Selected quad for the lemma: power_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A46958
|
The opinion is this, that resistance may be vsed, in case our religion and rights should be invaded
|
Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing J836; ESTC R17465
|
10,755
|
11
|
Provinciâ—s illis quo minus se tuâ—ri Armis ambitiosam Tyrannidem avertere liceret Galliarum Rex Majestatem habet Regni multo majorem cui tamen pro Lege est Bodin Meth. Hist. Cap. 6. Principem contra Leges nihil posse rescriptisâ— ejus rationem nullam haberi debere nisi aequitati perinde ac veritati Consentanea sint Porro est etiam proceribus reliquisque Ordinibus suus Honor Dignitas quam Regi violare nefas est Quam quùm non ita pridem senserunt Heroes Regni illius novorum quorundam hominum factione gravissimè laesam qui sub obtentu Religionis ambitioni suae servientes insano furore coelum terrae miscerent lamentabilem totius Regni calamitatem minitari viderentur quippe omnia pro arbitrio suo facta infecta rata irrita esse jubentes Edicta publico jure pro conservanda pace promuâ—gata libitu suo frustrari non dubitantes ceperunt illi quidem arma pro Regis Regni suâque omnium libertate vindicandâ nec ferendum sibi putarunt ut armata contra Leges paucorum hominum insolentia Leges Divinas simul Humanas intollerabili audacia proculearet Pugnarunt ergo pro jure suo non aliquo Ecclesiae privilegio quo illa sibi integrum putet armis se defendere sed politicâ libertate qua citra injuriam Principis erdinem suum legibus constitutum adversus hostes conjuratos non inferendo bellum sed populsando tueri licebar Atque in hoc Causa eorum a Veteris Ecclesiae ratione distinguenda est quae absque ullo juris sui titulo mero imperii placito subjacebat Quamdiu vero ita se res habuit caedebantur ut tu dicis Christiani non caedebant qui tamen sub Constantino Principe jure publico armati non tam caedebantur quam caedebant profligatis Tyrannis Licinio Iugum persecutionis a cervicibus Ecclesiae depulerunt Pari ratione Ecclesia nostra cum longo tempore sub Antichristo nullis Secularibus praesidiis adjuta duram servitutem serviisset postquam ex illis fluctibus miserante Deo eluctari jam emergere caepisset legum aliquod praesidium stantibus ab illa principibus optimatibus obtimusseâ— caepit catenùs uti viribus suis armata manu munitam edictis legibus privilegiis ab importuna Tyrannorum oppressione vindicare Quare Principes Galliae quorum interfuit providere ne publica libertas per injuriam opprimeretur neve quae lege sancta esse debebant surreptitiorum quorundam libidine pro irritis nullis haberentur qui usque adeo hostes republicae comperti sunt ut signiferum illius seditionis Ducem Guisium Rex ipse Henricus si Religione cum eo consentiens quia judicio agere non posset repentino impetu confodiendum curaret bello injustam illam violentiam repellendam Ecclesiam non nisi juste armatam pro ea quam lege habebat libertate conservanda in aciem educendam censuerunt ubi qui de tuis partibus Bellarmine ceciderunt non injuria Persecutionis sed justissimae Defensionis impetu perierunt But here we are fallen into a Political Question How much Authority over the Subjects was promised to the Prince by the Fundamental Laws of every State whether he have a boundless and unlimited Power or whether it be measured and adjusted and more or less mixed with the Power and Authority of the Peers or People The Government of the Roman Emperours heretosore was Absolute and Unmixed they governed all at Pleasure they made Laws and they unmade them again and had the Soveraign Power of Life and Death For which reason the Christians could with no pretence Resist the Violence of those Times or Defend themselves against the Wrongs which were done to them But the Princes of those Countries which you speak of have certain Bounds set them which when they pass the Nobles think it lawful for them to Repel their unjust Violence and to shake off the Yoke wherewith they are wickedly and illegally Oppressed And thus the King of Spain who had the Government of the Netherlands only upon Composition and Compact when he did no longer stand to his Compact and acted Insolently contrary to the Faith which he had given was thought to have devested himself of that Government so that there was no reason why those Provinces might not lawfully Defend themselves with Arms and get rid of an Ambitious Tyranny The King of France is much more Absolute nevertheless this serves for a Law to him That the Prince can do nothing contrary to Law and that his Edicts ought not to be regarded unless they be agreeable to Equity as well as Truth Besides the Peers and the rest of the Estates have an Honour and Dignity belonging to them which the King himself cannot Violate Which when the Nobles of that Kingdom were sensible was deeply wounded by a Faction of some upstart Men who served their own Ambition under a Cloak of Religion turned all things upside down and seemed to threaten miserable Calamity to the whole Kingdom truly they took up Arms to Vindicate the King's and Kingdom 's and all their own Liberties and thought it not fit to be endured that the Insolence of a few Men which was armed against the Laws should trample upon all Laws both Divine and Humane with unsufferable Boldness They fought therefore for their own Right not by any Priviledge which the Church has to Defend itself with Arms but by their Civil Liberty whereby without any wrong to the Prince it was Lawful for them in a way of Defence to maintain their Legal Establishment against their sworn Enemies And herein their Case differed from that of the Primitive Church which was Subject to Absolute Imperial Will and Pleasure without any Title to Rights of its own Now while their condition continu'd thus The Christians as you say were killed but did not kill Notwithstanding when under Constantine the Emperour they were armed with a Publick Right They were rather for killing than being killed and having Vanquished several Usurpers and Licinius the Emperour they threw off the Yoke of Persecution from the Neck of the Church In like manner our Church when she had for a long time undergone an hard Bondage under Antichrist having had no Secular Protection at all after she had begun by the Mercy of God to get above Water and to rise from under those Waves of Oppression and having by the Princes and Nobles standing by her gained some Protection of the Laws she began to use her own Power as far as she had it and when she was now fortified with Edicts and Laws and Priviledges to Vindicate herself with Arms from the vexatious Oppression of Tyrants Wherefore the Nobles of France who were concerned to provide that the Publick Liberty should not be oppressed by Wrong nor those things which ought to have been Established by the Law should
The Opinion is This That RESISTANCE may be Vsed in case our Religion and Rights should be INVADED THE Arguments against it are these First That the Christian Religion doth plainly forbid the Resistance of Authority Quaere Who has Authority to Invade the Established Religion and Rights of the Nation Is any one Impowered by the Laws to invade the Laws Secondly That though our Religion be Established by Law which makes a difference between our Case and that of the Primitive Christians yet in the same Law which Establishes our Religion it is declared That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King or any Commissioned by him Neither doth this reach the Question For the King can do no Wrong nor in the second place can he Commissionate any person to Invade the Established Religion and Rights of the Kingdom for a Commission of that kind is not a Commission in Law it is null and void and nothing Besides that there is a particular Law declaring the Power of the Militia to be solely in the King. To do what To Invade the Established Religion and Rights of the Kingdom If you read the whole Act you will find the direct contrary And that tyes the hands of Subjects though the Law of Nature and the general Rules of Scripture had left us at liberty which I believe they do not because the Government and Peace of Humane Society could not well subsist upon these Terms As if the Established Religion and Rights of a Nation which are the very Ends of Government and of Humane Society were Best Secured by being laid open to Invasion and exposed for a Prey Thirdly This Opinion is contrary to the declared Doctrine of all Protestant Churches and though some particular persons have taught otherwise yet they have been contradicted herein and condemned for it by the generality of Protestants Whereas the following Testimonies will prove it to be no singular Opinion but held by the most Eminent Protestants both at home and abroad And they give such Reasons for their Opinion as may at least excuse those persons who are of the same Perswasion till such time as those Arguments are answered as well as the Opinion condemned To begin with Luther with whom the Papists say Untruly our Religion began but who was indeed a person whom it pleased God to make the Great Restorer of Religion to this last Age of the World. Sleidan not only tells us that he was of this opinion but likewise how he came to be of it when he had formerly held the contrary The words are these Sleid. Com. Lib. 8. Prius quà m foedus iniretur in Concilium adhibiti fuerunt non Iureconsulti modo sed Theologi quoqueâ— Lutherus semper docuerat Magistratui non esse resistendum extabat ejus hâ—â— de re libellus cùm autem in hâc deliberatione periti juris docerent Legibus esse permissum resistere nonnunquam nunc in eum Casum de quo Leges inter alia mentionem faciant rem esse deductam ostenderent Lutherus ingenuè prositetur se Nescivisse hoc licere Et quia Leges Politicas Evangelium non impugnet aut aboleat uti semper docuerit deinde quoniam hoc tempore tam dubio tamque formidoloso multa possint accidere sic ut non modo jus ipsum sed Conscientiae quoque vis atque necessitas arma nobis porrigat Defensionis cauâ—à foedus iniri posse dicit sive Caesar ipse sive quis alius fortè bellum ejus nomine faciat Edito quoque scripto primum explicat quà m fuerint in Augustae Comitiis obstinati Pontificii deinde monet in universum omnes ne Magistratui ad ejusmodi Bellum imperanti Militiam obtemperent Doctrinae verò Pontificiae complures gravissimos quidem recenset errores quos ait ab illis propugnatum 〈◊〉 qui se Castris illis adjungunt quà quidem in re summum Nefas inesse dicit Quanta sit etiam lux illata mentibus hominum hoc tempore per Evangelii cognitionem demonstrat à tam Impii belli societate temperandum esse docet In English thus Before the Princes and Cities entered into an Association they took the Advice not only of Lawyers but of Divines also Now Luther had always taught That the Magistrate might not be Resisted and there was a little Book of his extant upon that subject But when the Lawyers in this Consultation shewed that Resistance was allowed by the Laws in some cases and made it appear that the present Case was one of those whereof the Laws made mention Luther ingeniously professed that he did not know the lawfulness of it before and now said that being The Gospel doth not Bar nor Abolish the Laws of the State as he had always taught and furthermore because in this uncertain and dangerous Time many things might so happen that not only matter of Right but also the force and necessity of Conscience might occasion us to Arm therefore an Association might be entered into to defend our selves in case Caesar himself should make War upon us or any one else in Caesar's name He put forth a Book likewise wherein he first shewed how obstinate the Papists were in the Diet at Auspurgh and then warned all men in general that they should not obey the Magistrate if he raised the Militia for such a War. He reckoned up very many and very gross Errors of Popery to shew those who sided with the Emperour what things they would fight for and consequently how great a wickedness it was He shewed how much more Light than formerly men now had by the knowledge of the Gospel and that they ought not to engage in so wicked a War. There were seven Princes and twenty four Protestant Cities which entered into this Association some of whose Arguments and Reasons for it we have upon Record in the following Books of the same Historian The Saxon and the Lanâ—grave in their Declaration 2 September which was in answer to the Emperours from his Camp at Ingolstadt have these words Sleid. Com. L. 18. Quid Caesari debeant Principes quid invicem ipse praestare debâ—at abunde nobis constat ut nos illi sic ipse vicissim nobis obligatus est quod autem indictae causâ nos Proscribit omnibus possessionibus dejicere conatur in eo juris vinculum dissolvit quo clienti seu beneficiario devinctus est invicem patronus Iam quod rebellionem nobis objicit nihil est scit ipse nobis injuriam fieri We know very well what Duty the Princes owe to the Emperour and what on the other side he himself ought to perform We are mutually bound to one another Now because he proscribes us without any Process of Law and endeavours to throw us out of all our Possessions in so doing he breaks that bond of the Law whereby a Lord and his Client or Beneficiary are bound to each