of God and that they who resist them shall receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13.1 2. the sense of these truths was contained under the acknowledgment which David made in the Old Testament who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed Hom. 1. de Dav. Saul and be guiltless For as S. Chrysostome noted when David declared Saul to be the Lords anointed he did acknowledge him to have Gods Authority and that to resist him was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fight against God or in the Apostles words to resist the Ordinance of God Aug. Quaest ex Vet. Test c. 35. And S. Austin observing that David called Saul the Lords anointed after the Lord had departed from him he adds that David was not ignorant divinam esse traditionem in officio ordinis Regalis that the royal office was Gods Ordinance and appointment and therefore he both did honour Saul and ought so to do 6. Some possibly may here urge that the Laws and Rules of right and all the Precepts of Religion amongst the Israelites were there established antecedently to the being of the Royal Authority among them and that these things standing by Divine Authority no King had any power to repeal or break them and on this account they might have liberty from the nature of their Constitution to defend these rights by the Sword though Christians have not But even this also will not alter the Case For throughout all the World the common Rules of right and justice have a divine stamp and are of as great Antiquity as the World it self and the nature of man and there is scarce any Kingdom in the World which hath continued without interruption of its succession and establishment so long as the doctrine of Christianity hath been in the World Tert. Ap. c. 4. Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 4. Orig. cont Cel. l. 1. l. 5. l. 8. which peculiarly is from God And however no prescription can be pleaded against the right of God and the Soveraignty of Christ no more than it could be pleaded for the establishment of the Pagan Idolatry in which Case the ancient Christians constantly asserted their duty to God and his Religion to be above that which they owed to the contrary Laws and Constitutions of humane Authority 7. Wherefore it will be of considerable moment clearly to prove that Subjects in the Church of Israel according to the will of God under the Old Testament were not allowed in any such Cases as have been pretended to take Armes against their Soveraign And if this was then unlawful it is now much more so under the dispensation of the Gospel SECT II. The general unlawfulness of Subjects takeing Armes against their Prince under the Old Testament evidenced Sect. 2 1. Because the unlawfulness of Subjects taking Armes against their King Kings under the Old Testament might not be resisted under the Old Testament will receive the fullest evidence from the behaviour of David towards Saul and those principles of duty whereby he was guided I shall pass by many other things with much brevity When Samuel declared the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manner or as very many Translations render it and the word most frequently signifies V. Vers Vulg. Syr. Arab. Par. Chald. Sept. Barclai adv Monarch l. 2. p. 64. the judgment or right of the King 1 Sam. 8.11 18. and Ch. 10.25 many judicious men with great reason have accounted it to contain this sense that such was the right dignity and authority of their King that though the people might bear and sustain such injuries as are there mentioned Carpzov in Schick Th. 1. p. 1. Th. 7. p. 160. Grot. ubi sup in 1 Sam. 8.11 de Imp. c. 3. n. 6. they had no lawful power of redressing themselves by force but only must apply themselves to God This Grotius in his Annotat. upon that place thus expresseth si peccarent reges graviter in Dei legem ad Deum ultio pertinebat non ad singulos ac ne ad populum quidem And de Imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra he saith Jus regis vocatur quia ita agenti nemini liceret vim ullam opponere And to the like sense Salmasius Defens Reg. c. 2. 2. Salomon perswading to that duty and reverence which Subjects owe to Princes Eccl. 8.2 3. declareth v. 4. where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou and speaks of the King against whom there is no rising up Prov. 30.31 which words give a fair intimation that the dignity of the King of Israel was such that no opposition or resistance might be made against him by inferiours And when David declared Ps 51.4 Against thee only have I sinned Ambr. Apol Dav. c. 10. S. Ambrose gives this sense thereof That David being King was not subject to the penalties of any humane Laws but the whole punishment of his sin was in the hands of God alone This is owned by Vega Veg. in Ps 4. Poenit. Conc. 2. to be the sense also of S. Hierome Austin Chrysostome and Cassiodorus and he himself gives this as a kind of Paraphrase upon that expression nullum alium praeter te unum in terra superiorem recognosco I acknowledge none other besides thee alone my superiour upon earth And this interpretation was received in the Christian Church as early as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and though other Expositions also have been given Strom. l. 4. p. 517. this shews what apprehensions these Christian Writers had of the nature of Davids Regal Authority And this hath so much evidence of truth that when Murder and Adultery in inferiour persons was punished by the Judges of Israel according to the Law of Moses Davids judgment must be according as God himself would pronounce and execute And though God so far pardoned David as to spare his life 2 Sam. 12.13 yet his Child must die v. 14. even by the hand of God v. 15 18 22. And God denounced against him that the Sword should not depart from his house v. 10. whereby Amnon Absalom and Adonijah were cut off And the Rebellion of Absalom as a judgment which God inflicted was part of the punishment of this sin v. 11. 3. When there were any corruptions in Religion publickly tolerated as the worshipping in high places and Groves the holy Scriptures lay the blame constantly upon the King and Prince whereas if the people and subjects had the power of defending their Religion and the purity thereof by the Sword the fault would have been equally chargeable upon them under the Government of their Kings For the same pious spirit which would engage a good Prince must also oblige a pious people to make use of their just power for the honour and service of God and if the Case had been lawful it would have been a kind of Martyrdom to hazard or lay down their
of their duty in loyal obedience And indeed it would be an high reflexion on the Laws of our Realm if such things as these should be acknowledged to be matters of such a perplexed intricacy that honest and indifferent minds who stand obliged to the practice of peace and loyalty should not without consulting skillful Lawyers be able to understand the general rule of thier duty and to whom they ought to yield obedience and submission 12. Besides the words of this publick Declaration and acknowledgment against lawfulness of taking Armes which yet might be accounted sufficient in the Statutes in the time of King Edw. the third â—t Edw. 3.2 it is declared without allowance of any case or pretence to the contrary to be treason if any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere 13 Car. 2.1 And since the restauration of his present Majesty it is also in general terms declared treason to levy War against the King within the Realm or without And to cut off all pretences either from the nature of the War as defensive only or from the authority of a Parliament or of the Lrods or commons we have in two several Statutes this Declaration 13 Car. 2.6 that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive 14 Car. 2.3 against his Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors In which Statutes also the sole supreme Command and Government of the Militia is declared by the Law of England ever to be the undoubted right of his Majesty and his Predecessors Kings and Queens of England 13. And from the Declaration and evidence of these Laws that Plea which hath been made from the Authority of Grotius becomes wholly void Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. That learned man indeed did assert that if the supreme Government be part in the people or Senate and part in the King if the King invade what is not his right he may be opposed with just force because he hath not so far any Supremacy And this he thinks must take place though it be said that the power of War is in the King for that saith he is only to be understood of Foreign War when whosoever hath any pat in the supreme power cannot but have a right to defend that part But these words seem very strange and inconsiderate from so intelligent a person if they be intended as they seem to be concerning one simple and unmixt supremacy For to assert two capacities where each hath authority to make War with the other is not to found one only regular Government but to erect two distinct Governments each of which have a supreme power of judging and of execution Indeed in such a mixt and divided Government as is in the German Empire it is allowed by the Constitutions and Capitulations of the Empire that the several Principalities or rather the Princes and Governours thereof have a power of taking Armes if their rights be invaded by the Emperour but then these Princes in their own territories enjoy a right of peculiar Soveraignty But if the whole of this notion of Grotius be taken together it will according to his judgment conclude that the people of England Lords Commons or both jointly have no part in the supreme power because these publick Laws declare that they have no power of making so much as a defensive War against the King 14. And if we look into the Records of the former Ages we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an Authority to bear Armes against the King To which purpose it may be sufficient to consider the Conclusion of the Barons Wars in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the Third Very many of the Peers and chief Barons of the Realm undertook to make War with the King under the Conduct of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester M. Par. An. 1264. whom M. Paris calls Baronum Capitaneum and after several Battels had been fought the Kings person was seized and taken at Lewis And not long after this Idem an 1265. the King Summons a Parliament at Winchester in which all those who acted under or with Simon de Montfort are disinherited Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. p. 31. which act of disinheriting is reported to have been confirmed in a following Parliament at Westminster But in order to the setling the State of the Realm upon more mild and gentle terms by agreement between the King and the Barons a Plenipotentiary Power was delegated and committed to twelve Peers that they might establish what they thought fit and convenient concerning them who thus stood disinherited 15. These twelve published their determination An. 51 H. 3. Dict. de Kenilw. c. 2. which had the force of a Law under the name of Dictum de Kenilworth In which it was concluded that they who had been engaged in Armes against the King unless the King had pardoned them should pay the revenue of their lands for five years And they who had no Lands were to give their own Oath and to find other Sureties for their peaceable behaviour and also make such satisfaction and undergo such pennance as the Church should appoint Ibid. c. 9. And that they who were Tenants should lose their right in their Farms C. 11. saving the right of their Lords And that they who by their perswasion did instigate any to fight against the King should forfeit the profit of their Lands for two years with many other provisions for particular Cases And they also determined that if any persons should refuse these terms which were proposed as a favourable mitigation of strict justice they should be de exhaeredatis C. 29. and have no power of recovering their Estates But some persons and particularly Simon de Montfort himself C. 21. was excluded from these terms of favour and left to the ordinary proceedings of justice in manus Regis Now those practises and enterprises which were so publickly censured condemned and punished by our Parliaments and proceedings of justice must needs be accounted by them unlawful actings 16. In the year following An. 52 Hen. 3. the Statute of Marlbridge mentions it St. Marlbridge c. 1. as a great and heavy mischief and evil that in the time of the late troubles in England many Peers and others refused to receive justice from the King and his Court as they ought to have done which is more expresly contained in the Original Latine than in the common English Translation justitiam indignati fuerint recipere per Dominum Regem curiam suam prout debuerunt consueverunt and did undertake to vindicate their own causes of themselves Now to declare that all Peers and all other persons ought to have
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Sam. 12.11 and signified this to Barak by a Prophetess and to Gideon by an Angel by this means the Soveraign power so far as concerned the undertaking committed to them was placed in them 6. But it may be further objected The right of Zealots examined that it is declared by very good Authors and men well acquainted with the Jewish State and their Writers that in some cases especially against the practicers of Idolatry private persons out of a zeal for God and Religion might make use of the power of the Sword jure zelotarum following the example of Phinehas Grot. de J. B. P. L 2. c. 20. n. 9. Seld. de Jur. nat Gent. l. 4. c. 3 4 5. de Syned l. 2. c. 14. n. 3. Dr. Ham. Tract of Zealots Right of Ch. Ch. 5. And they who embrace this Notion do not confine this to private cases as if any of the Jews might lawfully kill an Idolater as other persons may do him who makes an actual assault against their King or is an aggressor to design their murder But Grotius Selden Dr Hammond and Mr Thorndike Seem to allow the undertaking of the Maccabees to be grounded upon this right of Zealots And then it must be granted that it might also be lawful for other private persons to take Armes in like cases And there are such instances as these produced to prove this right of Zealots in Phinehas killing Zimri and Cozbi Elijah slaying Baals Priests and calling fire from Heaven on the Captains of the Fifties our Saviours driving the money-Changers out of the Temple and such like besides the actings of the Maccabees Now it might be sufficient to say that if the right of Zealots should be allowed provided it extended it self only to private cases which is as much as any probability of proof can reach the duties of Subjection and the Authority of Government might still possibly remain inviolable But because I am further prone to think that the grounds and instances upon which this whole notion is built are mistaken I shall offer to the Readers consideration these three things with respect thereto 7. First that it must needs be a great disorder in Government and a foundation of much disturbance and evil if every earnest spirited man were allowed in the heat of his zeal to put himself into the place of a Magistrate and to execute judgment of death upon whomsoever he accounted an offender against God and his Religion I acknowledge that in the declining time of the Jewish Government many actions were undertaken only under the pretence of such a zeal which were in truth acts of fury and they were so far from being warrantable that they did abundantly manifest the dangerousness of admitting such pretences Grot. Ham. ubi sup in Act. 7.57 Both Grotius and Dr Hammond account the stoning of St. Steven and the conspiracy of more than forty Jews not to eat or drink till they had slain Paul to be done by the spirit of the Zealots which were things riotous and outragious which may not be justified nor may the like be tolerated under any Government Dr. Ham. in Mat. 10. c. And by the prevalency of this sort of men who were called Zealots there was very much cruelty exercised in Judea many of their Nobles and chief persons were slain Jos de Bel. Jud. l. 6. c. 1. and by Josephus they are accounted to have contributed much to occasion the destruction of Jerusalem But these practices were not regular or guided by any accountable rules but were greatly exorbitant And if private persons taking the Sword and killing those who depraved Religious Worship had been a thing lawful and commendable in the Jewish State upon this right of Zealots It may well be wondred that none of the Prophets did ever put the people upon vindicating their Religion by this Method under those had Kings of Israel or Judah in whose days the worshipping of Baal was openly practised 8. Secondly several worthy actions pretended to be undertaken by the right of Zealots were warranted according to the ordinary rules of Government by other sufficient Authority though a zeal for the Honour of God made the persons more forward and active Such I suppose was the action of Phinehas Numb 25.7 8. in pursuance of Moses his sentence of judgment v. 5. as also the War undertaken by Mattathias and his Sons and Mattathias his killing the Jew who in obedience to the command of Antiochus openly sacrificed according to the manner of the Heathen 1 Mac. 2.23 24 25. For by the same right whereby he might take Armes for his Country and Religion against Antiochus he might also act against those who took part with Antiochus against them 9. Thirdly In the Jewish Common-wealth which was peculiarly ordered by God some Prophets and men extraordinarily inspir'd not other zealous men at large were empowered by Gods Authority to do some extraordinary actions which otherwise had not been warrantable and it is be this special authority of God not by their own zeal only that such things were allowable To this Head may be reduced Samuels and Elijahs sacrificing though they were not Priests Samuels anointing Saul and David and the young Prophet who was sent by Elisha his anointing Jehu 2 Kin. 9.3 6. And of this nature were the actions of Elijah above-mentioned Samuel hewing Agag in pieces and our Saviours driving out of the Temple them who sold Sheep L'Empereur in Midd. c. 2. sect 3. in sciagraphia Templ Oxen and Doves and over-throwing the Tables of the Mony-changers Joh. 2.14.17 Mar. 11.15 For though these things were only done in the remote parts of the utmost Court and with respect to the Sacrifices and Offerings of the Temple they were a profanation of the Temple being managed by the undertakers in that place as a Trade And of this nature was Moses his killing the Egyptian as appears Act. 7.24 25. 10. The instance of Athaliah Of Athaliah being rejected from being Queen over Judah and slain by the direction of Jehoiadah is frequently urged by diverse Romish writers Bell. de Rom. p. l. 5. c. 8. to prove the Superiority of the Jewish High Priest over the Prince and it is also urged more generally by some others to shew that the People did warrantable deprive her of Princely power But Jehoiadah J. Brut. Qu. 2. Ruth Civ Pol. Qu. 28. p. 264. as a good Subject acted by the Authority of Joash the true and rightful King against her who was a plain Vsurper And that Jehoiadah was not the High Priest may appear somewhat probable because he is not mentioned in the Catalogue of the High Priests in the Chronicles Ant. Jud. l. 10. c. 11. Of Jehu conspiring against Joram 1 Chr. 6 11-15 nor in that of Josephus 11. Whereas Jehu took Arms against Joram and slew him 2 Kin. 9.24 and cut off Ahabs House for which God commended him 2 Kin. 10.30 this