NOTE G. LECTURE 2, p. 74.

This irrational and unscriptural doctrine, usually termed "the Divine right," may be said to have been first openly avowed under the sanction of James I, who had a strange faculty of giving the most offensive form to the most extravagant opinions, and who valued himself highly on his skill in kingcraft. It was not long before the University of Oxford threw all her weight in his favor; and to what length she carried her doctrines, may be seen from the following incident, to which others of a like character might be added by any one who is familiar with the events of that day.

"In 1662 the Rev. Mr. Knight, of Pembroke College, Oxford, delivered a sermon before the University, in which he contended that subordinate magistrates might lawfully use force against the chief magistrate in the following cases: 1. When the chief magistrate becomes a tyrant; 2. When he forces his subjects to blasphemy or idolatry; 3. When intolerable burdens or pressures are laid upon them; 4. When resistance is the only expedient to secure their lives, their fortunes, and the liberty of their consciences. "Such heresy was not to be allowed. The preacher was sent for to court, and was required to give his authority for the doctrine above stated. He referred to the Commentary of Paræus on the thirteenth chapter of Romans, but relied upon King James himself as his chief authority, as the King was then assisting the oppressed inhabitants of Rochelle in opposing their Prince.

"The result of this reply was two-fold. The preacher was committed to prison, and Paræus' book was ordered to be burned at Oxford, Cambridge and London.

“The authorities of the University of Oxford then assembled, and condemned the preacher's assertions, and passed the following decree: That it is not lawful to resist the Sovereign, by force of arms, either offensively or defensively, upon any pretence whatever; that all doctors, masters of arts, &c., within the University, shall subscribe to these decrees and censures; and that whosoever takes

any degree, shall take his oath, that he doth from his heart not only condemn the said doctrine of Paræus, but that he will neither preach, teach, nor maintain the same, or any of them, at any time in future.'

Not long afterwards, a similar conflagration took place at Oxford. In the reign of Charles, and on the very day, as we are told, on which Russell was put to death, the University, by a public act, adopted in their fullest extent the doctrines of Filmer, and ordered the political works of Buchanan, Milton and Baxter to be burnt in the courts of the schools.

Mr. Knight is far from being the only English clergyman who has resisted and exposed these Oxford tenets. Dr. Paley has remarked, in his own terse style, that the Divine right of kings is like the Divine right of constables; neither of them having any right to authority, except so far as they are useful in maintaining government and good order. It is said, however, that the boldness and strength of Paley's reasoning on Civil Government, so far from being honored, was never forgiven by the dominant party of his day.

NOTE H.-LECTURE 2, p. 75.

As this is a question which has been debated with much earnestness, and is now viewed with fresh interest, as it has a close application to the events of our day, I here quote the views of two very distinguished men, who contemplated the subject from different points of observation. The first is well known as a divine and a casuist, the other as a statesman and an historian.

President Dwight in his "Theology," having described the duty of subjects to their rulers, proceeds to se:

"The observations already made concerning this general subject, will prepare the way for settling our opinions concerning a particular question involved in it, which is of high importance to mankind. It is this: Whether a nation is warranted to resist rulers, when seriously encroaching on its liberties? It is my intention to confine the answer, which will now be given to this question, to the lawfulness of such resistance. The expediency of it I shall suppose to be granted, so far as the safety and success of the resistance is concerned. In other words, I shall suppose the people immediately interested in the question, to have as fair an opportunity as can be reasonably expected of preserving or acquiring political liberty, and of establishing, after the contest is ended, a free and happy government. In this case, the resistance in question is, in my own view, warranted by the Law of God. It is well known that this opinion has been adopted by some wise and good men, and denied by others. But the reasons alleged by both classes for their respective doctrines have, so far as they have fallen under my observation, been less satisfactory than I wished.

“A nation already free ought, whenever encroachments upon its freedom are begun, to reason in some such manner as the following:

66

Despotism, according to the universal and uniform experience of man, has regularly been fatal to every human interest. It has attacked private happiness, and invaded public prosperity. It has multiplied sufferings without number and beyond degree. It has visited, regularly, the nation, the neighborhood, and the fireside, and carried with it public sorrow and private anguish. Personal liberty has withered at its touch; and national safety, peace, and prosperity have faded at its approach. Enjoyment has fled before it, life expired, and hope vanished. Evils of this magnitude have all been suffered, also, merely to gratify the caprice, the pride, the ambition, the avarice, the resentment, or the voluptuousness of one, or a few individuals; each of whose interests is of the same value in the sight of God, and no more than those of every other individual belonging to the nation. Can there be a reason-do the Scriptures furnish one?-why the millions of the present generation, and the numerous millions of succeeding generations, should suffer these evils merely to gratify the lusts of ten, twenty, or one hundred of their fellow men?

“If an affirmative answer should be given to this question, let it

be remembered that the same despotic power has, with equal regularity, cut off from subjects the means of usefulness and duty. Mankind are sent into the world to serve God and do good to each other. If these things are not done, we live in vain, and worse than in vain. If the means of doing them are taken away, we are prevented, just so far, from answering the end of our creation. In vain is mental and bodily energy, in vain are talents, opportunities, and privileges bestowed by our Creator, if they are to be wrested from us by our fellow men, or the means of creating them taken away. In vain are we constituted parents, if we are precluded from procuring the comfortable sustenance, providing for the education, and promoting the piety and salvation of our offspring. In vain are we made children, if we are forbidden to perform the filial duties. In vain are we placed in other relations of life, if we are prohibited from performing the duties to which they give birth. Take away usefulness from man, and there is nothing left which is good, but everything which is bad. This good, however, despots have in a dreadful manner either prevented or destroyed. They have shrunk the talents, and palsied the energy of the mind —have shut the door of knowledge and blocked up the path of virtue-have wilted the human race into sloth and imbecility, and lowered the powers of man almost to the level of brutism. The little spot of Greece exhibited more energy and more specimens of mental greatness, in one hundred and fifty years, than the Chinesian World has exhibited in two thousand.

"But this is not all. Despotic Rulers have exercised a most malignant influence upon the virtue of mankind. They have assumed the prerogative of Heaven, and prescribed, as the will of God, a system of religious doctrines and duties to their subjects. This system has invariably been absurd, gross, and monstrous. The morality which it enjoins has been chiefly a code of crimes, fitter for the regulation of banditti than of sober men. The religion which it has taught has been a scheme of impiety. Yet this system they have enforced by the most terrible penalties-by the loss of property, liberty, and life-by the jail and the gibbet, the wheel and the rack, the faggot and the cross. Blood has stained the sceptre; martyrs have surrounded the throne.

"Even this is not all. Despots, bad men themselves, must be served by bad men. The baleful and deleterious influence of the head and members united, has extended everywhere, even to the

corner and the cottage, and, like the deadly damp of the cavern, has imperceptibly and silently extinguished light and life wherever it has spread. Virtue has fallen amid the exhalation, unobserved and unknown. In its place has arisen and flourished a train of monstrous corruptions, which, with continually increasing strength, have finally gained entire possession of the land. Degenerated beyond recall, and polluted beyond hope, a people under this influence has sunk into remediless ruin, and only continued to exist until Mercy was wearied out by their profligacy, and reluctantly gave the sign for Vengeance to sweep them away. One regular and complete example of all these evils is given us by the voice of God himself in the kingdom of Israel. Profane history records a multitude. Is there any principle, either scriptural or natural, which demands of any nation such a sacrifice?

"But were we to admit that such a sacrifice might lawfully be made, so far as ourselves only are concerned, it is further to be remembered, that we are entrusted with all the possessions, privileges, blessings, and hopes of our offspring, through every succeeding generation. Guardians appointed by God himself, how can we fail of discharging punctiliously this sacred trust? The deposit is of value, literally immense. It involves the education, the comfort, the safety, the usefulness, the religious system, the morals, the piety, and the eternal life of millions, which can neither be known nor calculated. This is a trust which cannot lawfully be given up, unless in obedience to a known and unequivocal command of God; and no such command can be pleaded. Equally important is it that we prevent (for, under God, none but we can prevent) the contrary innumerable and immeasurable evils.

"At the same time, it is ever to be remembered that, under a free government, all the blessings which I have mentioned, so far as they are found in the present world, live and prosper, Such a government is the soil and the climate, the rain and the sunshine, of human good. Despotism, on the contrary, is the combined drought and sterility of Nubia, the frost and darkness of Zembla, amid which virtue, comfort, and safety can never spring.

"With these considerations in view, it is unquestionably evident to me that nations are bound, so far as it is possible, to maintain their freedom, and to resist every serious encroachment upon it, with such efforts as are necessary for its preservation.”

Macaulay, in his recent "History of England," describes