolv'd themselves upon the Prince of Orange, acknowledging his great Kindness, his v [...]ss Expence, his Hazard to Rescue them from Popery and Slavery.
The Convocations of England had formerly assisted the foreign Protestants both with their Prayers and Purses, now was the happy day of Retribution come, when we were to eat that Bread which was cast upon the Waters an hundred Years before; It had been a renouncing of the ancient Church of England, and the old Charity laid up in store for us, if we had not accepted so great a Deliverance.
The common pertness of young Divines, and the inveterate prejudice of some elder, will not be able to rencounter the more ancient Judgment, and this late authentick Practice of the Church of England. It will be satisfaction to behold here the concurrence of a foreign Church, for we have always valued Catholicism; but now we much more desire it, now we are under the Head of the Protestant Interest, and hope that our present Soveraign of Great Britain will be another British Constantine to the World. Those Churches which never had the Favour of Princes, cannot [Page]but want many advantages, and we who were Reform'd by a Prince, who did not only shake off the Pope's Ʋsurpations, but reserved several of them to himself, are capable of being made more happy.
Those that have travell'd abroad, and searcht the Archieves of the Protestant Churches, find how the principal Reformers and Establishers of our Religion consulted them, and how greivously they were afflicted to be over-ruled by secular Men in the Establishment of those things which were not to be found in the Catholicism of the Reform'd Religion.
And we have sadly found the mischief thereof, for men who are the Authors and Abettors of those things, which are particular to themselves, are apt to be more fond of their own Institutions, than of the Catholick and Divine Ordinances; and so the zeal of a particular Church has been in danger of spending it self without being concern'd for, and sometimes in opposition to the Ʋniversal.
As I began with one Prophet so I'll conclude with another; let Isaiah now revive us with an Assurance, that God will at last give Kings to be Nursing-fathers, and Queens to be Nursing-mothers to his Church. And such as we now have, England never had before.
He hath prophesied also, That the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun, and the light of the Sun shall be seven-fold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
We have such a litteral accomplishment of this, that 'tis hard not to believe it the design of the place; we have such a seven fold influence of our Sun to revive and comfort the distressed part of the World, and our Moon is equally Soveraign with him. Shall not all this make us happy, the greatest Authority and the best Examples? if not, 'tis because we are the worst People that ever enjoy'd the Sun shine.
THE Ninth Pastoral Letter of the Third Year, Wherein this Question is Examined, Whether it be Lawful to Defend our Religion by Arms? WITH REFLECTIONS UPON THE Affairs of England.
WE did in our last leave Monsieur Bossuet endeavouring with all his might to overthrow Doctor Burnet, by making him contradict himself; he was also labouring to render the Reformation of England Odious, and seeking for some Variations upon the Article of the Lord's Supper.
But these Variations being laid aside, and reserv'd for Volumes, and perhaps [Page 2]for future Ages, Mr. Bossuet in the remaining part of his tenth Book enters upon the Wars of Religion.
The conspiracy of Amboise comes upon the Stage, drest up with I don't know how many Reflections, and as many Demonstrations to prove, that it ought entirely to be imputed to the Huguenots, and had no other cause but Religion.
All the Civil Wars of the [...] Age are made to re-appear; both the Assassination of the Duke of Guise before Orleans by Poltrot, and that of. the President Minard by Stuart are remembred.
And amongst all this are inserted some Decisions of Synods, and other Arguments to prove that the Calvinists think well of maintaining the Gospel by Arms.
All this fine parcel of History is composed of many matters of Fact, and one question of Right. The Fact relates to the Civil Wars of the last Age, upon which it is not here my business to discourse, an Answer may be given, if it be thought requisite; and for me, that which hath been already said in my Answer to the Jesuit Mainburg's History of Calvinism, may be sufficient.
The Question of Right is concerned in the taking up, and using Arms for the Defence of Religion, which Monsieur Bossuet proposes as a great Crime in the Protestants.
For since the Gospel acknowledges no other Arms but those that are Spiritual, the Church is not to attempt any thing but by the Word, nor to defend itself but by Patience.
Thus the Primitive Christians defended themselves; we cannot find that they repell'd force by force: Their Prayers and their Tears were the only Bucklers they opposed to the Violence of their Persecutors: but behold now a new sort of Christians, of Reformers of the [Page 3]Church and the World, who take up Arms, that they may repel the Violences of others by Violences of their own.
These are the fine common places wherewith the Protestants of all Europe are at this day entertain'd, to perswade them that they ought patiently, without any Emotion, to suffer the utmost Efforts of Popery to their Ruin.
The circumstances of the present time oblige us to enlarge a little upon this Question; not only in way of Answer to Monsieur de Meaux and his Friends, but principally with a design to satisfie some who are truly Conscientious, and not well instructed as to the sense of this Maxim, That it is not lawful to make use of Arms in favour of Religion.
First, does it not well become M. the Bishop of Meaux, and in general the whole Papistry to raise the Reputation of this Maxim, that the Conduct of the Protestants might be rendred Odious? The Papistry, I say, which may be review'd in all Ages as an unchain'd Fury, carrying a Sword in one hand, and Fire in the other, filling Europe with Desolations, and bathing the Earth with Bloud, to Establish and Defend itself, But it is not lawful to employ our Arms in Defence of our Religion.
But, why then did the Papistry endeavou [...] to replant Christianity in the East, by so many millions of People under the Badge of the Cross? Why were Wars waged expresly under the name of holy Wars? Why did the Popes (to establish the Authority, they pretend to have received from Jesus Christ) bring Desolation upon Europe? Why did they dethrone Emperours and Kings? Why have they raised Arms, and bid Battles? Why have they engaged the Father against the Son, and the Son against the Father? Why [Page 4]have they imployed the Armies of the Cross, to massacre an hundred thousand Waldenses, and Albigenses? Why does the Tribunal of the Inquisition find Imployment for Hangmen, Fires, Tortures, Executions in favour of Religion?
Why, when the Papistry would first set its Foot in any place, does it run to Arms with the utmost Fury? Why to advance it self does it make use of the most Abominable Crimes, Assassinations, Treasons, Poysonings of the nearest Relations, and Benefactors themselves, burning of Cities, Suppositious Shams, and other such like Actions, of which both ancient and modern Histories are able to furnish us with Examples?
Why does Papistry imploy Dragoons, and Souldiers to violate Consciences, to make People deny a Religion which they believe to be true, and to embrace that which they believe to be false; thereby constraining them to Prophane and Sacrilegious Communions?
Certainly 'tis a great fineness of Wit for Monsieur de Meaux to retail this severe Maxim in the present juncture, That it is not lawful to employ our Arms in Defence of our Religion.
These Gentlemen might have been happy in honouring themselves with so fine a peice of Morality, if their Conduct had left no such Footsteps behind: But now the Papistical Excesses are so far from allowing themselves a justification, that they even take away any right of insulting over their Enemies.
But without all this Monsieur de Meaux is to know, that we are not asham'd to have several decisions found in our Synods from whence a conclusion may be drawn, that according to us, it is not always forbidden to make use of Arms in favour of Religion.
An Abbot is applauded for this, that he bore Arms to maintain the Gospel. Mr. Bossuet has found it in the National Synod of Lyons 1563, and he has made it to be printed in Capital Letters, for the greater remark, and that it might be an Eternal Disgrace upon all the Party.
What extravagancy of Thought was this in a time, and in a Kingdom, where so many Souldiers and Officers bear Arms, not to maintain the Gospel, but to plant Popery in the Hearts of the Calvinists.
It is then very necessary to distinguish between Establishing Religion, and Defending of it. And it is certain, that the Christian Morals do not permit the Establishment of Religion by Arms. I have no need to prove it, the thing is evident of its self, and there can hardly be found any people that dare impugn this Truth; and from hence I conclude, that Popery is really Antichristian, the Antipodes of the Christian Religion.
I know not any other Religion in the World, which forces People by Fire and Sword to renounce their own Sentiments, and to make Profession of that which is offer'd.
Mahomet hath enlarged his Empire by Arms, and the enlargement of his Empire hath conduced very much to the enlargement of his Religion: But we do not see at last, that the Califs and Mahometan Princes have put the Knife to the Throats of Christians, to make them abjure Christianity, and to embrace Mahometanism, it is true, the Christian Religion has perished under their Domination; but by Poverty, and Meanness, and Misery, and Ignorance, to which they had reduced the Christians.
The Glory of Planting Christianity by Arms has been due to Popery, and its Princes.
But to Defend Religion [Page 6]by Arms is another thing, and there is neither Reason nor Authority by which it can be proved to be a Crime. All the World is agreed that Defence is lawful, and allowed by the Laws of Nature, to which the positive Laws of God never made any Contradiction.
It is then lawful to defend ones Life, ones Honour, one's Wife, ones Children, ones Country, and ones Goods by Arms; and is it not lawful to defend ones Religion by the same means?
I would fain be shewed a little from whence the difference arises, and who it is who hath so disarm'd the Religion, as to leave it exposed to the Violence of the first comer?
This Maxim is proved false by the common reason of all Mankind, since a Maxim contrary to it has passed into a Proverb, Ʋsque ad aras, even to the Altars, we say, which is as much as to confess that Complaisance and Patience should take place in all things but Altars and Religion.
If this Maxim be true, it must be so Universally, or else the Exceptions ought to be made known to us: If this Maxim, That it is unlawful to defend Religion by Arms, be true without Exception, it follows, that an Army of Turks invading our Frontiers, and over-slowing our Provinces, only for the Establishment of their Religion, and for the Ruin of ours, it will be unlawful for us to defend our selves. If they do but say, that they desire neither our Goods, nor our Liberties, nor our Country; but only demand of us, to receive their Religion, and quit our own, because there shall be no other Interest in this Demand, but only that of Religion, therefore we must presently lay down our Arms, admit Mahometanism, of at least be content to suffer Martyrdom.
Is it not lawful to repel such Violence by Arms? Who dares advance such an Extravagance!
Our Children, our Goods, and even our Country ought to be sacrifie'd for Religion, when it is necessary for the preservation of it; and I shall not dare to defend my Religion by the same means by which I should defend my temporal Interests. This may be sufficient to make it apparent, that the Maxim is false, if taken without any exception.
Now, if there must be exceptions, let them be set forth; here we shall not fail of being told, that it is unlawful to Defend our Religion by Arms, when it is attackt by the lawful Soveraigns of the State. But is this agreeable to the Consciences of the Papists, who make it so criminal in us, that we will not abandon our Religion to the Injustice and Violences of Soveraigns; dare they affirm, that they are disposed to suffer the utmost upon this account?
If their Kings in the most Arbitrary Governments should endeavour to plant, I don't say Mahometanism or Paganism, by destroying Christianity, but Lutheranism or Calvinism by Violence, would they suffer it, and believe themseves oblig'd to employ no other Arms but Tears, and Patience, and Martyrdom?
I can't tell whether they would dare to say so; they dare say any thing according to the diversity of Times and Interests; but we know very well, that if they should dare to say so, it would be a lye; for it 'tis certain, there is no sort of Violence which they have not made use of to arrest the designs of such a Prince, and deprive him of his Life. We cannot take one step in the History of Papism, without finding proofs, but 'tis needless to report them.
Kings are not Masters [Page 8]of Conscience and Religion; they are not so much as Masters of the Lives of their Subjects, how then should they be Masters of their eternal Salvation, and their Religion?
All those who are not devoted to Flattery, do avow, that the right of Self-Preservation is a right which cannot be alienated: a People hath always right to take care of themselves by all manner of ways, against a Tyrant who would ruin and destroy them.
Suppose a Soveraign for some worldly Interest, for the refusal of Tribute or Homage, or in an Humor, should resolve upon Massacring a whole Nation, or one great party, is there any one so much a Flatterer, as to assert, that such a Soveraign has right to do it, and that the Subjects have no right to defend themselves, to oppose such Violence with Force?
Such an one will be confuted by all Mankind, for 'tis believed by every one, that he has a right to use all means for his own preservation, when he is set upon by an unjust Violence.
Having made this Supposition, let us make another; Suppose a Soveraign should attempt to Massacre his Subjects upon the account of Religion▪ shall this cause of Religion, which intervenes, tye the hands of the Subjects, annihilate the Laws of Nature, deprive them of the inalienable Right of Self-Preservation? Shall it be lawful for a People to preserve and defend themselves when they are to be massacred for refusing unjust Taxes, and shall it not be lawful to defend themselves when they are to be massacred upon the account of Religion?
I must say this is a sottish piece of Morality: let him that desires to lye at the Foot stool of a Throne, and flatter Kings, maintain it; no man will ever really believe it.
'Tis of no great advantage to argue upon the Rights of Soveraigns; 'tis a question we will not enter upon. But thus much we ought to know, That the Rights of GOD, the Rights of the People, and the Rights of Kings are inseparable: This good sence demonstrates, and therefore a Prince that annihilates the Right of GOD and the Right of the People, does thereby annihilate his own Right.
Nothing is due to him who pays nothing to any one, neither to God nor men.
The Supposition we make, is not a Castle in the Air; and, without speaking of Princes called Christian (who have massacred their Subjects upon the account of Religion) the History of the Church presents us with Dioclesian, who enterprized the extirpation of Christians by an universal Massacre: Where is it to be found in the Gospel, that the Christian-Subjects of the Roman Empire had no right to oppose this Violence; whereas, if for any other cause than that of Religion, their Emperours had oppressed them in such a manner, they might have had right to defend themselves? If this be so, Religion is of the meanest concern in the World.
If the whole World had courage enough to suffer Martyrdom, the Spiritual Interest of Religion would not be so deeply concerned; but when 'tis to be consider'd, that in a Million of Christians, perhaps not ten Thousand of them are so disposed as to endure massacring, we are to recollect, that such an exposing the Truth, exposes the Faithful to the dangers of Apostasie, gives up an innumerable company of the Weaker to ruin, and suffers the whole Church to be destroyed.
If this be so, that 'tis always unlawful to maintain [Page 10]the True Religion by Arms, wherefore is the Memory of the Maccabees so blessed in the Church? Why are they not accursed by the Wise? Why are they applauded for having taken Arms against the Kings of Syria, their lawful Soveraigns? The Persecution of the famous Antiochus was meerly upon the account of Religion: for the Jews were very submissive both in their Tribute and all other Homage: But he would oblige them to abjure their Religion, for which many suffer'd Martyrdom with admirable Patience. The Maccabees had also the same way to signalize their courage; but they took another way, they took up Arms, they defended their Religion, they shook off the Yoke of the Kings of Syria, not only as to their Spiritual but their Temporal Bondage.
An exact president for the States of the Ʋnited Provinces in the last Age, who having taken up Arms first to maintain their Religion, then shook off the temporal Yoke of Spain, and made themselves a separate State.
Monsieur de Meaux and his Friends, who so boldly censure the Hollanders for taking Arms upon the account of their Religion, and for having taken that occasion to shake off an insupportable Yoke, ought to make out the difference between the case of the Maccabees, and that of the Low Countries.
It is incumbent upon him, who so furiously rallies our Synods for recommending an Abbot who bore Arms in defence of the Gospel, to draw an Indictment against the Memory of those grand Hero's of the Jewish Church, whom all Christians admire, and whose Conduct they approve.
But there is now an Objection fram'd from the Conduct of the Primitive Christians, who during the ten Persecutions never rencountred [Page 11]their Persecutors with any thing but Patience. God forbid, that I should diminish their Worth, or abate any thing of those Acknowledgements which are due to them: but I want to be instructed, how they were in a condition to provide against the Violences of the Roman Emperours.
I don't know that the Christians were as one to five hundred, if you take the whole extent of the Roman Empire: There are Authors that believe Rome it self could not number above forty thousand Christians in the second and third Ages; whereas in the last accounts, the Christians were reckon'd to rise to many Millions. If then there were so few in the capital City, how could there be so great an appearance in other places? How then could so small a number of People, scatter'd thorough the extent of so vast an Empire, maintain themselves, where there were numerous Armies on foot to guard their spacious Frontiers? 'Twas not then onely Religion but Prudence in the first Christians to suffer a less evil to avoid a greater: if they had opened themselves into a state of Defence, they had been exspos'd to inevitable Death, so that they had no other way but to conceal themselves.
Tertullian is cited upon this occasion, who reports that the Christians fill'd the Cities, the Castles, the Armies; but 'tis known that Tertullian was an Orator, and amplified things more than ever any Writer in the Church did. It would be a very hard thing to make good all he hath ventur'd upon.
But, there is something else very considerable as to the conduct of the Primitive Christians in the point of taking Arms: there were many then who believed it altogether unlawful to use the Sword upon any occasion, either in War or Judgment for [Page 12]the punishment of Criminals. This was an extravagant Opinion, a Maxim generally acknowledged to be false at this day; so that Patience was sometimes an Errour, and a piece of Morality not well understood.
At the bottom, it was not this fineness of Conscience, which hindred the first Christians to defend themselves against their Persecutors: for the Devotional Persons, whose Morality was so severe, were a small number in comparison to others. And by the complaints which the Fathers make of the Christians Manners in their Age; it is easie to collect, that so many Christians, being then irregular in the other conduct of their lives, did not suffer themselves to be massacred for Conscience sake, but because they were impotent and indefensible.
Yet suppose the Primitive Christians did meerly out of tenderness of Conscience neglect to defend themselves, it shall be confessed, they did not do ill: and yet it does not follow, that those who do not imitate them do ill. For 'tis always lawful to remit ones right; a man may do with his own what he will: yet another man does not sin, because he will maintain his right.
'Tis a very high degree of Regeneration, to quit ones Goods to an unjust Invader, for avoiding of Resistance: but still those who have not advanced so far in their Regeneration, are not in a state of Sin.
There is a difference between better and well: He that giveth his Virgin in marriage doth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better. According to St. Paul. Suppose then these Christians did better in not taking up Arms to defend themselves from Persecution, it does not follow, but others may do well, though they do otherwise, and [Page 13]perhaps better in their different circumstances.
Another Objection is found out in the words of our Saviour: Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
First, It must be observed, that our Saviour Jesus Christ designed this for particular persons, not for Societies and Corporations: 'tis an extravagance to maintain, that Societies, and States, and Kingdoms are obliged to submit themselves to every unjust Oppressor, that does Invade them. Private persons for the publick peace do well to observe this direction of Jesus Christ: but for the publick good, Governors of States are obliged to act otherwise. Now the Church is a Corporation, a Society, and by consequence ought to preserve her Assemblies, and her Subjects, and to do it in all those ways which are lawful by the right of Nations, and of Nature.
Secondly, Our Saviour there speaks of worldly Interests, not of sacred things and Religion: Jesus Christ never bid us quit our Religion, our Temples, our Altars, to him that would ravish them from us; but to part with our Coat and our Cloak. There is no manner of consequence from the one to the other.
Certainly our Lord never had any design to convert the proceedings of Justice into Crimes; when a man endeavour'd to run under covert from the violent persuits of an Invader that would take away his Goods from him: Christian Morality never push'd on Severity at such a rate. If then, notwithstanding this Precept of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is permitted by the Laws of the Gospel to resist an unjust Oppressour that would take away our Goods from us; by much [Page 14]stronger reason is this Commandment far from prejudicing our right of defending Religion by Arms.
Lastly, This Commandment is so far from favouring such extravagant Morality, that it gives no countenance to it; for in this passage our Saviour sets forth how far our Patience is oblig'd: 'Tis that we suffer moderate Injuries, a box o'th' ear, tolerable losses, as to be robbed of a Cloak, or such temporal Goods, whose preservation was not equivalent to the loss of our Peace: but he does not say, if any one would take away thy Life, don't defend it. So that take our Saviour's words in the utmost rigour, he hath not left it unlawful for a man to defend his Life.
Now if it be lawful for a man to defend his Life against Tyrants, that would take it away for temporal reasons; I cannot see why it may not be lawful to defend it when they would murder us upon the account of Religion. We ought then to suffer even to the last extremity, but this extremity is come when they would ravish from us that which is more dear than Life it self, our Religion and our Eternal Salvation.
Another Argument, for maintaining this piece of severe Morality, that we ought not to take up Arms for the defence of our Religion, is drawn from the words of Jesus Christ to his Disciples upon the Samaritans denying him reception: The Disciples said to our Lord, Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them even as Elias did. The Lord answered them. Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives.
Now what does this signifie? You shall have it in a word, that it is never lawful to open a way [Page 15]for Jesus Christ to enter by force, nor to establish the Gospel by Arms: but if the Samaritans had come to a House that belong'd to Jesus Christ, or any of his Disciples, would have driven them out of it and dispossed them, think you that our Lord Jesus Christ would have order'd his Disciples to be gone and seek a lodging some where else? I see nothing like it.
For once again, there is a vast difference between Attacking and Defending: The Gospel has not taken away from any man the right of defending himself against violent Aggressors.
And this without doubt our Saviour intended, when he was walking in the Garden, where he knew the Jews would come and seize him by violence; he then order'd his Disciples that he who had a Sword should take it: and when one said, Behold, here are two Swords, he answered, it is enough.
This was not enough to repel the violence he was to meet withal, for two armed men were not able to oppose the armed Multitude, that accompanied Judas; but it was enough for his purpose, to let his Disciples know, that upon such an occasion they had a right to defend themselves with Arms.
For otherwise what sence can there be in this, Take your Swords: of what use could they be if they might not defend themselves? It is true, that Jesus Christ commanded St. Peter to put up his Sword into his Sheath; and he healed the Ear of Malchus: But by this he gives us to understand, that tho' he has right to repel force with force, yet he would have his Disciples make use of it only as a proper time and occasion may require. And he there gives the reason of it: 'tis because that ought to be accomplish'd which was ordained by the Father. And that which he adds [Page 16]to St. Peter, when he bid him put up his Sword into the Sheath, viz All they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword, cannot signifie that using the Sword is always unlawful, or chiefly when it is employed upon the account of Religion, it cannot I say, signifie any thing like it: For,
- First, 'tis false; since there are an hundred occasions, where the use of the Sword is notoriously known to be lawful.
- Secondly, Jesus Christ would have contradicted himself upon the very spot; for there he says, Let him that hath a Sword, take it: Behold two, it is enough.
So that this must signifie that he who strikes unjustly with the Sword, shall perish by the Sword. Now one may strike unjustly with the Sword upon these two accounts, either when he does it that he has no right, or when this right is made use of upon some occasion that is not agreeable to the Pleasure of God. St. Peter had not used his Sword in a proper season; not but that he had a right, which it was not then a time to exercise, for then God would have Jesus Christ die, and St. Peter ought to have understood it.
In a word, Jesus Christ commanded to take the Sword, for establishing the Right which the Church has to defend herself against unjust Oppressors; and he forbid Peter to strike, to teach the Church, that she ought to submit when God has made known his Will, that she must suffer.
If Mr. Bossuet the present defender of this severe Moral, That we are forbidden to maintain the Gospel by Arms, finds our Morality to loose in this point, he will do well to call into his help for our Correction, Escobar, Tambourin, Caramuel, and all the Tribe of new Casuists, who are very good Catholicks, and as good Catholicks as they are, make it [Page 17]lawful to kill a Man for a Crown-piece, or an Apple.
Nevertheless we have no design at all to inspire with the sentiments of Revenge, those who have suffer'd so cruel a Persecution in France upon the account of Religion. God forbid, we do on the contrary render thanks to God, that not one of them has been prevail'd upon to do any Action of Violence; for though they could not have destroyed others, without having been destroyed themselves, yet it is a surprizing consideration, that among so many people of different Characters, there should not be found a great number, who would act the part of Sampson, to bury themselves, and their Enemies under the same Ruins, which was easie for them to have done. But the Patience wherewith they have suffer'd is an Argument that the Spirit of God hath sustained them in their Calamities.
Nor do we pretend here to make a defence for all the Wars which have been undertaken upon the account of Religion, nor all those which were for the Defence of a good Religion.
As the taking up Arms has always dreadful consequences, it is certain that of two Evils the greatest is to be avoided, and that it is better to suffer moderate Oppressions, than to run to extreme Remedies.
But my Design is to let Mr. Bossuet see, that he does not know what he says, when he would make it so criminal in our People, to approve those who bear Arms to maintain the Gospel. As if in this they had done any foolish and odious Action. There are some Extremities beyond which Christian Morality does not oblige us to carry our Patience. And I think no one can imagine a greater Extremity, than when it comes to massacring.
When the first War of Religion began in the last Age, the Massacre of Vassy [Page 18]had given the signal to all France. There was no longer any place wherein the Protestants could be with safety. And by consequence it was time to make use of the Right of Self-preservation, which no Prescription, no Usurpation of the Mighty can ever annihilate.
But when only the Preservation or Death of some particular Persons is the concern, as it was in the Reigns of Francis the 1st, and Henry the 2d, then was it a time for Patience, but when the Life of a whole People is in hazard, and in extream hazard, then there must be a recourse to extream Remedies.
There may be also certain Circumstances, when People are not oblig'd to attend the most extream Evils before they run to Redress them. When the whole Nation sees the Prince in a Resolution to extirpate the established Religion, a stop ought to be put at the beginning.
'Tis therefore that the English Nation cannot be blamed, in their present Conduct against their King, except it be by those People who are full of their Prejudices, or Slaves to the great ones under whom they live, or else altogether ignorant of the Laws of England.
When the King had once made himself Master of the Laws and Religion, it would then have been too late to have sought for a Remedy.
REFLECTIONS UPON THE Affairs of England.
WE know very well, my Brethren, that in the Kingdom where you are, 'tis made a point of Honour, and of Conscience, to speak all that can be imagin'd cruel and outragious against the English Nation, against the Church of England, and against all those illustrious Persons who are at the head of that Action which is now brought to pass in England. This great and sudden Revolution, which is at this day the astonishment of all Europe, is the execration of Bigots, who discharge their fury upon those names which will one day make them tremble.
Behold (say they) the Spirit of your Religion, 'tis Rebellion, a Revolt from Soveraigns, 'tis a black Invasion of the powers ordain'd by God.
I know well that you ought upon this occasion to have a strict guard over the measures you take, and to conduct yourselves with a great deal of discretion: and I fear there are some amongst you ill enough inform'd to give an ill account of an Affair, not only most innocent, but even the most glorious and the greatest that has been atchieved for many Ages.
To convince you of this Truth, you ought to know principally that the Qualification of the King of England is as inconsistent with that of a Roman Catholick, as the Qualification of a Lutheran or Calvinist is [Page 21]with that of a Pope. Nothing is more opposite to the Fundamental Laws of the State.
I. It is forbidden under the pain of High Treason to perform any Exercise of the Romish Religion within the Kingdom. How can this be consistent with a Popish King, who requires Mass to be said publickly in the most eminent places of the State, in his Royal-houses, in the Countries, in the Cities of the Realm.
II. 'Tis the Crime of High Treason in the first degree, against the State and the Laws, to give reception to Priests and Monks within the Kingdom. How can this agree with the condition of a Popish King, who provides for Covents of Monks in his own Palace, and every City.
III. 'Tis a Crime forbidden by the Laws, and punishable with Death, to acknowledge the Pope to be Head of the Church, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. How can this be consistent with a King who makes publick profession of recognizing the Pope as Head of the Universal Church?
IV. 'Tis the Law of England, that what man soever holds correspondence with the Pope in any manner, he shall be deemed guilty of High Treason. How can this be consistent with the quality of a Papist in a King, who believes himself obliged to receive the Pope's Nuncio's in his Court, and to send his Ambassadors to him?
V. By the Laws of England, the King is obliged to make the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance to be tender'd to all his Subjects; by which the King is acknowledged the only Supreme Governour of the Church of England, and wherein the Superiority of the Pope as well in Spirituals as Temporals is expresly renounced. I would fain know how this can be adjusted with [Page 20]the nature of a Popish King? What kind of Monster is it, whose Body is a Protestant Church, and whose Head is an utter Popish King?
VI. 'Tis a capital Crime by Law to sollicit People and Subjects to be rec [...]nciled to the See of Rome. How can this be consistent with the Constitution of a Popish King who believes himself oblig'd in Conscience to bring back all his Subjects to the Romish Church, by Threats and Promises, by Punishments and Rewards, and Seducements?
VII. 'Tis a capital Crime in England for any person to promise Obedience to the Bishop of Rome. How can this agree with the nature of a Popish King who calls the Pope Holy Father, and submits himself to him, at least in Spirituals?
VIII. 'Tis one of the Laws of the Kingdom, that whoever enjoys any publick Office, shall be obliged to take the Oath of the Test; by which the Romish Religion is abjur'd and detested. But how can this be consistent with the constitution of a Popish King, who possesses the principal Place of the Kingdom, and therefore so publickly embraces and defends the Romish Religion? There is no end of reciting all the Laws of England, from whence there is an absolute inconsistency between the being of a King, and the being of a Papist in the same Person.
Thus then 'tis evident, that without Injustice, the English Nation, and the Church of England might declare to the King, that his Religion rendred him uncapable of the Crown.
It is true, the Crown of England is Successive; but according to all Laws, and in all places of the World, he that receives a Succession, receives it with all the Charges, which by Law are annexed to it, or he falls from it: He that receives an Estate charg'd [Page 22]with Rents and Obligations, must perform them, must yeild Faith and Homage, if he would enter into possession of the Inheritance.
It is yet more certain, that in Successive Crowns there are certain Qualifications which ought to be in the Successour; if he has them not, he must have a Guardian, or a Regent must be made, or the Crown devolves to the next fit Heir, who has the Qualifications required by Law.
The Crown of England has a Happiness above any other Crown in Europe, to be subject to certain Laws which are above the King; so that a person who hath not the qualities requisite, or such as are inconsistent with the Laws, is not capable of being admitted to the Crown, tho' he should have the Right of Inheritance.
All the World knows, that the French Popish Lords who were in the Interests of Henry IV, after the Assassination of Henry III, prayed him to receive the Crown, but in the quality of a Roman Catholick King, as inseparably requisite to the quality of a King of France: They had not the same right to discourse at such a rate: for the Kings of France had for a long time rais'd themselves above the Laws; and Henry being in such a State, might have taken it with his Priviledges.
Besides it was false, that there were any Laws in France, which made the quality of a King, and the quality of a Protestant to be inconsistent; whereas in England 'tis apparent, that the condition of a King, and the condition of a Papist are irreconcilable.
Nevertheless, such was the goodness of the Church of England, and the English Nation, that they would not exclude James II. from the Crown; perswading themselves that they had laid an inviolable Obligation upon him, religiously [Page 23]to keep the Oaths made at his Coronation, in preserving Religion and the Laws as he found them.
But this Prince suffer'd himself to be lead by the most impudent of Mankind, who lifted him up above the Laws, and made him forget the Devoir of the Kings of England, which is to Rule according to the Laws. He made a League with a great neighbouring Prince, to ruin the Protestant Religion in all Europe: He dispens'd with all the Laws both of Government and Religion: He made Mass be said publickly in the three Kingdoms: He invested the Papists with the principal Offices of State, turning out the Protestants: He would constrain the Bishops by corporal Punishments, to those things which were against their Consciences.
And that which is the unconceivable Prodigy of Ages, in a Protestant Kingdom, he raised up a Jesuite to be a Member of the Council of State, of the Privy-Council, of the Council, in a word, that Governs the whole Kingdom. So a Jesuite was seen Master of the Kingdom, Master of the Bishops, Master of the Church of England.
It was necessary therefore to think of securing Religion and the State; and this the Nation was indispensably oblig'd to. To this purpose did she implore the Succour of that Prince, who, now in England, is the greatest Person of Europe: and therefore 'tis against him chiefly, that the Country, where you are, discharges its Rage; as if he had violated all the Rights of Nature, and trampled under Foot the Obligations of Consanguinity.
First, it appears, that he was called upon by the Nation; this, I say, appears by the suddenness of the Revolution, which was brought to pass so soon as it began: The only Princess of the Bloud, that was in England▪ and the Prince her Husband, declared themselves for him▪ all the great Men, the Peers, the Cities, the Provinces, acknowledged the Justice of [Page 24]his Demands, and supported them.
If this Prince had refus'd to have afforded Succour to the Nation, she would have done the very same without him, that she now does under his Banners; and from thence would have unavoidably followed the ruin of the Monarchy.
For the State was divided into divers Parties, as it was under Charles I: It is apparent that the Anarchical and Independant Party have once gained the power over it; so that we might have seen the Nation return to the same Estate it was under Cromwell, and perhaps to a worse. The King might very possibly have been exposed to the same Miseries which his Father suffer'd.
The Prince therefore, for the Interest of the State, for the Interest of the Princesses, for his own, and also for the King's, could not dispense with putting himself at the head of an Expedition, which might have been ruin'd, if it had not been govern'd by so great a Soul.
And then for the pretended Obligations of Consanguinity, they are meer appearances: there are Obligations much more indispensable: He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. We owe to God, to the Laws, to Religion, more than to our Kindred. It had been a cruel piece of Piety to have seen a Church and a Kingdom perish without relieving them, for fear of offending one Person with whom we have some relation of Flesh and Bloud.
I know our Enemies will not scruple saying, that it was not Piety, but Ambition, that gave life to these great Motions; which this Great Prince was very sensible of. But we who are near him, and have known his sentiments for many Years, are able to witness two things; one is, that he is truly touch'd with the Love of God and his Religion. The other is, that he did not undertake this Enterprize till the last Extremity.
And we know with the greatest certainty, that the English were twenty times refused upon the Proposition which they made; because he always hoped that God would open some softer Methods to protect Religion from the Oppression which was prepared for it. Those that are near him, can witness, that there never was a Prince more Zealous, and better affected to the Truth.
The Success, which God hath given to his Enterprizes, may convince us, that he it is, whom God is pleased to make use of, for accomplishing his great Designs, and for the establishment of the True Religion.
One might further say things much more considerable for Justification of this Great Enterprize, with respect both to the Nation and the Prince: but time will place them in a better Light, and it shall be made known, that those who have shed so much Bloud, and have had no respect to the Laws of Consanguinity, merit not regard upon their account.
Nevertheless, the Prince has, and always will have a regard to the King, whose Destiny is so much lamented: for he has no design against his Person, or against his Dignity; he would onely take away from him the means of hurting others, and of hurting himself: But this Unfortunate Prince, by following the Inspirations of that unhappy Genius which hath animated him for so many Years, has cast himself into a Precipiece, and saught his Safety by forsaking his Palace and his Kingdom, without having any just cause for it.
It cannot be said with any truth, that the King of England could observe, either in the Conduct of the Prince, or the Lords, or the Bishops, or the People, any design to attack his Person, his Life, his Liberty, or his Dignity. On the contrary, every thing was so disposed, that Affairs might be treated of with the greatest sweetness.
In the first Address, which was presented to the King, [Page]after the Prince's arrival, by fourteen or fifteen of the Lords Ecclesiastical and Temporal, they promise, after they have entreated for a free Parliament, to serve him with all their power, and the power of their Friends.
And in the last great Council held Decemb. 9th, constituted of all that were considerable at London, it is certain that the King was only askt to call a free Parliament; but this was done with such respectful and tender Expressions, that 'tis evident the Nation had no design against the Person, or Dignity of the King.
And the King having agreed upon the meeting of a Parliament upon the 25th of January, the Prince accepted of it upon the most reasonable condition that can be imagined: Which was, that neither his own, nor the King's Army should come within forty Miles of the place where the Parliament sate.
Here it appear'd, that the King had no sincere intention in calling the Parliament, and that it was only to gain time, and to receive the foreign Assistance which he expected. These Succours failing, and his own Troopes declaring, that they could not fight against the Laws and Religion of their Country; he was resolv'd suddenly to play the part of quitting his Throne: Choosing, rather not to Reign, than not to Reign over the Laws; and to take the advantage of an odious imputation against the Protestants, that they had driven him from his Kingdom.
But all Europe is witness to the contrary: and if hereafter he looses the Crown, 'tis a loss for which he can only blame himself, having drawn it upon himself, partly by Violation of the Laws, and partly by his Desertion.
If there had been any design violently to drive him from his Throne, why was he so stopt in his Flight? What an Object is a King Arrested as a Fugitive! But why was he staid to do him Violence?
Was he not honourably entreated to return to his own Palace? Had he not the liberty given, to retire as he was best pleased?
I question not, but all this shall be reflected upon us with the most malevolent Influences; for 'tis a common thing with the Papism in its rage, to take hold of all that may any way serve its Revenge.
But be wise, and Adore the profound Judgments of God. You see in this Event, the first blow to the ruin of Popery, which we have proposed apparently near, out of the Prophecies of the New Testament: This great and surprizing Revolution will without doubt draw others after it, which shall be no less considerable. The Empire of Antichrist hath not received so terrible a check since the last Age: it rouls down to its Fall, and God visibly pushes it upon the Precipiece.
Keep silence then, my Brethren, but do not suffer your selves to be carried down the stream of Outrages against him whom God hath chosen for the Instrument of his great Work.
Remember the Injustice which the Papists have been guilty of at this time: To violate Laws, which ought to have been most inviolable, to break their Oaths, to trample under Foot the most sacred Engagements, to seize upon the Miserable, and force them to Abjuration, to throw them into Prisons, to send them to Gallies, to Banish them, and confiscate their Goods: This is all good and lawful for advancing the Catholick Religion.
But to maintain the Reform'd Religion by maintaining Laws, and to repress the Enterprizes of those that would violate them, this is an horrible Attempt, an infernal Action.
Is not this to weigh Actions in unequal Balances?
January 1, 1689. With the Priviledge of our Lords the States. Rotterdam, at the House of Abr. Acher, near the Bourse.
Books lately Printed for J. Lawrence, at the Angel in the Poultrey.
I. A Discourse concerning the Nature, Power, and Proper Effects of the Present Conventions in both Kingdoms, called by the Prince of Orange. Quarto.
II. A Political Conference between Aulicus a Courtier, Demas a Country-man, and Civicus a Citizen, Clearing the Original of Civil Government, the Powers and Duties of Soveraigns and Subjects, in a familiar and plain Way, which may be understood by every ordinary Capacity. Quarto.
III. Liberty of Conscience Explicated and Vindicated, and the Just Limits betwixt it and Authority Sacred and Civil Cleared. Quarto.
IV. The Triumphs of Grace: or, the last Words and Edifying Death of the Lady Margaret de la Musse, a Noble French Lady, Aged only Sixteen Years. Twelves.