The following excerpts are those cited in The North American Anglican’s Synopsis of Anglican Political Thought, arranged topically. It is hoped that the full force of the Anglican tradition on these topics will be better felt by reprinting the words of our forebears rather than merely referencing them.
The Civil and Spiritual Realms
“In this world God hath two swords, the one is a temporal sword, the other a spiritual. The temporal sword resteth in the hands of kings, magistrates, and rulers, under him; whereunto all subjects, as well the clergy as the laity, be subject, and punishable for any offence contrary to the same [i.e., God’s] book. The spiritual sword is in the hands of the ministers and preachers; whereunto all kings, magistrates, and rulers, ought to be obedient.” (Hugh Latimer, Sermons, “Seven Sermons preached before King Edward the Sixth, 1549,” Sermon the First, 85–86)
“I believe and receive in this church two swords, that is to say, two powers: the one is ecclesiastical and spiritual, the which lieth and consisteth in the only administration of the word and of the sacraments; the which beareth neither rod nor staff, other than the tongue, neither doth use any other knife than the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Likewise I confess that all those that have this sword in their hands, ought to be without blame as well in their living as in their doctrine; otherwise, they ought to be deposed, and others to be placed in their rooms, and to put and ordain others that are better in their places. The other power is temporal, that is to say, the magistrate which hath authority over extern and civil things, to render according to right to every man that which of right to him appertaineth.” (John Hooper, Later Writings, “A brief and clear Confession of the Christian Faith,” 53)
“Elsewhere he reasons against another matter of fact, of which God was the author, as ridiculous, impossible, and absurd. This matter of fact is God’s institution and erection of a visible spiritual kingdom, in the kingdoms of this world, under the government of powers distinct from, and independent on, the powers of the world, by which they who are vested with those powers are made mutually subject to one another. This he positively charges with absurdity.” (George Hickes, Two Treatises on the Christian Priesthood, vol. I, 206)
“The king is not properly ruler of the Church, but of the State chiefly and primarily, and of the Church as it is a part and appendage of the State; but there and elsewhere frequently the king is called ‘Defender of the Church,’ and that properly.” (Hickes, Two Treatises, vol. III, 122)
“Because the Church is in the State, as a part in the whole, therefore its defence and preservation will so much the more belong to the duty of the prince as this is the more noble part of the State, and as it is of more concern, that this be preserved and defended.” (Hickes, Two Treatises, vol. III, 124)
The Magistrate’s Authority Over the Church
“We truly grant no further liberty to our magistrates than that we know hath both been given them by the word of God, and also confirmed by the examples of the very best-governed commonwealths. For, besides that a christian prince hath the charge of both tables committed to him by God, to the end he may understand that not temporal matters only, but also religious and ecclesiastical causes, pertain to his office: besides also that God by his prophets often and earnestly commandeth the king to cut down the groves, to break down the images and altars of idols, and to write out the book of the law for himself; and besides that the prophet Esaias saith, ‘A king ought to be a patron and nurse of the church;’ I say, besides all these things, we see by histories and by examples of the best times, that good princes ever took the administration of ecclesiastical matters to pertain to their duty.” (John Jewel, Works, vol. III, “An Apology of the Church of England,” 97–98)
“I believe that to the magistrate it doth appertain, not only to have regard unto the commonwealth, but also unto ecclesiastical matters, to take away and to overthrow all idolatry and false serving of God, to destroy the kingdom of Antichrist and all false doctrine, to promote the glory of God, and to advance the kingdom of Christ, to cause the word of the gospel everywhere to be preached, and the same to maintain unto death; to chasten also and to punish the false prophets, which lead the poor people after idols and strange gods, and instead of the gospel preach and teach the fables and traditions of men, to the dishonour of God and Christ his Son, and to the great decay of the whole church.” (Hooper, “Confession of the Christian Faith,” 54)
“It is true that an ecclesiastical minister doth much differ from a civil magistrate, touching his ministry and spiritual calling; yet is he not so distinct, that he may exercise no such civil office wherein he may do good, and which is an help to his ecclesiastical function. As the civil magistrate may in some things exercise jurisdiction ecclesiastical, and meddle in matters of the church; so may the ecclesiastical person in some causes use civil jurisdiction, and deal in matters of the commonwealth, if it shall be thought expedient or necessary by the chief magistrates.” (John Whitgift, Works, vol. I, “Cartwright’s Reply unto the Answer of the Preface,” Tract I, 153)
“To conclude that the civil magistrate is secluded from the government of the church, or that there needeth no external regiment, is dangerous, and savoureth anabaptism.” (Whitgift, Works, vol. III, “Of the Additions, Detractions, and Alterations, made by the Admonitors in both parts of the Admonition,” 485)
“Touching that Authority which Civil Magistrates have in Ecclesiastical affairs, it being from God by Christ, as all other good things are, cannot choose but be held as a thing received at his hands; and because such Power is of necessity for the ordering of Religion, wherein the essence and very being of the Church consisteth, and can no otherwise flow from him, than according to that special care which he hath to govern and guide his own people, it followeth, that the said Authority is of and under him after a more special manner, in that ‘he is Head of the Church,’ and not in respect of his general Regency over the world. ‘All things (saith the Apostle, speaking unto the Church) are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.’ Kings are Christ’s as Saints, because they are of the Church, if not collectively, yet divisively understood. It is over each particular person within that Church where they are Kings: surely, Authority reaching both unto all men’s person, and to all kinds of causes also, it is not denied but that they may have and lawfully exercise it; such Authority it is, for which, and for no other in the world, we term them Heads; such Authority they have under Christ, because he in all things is Lord over all; and even of Christ it is that they have received such Authority, inasmuch as of him all lawful Powers are: therefore the Civil Magistrate is, in regard of this Power, an under and subordinate Head of Christ’s people.” (Richard Hooker, Works, vol. II, “Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,” Bk. VIII, 414–15)
“Though the power of the sword and that of the keys be not seated in one and the same subject, yet it doth not follow but they may be exercised upon one and the same object, so that the selfsame person, yea, for one and the same crime, may be punished by both powers; for though they be two distinct powers, yet each of them is to be custos utriusque tabulæ, to look to the observance and punish the breach of both tables, but still keeping themselves within their own limits: as for example, theft, treason, murder, are breaches of the second table, and therefore to be punished by the civil magistrate; yet the persons guilty of such crimes may be punished by the church also, even excommunicated for them. So, on the other side, blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry, are breaches of the first table, and so to be punished immediately by the church; yet they may, yea, and ought to be punished by the civil magistrate too; neither is there any other power whereby a heretic or blasphemer can be put to death, but only by the power of the sword: and therefore it must needs be granted, that as the breaches of the second table may be punished by the power of the keys as well as by the power of the sword, so may the breaches of the first table be punished by the power of the sword as well as by the power of the keys; and if so, the power of the civil magistrate must needs reach to spiritual or ecclesiastical, as well as secular or temporal causes; for all the first table consists of nothing else. And this, the punishing with the civil sword all manner of persons guilty of ecclesiastical as well as secular crimes, seems to be the prerogative here principally given to the king’s majesty in this article.” (William Beveridge, Works, vol. VII, On the Thirty-Nine Articles, 559–60)
The Magistrate’s Care for Religion
“Your majesty is God’s vice-gerent and Christ’s vicar within your own dominions, and to see, with your predecessor Josiah, God truly worshipped, and idolatry destroyed, the tyranny of the bishops of Rome banished from your subjects, and images removed. These acts be signs of a second Josiah, who reformed the church of God in his days.” (Thomas Cranmer, Works, vol. II, “The Archbishop’s Speech at the Coronation of Edward VI., Feb. 20, 1547,” 127)
“The catholic verity teacheth, that the care of religion doth especially belong to the magistrate; and that it is not in his power only, but his office and duty also, to dispose and advance religion.” (Henry Bullinger, Decades, vol. I, Second Decade, The Seventh Sermon, 323–24)
“Father. What is the office of a temporal magistrate? Son. It consisteth chiefly in two points. The first is, that he, banishing out of his kingdom all false religion and idolatry, do avance, set forth, and maintain God’s true religion and holy word. The second is, that he govern his people justly, defend them from all perils, preserve their goods, maintain the good, and punish the evil.” (Thomas Becon, Catechism, 303)
“Let us see then, such men as have authority over the bishops, such men as receive from God commandments concerning religion, such as bring home again the ark of God, make holy hymns, oversee the priests, build the temple, make orations touching divine service, cleanse the temples, destroy the hill-altars, burn the idols’ groves, teach the priests their duty, write them out precepts how they should live, kill the wicked prophets, displace the high priests, call together the councils of bishops, sit together with the bishops, instructing them what they ought to do, condemn and punish an heretical bishop, be made acquainted with matters of religion, which subscribe and give sentence, and do all these things not by another man’s commission, but in their own name, and that both uprightly and godly; shall we say it pertaineth not to such men to have to do with religion? or shall we say, a christian magistrate, which dealeth amongst others in these matters, doth either naughtily, or presumptuously, or wickedly? The most ancient and christian emperors and kings that ever were did busy themselves with these matters, and yet were they never for this cause noted either of wickedness or of presumption.” (Jewel, “Apology,” 99–100)
“I never heard or read, but that all manner princes, as well Christian as profane, did evermore cherish their ecclesiastical state, as conservators of religion.” (Matthew Parker, Correspondence, “Archbishop Parker to Sir William Cecil,” 157)
“He, in many other places of His Holy Oracles, hath required all people to ‘serve Him,’ but here He commands ‘kings’ and ‘judges,’ as such, to do it; not only in their private capacities, as they also are men, but likewise as they are ‘kings’ that govern whole empires or countries, and make laws to be observed by all that live within their several dominions; and as ‘judges’ or subordinate officers, impowered and commissioned by their respective ‘kings’ to see their said laws put in execution. It is in this their public capacity, that the Universal Monarch of the World speaks to them in this place, and commands them all to ‘serve Him,’ that so their people may do it, not only every one by himself, but all together as they are a nation, or kingdom, a society of men united together under one common head.” (Beveridge, Works, vol. I, Sermon XXIV, “The Obligations of Superiors to Promote Religion,” 455)
“By ‘serving Jehovah’ the Lord, we are here to understand the setting forth and promoting His honour and glory, as He is the Redeemer of mankind, as well as the Creator and Governor of the world: when men do not only believe all that is recorded, as done and said by Him in His holy Word, worship and obey Him themselves, and trust wholly on Him for all things necessary to their eternal salvation; but likewise do what they can that His ‘name may be glorified,’ His Gospel propagated, His Church and kingdom upon earth defended and enlarged, His doctrine received, His laws obeyed, His praises celebrated, His servants encouraged, and His supreme authority and dominion owned, admired, and feared by all, ‘that every tongue may confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’” (Beveridge, Works, vol. I, Sermon XXIV, “The Obligations of Superiors to Promote Religion,” 457)
“He [Christ] was made known to the Jews in the persons of shepherds, and to the Gentiles in the persons of great men, that we might know how the chief pastors and ministers of Christ’s Church should come from the Jews, as St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles; but the chief defenders of it, kings and princes, they should come out of the Gentiles, as indeed they did.” (John Cosin, Works, vol. I, Sermon I, 19)
“Sovereign powers having the right of giving law to their subjects, and Christianity obliging them to all that may advance it (which the making of the faith and law of the Church, law to their subjects, will certainly and evidently do); they not only may but are bound to enact laws, that may advance the Christianity of their subjects.” (Herbert Thorndike, Works, vol. V, “The Reformation of the Church of England Better than that of the Council of Trent,” 495)
The Magistrate’s Duty to Enforce Both Tables of the Ten Commandments
“Now touching these commandments, the Lord hath divided them into two several orders or tables because of the several difference of matters handled in either of them. For the first of the two appertaineth to God, the second unto man. The first teacheth us what we have to think concerning God, and the worship due unto him; that is, it teacheth us the perfect way to live uprightly and holily in the sight of God. The second is the rule whereby we have to learn our duty toward our neighbour; which also teacheth us humanity, directing us in the way to live peaceably and civilly one with another. And in these two tables are so nearly contained all and every duty looked for at men’s hands, that there cannot so much as one jot be added more by all the wise men of the world, concerning a godly life and civil behaviour, which is not contained in these ten commandments.” (Bullinger, Second Decade, The First Sermon, 214–15)
“Father. Have civil magistrates also to do with matters of religion? Son. Yea, verily. For God hath appointed temporal rulers not only keepers and maintainers of the works of the second table of the law, which concern the body, but also of the works of the first table of the law, which belong unto God and unto the soul. As the magistrate by the virtue of his office is bound to provide that, so much as in him is, there be no manslaughter, no whoredom, no theft, no false witness-bearing, none unjust coveting of other men’s goods, &c., in his land or dominion; so likewise is his duty to aforesee, that there be no false religion, no idolatry, no superstition, no invocation of strange gods, no dishonouring of the Lord’s name, no wicked doctrine, &c., used in his country or kingdom.” (Becon, Catechism, 303)
“Verily the prince, as it shall afterward better appear, had both the tables of the law of God evermore committed to his charge; as well the first, that pertaineth to religion, as also the second, that pertaineth to civil government.” (Jewel, Works, vol. IV, “The Defence of the Apology,” Part VI, 974)
“The word [“head”] is so fit to signify all kinds of superiority, pre-eminence, and chiefty, that nothing is more ordinary than to use it in vulgar speech, and in common understanding so to take it. If, therefore, Christian Kings may have any pre-eminence or chiefty above all others, althought it be less than that which Theodore Beza giveth, who placeth Kings amongst the principal members whereunto public function in the Church belongeth, and denieth not, but that of them which have public function, the Civil Magistrate’s Power hath all the rest at command, in regard of that part of his Office, which is to procure that peace and good order be especially kept in things concerning the first Table.” (Hooker, “Laws,” Bk. VIII, 408)
“Though the power of the sword and that of the keys be not seated in one and the same subject, yet it doth not follow but they may be exercised upon one and the same object, so that the selfsame person, yea, for one and the same crime, may be punished by both powers; for though they be two distinct powers, yet each of them is to be custos utriusque tabulæ, to look to the observance and punish the breach of both tables, but still keeping themselves within their own limits: as for example, theft, treason, murder, are breaches of the second table, and therefore to be punished by the eivil magistrate; yet the persons guilty of such crimes may be punished by the church also, even excommunicated for them. So, on the other side, blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry, are breaches of the first table, and so to be punished immediately by the church; yet they may, yea, and ought to be punished by the civil magistrate too; neither is there any other power whereby a heretic or blasphemer can be put to death, but only by the power of the sword: and therefore it must needs be granted, that as the breaches of the second table may be punished by the power of the keys as well as by the power of the sword, so may the breaches of the first table be punished by the power of the sword as well as by the power of the keys; and if so, the power of the civil magistrate must needs reach to spiritual or ecclesiastical, as well as secular or temporal causes; for all the first table consists of nothing else.” (Beveridge, On the Thirty-Nine Articles, 559)
The Concept of a “Christian nation” Taken for Granted
“They [Romanists] have often stoutly noised in all corners where they went, how all the parts of their religion be very old, and have been approved not only by the multitude, but also by the consent and continual observation of all nations and times. Let them therefore once in their life shew this their antiquity: let them make appear at eye, that the things whereof they make such ado have taken so long and large increase: let them declare that all christian nations have agreed by consent to this their religion.” (Jewel, “Apology,” 88)
“These proceedings puff them up with pride, make the people hate us, and magnify them with great triumphing, that her Majesty and the privy council have good liking of this new building, which hitherto, as we think, in no Christian nation hath found any foundation upon the earth, but is now framed upon suppositions, full of absurdities and impossibilities, in the air.” (Parker, Correspondence, “Archbishop Parker and Bishop Sandys to some other Bishop,” 434–35)
“M. Nowel, against Dorman reasoning as you do, giveth him this answer: ‘It agreeth very well with the estate of the Jews, that, as they being one nation had one chief priest, so is it good likewise that every christian nation have their chief priest or bishop.” (Whitgift, Works, vol. II, “Defence of the Answer to the Admonition,” 348)
“We have said enough to shew, that all Christian nations do challenge this right to themselves, to be the last judges of their own liberties and privileges.” (John Bramhall, Works, vol. I, “A Just Vindication of the Church of England from the Unjust Aspersion of Criminal Schism,” 246)
“It must be granted by him [the Romanist], both that this island before the time of Pope Gregory was no way subjected to the Roman see, and withal that no Christian nation is at this day thus subject, but such as doth appear to have been converted by Rome, as the Saxons here are supposed to have been.” (Henry Hammond, Works, vol. II, “Of Schism,” 253)
“If the government by Bishops be perpetual, as he [Bilson] there very learnedly proves through the whole book, it will be hard for any Christian nation to out it.” (William Laud, Works, vol. IV, “History of Troubles and Trial (continued),” 311)
“I am certain, that, to the everlasting infamy of a Christian nation if reparation be not made, it is supposed to be the sense of all the godly in it.” (Thorndike, Works, vol. V, “The Due Way of Composing the Differences on Foot, Preserving the Church,” 36)
The Precedent for Establishment of Religion by the States Demonstrated
“As it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.” (Maryland Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, Art. XXXIII)
“The Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county.” (Maryland Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, Art. XXXIII)
“No other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” (Maryland Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, Art. XXXV)
“That there shall be no establishment of any one religious Sect in this Province in Preference to another; and that no Protestant Inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the Enjoyment of any civil Right merely on Account of his religious Principles; but that all Persons, professing a belief in the Faith of any Protestant Sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the Government as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any Office.” (New Jersey Constitution of 1776, Art. 19)
“No person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.” (North Carolina Constitution of 1776, Art. XXXII)
“As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these, is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of this state have a right to impower, and do hereby fully impower the legislature to authorize from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies-corporate, or religious societies within this state, to make adequate provision at their own expence, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” (New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, Bill of Rights, Art. VI)
“No person shall be capable of being elected a senator, who is not of the protestant religion.” (New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, Part II)
“Every member of the house of representatives shall be chosen by ballot; and for two years at least next preceding his election, shall have been an inhabitant of this state, shall have an estate within the town, parish, or place which he may be chosen to represent, of the value of one hundred pounds, one half of which to be a freehold, whereof he is seized in his own right; shall be at the time of his election, an inhabitant of the town, parish, or place he may be chosen to represent; shall be of the protestant religion, and shall cease to represent such town, parish, or place immediately on his ceasing to be qualified as aforesaid.” (New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, Part II)
“The President shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this state for seven years next preceding, and unless he shall be of the age of thirty years; and unless he shall, at the same time, have an estate of the value of five hundred pounds, one half of which shall consist of a freehold, in his own right, within the state; and unless he shall be of the Protestant religion.” (New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, Part II)
“No person, who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth.” (Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790, Art. IX, sect. IV)
“It is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of the Author of the universe, and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are thereby promoted.” (Delaware Constitution of 1792, Art. I)
“It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consistent with the dictates of their conscience, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, or be classed with or associated to any congregation, church, or religious association.” (Connecticut Constitution of 1818, Art. VII, sect. 1)
The Legitimacy of Multiple Forms of Government Acknowledged
“Now there are three kinds of magistracies or governments of commonweals; the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the democracy.” (Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 309–310)
“Now touching the excellency of these forms or kinds of government, it maketh not greatly to my purpose to dispute which ought to be preferred before other. Many have preferred the monarchy before the rest: but therewithal they added, ‘If he which holdeth the monarchy be a good and upright prince.’” (Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 311)
“And yet none can deny, but that great perils and infinite discommodities are in the aristocracy, but far more many in the democracy. But such is the condition of mortal men in this corruptible flesh, that nothing among them is absolutely and on every side happy; and therefore that seemeth to them to be most excellent, which, although it be not altogether without inconveniences and some kind of vices, doth nevertheless, in comparison of other, bring fewer perils and lesser annoyance. But howsoever that case doth stand, the apostles of Christ do command us to obey the magistrate, whether he be king, or senate of chosen men.” (Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 311)
“For we ought rather to obey the ordinance of God, than over curiously to dispute of the kinds of governments, which is the better or worse than other.” (Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 312)
“The powers that here St Paul speaketh of [in Romans 13], be not only kings and emperors, but all such as be appointed to any public office and common regiment, either for a king, where as is a kingdom, or in the place of a king, where as the state of the commonwealth is no monarchy, but a rule and dominion commended to many. To all these St Paul commandeth obedience, honour, reverence, and love to be borne.” (Hooper, Later Writings, “Annotations on Romans XIII,” 101)
“All lawful forms of government are warranted by the law of nature, and so have their institution from God in the law of nature; ‘the powers that be are ordained of God,’ whether they be monarchical, or aristocratical, or democratical; man prepareth the body, God infuseth the soul of power, which is the same in all lawful forms. But though all lawful forms of government be warranted by the law of nature, yet not all in the same degree of eminency.” (Bramhall, Works, vol. II, “Schism Guarded and beaten back upon the Right Owners,” 551)
“I do not by this deny [see source], but that there may be the city in peace, and administration of justice in other forms of government, sometimes as much, sometimes more; but there are judicia, not ‘sedes,’ ‘judgment,’ not ‘seats,’ of it. And justice there may be; but it continues not half so steady. The factions of an aristocracv how often have they divided the city into civil wars, and made that city which was ‘at unity in itself,’ wade in her own blood? And for a democracy, or popular government, fluctus populi fluctus maris, the waves and gulfs of both are alike. None but God can ‘rule the raging of the sea, and the madness of the people.’ And no safety or settledness, till there be a return in domum David, to a monarchy, and a King again.” (Laud, Works, vol. I, “Sermon III, Preached at Westminster, on Monday, the Sixth of February, A.D. 1625—26,” 85)
Rebellion Condemned
“I shewed you of the authority of princes, how they are in God’s stead, and how they may not be resisted: do they never so evil, they must be reserved unto the wrath of God.” (William Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, “The Obedience of a Christian Man, 1527—8,” 332)
“Subjects may not of their own private authority take the sword, or rebel against the king: for when they rebel, they serve the devil; for they have no commission of God so to do, but of their own head they rise against God, that is, against the king, to whom they owe obedience, and so worthily be punished.” (Latimer, Sermons, “Sermons preached in Lincolnshire, 1552, On the Gospel for the Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity,” 496)
“If it be true, that St Paul saith, the higher power to be the ordinance of God, it is very damnable iniquity, that for any private affection, or other injust oppressions, for any man to depose the magistrates from their places and honour appointed by God; or else privily or openly, craftily or violently, to go about to change or alter the state and ordinance of God: and therewithal God is sore offended.” (Hooper, “Romans XIII,” 104)
“M. But it is much more heinous for a man to offend or kill the parent of his country than his own parent. S. Yea, surely, For if it be for every private man a heinous offence to offend his private parents, and parricide to kill them; what shall we say of them that have conspired and borne wicked armour against the commonweal, against their country, the most ancient, sacred, and common mother of us all, which ought to be dearer unto us than ourselves, and for whom no honest man will stick to die to do it good, and against the prince, the father of the country itself, and parent of the commonweal; yea, and to imagine the overthrow, death, and destruction of them whom it is high-treason once to forsake or shrink from? So outrageous a thing can in no wise be expressed with fit name.” (Alexander Nowell, Catechism, 132–33)
“God is still the same God: he hateth iniquity, and will not suffer conspiracy, rebellion, or treason against lawful magistrates either unrevealed or unrevenged.” (Edwin Sandys, Sermons, “A Sermon Made at York,” 200)
“Whosoever rebels against him [a lawful king], rebels against God Himself; not only in that he rebels against the ordinance of God, and so against the God of that ordinance; but because he rebels against him whom God hath set up as His vicegerent to represent His Person, and execute His laws, in such a part of His dominions.” (Beveridge, Works, vol. VIII, “Private Thoughts Upon Religion,” 266)
“He has denounced as great a judgment against such as rebel against the magistrate He hath ordained as against those that rebel against Himself.” (Beveridge, “Private Thoughts Upon Religion,” 266–267)
“‘For their subjects to bear arms against them, offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, is to resist the powers which are ordained of God.’” (Bramhall, Works, vol. I, “Answer to M. De La Milletierre,” 37) [Quoting Liber Canonum 1640]
Civil Disobedience enjoined When the Magistrate Commands Contrary to God
“Though the magistrates be evil, and very tyrants against the commonwealth, and enemies to Christ’s religion; yet the subjects must obey in all worldly things, as the Christians do under the Turk, and ought so to do, so long as he commandeth them not do against God. How ungodly then it is for our subjects to take the sword, where there reigneth a most christian prince, most desirous to reform all griefs!” (Cranmer, Works, vol. II, “The Archbishop’s Notes for a Homily Against Rebellion,” 188)
“When laws are made against God and his word, then I ought more to obey God than man. Then I may refuse to obey with a good conscience.” (Latimer, Sermons, “Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer, 1552, Sermon the Fourth,” 371)
“Where I spake touching the honour due to parents, there did I by the scriptures prove, that we ought not to obey the wicked commandments of godless magistrates, because it is not permitted to magistrates to ordain or appoint any thing contrary to God’s law, or the law of nature.” (Bullinger, Second Decade, The Sixth Sermon, 316)
“Father. What if the princes be wicked, and command us to do wicked things? Shall we then also obey them? Son. In this behalf we owe them no honour, no reverence, no obedience.” (Becon, Catechism, 90)
“So long as they [princes] are the ministers of God, that is to say, seek the glory of God, the avancement of his holy religion, the increase of virtue, and the suppression of vice, we are bound by the commandment of God to obey them…but if they cease to be the ministers of God, the promoters of his true religion, the avancers of virtue, and the suppressors of vice, we owe them no honour, no reverence, no obedience in this behalf; but with a good conscience we may say unto them with the apostles: ‘We must obey God more than men.’” (Becon, Catechism, 90)
“When St Paul commandeth us to be obedient, he meaneth not only we should speak reverently and honourably of the higher power, or make courtesy unto him, but to obey the laws set forth by the powers, except they command things against God’s laws: then must we obey more God than men; and yet not to strive and fight with the magistrates, but suffer patiently death rather than to offend God: or else our obedience is nothing but hypocrisy and dissimulation.” (Hooper, “Romans XIII,” 102)
“The laws of a magistrate be of two conditions and sorts: either they concern God, or man. If they concern or appertain to God, either they be according to the word of God, or contrary to the word of God. If they be according to the word of God, of necessity and bondage, upon pain of damnation they must be obeyed. If they be repugnant to the word of God, they should not be obeyed.” (Hooper, “Romans XIII,” 102–103)
“Quest. 2. But to go a degree farther, utrum malo in malo, or ad malum, obediendum, ‘whether we must obey an evil man in an evil thing; or whether we owe (as we call it) absolute obedience to evil magistrates?’ Answ. No, we do not; for absolute obedience is due to God only, and kings are to be obeyed so far as their commandments are not repugnant to God’s commandments; for if God command one thing and they another, Deo potius quam hominibus, ‘better obey God than man,’ Acts iv. 19.” (Lancelot Andrewes, A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, 183)
“If any earthly prince command that which is contrary to the laws of God, the universal monarch of the world, in that case we must rather obey God than man.” (Beveridge, Works, vol. V, Sermon CXXVIII, “Obedience to Governors,” 450–451)
Rebellion Said to Be Permissible in Some Circumstances
“The manifold and continual examples that have been from time to time of the deposing of kings, and killing of tyrants, do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just and constant to God’s judgment.” (John Ponet, A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, ed. Patrick S. Poole, 74)
“But now to prove the later part of this question affirmatively, that it is lawful to kill a tyrant: there is no man that can deny, but that the ethnics (although they had not the right and perfect knowledge of God) were endued with the knowledge of the law of nature. For it is no private law to a few or certain people, but common to all: not written in books, but grafted in the hearts of men: not made by man, but ordained of God: which we have not learned, received or read, but have taken, sucked, and drown it out of nature: where unto we are not taught, but made: not instructed, but seasoned: and (as St. Paul says) man’s conscience bearing witness of it. This law testifies to every man’s conscience, that it is natural to cut away an incurable member, which (being suffered) would destroy the whole body.” (Ponet, Politike Power, 79)
“But there be others in the Commonweale, which in place and dignitie are inferiour unto Princes, and yet in verie deede doe elect the Superiour power, and by certaine lawes doe governe the Commonweale: as at this day we see done by the Electors of the Empire: And perhaps the same is done in other kingdomes. To these undoubtedly if the Prince performe not his covenaunts and promises, it is lawfull to constraine and bring him into order, and by force to compell him to perfourme the conditions and covenaunts which he had promised, and that by warre when it cannot otherwise be done.” (Peter Martyr Vermigli, Common Places, 324)
“If therefore they use their Power to any other purpose, to the Hurt and Prejudice of humane Society, as they may do, unless they are immediately directed, and their Wills forc’d by God himself, they act not in any such Instances by Authority from God, but contrary to his Will: Nor can they, in such Instances, be call’d his Vice-gerents, without the highest Profaneness: And therefore to oppose them in such Cases, cannot be to oppose the Authority of God.” (Benjamin Hoadly, Measures of Submission to the Civil Magistrate Consider’d, 8)
“There have been many Divines of the first Rank, in these later Ages, who have publickly espoused the Doctrine I have taught, or laid down such Principles as inevitably tend to it. The great and judicious Mr. Hooker, Bishop Bilson, and others might be named. But what is of most moment, the whole Convocation, the Church of England Representative, in Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, publickly acknowledged it glorious to assist Subjects in their Resistance to their Sovereigns, and their endeavours to rid themselves of their Tyranny, and Oppressions.” (Hoadly, Submission to the Civil Magistrate, 148–149)
“To recapitulate what I have said concerning this Homily [Against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion]; it appears from the general Expressions made use of, that the Authors no more intended in it Absolute Passive than Absolute Active-Obedience: it appears from the Words frequently us’d, and the Examples alleged, that they chiefly design’d their Doctrine of Non-resistance with respect to good Princes, or such as were only guilty of Personal Vices, or of Instances of Injustice of a private nature; not of any manifest Attempts to ruine the Constitution, and Nation committed to their Charge: it appears from the Account they give of Rebellion, and Rebels, that it was not in their Design, or in their Thoughts, to condemn such a Resistance as is founded entirely upon the Public Security, but that founded upon base, and unworthy Motives.” (Hoadly, Submission to the Civil Magistrate, 163)
“We abhor the doctrines of passive obedience and divine right, as of foreign growth, and first introduced amongst us by some slavish Divines in the reigns of James the First and his Successor; we heartily reprobate such principles, as repugnant alike to reason and revelation; we are not of those, who cannot distinguish between resistance and rebellion; for we venerate the principles of the Revolution, and thinking that the bond of union between a King of England and his people is then broken, when Government is administered more by the fluctuating will of an Individual, than by the settled laws of the community, we are of the opinion that the people may conscientiously resist the usurpation of the Crown, even to the altering of the Succession itself.” (Richard Watson, Sermons on Public Occasions, “The Principles of the Revolution Vindicated,” 71–72)
“The first duty, which subjects owe to the civil magistrate, is obedience. — The Christian Religion has been thought by some, to enjoin unlimited obedience; and to take from mankind that liberty of resistance, in extreme cases, which the very frame of our nature demands, as an inalienable right; and which the voice of reason, as well as of humanity, allows. The doctrine of non-resistance, has been principally founded upon a distorted interpretation of some few passages in the Epistles; and in particular, the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, has been pressed into the service of Tyranny, and the precept of the Apostle has been compelled to contradict his practice. In order fully to understand the weight and tendency of the Apostle’s reasoning in that place, it is necessary to consider the particular circumstances of the persons, to whom he addressed his epistle.” (Watson, Sermons, “A Sermon Preached before the University of Cambridge, on the Anniversary of his Majesty’s Accession to the Throne, October 25, 1776,” 87)
“It is taken also for granted, that Government may be rightly resisted; no friend to the Revolution, or to the title by which the House of Hanover sits on the Throne of these Kingdoms will deny it.” (Watson, Sermons, “A Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge, on the Day appointed for a General Fast, on Account of the American War, Feb. 4, 1780,” 124)
“The Christian Subject ought not too curiously to enquire after the Abuses of his Superiors; nor can he be considered as authorized to resist them, except according to such Modes, as the Constitution of his Country hath prescribed, and with a diligent examination of the Motives, on which his opposition is founded.” (Samuel Horsley, “Thoughts on Civil Government,” in From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany, ed. Stephen Taylor, 209)
“If, after all his Prayers and Endeavors to Keep his mind in that State of humility and submission which becomes him, it should please God in his wisdom to have him a prey, in this instance, to the operation of Evil, and the temptation of the Powers of Darkness, he doth not say, that the Abuse of Power justifieth resistance; but he humbly hopes that it may be admitted as some sort of excuse for it; and that the Goodness of God may pardon this, together with his other Sins, through the Intercession and the Merits of his Saviour.” (Horsley, “Civil Government,” 210)
“The Christian Scriptures do not enjoin their followers to adopt any particular form of Government in preference to another; they do not professedly define what circumstances are necessary to constitute any one a lawful Governor; nor to what extent a lawful Governor has a right to require the obedience of his subjects. These were points altogether foreign to the views and objects of the sacred writers; who leave them to be decided, the first by the voluntary choice of different nations, the second by the rules of natural justice, the last by general principles of morality and the laws of each particular State.” (Thomas Gisborne, An Enquiry into the Duties of Men, vol. I, 79–80)
