should from this foundation Jesus is the Christ draw some false consequences, that is to say make some superstructions of hay, or stubble, and command the teaching of the same; yet seeing S. Paul says, he shall be saved; much more shall he be saved, that teacheth them by his command and much more yet, he that teaches not, but only believes his lawful teacher. And in case a subject be forbidden by the civil sovereign to profess some of those his opinions, upon what just ground can he disobey? Christian Kings may err in deducing a consequence, but who shall judge? Shall a private man judge, when the question is of his own obedience? Or shall any man judge, but he that is appointed thereto by the Church, that is by the civil sovereign that representeth it? Or if the Pope or an Apostle judge, may he not err in deducing of a consequence? Did not one of the two, S. Peter or S. Paul, err in superstructure, when S. Paul withstood S. Peter to his face? There can therefore be no contradiction between the laws of God, and the laws of a Christian commonwealth. "And when the civil sovereign is an infidel, every one of his own subjects that resisteth him sinneth against the laws of God (for such are the laws of nature), and rejecteth the counsel of the Apostles, that admonisheth all Christians to obey their princes, and all children and servants to obey their parents, and masters, in all things. And for their faith it is internal, and invisible; they have the licence that Naaman had, and need not put themselves into danger for it. But if they do, they ought to expect their reward in heaven, and not complain of their lawful sovereign, much less make war upon him. For he that is not glad of any just occasion of martyrdom, has not the faith he professeth, but pretends it only to set some colour upon his own contumacy."-Leviathan, III. 43. "Whatsoever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to do in obedience to his sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his but his sovereign's, nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the law of his country."-Ibid. 42. 16. The views of Dudley Diggs on the Patriarchal Theory. "Though it be most true that paternal authority was regal, and therefore this of God's immediate constitution, and founded in nature, yet it is not much pertinent to the present decision, nor can it necessarily concern modern controversies between Rulers and people. Because it is most evident, no king at this day, (and much less other governors) holds his crown by that title, since several paternal powers in every State are given up, and united in one common father who cannot pretend a more immediate kindred to Adam, than all the rest of mankind." The Unlawfulness of Subjects, 16. INDEX. case Arthur of Brittany (the Benedict XIII. (Pope), 109 Childeric, deposition of, its Charles VI. (of France), 109 Church and State, theory of Divine Right a phase of the conflict between, 44 sqq., Church cannot allow uncon- Coronation Oath alleged as 121 Dissenters identified with Pa- become prevalent under Tu- Edward I., 26, 66 Elizabeth (Queen), 86, 234 Erastian language of supporters Filmer, Sir Robert, effects a France and the Papacy, 61; Gallicanism, 109 sqq., 144, Government, all forms of, sup- ported as against anarchy by Harold, Earl, 20 Henry VIII., 78, 85, 195, 234 Innocent III., 48, 68 James I. formulates theory of James II. errs in trying to em- John (King), 24 John XXII. (Pope), 44, 46, 73 grounds, 103, 179 sqq.; identi- |