granting than by denying them liberty to take Armes But I here desire the Reader impartially to consider that there are as great improbabilities of any such Case as is proposed ever happening under any Prince who hath a just right to the Crown as things of this World can admit and if any such should possibly happen the second consideration which I shall propose for the Subjects security will shew a way of help and redress therein 5. How little foundation there is for nourishing the jealousies expressed in this supposition may in part be discerned by looking backwards And in turning over the Annal and Chronicles of many Ages no such thing doth appear to have been undertaken by any English Monarch to enervate and make void the force of all laws and the rights founded upon them And the most that was ever done to this purpose was by them who under a pretence of liberty did take Arms against the King or forcibly prosecuted an opposition to his Government and Authority when great numbers were illegally deprived of their Lives or Estates sequestred decimated and suffered many other injuries 6. But if we look forward no such supposition can be admitted but it must require a Concurrence of all these strange things 1. That all the subordinate Rulers and Ministers of justice in the Realm must conspire against their Consciences the Law and their Oaths either out of choice or fear to pervert justice and to cast off all pious sense of God thereby and all care of their own Souls 2. That such a Prince must have no respect either to God or to his own interest and honour abroad or safety at home which under God consisteth in the flourishing estate and good affection of his Subjects For where Laws are in any high measure violated and prostituted by the Governours and general injuries thereby sustained by the Subjects since Mankind is not only led by respect to duty but also to advantage Aurel. Vict. in Nerone Suet. in Nerone n. 47. Tacit. Hist l. 1. such Subjects may be backward in defending that Prince against those who oppose him which was the Case in which Nero was generally forsaken by his Roman Subjects and put upon destroying himself to avoid that shameful death to which he was sentenced by the Senate Yea such a Prince hath great reason to stand in fear to his own Confidents and instruments for since they must be men of no Conscience and fidelity towards God it may well be expected according to the determination of Constantius the Elder Eus de Vit. Const l. 1. c. 11. that they will also prove unfaithful to their Prince if they can thereby propose a way to advance or better themselves And such instruments may see cause to nourish fears that where injustice violence and cruelty are frequently exercised they may upon slight occasions expect a time when their turn to suffer their part will be the next and this was the occasion of the Death of Commodus the Roman Emperour Herodian l. 1. who was first poysoned and then strangled by the contrivance of some who had been his great Favourites that they might secure their own live which they discovered were suddenly like to be taken away And from this it may appear that there was just reason for that observation of Xenophon Xenop de Regn. p. 911. that tyrannical Governours are under greater terrours and have more reason of fears at all times than men ordinarily have in War because they have not only reason to be afraid of their professed Enemies but of those whom they account their friends and defence And Hieronymus Osorius observeth not without reason Osor de Reg. Instit l. 8. that in such persons the stings and frequent lashes of their own Consciences and some inward though unwilling dread of God besides other fears and jealousies make their state sad and miserable Wherefore though Vsurpers having no right may account in their best and safest contrivance to lay their foundation in force and violence until they think themselves otherwise secure this is so greatly opposite to the interest of a rightful Prince that if he be a person of any reason in the World he must needs reject it 3. It must also be supposed that all those who act as instruments in such oppressions must be devoid not only of the sense of God and good Conscience but also of humane cautionsness For if such an imaginary Prince shall have his Conscience awakened to repentance or shall consult his own honour or else shall end his dayes as his breath is in his Nostrills all such persons are then accountable to the strict judgment of the Law and being Enemies to the publick good have little reason to expect favour 7. The security of Subjects from Gods governing the World The other ground of subjects security though they may not take Armes against their Soveraign is from God being the Judge and Governour of the World Shall it be thought a sufficient restraint to the exorbitancy of a Fathers power over his Children that if he becomes unnatural the earthly judge can both vindicate them and punish him though Children be not allowed when they think fit to beat and kill their Father and shall not the judgment and authority of God over Princes be thought valuable and considerable though he is more righteous and more able to help the oppressed than any Judge upon Earth And the judgments of God have been especially remarkable in the World against such Princes as have either designed the subverting the Laws of common righteousness or have set themselves in defiance against the true Religion and worship of God Socr. l. 3. c. 21. gr Theodor. l. 3. c. 20. Sozom. l. 6. c. 1 2. Naz. Orat. 4 21. The Ecclesiastical Historians and Fathers who write of the Death of Julian which was in the second year of his Reign in his Expedition against the Persians do all agree that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine vengeance ordered his Death and that he who did effect it whether Man Angel or Devil for by several Writers it hath been referred to all of these was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one subservient to the divine pleasure And some of these Writers say that himself dying did express so much Hieron ad Heliodor c. 8. and S. Hierome declareth Christum sensit in Media quem primum in Gallia denegârat 8. When the horrid impieties against the God of Israel and dreadful cruelties against the Jews of Antiochus Epiphanes a puissant Prince had increased to a strange height he was at last upon a defeat given to his enterprises struck even to death with inward terrour and the affrighting perplexities of his own Conscience And he then could not but acknowledge that his own injustice and cruelty and his profaning the Temple 1 Mac. 6.8 13. were the causes which brought upon him this sad trouble and forrow adding with respect thereunto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
ult but a very short time before his death and Constantius also his Son was baptized at the end of his life and reign But Baronius Binius Durantus Bar. an 324. n. 29. c. Bin. in Vit. Silv. Pol. de Bapt. Constant Durant de Rit l. 1. c. 19. n. 8. and before them Cardinal Poole in a particular Tract and many other Popish Writers out of respect to the Romish See will have his Baptism to be administred divers years before at Rome by Silvester some of them boldly charging Eusebius with a design of forgery and falshood in this relation 2. But he who shall consider Constantine not baptized at Rome by Silvester how much Eusebius conversed with Constantine himself and how remarkable a thing his baptism must needs be after the continued series of Pagan Emperours and also how many particularities are expressed by Eusebius both concerning words and actions of Constantine at that time and place which had relation to his baptism will think it unlikely that his account should be an imposture Socr. l. 1. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he who shall further observe that Nicomedia was no obscure place but a populous City in which was an Imperial Palace where Constantine sometimes resided and there died and that all this was related to be done in a time of so much remark as then was the fifty days from Easter to Whitsontide and when many Bishops were called thither to be present at this solemn action if all this was as Baronius and Binius pretend a designed forgery of Eusebius there was great want of cunning in the contrivement And he must be a man arrived at a strange height both of impudence and folly who would attempt the obtruding such a cheat upon the World which could not but be generally contradicted in that age I suppose that no man of common sense can perswade himself that if he would undertake to write that our late gracious Soveraign King Charles the First was put to death at Dublin or Edinburgh in 1660. which is a parallel to what these men fancy of Eusebius that ever he should be believed 3. And yet it is much more incredible that if this had been such a palpable imposture that both Socrates Socr. l. 1. c. 26. Theod. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 32. Soz. l. 2. c. 32. Evagr. Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 41. Theodoret Sozomen Evagrius and divers other Historians since them should agree with Eusebius herein and that none of these nor any other genuine ancient Writer should make discovery of his errour who yet mention many things concerning Constantine not expressed in Eusebius And besides what might be learned by general fame and particular writings Socr. l. 1. c. 7. Socrates had himself opportunity of receiving intelligence concerning divers things done in Constantines reign from some persons of good credit who lived till his time and one who was present in the Council of Nice 4. Besides this S. Ambrose Ambr. in fun Theod who lived at the end of that Age and in Italy not far from Rome where Constantine is pretended to have been baptized about thirteen years before his death gives a plain testimony that his baptism was at the end and close of his life For speaking of Constantine he saith Cui baptismi gratia in ultimis constituto omnia peccata dimisit which expressions have puzzled Baronius nor can they be referred as he and Binius would have them to any time of sickness but his last 5. And that Synod held at Ariminum in Italy in the reign of Constantius consisting of the Western Bishops which held the Faith of Nice declared their resolution in their Synodical Epistle to Constantius which is extant in Athanasius Socrates Athan. de Synod Socr. l. 2 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. l. 2. c. 19. Sozomen and Theodoret not to innovate any thing in that Faith which Constantine with all accurateness and strictness of examination did publish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose memory deserved to be famous after his death Soz. l. 4. c. 17. and who after his baptism to wit into this faith was taken from among men and went into peace Ubi supra But Baronius and Binius to avoid this testimony undertake to correct this Epistle and instead of Constantine read Constans pretending that it is so read in Athanasius to which because this testimony is considerable I shall return two things 1. That it is indeed true that the latine translation of Athanasius hath Constans but the Greek in Athanasius readeth it Constantine and it is very unreasonable that the original Greek of four several Authors should be corrected only from the different reading of one latine translation of much later date and possibly altered with design 2. That the words mentioned in that Epistle cannot be applyed to any other Emperour but only to Constantine the Great of whom they were discoursing Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. In his time and much under his care the faith of Nice was published and promulged which is oft expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he himself declared concerning his care about it at Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words of his the Synod at Ariminum did probably allude unto 6. Now against all this great evidence they who oppose it do not produce the authority of any one ancient genuine Catholick Writer But they bring forth such spurious stuff as the acts of Silvester and Liberius which are manifestly fabulous insomuch that Baronius acknowledgeth An. 315. n. 12 13 14 17. iis complura veritati manifeste adversantia inesse perspicuo demonstratur with other words of like severe censure They also urge a pretended Preface to a Council at Rome under Silvester which speaketh of Constantine being baptized by Silvester But they have not these words from any Copy of such a Council it self but from a Writing of an uncertain Author intituled Epilogus brevis c. of which Binius confesseth Not. in Conc. Rom. 2. sub Silvest hujus Epilogi initium de mendacio suspectum redditur that the beginning of this writing is under a suspicion of being false They also have recourse unto Zosimus a Greek Historian but from him th◠produce nothing of the baptism of Constantine but he telleth a manifestly false and slanderous story of the occasion of Constantines first resolution of embracing Christianity and both the acts of Silvester and the words of the Preface above-mentioned do encline to the same thing But Zosimus being a bitter Enemy to Christianity is declared by Baronius when he writes concerning things of the Christian Religion An. 306. n. 18. an 313. n. 15. passim to be an evident depraver of truth manifestus proditor veritatis in Constantinum iniquissimus with other expressions of like nature And the pretence that the Font is yet to be seen at Rome in which Constantine
evidence in my third assertion And therefore I shall omit the considering the Church of Bulgaria and of the Asia Iberia which by Balsamon are owned to have been in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals in Conc. Const c. 2. Novel 131. the former according to the Constitution of Justinian and the latter by a Synod of Antioch appointing that that Church which was before under the Patriarch of Antioch should be free and head of it self 11. And concerning the Western Church it may be observed that whereas a prime patriarchal right is expressed by the Council of Chalcedon and the same may be collected from the Council of Ephesus in the place above-mentioned concerning the Cyprian Church to be this that the Metropolitans under him Conc. Chalc. c. 28. who have liberty to ordain the Bishops of their Provinces should be ordained by the Patriarch it is no difficulty to prove and is granted by P. de Marca Ubi sup l. 1. c. 7. that the chief part of the Western Church even all out of the Vrbicarian Diocese which took in only some part of Italy did never thus anciently depend on the Bishop of Rome for Ordination 12. And touching the Eastern Church the limits of the Patriarchate of Constantinople have been above observed The Territories of Alexandria were by the Council of Nice declared to be Egypt Conc. Nic. Can. 6. V. Praef. and Conc. Antioch Conc. Chalc. Actions 7. Libya and Pentapolis Antioch had once under it Coelosyria Phoenicia Palaestine Arabia Mesopotamia Cilicia and Isauria but when the Church of Jerusalem was made Patriarchal it was agreed in the Council of Chalcedon that all the three Palaestines should be reserved to its Jurisdiction 13. And such few expressions in some ancient Authors as speak of the Bishop of Rome presiding in the West or being the Patriarch of the West are not sufficient to prove the whole Western Church to have been subject to him Conc. Const c. 2. Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. Hieron Ep. 61. c. 15. but only some part thereof For the Bishop of Antioch is oft said both by Councils and other Writers to govern the East and yet the whole Eastern Church as distinguished from the Western never was under his Jurisdiction SECT II. No Patriarch ever had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority in this Island 1. The second Assertion which I shall make good is that the Churches of this Island had that ancient liberty and freedom that no Patriarch had any just claim of Patriarchal Authority over them The Eastern Patriarchs never pretended to any nor had the Romish Bishop any right to challenge it 2. For since this Island received Christianity Britain received Christianity before Rome some years before any Church was founded at Rome it could not then have any dependance upon the Church of Rome Besides what many other Writers express concerning Joseph of Arimathea preaching the Gospel here Bar. An. 35. n. 5. even Baronius from a Manuscript in the Vatican gives a relation of his coming into France and thence into England upon the dispersion after the death of S. Steven and this must be divers years before S. Peters coming to Rome Antiq. Brit. p. 1 2 3. Mason de Min. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Usser de Prim. Ec. Br. And there want not Authors to assert that S. Simon S. Philip and other Apostles and Apostolical men did declare the doctrine of Christ in this Island as hath been observed by those who purposely give us an account of the original of Christianity here Sect. 2 But concerning the early Conversion of the Britans it will be sufficient to observe the testimony of Gildas who was himself a Britan Gild. de Excid Brit. who tells us that here the Precepts of Christ were made known tempore ut scimus summo Tiberii Caesaris in the latter end of the reign of Tiberius Caesar Baron An. 44. n. 25. Now the second year of Claudius when according to the general account S. Peter first preached Christianity at Rome must be about five years after the death of Tiberius Caligula wanting but little more than a month of four years Wherefore with respect to the first planting of the Church one Sister Church cannot claim superiority over another especially not over the Elder 3. Nor were there ever any Canons of the ancient Church which subjected these Realms to the See of Rome but the fixed rights of the free Churches were secured in the three first General Councils in those Canons I have above mentioned Conc. Nic. c. 6. Const c. 2. Eph. c. 8. And the Council of Ephesus is very zealous against the invaders of these priviledges as being a thing in which the liberties of all Churches are concerned and by which the intent of the sacerdotal function is perverted 4. That these Churches did preserve and retain their liberties Britannick liberty preserved till Austin the Monk Bed Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 4. until the time that Austin the Monk came into England is manifest in that both in the Southern and Northern parts of this Island as also in Ireland they celebrated Easter and observed some other rites differently from the Rules and Canons of the other Western Churches and particularly of the Roman and therefore were not governed by them Indeed they celebrated Easter upon the Lords day as was noted by the Emperour Constantine Euseb de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 18. Bed Hist Eccl. Ang. l. 2. c. 2. l. 3. c. 4. at the time of the Council of Nice but they fixed on this day by a different rule from that of other Churches And when Austin required them to submit themselves to the Romish Church and to change these their different rites they would not hearken to him herein but both Britans and Scots long observed their former usages and some of their Clergy and Monks who lived within the English limits Bedae Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 20. l. 3. c. 26. Bishop Spotsw Hist of Sc. l. 1. p. 18. H. Huntingd. Hist l. 3. and Colman Bishop of the Northumbrians rather left their places than they would forsake the customs of their own Church Yea they disowned Communion with him as invading the Liberties of their Churches and the Scotch Bishops would not so much as eat in the House where Austins Company was as is related in a Letter of Laurentius who succeeded Austin at Canterbury recorded in H. Huntingdon And the plain Declaration of the Abbot and Monks of Bangor who were the most eminent Society of the British Church consisting of thousands did fully disclaim and protest against all right of subjection to the Bishop of Rome as is expressed in their protestation made to Austin and exhibited in the British tongue by Sir Hen. Spelman Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. p. 108 109. wherein they own no subjection to any above their own Archbishop as a superiour Ecclesiastical Officer 5. Nor did the Bishop of
fall with the deposing power For the absolving Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance must be presumed to be to this end that such persons should be no longer obliged to acknowledge the Authority or perform the duty which is therein expressed and contained and the best of their own Writers do found the Popes Authority of dischargeing Subjects from such Oaths and Duties upon the effect of his deposing or depriveing power And it must be granted that if the Pope cannot depose a Prince as is sufficiently evinced that he cannot then Princes have a right of governing notwithstanding all the Pope can do and his Subjects are then bound by the divine law to perform Allegiance though they should never have taken any special Oath to that purpose But if the Prince could be indeed deposed by the Pope and consequently hath no longer a right of governing I acknowledge that any other man as well as the Pope may pronounce the duties and obligation of subjection to cease Sect. 2 towards him who is no longer their Ruler and Governour SECT II. Of the Vnlawfulness of taking Arms upon any pretence whatsoever against the King 1. The more general acknowledgment for the preservation of the Kings safety is That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I do abhor that traiterous position of taking Arms b his Authority against his person or against those that are commissionated by him this profession is required by the Act. of Vniformity to be made by all the Clergy and the same thing in sense is enjoined upon all civil and military Officers And here I shall distinctly consider the several clauses which are all to be interpreted with respect to the end and design of them which is the preservation and just security of the Kings person and government and the due performance of the Subjects Loyalty Of the unlawfulness upon any pretence to take Armes against the King 2. The first clause that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King is the chief and principal part of this acknowledgment which in the due latitude of its sense doth include what is more particularly expressed in the following words And the sense of this is nothing more than what the Church of England and the eminent members thereof hath constantly acknowledged Our Homilies teach Hom. of Obedience Part. 2. that it is not lawful for inferiours and subjects in any Case to stand against and resist the superiour power Can. 1. Concerning Regal Power And in the Canons 1640. it was declared that for subjects to bear Arms against their Kings offensive or defensive upon any pretence whatsoever is at the least to resist the powers which are ordained of God and though they do not invade but only resist S. Paul tells them plainly they shall receive to themselves damnation And to the same sense the Vniversity of Oxford hereafter mentioned 3. This clause of acknowledgment being framed and enjoined by an English Parliament not without respect to the disloyal and unchristian proceedings in this Nation and tendered to English Subjects and relating particularly to the King not indefinitely to any King can bear no other rational construction than to condemn the English Subjects taking Arms against their natural Soveraign the King of England And therefore though the like attempts against any other Kings who enjoy Soveraign Authority are equally blameable in their Subjects yet this Position doth not assert the utter unlawfulness of taking Arms amongst any other Nations against him who hath the title of King if he doth not therewith enjoy that right of supreme government which our Kings have and exercise And therefore in such a Constitution of government as the Lacedemonian was Plut. in Pausan in which Pausanias had the title of a King under the Ephori but with as much distance from Royal Power and Supremacy as was in the military Imperator or General among the Romans from the Dignity of an Emperour we are not concerned to determine any thing concerning their Rights Plin. Nat. Hist l. 6. c. 22. The like condition of the Kings of Tabrobana is mentioned by Pliny and others have given somewhat a like account concerning some other places But against a Soveraign Prince all open Hostility and secret treachery in his Subjects is Universally to be esteemed utterly unlawful 4. And it might be wished Violence hath too ost been offered to Princes that there had never been in England or elsewhere any such treacherous and disloyal actions or assertions from which the true Friends of the Church of England have been free as should render it exceeding needful to make use of the greatest care and caution for the preservation of the persons of Princes But alas the wretched practises against our late Dread Soveraign are equally manifest and horrid and the too forward proneness of vicious men to entertain rebellious designs both under Paganism Judaism Mahometanism and Christianity might afford matter enough for multiplyed Tragedies I shall forbear many instances which might be given both in our own and many other Kingdoms and shall only reflect on that temper and spirit which hath prevailed in Rome and Scotland 5. De Civ Dei l. 3. c. 15. In the first rise of the Roman Power it was observed by S. Austin that of their Kings which reigned before the Consuls there were only two Numa Pompilius and Ancus Martius who died of any Disease if so much may be affirmed of both them Suet. in Calig n. 58. Claudio n. 44. Ner. n. 49. Galb n. 19. Othon n. 11. Vitell. n. 17. And Suctonius who writeth the lives of the twelve first Caesars sheweth that besides Julius Caesar and Domitian no less than six of them who immediately succeeded one another even all from Tiberius to Vespasian had their Deaths procured either by secret treachery or open assaults and that there were suspicions concerning and frequent Conspiracies against others of them And of later times omitting many other instances and the Rebellions in other Countries which was the fruit of the doctrine propagated from Rome since Greg. 7. I shall only add Extrav Joh. Tit. 12. c. 1. that though Ancona be under the government of the Popes Officers and lies near the Gates of Rome the Inhabitants thereof are complained of in one of the Summaries of their Canon Law to this purpose soliti sunt rectores interficere it is usual with them to kill their Governours And it hath been observed that the Scots in the succession of somewhat above an hundred Princes have killed betwixt thirty and forty of them 6. And hence it may appear that that Genius and temper which hath too much prevailed in Rome and Scotland was such as disposed them to shew no very great respect unto Princes and this may possibly have had some influence upon the Conclave in the one and the Kirk in the other And indeed
where bad notions or inclinations get a through entrance they are apt to propagate and are not easily rooted out Thus S Hierome observes Hier. Prooem in lib. 2. Comment ad Galat. that Galatia which too readily embraced corrupt doctrines in the Apostles times notwithstanding S. Pauls Epistle to them continued to be a place prone to Heresy unto his time And the Church of corinth was so apt to fall into Divisions and Schisms that notwithstanding the Apostles severe rebukes of them for that sin they were soon after his Death Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. strangely over-run with it again to the great disparagement of their Christian profession 7. Of the undutiful carriage of the Kirk of Scotland I gave a considerable and known instance in the former Book And that they at Rome do cast high disrespects and create great danger to Princes may be discerned both by the former Book and by the foregoing Section 8. Positions of Fanaticism and Jesuicism disloyal And besides these matters of Jact and practise it hath been manifest that many wild extravagant and disloyal Positions which are dangerous and destructive to Government and humane Society have been asserted by men of a Fanatick strain and temper of some of which I shall have occasion to take more particular notice in the progress of this discourse De Jur. Mag. in Subd qu. 6. Junius Brut. Vind. Qu. 2. Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9 31 32 c. Some of them assert that the people in general may take the Power and Government into their own hands and deprive and punish their governours when they see cause others grant this power only to the persons who are the peoples representatives others fix the same in inferiour Officers with respect to the supreme governour And others have run on so far as to yield this pwoer to the meanest part of the people as was asserted by an Anonymous Scotchman about the time of the Galloway Rebellion that in the right of self defence the concourse of the Nobles or the Primores Regni is no way of absolute necessity 9. And amongst the Papists they who are of the Jesuitical strain do not only embrace those notions of the Popes deposing power to the great prejudice of Soveraign Princes Authority and safety but they also run into the highest strain of Fanaticism in violating the majesty of Kings and subjecting them and their authority to the people De Rege l. 1. c. 6. Thus Mariana when the Prince is accounted by the people to pervert his government alloweth to them the liberty of publick resistance by open War and also the use of Private violence commending the treasonable Murther of Hen. 3. of France by James Clement and allows very man to set himself against such a Prince whom he calls a Tyrant saying Ibid. c. 3. tanquam fera omnium telis peti debet He also such are the wicked and wretched principles of these Jesuits approveth the use in this Case of deceit and fraud yea and of poyson by poysoning his Seat or Cloaths But that we may think there is something of Conscience remaining in such a spirit as this he condemns Ibid. c. 7. and declares against the giving such a person poyson in his meat and drink for this doughty reason because it is saith he against humanity that he should be put upon contributing to his own Death by any act of his own which he would here do by taking this poyson in his food But sure this mans reason was as far from him as Conscience when he wrote these things in his not discerning that there was altogether as much done in contributing to his own death by putting on his poysoned Cloaths 10. â—ess de Just Iure l. 2. c. 9. â—ub 4. Becan de jure Just ad Qu. 64. D. Thom. qu. 4. And Lessius and M. Becanus two other Jesuits in this particular agree almost word for word with one another in asserting these Positions that a Prince who hath a just title becomes a Tyrant with respect to the administration of his Government when he designs in his Government and aims at his private advantage and not the publick good and burdens the common-wealth with unjust exactions sells the offices and places of Judges and makes Laws to his own advantage and not the publick That when this Tyranny is no longer fit to be born this Prince is first to be deposed or to be declared an enemy by the Common-wealth or the chief Estates of the Kingdom or by any other who hath authority and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his person and life That so long as he remaineth a Prince that is till such acts be done as are now mentioned he may not be killed by private persons unless it be for their necessary self defence And Lessius saith in another place Dubit 8. for the further clearing his sense in this particular that for the necessary defending a mans own life or securing himself from being maimed it is lawful to kill him who sets upon him himself or procures another to do it And this saith he must be owned allowable against any superiours whatsoever even that a Vasal may in this Case kill his King unless it be likely that civil Wars may follow for discord about succession And in such an high strain of treason and Unchristian disloyalty is the Jesuits Casuistical Divinity But against the falshood and wickedness of these assertions it is needful to declare and defend the true and peaceable principles of Reason and Christianity and against the dangerous effects which such positions tend to promote it is necessary that publick laws provide due security for the person of the King to which purpose the general acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of taking up Armes against him The Laws of England condemnall Waragainst the King is of very good use 11. Our English Laws providing for the safety both of King and Subjects and the preservation of their just Rights do declare it universally unlawful to make or levy any War against the King And upon this account it must also be as much against reason and Christianity yea more both because of the greater duty to superiours and the concern of the general good to invade that Right and Royalty which the Law secures to the King as to deny to Subjects that property right and safety which the Law provides for them I confess the consideration of our Law in matters of doubtfulness difficulty or profound disquisition would be an unfit undertaking for my profession and especially for a man of no deeper study in the Law than my self But I am perswaded that if no men had made use of subtil Artifices and designed methods to obscure plain things there would have been no want of evidence even to any ordinary understanding in this particular to direct them to the honest practises
rely upon a meer fallacy From the different rights of Regality For this Topick would with equal force and evidence prove the paternal right not to be founded in the laws of nature or the institution of God because the authority of the Father and the priviledges of Children are not the same in different parts of the World The Rules of inheriting by the right of devolution in some part of the Low-Countries Goâ—osred not ad Dig. l. 1. Tit. 6. n. 1. de jure Capp de vor Jephthae Instit l. 1. Tit. 9. and of Gavelkind and some other tenures in England do vary from the more general usage And in many places of the World the Father had Jus vitae neeis and Cappellus asserteth him to have had that power of life and death among the Jews The Institutions of Justinian expresly testify that that right of power which the Roman Fathers had over their Children was that which was proper to the Citizens of Rome and it is there added no other men have that power over their Children which we have Nor will it prove Matrimony to be no institution of God because the priviledges of the Wife are esteemed greater in England than in other Countries and are not the same at the Death of the Husband in the Province of York and the City of London with the other parts of the Kingdom But the truth is in those States or Relations which are fixed by divine institution there are some things so necessary and essential that they cannot be separated from them such are in the Conjugal Relation the Headship of the Husband the ordinary inseparableness of that Society till Death and the performance of Conjugal Duties and such are in the supreme Government the necessary care of justice and the common good and even of matters of Religion and the having a power fitted to these ends and which in pursuance of them may not by inferiours be forcibly resisted But in many other particular things the priviledges of inseriour relations and the dignities and rights of superiours may be greater or less according to what is concluded by their mutual consent 9. The Solemnity of Coronation From the Rites of Coronation when the people acknowledge their King and the King again gives the people assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws and govern them according to those Laws is far from intending to express the Kings Authority to be derived from the people by a contract as some have weakly argued For the King is actually King by his right of inheritance and succession upon the Death of his Predecessor antecedently to this Solemnity as our Law-Books do generally acknowledge and Henry the Sixth Reigned divers years in England before he was Crowned Du May 's Estate of the Empire Diâ—l 2. vers fin Extrav Com. l. 5. Tit. 10. c. 4. And even in Elective Principalities the rights of Soveraignty are invested in the person elected thereto before the Coronation both in the Empire it self and other Dominions But the intent of this Solemnity is that as the Rites of Inauguration in other Magistrates tend to make such impressions in the people as may beget a reverence towards them so the Prince his appearing with splendour to his people doth both excite them to and give them opportunity for publick acknowledgments and expressions of affection and honour towards him and joyful acclamations To this purpose Henry the Third was twice Crowned once in the first year of his Reign Mat. Par. an 1216. where M. Paris treateth De prima Coronatione Regis Henrici and again in his twentieth year as is manifest in the preamble of the Statute of Merton Fullers Hist an 1194. and Richard the First was observed also to have been twice Crowned In like manner David notwithstanding his right by Divine appointment besides his being anointed by Samuel was twice anointed by the people Sed. Olam Rab. c. 13. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 6. And both the Jewish Chronicle and Josephus declare that Saul also was anointed a second time And the kind expressions of the Prince and the assurance that he gives his people that he will govern them by their laws and maintain their Religion and Rights is designed to banish and expel all jealous fears from them and to encrease their affection to him and make their obedience and submission the more ready and chearful by their having security from their Princes reputation honour and integrity that he will intend the preservation of the great things which conduce to their welfare 10. It hath also been objected From the Civil Law Digest l. 1. Tit. 4. n. 1. quod Principi that besides the like expressions in other Law-Books the Civil Law declares Lege Regia quae de ejus Principis imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem confert which words declare that by that Law which was made concerning the Empire of the Prince the people yield to him all their authority and power It also asserteth that Nations were divided and Kingdoms established by the Jus gentium or the Law of Nations Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 5. Ex hoc jurc Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 4. Manumiss Justin Inst l. 1. Tit. 3. and also that liberty is the natural state and servitude is introduced by the Law of Nations Now though it might be said against the force of any such allegations which seem to oppose this truth that the right of God and of his constitution and authority is not to be determined by any humane writings especially if they speak against the Scripture and rational evidence Yet I further observe 1. That the first expression hath respect to the political sanction or establishment of the Civil Government of the Roman Empire and even with respect to the peculiar priviledges of the Emperour himself as having a legislative power in his own breast to which purpose that very law declares Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote lege regia quae de ejus imperio c. Novel 73. Novel 85. passim And though these political sanctions be a proper consideration for humane Laws to take notice of yet this hinders not but that there may be a superiour divine constitution of Soveraignty and secular power which also is oft asserted in the Civil Law 2. The following expression doth speak of the like political sanction and doth further acknowledge and assert the bounds and limits of the several Kingdoms and Nations to be established by the Law of Nations jure gentium discretae gentes regna condita 3. That liberty which in the last clause above-cited is declared to be the natural state and the servitude which is there said to be introduced do not respect freedom from Government and Laws but from vasallage which is evident because in the Digests this servitude is said to be discharged by
President the Holy Jesus was crucified and St. James killed with the Sword And yet out Saviour in his days required the rights of Soveraignty to be preserved And this was commanded though the Jews were tributary to Caesar whose right over them was founded upon the Roman Conquest and the Submission which they had thereupon for many years yielded and the very tribute-money upon sight of which our Saviour gave this Precept is related by some Writers to have had upon it an Inscription expressing the years from the Roman Conquest over Judea and consequently of the Jews being subdued into Subjection whereas free Subjects towards their natural Prince Dr. Ham. Annot. on Mat. 22.20 have greater motives and obligations to honour and obedience 3. From the Reproof given to St. Peter But the clearest account of the Doctrine and Practice also of our Saviour against Subjects taking Arms may be had from what he declared to this purpose when himself was seized on by the Souldiers the night before he was crucified Where when Peter drew his Sword and smote a Servant of the High Priest and cut off his ear Jesus saith unto him Mat. 26.52 Put up again thy Sword into its place for all they that take the Sword shall perish by the Sword By which words the making use of the Sword against the Authority of Superiours is sharply condemned Musc in Mat. 26. This is as Musculus said well locus not and us omnibus subditis a place to be marked by all Subjects and what Peter did saith he was therefore unlawful because the Power against which he made use of the Sword was ordered by the Command of their Rulers whereas the Magistrates Power though used against an innocent person may not forcibly be repelled by Subjects Thus also Aegidius Hunnius Peter saith he took the Sword of his own private pleasure and that unlawfully whilst he rose up against his Governours and fount with the Sword against their Ministers Aegid Hun. in Rom. 1 1. in Mat. 26. Par. 4. Petrus privato arbitrio saith he on the Epistle to the Romans rapuit Gladium quidem illegitime dum contra Magistratum suum in surgit contra ministros eorum Gladio dimicat To the same purpose also he speaketh upon 3. Mat. and Melancthon from this Text urgeth the unlawfulness of those persons taking the Sword Melancth Loc. Com. de Vindicta de Magistr Civ who have it not committed to them by the Law and their Governour 4. And the true and natural sense of these words is that as the Laws given to Noah and his Sons condemned homicide Gen. 9.6 Whoso sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed so as with some respect thereto our Saviour here condemns the making Resistance even for defence by a private person against publick Authority And as the rules of his Doctrine forbid and blame it as evil so this further censure he passeth upon it that it is an undertaking that deserveth death or to perish by the Sword And this hath a general respect to all private persons Munst in Loc. hoc dicitur saith Munster contra privatos quosque qui nullo jure permittuntur uti Gladio non autem contra Magistratum qui jussa Dei perficit c. And the circumstances of this case are very remarkable 5. 1. In a case in which Religion and Civil Rights were interested For first this was a cause wherein both Religion and civil Rights were greatly concerned For the Jews were now pursuing their design to put Jesus to death and never was there an higher violation of justice upon earth than in the contrivances managed and the cruelties exercised towards him And this was such an opposition of Religion that in the highest and most impudent manner they rejected and set at nought the Messias whom God had sent and bad defiance to the mighty evidence of his miracles and intended utterly to have extirpated his holy and divine Doctrine Yet he himself here took up the Cross and became an admirable Pattern of meekness and when his Disciples had proposed the Question Luke 22.29 Shall we smite with the Sword he severely forbad any such thing and checks St. Peters hasty use thereof before Christ had returned an Answer to their Question And Chr. Hom. 85. in Mat. as St. Chrysostom observes St. Peter who was reprehended even with sharp threatnings for what he had done did so no more And when our Lord declared that his Kingdom was not of this World he did thereby so much design to shew that he denied his Subjects who were private persons any power to fight for their Religion and that neither himself nor his Gospel gave them any authority to use the Sword that he addeth if my Kingdom were of this World then would my Subjects fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews John 18.36 Such therefore are the rules of the Christian Doctrine Fer. enarrat in Mat. 26. that when Ferus had propounded the case if Magistrates neglect their Duty and become injurious as was done with respect to our Lord and Master an privato Gladii arripiendi jus est whether a Subject may take Armes he justly answers it with an Absit or a Detestation of any such thing 6. 2. With respect to Officers commissionated The Persons who came to take Jesus were a Band of Men and Officers John 18.3 no supreme Governours themselves but only persons commissionated by them And they were not sent immediately by Caesar or by Herod or Pilate who then had under the Romans the chief Jurisdiction in Jewry but by the Chief Priests and Elders of the Jews some of whom did accompany the Souldiers Luke 22.52 who were allowed to exercise some governing power under the Romans And the time when these Souldiers were sent was in all probability after the chief Synedrial Power was taken away from the Jews that they might not judge any capital Causes or put any man to death by their authority John 18.31 and therefore from Annas and Caiaphas Jesus was brought to Pilate The Talmud saith that this Power was taken away forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem which must be three or four year before our Saviours passions Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hor. Heb. in Mat. 26.3 and about the time he did begin to preach Now though this stroke of St. Peter was not at any of the Chief Priests or Elders themselves but at an Officer of theirs and when their power was under its great decay and declination the Doctrine of Christ doth here condemn it 7. Thirdly 3. For mere defence if the intention of the person be considered this action was desensive or an endeavour to deliver his Master and with a kind of zeal for the preserving his safety as is sufficiently intimated in the following verses Mat. 26.53 54. And it cannot well enter into any mans thoughts that there were