Selected quad for the lemma: prince_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
where amongst other things they will find he says That the dreadful Plagues that followed the Iews Ier. 15. 3 4. upon account of the Wickedness of Manasseth and the bloud which he shed in Ierusalem were most just Punishments and deservedly inflicted upon that People because they suffered him to do it c. It was the misery of most of the Protestants in other Countries as well as those in Germany in the beginning of their Reformation to fall under Oppression particularly the French Scotch and Dutch Protestants and it is well known they all Defended themselves and used Resistance which in Scotland ended in an Established Reformation in Holland ended in an absolute Freedom both from the Popish and Spanish Yoke and in France ended in a free Exercise of their Religion but was soon interrupted by the true Popish Faith and Friendship of a Massacre so that they were forced to Fight all over again I desire that it may be observed That neither these Germans Scotch Dutch nor French in their first War ever pretended that their Religion was Established by LAW and thereby made a part of the Government of their Country Which men by their Allegeance are bound to Defend but they used Resistance to repel the Violence which was done only to their Civil Rights and to the Native Liberty of their Consciences It were foolish Impertinence to cite the Authorities of those that were engaged in this Resistance and it were endless to cite all the forreign Divines who lookt on and applauded it and called it The LORD's Battles I suppose it will be more for every bodies satisfaction to see what our own Bishops say to it and whether they will own those men for Protestants who were engaged in such Proceedings For which purpose I shall set down the words of three of them Bishop Iewell Bishop Bilson and Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury men famous in this Church Bishop Iewel in the Defence of his Apology p. 16. hath these words Neither doth any of all these Luther Melancthon c. teâ—â—â— the People to Rebal against their Printe but only to Defend themselves by all lawful means against Oppression as did David against King Saul so do the Nobles in France at this day They seek not to Kill but to save their own Lives as they have Protested by publick Writing to the World. As for us we are Strangers unto their Case they themselves are best acquainted with the Laws and Constitutions of their Country and therefore are best able to yield account of the Grounds and Reasons of their Doings Bishop Bilson in his Book of the True Difference betwixt Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth being a Dialogue between Theophilus a Christian and Philander a Jesuit so that Jesuits did not go for Christians in those days does Justifie that Defence which both the French and Dutch made upon Supposition that it was according to the Laws and Constitution of their Country and permitted by them Says the Jesuit What their Laws permit I know not I am sure in the mean time they Resist Theoph. And we because we do not exactly know what their Laws permit see no reason to condemn their Doings without hearing their Answer Phil. Think you their Laws permit them to Rebel Theoph. I busie not myself in other mens Commonwealths as you do neither will I rashly pronounce all that Resist to be Rebels Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms where the People may plead their Right against the Prince and not be charged with Rebellion Phil. As when for Example Theoph. If a Prince should go about to Subject his Kingdom to a forreign Realm or change the Form of the Common-wealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure In these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to Defend their Ancient and Accustomed Liberties Regiment and Laws they may not well be counted Rebels Phil. You denied that even now when I did urge it Theoph. I denied that Bishops had Authority to prescribe Conditions to Kings when they Crowned them but I never denied that the People might preserve the Foundation Freedom and Form of their Commonwealth which they Foreprised when they first consented to have a King. Bishop Abbot in his Demonstratio Antichristi Dedicated to King Iames being an Answer to Bellarmine has a large Discourse about this matter The occasion of it is this Persecution of the Godly being one Mark of Antichrist Bellarmine endeavours to shew that this Mark did not belong to the Pope nor Church of Rome because they were not guilty of Persecuting tho' there were then fresh instances of their Persecuting in Holland in the Paris Massacre and other Slaughters of the Protestants But says Bishop Abbot to Bellarmine Cap. 7. Sect. 5. You think you have wiped away all that Bloud with one word speaking and by only saying That the Protestants did not fall by a Persecution but by a Civil War and that many more of the Papists were Slain 〈◊〉 than the Inquisitors had Burned perhaps in an hundred Years Nevertheless the Bishop still charges this Bloud upon the Papists because the Protestants entred into this War meerly for their own Defence In which says he if some of the Papists perished how can they be accounted any other than the Authors both of their own Death and of the Death of their Country-men too being they took up Arms either by the unjust Vsurpation of their Princes or by the Lust of some Factious Men against the Publick Faith against Edicts and Covenants against the Rights of their own Country against the Prerogatives of the Nobles against the Franchises and Priviledges of Towns and Cities Sect. 6. Hic vero Politica res agitur quid Principi juris per Leges cujusque Republicae Fundatrices promissum sit utrum Potestatem habeat infinitaâ— nullo limite conclusam an vero moderatam sive Optimatum sive Populi arbitrio magis minusve temperatam Romanus Imperator mero absoluto imperio Gentibus praesidebat Arbitrio suo jubebat omnia leges scripsit rescripsit summam vitae necisque Potestatem habuit Quare nullo praetextu Christiani poterant vim illorum temporum arcere vel injurias prohibere quibus vexati sunt Illarum vero Nationum Principes quas commemoras certos sibi fines constitutos habent quibus ubi excedunt licere sibi sentiunt Optimates vim injustam depellere Iugum excutere quo per nefas contra Leges Oppressi sunt Cujus rei Controversâ—a non a Religione tantummodo sed ab aliis Politicis negotiis exorta est Itaque Rex Hispanus qui non nisi Conventione Pacto principatum habuit Provinciarum Belgicarum ubi pacto stare desisteret contra datam fidem superbe ageret ipse se exuisse principatu illo putabatur ut nihil causae esset