That while carnal reason argues, sense is stubborn and resists, and many seeming impossibilities occur, it can yet force its way through all such obstacles, and like Lazarus, (though bound hand and foot, as it were,) break even through mortality and death itself But as for those whom nothing will satisfy but such a faith as shall outvie omnipotence itself, by believing more than even omnipotence can do,-I mean contradictions, and especially that grand astonishing one to all human reason, called transubstantiation; we poor Christians, I say, of a much lower form, presume not to aspire to such a pitch, and sort of faith; but think it sufficient humbly to own and admire that faith, which the apostle tells us can make its way, through the whole eleventh chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, and that by subduing of kingdoms, putting to flight armies, and not only believing, but also working miracles, and that to such a degree, as even to become a miracle itself. For (as we read there also) it was able "to stop the mouths of lions ;" and, which was more, the mouth of a disputing reason. And certainly that faith, which our Saviour told us could remove mountains," might, (had our Saviour but given the word,) without the interposal of an angel, have removed "also the stone from before the door of his sepulchre," as great as it was. 66 He who would have a masculine, invincible faith indeed, must in many cases balk his sight, and the farther he would leap, the shorter he must look. Christ wrought many of his miraculous cures upon such blind men as believed and as their faith contributed not a little to the curing of their blindness, so their blindness seemed a no improper emblem of their faith. For which reason, may not he who requires no less than a sensible, irresistible evidence for all his principles, and, not content with a sufficient certainty for the same, will be satisfied with nothing under strict syllogism and demonstration for every article of his creed; may not such an one, I say, be very pertinently and justly replied to, in those words of our Saviour to the Jews, "What do you more than others?" And yet farther, would not even the heathens and ancient philosophers have done as much? Would not they have believed whatsoever you could have demonstrated to them? allowed you so much persuasion for so much proof? and so much assent for so much evidence? And in a word, would not Aristotle himself have been convinced upon the same terms on which Thomas the disciple was? But a Christian should go a large step higher and farther, read all his credenda in an avròs , sacrifice even his Isaac, the first-begotten of his reason, and most beloved issue of his brain, whensoever God shall think fit to be honoured with such a victim. For such a belief, though it has not the evidence of sight, yet it has all which sight and evidence can be valued for; that is to say, it has something instead of it, and above it too; so that where sense and carnal reason oppose themselves, fly back, and will by no means yield, faith comes in with the demonstration of the Spirit and power, scatters the dark cloud, and clears up all. And in nothing certainly is the heroic excellency of such an entire submission of our reason to divine revelation so eminently shewn, as in this, that a man hereby ventures himself and his eternal concerns wholly upon God's bare word: and questionless nothing can so powerfully engage one of a generous spirit, even amongst men, as an absolute confidence in him, and an unreserved dependence upon him. And if there be any way possible for a creature to oblige his Creator, it must be this. Wherefore let us, in this state of darkness and mortality, rest content to see the great things of our religion but in part, to understand the resurrection but darkly, and to view the rising sun (as I may so express it) but through a crevice, still remembering, that God has in this world appointed faith for our great duty, and in the next, vision for our reward. To which may He, of his infinite mercy, vouchsafe, in his good time, to bring us all; to whom be rendered and ascribed, as is most due, all praise, might, majesty, and dominion, both now and for evermore. Amen. SERMON LIII. OBEDIENCE FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE THE also for conscience sake."-ROMANS, xiii. 5. THIS chapter is the great and noted repository of the most absolute and binding precepts of allegiance, and seems so fitted to this argument, that it ought to be always preached upon, as long as there is either such a thing as obedience to be enjoined, or such a thing as rebellion to be condemned. In the words that I have pitched upon, there are these two parts, 1. A duty enjoined; "ye must needs be subject." 2. The ground or motive of that duty; "for conscience sake." For the first of these. Since men are apt to draw arguments for or against obedience from the qualifications of the persons concerned in it, we will consider here, 1. The persons who are commanded to be subject. 2. The person to whom they are commanded this subjection. 1. For the persons commanded to be subject, they were believers, the faithful, those who were the church of God in Rome, as we see in chap. i. 7, "Beloved of God, called to be saints." Neither were they saints only, but saints of the first rank and magnitude, heroes in the faith; verse 8, "Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." Their faith made Rome no less the metropolis of Christianity, than of the world. The Roman faith and fortitude equally spread their fame. And as the pagan Romans overcame the world by their fortitude, so did the Christians by their faith. But for the modern Roman saints, it is their powder, not their faith, that has made such a report in the world; a race much different from their primitive ancestors, whose piety could not cancel their loyalty. No religion could sanctify treason; Christian liberty was compatible with the strictest allegiance; they knew no such way as to put the sceptre into Christ's hand, by pulling it out from their prince's. 2. In the next place; the person to whom they were commanded to be subject was Nero; a person so prodigiously brutish, that whether we consider him as a man or as a governor, we shall find him a Nero, that is, a monster, in both respects. world, the stain of majesty, and the very blush of nature. One, who seemed to be sent and prepared by Providence, to give the world an experiment, "quid summa vitia in summa fortuna possint ;" and by a new way of confirmation, to seal to the truth of Christianity by his hatred of it. And yet, after all this, the believing Romans are commanded subjection even to this Nero, the best of saints to the worst of men and indeed it was this that gave a value to their obedience; for to be loyal to a just, gentle, and virtuous prince, is rather privilege than patience. But the reason of the whole matter is stated in these words, verse 1, "The powers that are, are ordained of God." Obedience to the magistrate is obedience to God at the second hand; and as a man cannot be so wicked, so degenerate, but that still he is a man by God's creation; so neither can the magistrate be so vile and unjust, but that still he is an officer by God's institution. And it is no small part of the divine prerogative, to be able to command homage to the worst of kings, as the majesty of a prince is never more apparent, than in his subjects' submission to an unworthy deputy or lieutenant. The baseness of the metal is warranted by the superscription, the office hallows the person; neither is there any reason, that the vileness of one should disannul the dignity of the other; forasmuch as he is made wicked by himself or the devil, but he is stampt a magistrate by God. We are therefore to overlook all impieties and defects, which cannot invalidate the function. Though Nero deserves worthily to be abhorred, yet still the emperor is and ought to be sacred. And thus much for the duty, and the persons to whom it relates. "Ye must needs be subject." And first, if we consider his person; he was such a mass of filth and impiety, such an oglio of all ill qualities, that he stands the 2. I come now to the second part, namely, wonder and the disgrace of mankind. For, to the ground or motive upon which this duty pass over his monstrous obscenity, he poisoned is enforced: "Ye must needs be subject for Britannicus for having a better voice; he mur- conscience sake." A strange argument, I dered his tutor Seneca; he kicked his wife must confess, if we were to transcribe Chrisbig with child to death; he killed his mother, tianity from the practice of modern Christians, and ript her up in sport, to see the place where with whom it would proceed thus rather: Ye he lay so impious, that he would adore the must needs shake off all government, and rebel statues of his gods one day, and piss upon "for conscience sake." No such instrument them another. But then, take him as an to carry on a refined and well-woven rebellion, emperor, and he was the veriest tyrant and as a tender conscience and a sturdy heart. He bloodsucker, the most unjust governor that who rebels conscientiously, rebels heartily: ever the world saw one, who had proceeded such an one carries his god in his scabbard, to that enormity, that the very army, the and his religion upon the point of his sword. only prop of his tyranny, deserted him; He strikes every stroke for salvation, and and the senate sentenced him to be ignomini-wades deep in blood for eternity. But what ously drawn upon a hurdle, and whipt to death. He was one, who had united in himself the most different and unsociable qualities, namely, to be ridiculous and to be terrible; for what more ridiculous than a fiddling emperor, and more terrible than a bloody tyrant? In short, he was the plague of the now must be said of those impostors, who, in the name of God, and with pretended conmissions from Heaven, have bewitched men into such a religious rage? Who have preached them out of the deadly sin of allegiance into the angelical state of faction and rebellion? Whose saints were never listed but in the muster-roll for the field; and whose rubric is writ only with letters of blood. I believe, upon a due survey of history, it will be found, that the most considerable villainies which were ever acted upon the stage of Christendom, have been authorized with the glistering pretences of conscience, and the introduction of a greater purity in religion. He who would act the destroyer, if he would do it effectually, should put on the reformer; and he who would be creditably and successfully a villain, let him go whining, praying, and preaching to his work; let him knock his breast and his hollow heart, and pretend to lie in the dust before God, before he can be able to lay others there. But some may reply and argue, that conscience is to be obeyed, though erroneous; and therefore, if a saint (for with some all rebels are such) stands fully persuaded in his conscience, that his magistrate is an enemy to the gospel and the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and so ought to be resisted; is not such an one engaged to act according to the dictates of his conscience? And since God would punish him for going against it, is it not high tyranny for the magistrate to punish him for complying with it? To this I answer, that he who looks well into this argument, looks into the great arcanum and the sanctum sanctorum of Puritanism; which indeed is only reformed Jesuitism, as Jesuitism is nothing else but popish Puritanism; and I could draw out such an exact parallel between them, both as to principles and practices, that it would quickly appear, that they are as truly brothers, as ever were Romulus and Remus; and that they sucked their principles from the same wolf. But to encounter the main body of the argument, which, like the Trojan horse, carries both arms and armed men in the belly of it, I answer, that to act against conscience, erroneous or not erroneous, is sinful; but then the error adds nothing to the excusableness of the action, when the same charge of sin lies upon the conscience for being erroneous. No man can err in matters of constant duty, which God has laid open to an easy and obvious diseernment, but he errs with the highest malignity of wilfulness; and if any plea to the contrary be admitted, it will unhinge all society, and dissolve the bonds of all the governments in the world. The magistrate is to take no notice of any man's erroneous conscience, but (if reason and religion will not set it right) to rectify or convince it with an axe or the gibbet. He who would without control disturb a government, because his erroneous conscience tells him he must, does all one as if he should say, that it is lawful for a man to commit murder, provided that he who does it be first drunk. It were a sad thing, if the laws should be at a stand, and the public weal suffer, because such and such persons are pleased to be in an error; (though, by the way, they are seldom or never seen to be so, but very beneficially to themselves.) He who brings down the law to the exceptions of any man's conscience, does really place the legislative power in that man's conscience; and by so doing, may at length bring down his own neck to the block. For certainly that subject is advanced to a strange degree of power, whose conscience has a prerogative to command the laws. And I do not expect ever to speak a greater truth than this, that the non-execution of the laws upon such hypocrites, has been the fatal cause which drew after it the execution of the supreme legislator* himself; and believe it, if a governor ever falls into the mercy of such persons, he will find that their hands are by no means so tender as their consciences pretend to be. All indulgences animate such persons, but mend them not; all reconcilements, and little puny arts of accommodation, are but as spiders' webs, which such hornets will quickly break through, and as truces to an old enemy to rally up his forces, and to fall on, when he sees his advantage: nothing will hold a sanctified, tender-conscienced rebel, but a prison or a halter. And these are not angry words, but the oracular responses and bitter truths of a long and bleeding experience; an experience which began in a rebellion against an excellent prince, proceeded to his imprisonment, and concluded in his murder. But because conscience is a relative term, and so must refer to something which it is to be conversant about, I shall shew, that men are commanded a subjection to, and dehorted from a resistance of the civil magistrate, by two things: 1. The absolute unlawfulness; and, 1. For the first of these, its absolute unlawfulness. Rebellion surely is a mortal sin; mortal to the rebel, and mortal to the prince rebelled against. It is the violation of government, which is the very soul and support of the universe, and the imitation of Providence. Every lawful ruler holds the government by a certain deputation from God; and the commission by which he holds it is his word. This is the voice of Scripture, this the voice of reason. But yet we must not think to carry it so; for although in the apostles' time this was divinity and truth, yea, and truth also stampt with necessity, yet we have been since taught, that kings may be lawfully resisted, cast off, and deposed; and that by two sorts of men. 1. The sons of Rome; and, 2. Their true offspring, the sons of Geneva. 1. For the first of these. It would be like the stirring of a great sink, which would be * King Charles the First, likelier to annoy than to instruct the auditory, to draw out from thence all the pestilential doctrines and practices against the royalty and supremacy of princes. Gratian, in the Decrees, expressly says, "Imperator potest a papa deponi." And Boniface VIII. in lib. 1. Extrav. Com. titulo de Majoritate et Obedientia, has declared the subjection, or rather the slavery of princes to the Pope fully enough. 1. For first he tells us, that kings and secular powers have the temporal sword, but to be used "ad nutum sacerdotis." 2. He adds, "Porro subesse Romano pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ, declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." And how far princes are to be under him, we have a farther account. 1. They ought to kiss his feet. 2. He may depose them. 3. No prince may repeal his sentence, but he may repeal the sentences of all others. 4. He may absolve subjects from their allegiance. These, and some such other impious positions, they call "dictatus papæ ;" and were published and established by Pope Gregory VII. in the Roman synod, in the year one thousand seventysix, as Baronius tells us, "ad annum Christi millesimum septuagesimum sextum. Numero trices. 1 et trices. 2do." 66 And that we may see that he was not wanting to execute, as much as he had the face to assert, Platina tells us in his Life how he deposed Henry IV. emperor of Germany; and some of the words of his bull are these: "Henricum imperatoria administratione, regiaque dejicio. Et Christianos omnes imperio subjectos juramento absolvo." The whole bull is extant in the bullery of Laertius Cherubinus, tom. i. p. 12, printed at Rome 1617. And then at last, with an equal affront to the majesty of Scripture, as well as to that of princes, he puts his foot upon the Emperor's neck, quoting that passage in the psalm, Super aspidem et basiliscum-Thou shalt tread upon the asp and the basilisk;" a great encouragement surely for princes to turn papists. But to contain ourselves within our own country, where we are most concerned The Pope, we know, deposed King Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth, as far as the words and the bruta fulmina of his bulls could depose them; absolving their subjects from their allegiance, and exposing their dominions to the invasion of any who could invade them: The words of Pius V, in his bull against Queen Elizabeth, are remarkable; which, translated into English, run thus: "Christ, who reigns on high, and to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, has committed the government of the one catholic and apostolic church only to Peter, and his successor the Pope of Rome. And him has he placed prince over all nations and kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, over turn, plant, and build up in order to the keeping of God's faithful people in the bond of charity, and in the unity of the spirit." And is not this a bold preface, able to blast the prerogative of all kings at a breath? But it is well that cursed bulls have short horns. Yet all this is but the voice of his thunder; the bolt is to come afterwards. Let us see how he proceeds: 66 Wherefore, (says he,) being upheld in the supreme throne of justice by Christ himself, who has placed us in it, we declare the aforesaid Elizabeth an heretic, and all who adhere to her to have incurred an anathema, and to be actually divided and cut off from the unity of Christ's body. Moreover, we declare her to be deprived of all right to her kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege belonging thereto : Withal, that the subjects of that kingdom, and all others, who have any ways swore obedience to her, are fully absolved from their oath, and from all debt of homage and allegiance to her; and accordingly by these presents we do absolve them. Furthermore, we charge and enjoin all our subjects to yield no obedience to her person, laws, or commands. Given at Rome, in the year 1575, in the fifth year of the Pope's reign, and the thirteenth of Queen Elizabeth's." It is possible now that some English and French papists may dislike this doctrine of deposing kings; but they owe this to their own good natures, or some other principle; or indeed chiefly to this, that they live under such kings as will not be deposed. But that they owe it not to their religion, which (by a little less than a contradiction in the terms) they miscall catholic, is clear from hence, that by the very essential constitution of their faith, they are bound to believe and to submit both their judgments and practices to all that is determined by a general council confirmed by the Pope. This being premised, we must know, that the fourth Lateran council, which they acknowledge general, and to have had in it above twelve hundred fathers, (as they call them,) in the third chapter Hæreticis," thus determines: "That all secular powers shall be compelled to take an oath to banish heretics out of their territories, - Moveantur, et, si necesse fuerit, compellantur potestates sæculares, cujuscunque sint officii, ut pro defensione fidei publice juramentum præstent," &c. But what now, if princes will not do this? If they refuse to be thus commanded like subjects, and to place their royal diadems upon their bald pates? de Why then the fathers, or rather the lords of the council thus proceed: "If (say they) princes refuse to purge their dominions from heresy, let this be signified to the Pope, that he may forthwith declare their subjects absolved from their allegiance, and expose their territories to be seized upon by catholics." This is the canon of that "concilium Lateranum maguum," (for so they term it,) in which were above twelve hundred fathers, (so they tell us,) a council by them acknowledged to be general, and confirmed by the Pope. Now I demand, is this council infallible, or is it not? 1. If not, then good-night to their infallibility, if the Pope and twelve hundred fathers, met together in a general council, be not infallible. 2. If it be infallible, (as they all do and must say, unless they will deny a fundamental article of their faith,) then they must all believe it, and by consequence acknowledge, that the Pope has power to excommunicate and depose kings, and to give away their kingdoms, in case of heresy; and what heresy is, they themselves are to be judges: this we may be sure of, that all protestant kings are heretics with them; and so the Pope may, when he will, and undoubtedly will, when he can, give away their kingdoms. I think it concerns kings to consider this, and when they have a mind to submit to the Pope's tyranny, to subscribe to the Pope's religion. Thus much for the Lateran council; and to place the argument above all exception, this very council is expressly confirmed by that of Trent, in the 24th Session of Reformation, chap. 5, p. 412, also in the 25th Session about Reformation, chap. 20, p. 624. Now shew me any thorough paced catholic, who dares refuse to subscribe to the council of Trent; which being so, it is a matter of amazement to consider, that the men of this profession should be of such prodigious impudence as to solicit any protestant prince for protection, nay indulgences to their persons and religion; when, by virtue of this religion, they hold themselves bound, under pain of damnation, to believe those principles as articles of their faith, which naturally undernine, ruin, and eat out the very heart of all monarchy. But if any one should plead favour for them, it is pity but these bulls and decrees, and the Scotch covenant, were all drawn into one system, that so they might be indulged all together; and perhaps in time they may. You have seen here their principles, that is, you have heard the text; and you need go no farther than this fifth of November for a comment. I could farther add, that the popish religion, in the nature of it, is inconsistent with the just rights and supremacy of princes; and that upon this invincible reason, that it exempts all the clergy from subjection to them, so far that (be their crimes what they will) kings cannot punish them. For the proof of which, I shall bring that which is instar omnium, and which I am sure they must stand to, namely, the decree of the council of Trent, which in the 24th Session about Reformation, chap. 5, p. 412, determines thus: "Causæ criminales majores contra episcopos ab ipso tantum summo pontifice Romano cognoscantur et terminentur; minores vero in concilio tantum provinciali cognoscantur et terminentur." So that the king, for any thing that be has to do in these matters, may sit and blow his nails; for use them otherwise he cannot. He may indeed be plotted against, have barrels of powder laid, and poniards prepared for him; but to punish the sacred actors of these villainies, that is reserved only to him who gave the first command for the doing them. These things, I say, I could prosecute much farther, but that I am equally engaged by the exigence of my subject to speak something of their true seed, the sons of Geneva; who, though they seem to be contrary to those of || Rome, and, like Samson's foxes, to look opposite ways, yet, when they are to play the incendiaries, to fire kingdoms and governments, they can turn tail to one and the same firebrand. In our account of these, we will begin with the father of the faithful; faithful, I mean, to their old antimonarchical doctrines and assertions; and that is, the great mufti of Geneva: who, in the fourth book of his Institutions, chap. 20, §. 31, has the face to own such doctrine to the world as this: "That it is not only not unlawful for the three estates to oppose their king in the exorbitances of his government, (of which they still are to be judges,) but that they basely and perfidiously desert the trust committed to them by God, if they connive at him, and do not to their utmost oppose and restrain him." Let us see this wholesome doctrine and institution farther amplified in his Commentaries upon Daniel, chap. 2, verse 39. He roundly tells us, "That those men are out of their wits, and quite void of sense and understanding, who desire to live under sovereign monarchies; for that it cannot be (says he) but order and policy must decay, where one man holds such an extent of government." Upon this good foundation he proceeds farther, chap. 6, verse 22: "Princes, (says he,) when they oppose God, (and oppose God, according to him, they do, when they refuse his new discipline,) then, (says he,) abdicant se potestate, they deprive themselves of all power; and it is better, in such cases, to spit in their faces, than to obey them." Yet for all this, Daniel, who surely was as godly a man as Mr Calvin, did not spit in Nebuchad nezzar's face. But that we may know when princes oppose God, and so may bring his assertions together, he tells us farther, chap. 5, verse 25, "That kings forget that they are men, and of |