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
received justice only from the King and his Courts and not to revenge themselves or be Judges in their own Cases doth more especially condemn the entring into War it self which is an undertaking founded upon a direct contrary proceeding And thus far we have a sufficient censure in our English Laws upon that War against the King which those who have pleaded for the lawfulness of Subjects taking Arms do account the most plausible instance for their purpose which our Chronicles can furnish them with And it is needless to go about to prove that many other Conspiracies and Rebellions have been justly condemned and punished according to their demerit 17. And whereas unchristian and evil actions Some pretences shortly reflected on may oft be carried on under some fair colours and appearances all such pretences for taking Armes against the King are in this acknowledgment disclaimed the truth of which will be justified in the following Chapters And I shall here only shortly reflect upon some few of those pretences which are commonly made 18. Some have accounted the defence of Religion to be a sufficient Warrant for taking Armes But if the Christian Religion giveth a right to him who professeth it to defend himself and his profession against his Superiours by Armes then must not our Religion be a taking up the Cross but the Sword and it would then be perfectly unlike the Religion of the Primitive Christians and Martyrs and would be no longer a following of Christ our Lord and Saviour 19. Others have asserted the defaults and miscarriages of Superiours Jun. Brut. Vindic. Qu. 1. 3. to be a forfeiture of their Power and Dominion even as a tenure may be forfeited upon the non-performance of the conditions upon which it is held But though God may justly as a punishment of Offenders deprive them of what good they here possess he hath not made inferiours the Judges of their Superiours nor can any such forfeiture devolve on them And he who considers the great viciousness and cruelty of Saul of Tiberius and of Nero under whose Reigns the Holy Scripture presseth the duty of Allegiance will thence discern that the making such a pretence as this is contrary to true Religion and Christianity 20. By many the defending of the rights freedoms and liberties of the Subject hath been esteemed the most specious pretence of all the rest But whereas there are other better wayes to preserve these rights which are most violated by Wars and intestine Tumults and Broils it cannot easily be thought probable that he may be a judge and avenger of his own cause by force against his superiour who may not be so against his equal And since the tenderness of Davids Conscience was such that notwithstanding the many undeserved injuries he sustained he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lords anointed and Peters drawing his Sword to defend his Master was severely rebuked of which things more hereafter the management of this objection must proceed from a Spirit contrary to that of pious David and to the doctrine also of our Lord and Master SECT III. Of the traiterous Position of taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person or against those who are commissionated by him 1. The other clause in the forementioned Declaration or acknowledgment is intended against another particular pretence of taking Armes and is this That I do abhor that traiterous Position of taking Armes by his the Kings authority Sect. 3 against his person or against those that are Commissionated by him The Position or assertion here rejected is thus expressed in the Oath to be taken by the Lord Lieutenants and Souldiers 14 Car. 2.3 That Arms may be taken by the Kings Authority viz. though the King never own them or give any Commission for them yea though they be against his own person or against those which are Commissionated by him And this Position Taking Arms by the Kings Authority against his person disclaimed exposing the sacred person of the King to the highest danger and being against the safety of his Life and Crown is justly declared to be traiterous and it standeth chargeable with these enormities 2. First It is so unreasonable as to be against the common sense of Mankind Would it not look strange and be accounted a prodigious thing to see a Company of Children or Servants beat and abuse the person of their Father or Master dispossess him by violence and possibly at last to confine and murder him and yet to expect that all men should believe they did this for the preservation of his Right and Government and in obedience to his Authority yea though he plainly declared and protested against these things as being heinously injurious and unnatural And it is no less unaccountable to pretend the Kings Authority Judic Univers Oxon de foedere p. 66. for taking Armes against his person This is as it hath been expressed a like contradiction in sense reason and polity as Transubstantiation is in Religion both which must suppose such a presence as is impossible to be there and is contrary to the plainest evidence This pretence of the Kings Authority against his person was hatched under the Romish Territories and made use of in the Holy League of France In the Guisian attempts against Henry the Third Hist of Civil Wars of France l. 5. an 1588. it hath been related as a matter of wonder to the common sense of men that they should besiege the Loure where the King was and yet this should pass under the disguise of obeying the King and defending the King and Country That the name of the King doth denote the royal person who governeth is the general apprehension of Mankind And it is vainly pretended that all the proceedings of justice being always in the Kings name and by his Authority when many of them are not particularly known to his person must require the forming such a legal Idea or Notion of the King as is distinct from his person but this supposeth the Soveraign Authority to be in his Royal person under whom and from whom other Ministers of Justice do execute their several Offices As when any man intrusts another to manage any part of his business and affairs in his name and by his Authority this doth not make the man who commits the trust to become an Idea or Notion distinct from himself or his person 3. Secondly This strained perverting of plain sense in this particular is not only against the security of the King but may upon the same foundation become fatal to the lives of the subjects Manual concerning some priviledges of Parl. p. 16 17 and p. 60. For whereas some who managed this conceit did assert in plain words that even the Statutes which condemned treason against the King had respect to the King in this Novel Idea as intending thereby the Laws and the Kings Courts of Justice it is easy to discern that any subjects who
shall stand in the way of such an ill-designing party of men or shall displease them may easily be charged with treason and thereby be cut off upon pretence of opposing the Laws and Government when the very discharge of honesty and integrity may be so accounted 4. Thirdly They who made use of this Position did give the World sufficient proof that it was only a designed pretence to serve a present turn For when in our late sad commotions they used the Plea of the Kings Authority in acting against his person before they had murthered his person they then laid aside also all pretence of reverent regard to the Kings Authority and by several Acts as they were called Acts May 19. 1649. and of Treason July 17. 1649. declare the supreme authority of England to be in the Commons not at all regarding this Ideal Authority of the King which if they had been true to their own notion must have been acknowledged still remaining And they then required the Engagement to be taken to be true and faithful not to the Kings Laws and Government according to their own Idea but to the Common-wealth of England without King c. Which is evidence enough that those men intended as much to act against and oppose the true Regal dignity and authority as the person of that excellent Prince and that this distinction was not only void of truth and justice in it self but of honesty and good meaning also in these contriving men who were the maintainers of it 5. The last part of this Clause of the acknowledgment Taking Arms against them who are Commissionated by the King unlawful hath respect to them who are commissionated by the King the sense of which must be measured from the intent and tendency thereof which is to secure the Kings safety and Government and to maintain the Subjects true allegiance and fidelity And therefore I doubt not to aver that the use of quirks and niceties Manual p. 102. in supposing some extraordinary Cases which are inconsistent with these duties and which we may well presume or hope may never be in act ought not to be considered in making this acknowledgment Wherefore to supppose that the person of any King of England should be violently surprized and seised by any seditious and ill-designing men which I trust will never come to pass and they should by force or fraud extort Commissions from him against his loyal Subjects and Friends this acknowledgment concerning the ordinary duty of Subjects doth not take in such extraordinary fictions of imaginary Cases which are not fit to be supposed but they who are the Kings regular Officers ought to resist such evil men who offer violence to his person for the good both of the King and Kingdom 6. And also that Case which some put of the King granting a Commission against the legal power which he hath committed to a Sheriff or against any other Commission which himself hath given and doth continue to other Officers is such an unreasonable and undutiful supposition of cross Commissions which no good subject ought to make or to consider in this acknowledgment Only in such an extraordinary Case where any persons whosoever in any Office or Commission shall become Authors or Abetters of Sedition or Robellion and oppose the Kings Authority and Government it is reasonable to be expected that the King will grant Commissions to suppress and reduce them And since no Office or Commission either can or is intended to warrant any man to act against his Loyalty and Allegiance such revolting Officers ought to be opposed by them who are impowered and commanded by their Prince so to do nor is it to be supposed that this acknowledgment doth at all assert the contrary But the true sense of this clause is that it is a traiterous design and therefore to be abhorred for the Kings Subjects without any command from their Prince to take Arms against those who act by vertue and in pursuance of his Commission regularly granted to them And that these words of this acknowledgment may be reasonably taken in this fair and just sense is evident from the result of what I have above discoursed B. 1. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. concerning the sense and interpretation of such publick Declarations 7. And it was reasonable for the avoiding evasions that this acknowledgment condemning the taking Armes against them who are Commissionated by the King should be declared in such general termes If only taking Armes against the Kings person should be disclaimed in a strict sense then the fighting the Kings Armies destroying his Subjects resisting his Government and those who are invested with his Authority which are the usual methods of the most open and daring Enemies would not be provided against But these are the highest oppositions against the King which the most disloyal Subjects can ordinarily make by taking up Armes who cannot probably act immediately against his person unless they can first vanquish those loyal subjects who are his strength and defence Fourth Sermon before King Edw. 6. Bishop Latimer tells us that when he was in the Tower a Lord who had been engaged in Rebellion told him If I had seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field against us I would have lighted from my Horse and taken my Sword by the point and yielded it into his hands To whom the Bishop replied It hath been the cast of all Traitors to pretend nothing against the Kings person subjects may not resist any Magistrate nor do any thing contrary to the Kings Law And the Imperial Law declares that all and every of them are Rebels or Traitors who in any wise publickly or secretly Extravag Henr. 7. Tit. 2. do the works of Rebellion against our honour or their fealty and do enterprise any thing against the welfare of our Empire contra nos seu officiales nostros in iis quae ad commissum eis officium pertinent rebellando by rebelling or taking Arms against us or our Officers in those things which belong to the office committed to them CHAP. II. The Laws of Nature and of general Equity and the right grounds of humane polity do condemn all subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign power SECT I. The preservation of peace and common rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Prince and Governour Sect. 1 1. THose Laws do carry along with them the strongest obligation which are not only established by a positive constitution but are also inforced by the common and necessary Rules of justice truth righteousness and order Rules of common equity are against Subjects taking Arms. Bishop Ferne Episcop and Presbyter considered For here is a joint tye from the Bond of obedience to Superiours of Religion to God and of the general Principles of equity and reason Of this nature is the duty of non-resistance against Soveraign Rulers which our Laws establish And the doctrine of our Church doth
yet sometimes in this particular he plainly misrepresenteth the laws of Moses as is done in some expressions of this very Chapter now mentioned 3. The Israelites also had Courts of Judicature and Judges in their several Precincts commanded by the law as is necessary in every Kingdom and orderly Government Both in its supreme power and they had one chief court to receive appeals from the inferiour enjoined Deut. 17.8 9 10. But all these in the time of the Royal Government and all matters of justice whatsoever were under the authority of the King ordered by him and dependent upon him Gemar in Sanh c. 2. Sect. 6. Even the Talmud declareth that all that is contained in that Parashah of the law which treateth concerning the King is under the Government of the King which Parashah or Section beginneth Deut. 16.18 and endeth Deut. 21.10 and so taketh in this whole seventeenth Chapter But we have much better evidence hereof both in what I have above observed of the Kings power concerning matters of judicature and in that God chargeth upon the King the care of executing justice Jer. 21.12 ch 22.2 3 4 15 16. See also 2 Kin. 15.6 4. But this Rabbinical Sanhedrim whose name being of a Greek extraction from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may somewhat intimate the time of its production consisting only of Rabbies or such students in the law who received ordination it is reasonably concluded by Mr Thorndike Of Religious Assembl c. 3. that it could not be such in the flourishing times of their Kingdom when no doubt Princes and noble persons enjoyed places of dignity and authority And precise number of judges And whereas these Rabbinical Courts of Judicature consisted of three persons only in lesser places of twenty three in greater Cities and the supreme Court precisely of seventy one it is highly probable that this model so far as respects the number was not the ancient usage in Israel there being no account of any such Courts given either by Josephus or Philo. Ant. l. 4. c. 8. Yea Josephus declares that which is sufficiently contrary hereto that in every City the Government was to be managed by seven men with two Levites which he mentioneth as the direction of Moses but this is not reconcileable with the Rabbinical notions notwithstanding all the endeavours of some learned men to that purpose And when we read of a Court of ten Elders at Bethlehem Ruth 4.2 and of seventy seven Elders at Succoth which was a City of the Gadites Jud. 8.14 it is manifest that in those times they had not the same number of Judges and Rulers which the latter times did direct but very different Perpetual Gov. of Chr. Church ch 4. p. 21. as is from hence observed by Bishop Bilson 5. I know it hath been an opinion commonly received without much examination that this great Court had its original in the Wilderness when the seventy Elders were taken unto Moses his assistance in the Government Num. 11. which Mr Selden accounts a matter so clear De Syn. l. 2. c. 4. n. 12. that he receiveth it with nihil certius est But he who shall consider that all the evidence that those 70. Elders were such a Sanhedrin as I have above discoursed of doth depend upon the tradition of a very distant age and that there is no certainty that the 70. Elders mentioned in the Book of Numbers were one Court and not Officers in distinct limits as also that the History of the Book of Judges and of the time of Samuel 1 Sam. 7.16 who was himself chief Judge of Israel and in his own person held his assizes in Circuit twice in the year as Josephus tells us give sufficient evidence Ant. l. 6. c. 3. that there was no such supreme Court in being all those times which he judged Israel and that in the following times the authority claimed to them was enjoyed by the Kings as I have evinced I say he who considers all this may very well question if not deny its so early original And the Jewish traditions concerning the continuance of this Court Seld. de Syn. l. 2. c. 16. n. 23. p. 661 c. and the series of succession of its presidents hath no shew of probability They ordinarily account from Moses till the Kings of Israel that the several Judges of Israel were the successive heads of the Sanhedrim and yet there is no mention of any such Court in all the History of the Judges and many things therein shew them to have judged Israel as single persons or a kind of Monarchs and had there been such a setled great Court of Judicature with them that people had not been left upon the death of the Judge in such confusion and Anarchy that every man did what was right in his own eyes And the Jewish Writers produce different Catalogues of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President of the Sanhedrin Ibid. n. ◠5. which speaketh them to be at great uncertainty concerning it And many of them will have David and some other Kings to have been Presidents of this Court which is contrary to another of their own traditions above-mentioned But these uncertain and groundless Fables are rejected by divers learned men and even Selden himself acknowledgeth Ibid. n. 6. p. 674. that what the Jewish Writers deliver is successio intuenti haud satis commoda And not only Petavius and Pererius have disowned the Constitution of this Samhedrim to be from Moses but Carpzovius lately Carpz in Schickard p. 11 p. 16. passim and Conringius de Republica Hebraica and Fipschmuthius de rege eligendo deponendo as they are by him cited will not allow it to precede the Captivity 6. There is also another conceit Of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin Bertr de Rep. Hebr. c. 11. L'emp in Bertr ibid. in Middoth c. 5. Sect. 3. Mos Aar l. 5. c. 1. which hath taken place with many as Junius and Tremellius in Deut. 17. Bertram and L'Empereur our English Author of Jewish Antiquities and others that God appointed two Synedrial Consistories among the Jews the one civil the other Ecclesiastical Now if all that is designed by this notion of a distinct Ecclesiastical power was no more than that the Priests as Gods Officers were by divine authority empowered to judge and determine of what related to the regular purity of the Temple worship and of the Rules of Ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness and such like things still acknowledging that they were subjects to the Royal Government all this is to be granted and asserted and some intimations there are in the Jewish Writers of a Council or Consistory of Priests V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 26.3 But since the authority pleaded for in the management of this notion is a proper supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastioal so that both these pretended Consistories are stiled by Bertram summa suprema judicia
794. as some Romanists would have it but this was granted as an Eleemosynary pension for maintaining an English School at Rome And it must also be acknowledged that the Pope did sometimes since the Conquest exercise a great authority here disposing frequently by his provision of spiritual preferments confirming or nulling the Election of Metropolitans Pyn in Edward 1. an 30. p. 985 986. an 32. p. 1040. and some other Bishops and receiving Appeals And in those days there are some instances in our Records that the Kings Writ against persons excommunicated by the Archbishop was sometimes superseded upon their alledging that they prosecuted Appeals to the Apostolical See 11. But this submission in different persons had not always the same principle being sometimes yielded out of an high measure of voluntary respect and kindness and sometimes more was given to the Pope than otherwise would have been because the circumstances of Princes oft made their courting the Popes favour in former times to be thought by them to be a piece of needful policy And much also was done from the superstition and misapprehension of those Ages in many persons who supposed him to have that right of governing these Churches as S. Peters successor which he is now sufficiently evidenced not to have had Now what is done out of courtesy and by leave or out of some emergent necessity may at other times be otherwise ordered and no Christians are obliged to continue in practising upon superstitious mistakes more than they are obliged to live in errour and superstition And mere possession upon an unjust claim can give no good title to the Government of a Church but when the injustice thereof is made manifest it may be rejected and abolished Conc. Eph. c. 8. as the ancient Canons especially that Canon of the Council of Ephesus which speaks particularly of the Patriarchal Authority enjoin that no Bishop shall invade any Church which was not from the beginning under his Predecessors and if he should compel it to be under him he must restore its Jurisdiction again 12. Yet that exercise and possession of authority which the Pope here enjoyed was not so constant and undisturbed but that it was many times by the Kings and States of the Realm and even by the Bishops at some times complained of and opposed as injurious and the true rights and liberties of this Church and Kingdom were oft demanded and insisted upon Of which among very many instances I shall take notice of so many as are sufficient Before the Conquest I find not that the Pope exercised or claimed any governing authority distinct from counsel and advice in this Realm and therefore there was no need of any opposition to be made agianst it Indeed when Wilfrid Bishop of York who was twice censured in England G. Malmsbur de Gestis Pontific l. 3. f. 150. did both times make his application to Rome his Case was there heard and considered in a Synod and such examination and consideration of the Case even of the Bishop of Rome as Cornelius and others was sometimes had in other ancient Churches But for the decision of the Case the Pope requires it either to be ended by an English Council or to be determined by a more general Council And when Wilfrid at his first return from Rome brings the Popes Letters in favour of him King Egfrid put him in Prison and at his second return from Rome Ib. f. 152. King Alfrid who succeeded Egfrid in the Kingdom a Prince highly commended for hispiety learning and valour declared that it was against all reason to communicate with a man who had been twice condemned by English Councils notwithstanding any writing whatsoever from the Pope Nor were these things only sudden words but when the Pope had done all he could Wilfrid was not thereby restored or as Malmsburiensis expresseth it Malms de gest pont l. 1. init f. 111. Ib. f. 124. non tamen rem obtinuit After the Conquest it was declared by W. Rufus to be a custom of the Kingdom which had been established in the reign of his Father that no Pope should be appealed unto without the Kings Licence consuetudo regni mei est à patre meo instituta ut nullus praeter licentiam regis appelletur Papa Anselm Epist l. 3. Ep. 40. Paschali And Anselme acquainted the Pope that this King William the Second would not have the Bishop of Rome received or appealed unto in England without his command Nor would he allow Anselme then Archbishop of Canterbury to send Letters to him or receive any from him or to obey his Decrees He further tells the Pope that the generality of the Kingdom and even the Bishops of his own Province sided with the King and that when Anselme asked the Kings leave to go to Rome he was highly offended at this request and required that no such leave be afterward asked and that he appeal not to the Apostolical See and that when Anselme went to Rome without his leave he seised the Revenue of his Bishoprick M. Paris in Henr. 2. an 1164. And amongst the liberties and customs sworn to at the Parliament at Clarendon one was against appeales to Rome and receiving Decrees from thence 13. Ex lib. Assis Lord Cokes Reports in Cawdreys Case In the Reign of King Edward the First a subject of this Realm brought a Bull of Excommunication against another subject from Rome and this was adjudged Treason by the Common law of England and divers other instances are brought by Sir Edward Coke wherein the Excommunication and Absolution of the Pope or his Legate was declared null or invalid Pryn in Edw. 1. An. 20. p. 454. And much of the usurped power which the Pope here practised and claimed was rejected as a great grievance in the Statute of Provisors An. 25 Edw. 3. concerning his making provision for and collating to Dignities and Benefices against the method of free Elections and they who should apply themselves to Rome for this purpose became thereby liable to severe penalties And appeals to Rome in certain Cases and the procuring thereupon Processes Bulls and Excommunications from thence was by the Parliament in the Reign of King Richard the Second 16 Ric. 5. taxed and complained of as that which did apparently hinder the determining causes and the effectual execution of justice in England and tended to the destruction of the Kings Soveraignty Crown and Regalty And all those who should bring from Rome such Processes Excommunications Bulls or other Instruments both themselves and all their Fauthors were then by the Statute of Praemunire put out of the Kings Protection their Lands and Goods forfeited and their Bodies to be attached And this Statute continued in force and unrepealed as that former also notwithstanding all the endeavours of the Pope and his Adherents even an hundred and fifty years before the Protestant Reformation And this is sufficient to shew
that the Popes usurped power was not so quietly and freely submitted to in this Realm as thereby to give him any right to govern here SECT III. The present Jurisdiction of those Churches which have been called Patriarchal ought not to be determined by the ancient bounds of their Patriarchates 1. The bounds of Patriarchal Authority altered The third Assertion is That the Patriarchal rights especially those of Rome do not now stand on the same terms as they did in the ancient Church nor can the present Roman Bishop claim subjection in all those limits which of right were under the ancient and Catholick Bishops of Rome No man can reasonably think that the bounds of the Patriarchal Sees were unalterable unless they had been of a divine or Apostolical Authority But that they were never looked upon as such in the Catholick Church may besides other testimonies appear in that the General Councils undertook to erect Patriarchates and to divide the limits of others as they saw cause Sect. 3 Thus the dignity and honour of a Patriarch was given to the Bishop of Constantinople Conc. Const c. 3. in the second General Council and his Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction were fixed in the fourth and in the same the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided and part thereof allotted to the Bishop of Jerusalem who then received Patriarchal limits and Jurisdiction Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. But I shall only consider four things which may so alter the state of Patriarchal Jurisdictions that every one of them besides what is abovesaid is a bar against all claim of authority in the Bishop of Rome to these Churches and Realms 2. First from the different territories 1. From the different bounds of free Kingdoms and Dominions of Soveraign Kings and Princes For the doctrine and design of Christianity did not intend to undermine and enervate but to establish and secure the right of Kings and no rule of the Christian Religion requires free Kingdoms to devest themselves of sufficient means to preserve their own security and peace and the necessary administration of justice Nor can the former acts of any Councils or Bishops wheresoever any such were give away the rights of Kings and Realms But a Foreign Bishop who is under no Allegiance to this Crown and hath no particular obligation to seek the good of this Kingdom Mischiefs from Foreign Jurisdiction may probably oft incline to designs either of his own ambition or the interests of other Princes against the true welfare of this Realm as hath sufficiently been done in the Court of Rome And if such an one hath power to cite before him any person whomsoever of this Realm either to his Patriarchal Seat or his Legate and hath the authority without all redress or appeal save to an Oecumenical Council which probably will never be had to inflict so severe a sentence as Excommunication truly is he would hereby have a considerable awe and curb upon many of the subjects of the Realm that they would be wary of opposing or provoking him And if Canonical obedience were due to him from all the Clergy and filial reverence from the laiety such a person being the Kings Enemy may have greater opportunity of indirect managing his ill projects than is consistent with the safety of the Realm or with the innocency and goodness of the Christian Religion to promote 3. The exercise of a foreign authority when managed by haughty and ambitious spirits hath been of such ill consequence to Kings and Emperours that King John was forced upon his knees to surrender his Crown to the Popes Legate Henry the Third Emperour of Germany Mart. Polon in Greg. Sept. p. 361. was compelled to stand at the Popes Gate barefoot several dayes n frost and snow to beg for absolution and Frederick the First to submit to Pope Alexander treading upon his neck And other instances there are of like nature of the despising Dominions and Dignities being the effects of Interdicts and Romish Excommunications Towards the whole Kingdom St. 25 Hen. 8.21 it becomes a method of exhausting its treasure by tedious and expensive prosecution of appeals and many other ways which were not without cause publickly complained of in this Kingdom Antiq. Brit. p. 178. insomuch that the yearly revenue of the Court of Rome out of this Kingdom was in the time of Henry the Third found to be greater than the revenue of the King And it is an high derogation from the Soveraignty of a King as well as a prejudice to the subjects where justice cannot be effectually administred and Cases of right determined by any authority within his own Dominions And with respect to the Clergy Pryn An. 24 25 Edw. 1. p. 689 c. the Foreign Jurisdiction sometimes brought them into great straits as did that Bull of Boniface the Eighth which put them to avoid his Excommunication upon contesting with the King and thereby brought them under the Kings displeasure and into very great grievances as appears from the Records of that time 4. And as upon these accounts it appears reasonable and necessary that the Dominions of Soveraign Princes should be free from any Foreign Ecclesiastical superiority so there are many things which may be observed to this purpose in the ancient state of the Church The Government of Dioceses Provinces and Patriarchates hath been acknowledged to have been ordered within the Empire and according to the distinct limits of the Provinces thereof Conc. Const c. 3. Chalc. c. 28. Conc. Chalc. c. 17. Trul. c 38. The Sees of Rome and Constantinople enjoyed the greatest Ecclesiastical priviledges because they were the Imperial Cities The Canons also of Oecumenical Councils enjoined that if any City receive new priviledges of honour by the Imperial authority the Ecclesiastical Constitutions for the honour of its See shall be regulated thereby And whereas the Slavonian Churches were first Converted to Christianity by them who were of the Eastern or Greek Church and embraced their Rites when Bohemia and some other branches of the Slavonian Nations were made members of the German Empire they thereupon became subject to the Government of the Western Church Thus also when the Bishop of Arles had an eminent authority in the ancient Gallia Comâ— Hist n 18. upon that City being divided from those Dominions and becoming subject to the Goths who then Commanded Italy and Spain he exercised no longer any Jurisdiction there but had his authority changed to be Delegate over the Spanish Territories but when this City was again reduced to the French Government he no longer exercised his authority in the Dominions of Spain 5. Yet it must be acknowledged that in practice the Dominions of several Soveraign Princes have been subject to a Foreign Patriarch which was not their duty But this was undertaken either upon presumption that because of the excellency and simplicity of the Christian Religion there could be no fear of prejudice from
own those Rebels for the people of the Lord charge Moses and Aaron as being guilty of their blood and again gather themselves together against them v. 41 42. And as S. Austin conceives sutably to the tumultuous violence of their Spirits they came with a resolution of putting them to death Aug. de mirabil S. Scriptur l. 1. c. 30. saith he Totus populus contra Moysem Aaron ut sanguinis reos consurrexit eosque in eorundem ultionem occidere voluit And all these transactions are the more to be admired because they presently succeeded after that sad threatning and the Plague therewith that their Carcases should fall in the Wilderness and not enter into the Land of Canaan Num. 14.29 30 37. which judgment was denounced against them in part because they would forsake Moses and chuse them another Captain to return to Egypt Num. 14.4 Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 13. and did then as Jo sephus expresseth it revile and conspire against Moses and Aaron And if under so excellent a Governour who had so highly obliged Israel and done so much good for them there were such dangerous consequences from the people or men of a popular strain exercising a power of judging concerning a Case fit to warrant a forcible resistance this must needs be a destructive principle if allowed under the best Government in the World This gave birth to so bad an undertaking as that of Corah which was an enterprise to heinous Sanhedrin c. 11. that besides the severe censures of the Scripture the Jewish Talmud reckons up the managers thereof amongst them who shall have no portion in the life to come 7. And in the time of David The other instance I shall give is in the Government of David He was peculiarly chosen of God to rule Israel and known so to be he was a man after Gods own heart and in his Government over Israel he fed or ruled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them according to the integrity of his heart and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands Ps 78.72 He was also so potent and victorious over all his Enemies and by reason hereof Israel in his time was so renowned that Maimonides saith their Consistories would not receive Proselytes in his Reign because they supposed it was the fare of his power Maim in Inure Biah which induced them to pretend respect to the worship of the God of Israel Yet Absalom by a popular carriage and infinuating words soon perswaded the people they were greatly injured under the Government of David and that no justice could be had 2 Sam. 15.3 4. Josep Ant. l 7. c. 8. And Josephus declares he complained much of the Kings Officers that there were no good Counsellers about him And hereupon almost all the Kingdom of Israel join themselves with Absalom again2t David 2 Sam. 15.12 13 14. Ch. 16.18 Ch. 18.6 and their Elders with them Ch. 17.15 8. And though this wicked attempt of Absalom was defeated and no less than twenty thousand men slain therein in one day yet while the people in their discontent and passion took to themselves a liberty to take Armes as they thought fit it is remarkably observable that no sooner was this rebellion after Absalom over but upon some hot words between the men of Judah and the men of Israel concerning the manner of their performing their duty to the King 2 Sam. 20 2. every man of Israel went up from David and followed Sheba in a new Rebellion And though Davids Conquests had been very great over many Nations which some of the ancient Greek Historians gave an account of as was observed by Eusebius for Eupolemus neither the splendour of his Kingdom nor the sense of their duty Eus Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. 30. nor the bitter effects of their former Conspiracy nor the Kings Kindness in receiving them again into his favour could contain them under the bond of obedience and in the paths of Peace 9. Now all this will manifest how extremely unsetled any Government in the World must be and therein the authority of executing justice preserving peace and conserving all rights and properties if it be once admitted that Subjects when they shall judge it a Case of necessity for the preservation of the common good may take Armes against their Soveraign And therefore for the Securing peace and righteousness and the common rights and interests of all men it must be acknowledged that the supreme Governour hath such an authority that it is not lawful to take up Armes against him 10. The sense of Grotius concerning Subjects taking Arms. Besides these instances I shall add the judgment of the learned Grotius after his long and more mature consideration of things That worthy man in his Book de Jure Belli pacis and in another Discourse written in his younger time did make use of some unmeet expressions and notions and unsound arguments too much tending to infringe the Authority of Kings and to allow a power in the people in some Cases of making War against them But though he did not expresly retract and alter those things yet in his Writings which he published after a greater experience of the World he wrote at another rate and falls in directly with what I have not asserted Grot. in Mat. 26.52 Thus in his Commentaries upon S. Matthew he saith If it be once admitted that private persons being injuriously dealt with by the Magistrate may make forcible resistance all places would be full of tumults there would be no force or authority of Laws or Judicatures since there is no man who is not enclined to favour himself 11. And in his Votum pro pace Vot pro Pac. ad Art 16. after he had passionately complained of Armes being taken upon the pretext of Religion he goes on Ego vero non tantum subditos ab armis arceo c. But I do not only forbid Subjects from taking Armes but desire that Kings who have that power given to them would use it as feldom as may be Ibid. After this Grotius relateth at large and with approbation the proceedings of the University of Oxford about Paraeus upon the Romans with his allowance also of this their determination Subditos nullo modo vi armis Regi vel Principi suo resistere debere nec illis arma vel offensiva vel defensiva in cansa Religionis vel alia re quà cunque contra Regem vel Principem saum capessere debere That Subjects ought by no means to resist their King or Prince by force nor ought they to take either offensive or defensive Armes against their King or Prince Ibid. for the cause of Religion or for any other thing whatsoever And then asserting the generall rule of S. Paul even against the Cases excepted by Paraeus that whosoever resisteth the power receiveth to himself damnation he addeth If so many Exceptions of Paraeux i. e. underminings of S.
Pauls rule be admitted dico nullum imperium diutins in tuto fore quà m donec talia sentientibus vires defuerint I affirm that no Government can be any longer safe than whilst those who have such sentiments want strength And from hence it is manifest that Grotius in his elder time did disallow all Subjects taking Armes against their King and accounted it wholly inconsistent with the peace safety and Government of the World 12. The Royal Authority a legal right as well as the Subjects property And since it is part of the Kings Royalty according to the Laws of this Realm that none may take Armes against him Sect. 2 all Subjects who expect to enjoy their own legal rights are obliged to maintain this right of the King by that great rule of Righteousness and Religion as ye would that men should do unto you do ye also unto them likewise Luk. 6.31 And this also is included in the Oath of Supremacy wherein Subjects swear to maintain all Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm V. Sanders de obligat Consc Prael 10. And it is against all pretence of Reason that the rights of Superiours which are the greatest and on which all inferiour rights have dependance should be least regarded as if it were fit that the interest of a Child or Servant should be preserved and not those of a Father or a Master SECT II. Rights and properties of Subjects may be secured without allowing them to take Armes against their Prince 1. It must here be considered as an objection and seeming difficulty that since it is greatly necessary to the good of the World that the just properties of subjects be defended if it be once granted that they may in no Case take Armes against their Soveraign how can these properties be secured may they not then be exposed to irreparable injuries and the utmost pressures and if a Prince will exercise an unlimited power where is there help and redress Now in answer to this I premise that the principal care which must be taken for providing for the preservation of the rights of subjects is not on that part which concerns the defending them against their Prince but rather against the violence of other injurious persons which is done by the great Authority of Government and the due execution thereof For as in a Family the main thing designed in the Government thereof is not that Children may be secured from receiving any injury from their Father The Authority of Rulers is the defence of the people and their jecurity but rather that for their own quiet and good order at home and their honour and safety abroad they submit without gain-saying and resistance to his Government and thereby receive protection from the injurious dealings of others so Gods providence for preventing the greatest dangers of violence of men one towards another hath established the Authority of Rulers as a defence against them Rutherf of Civil Policy Qu. 9. And therefore such such persons who say a people cannot so readily destroy themselves viz. if they have no Governour or cast him off as one man may speak falsly and rashly against the wisdom of God and his Ordinance and against the common sense of the World as if Rulers were not Ministers of God for good to men and as if it would be better for the World to be without them whom all Nations have found necessary and consequently without peace order and justice 2. And as the Governours men live under The security for the Subjects rights are their defence from the violence and injuries which may be sustained from other men so there is great security for Subjects without their taking Armes that their rights and properties shall not be violated by their Prince which I shall manifest with a particular respect to our English Government Now amongst the ground of this security the Principles of Conscience which lay a great and moral obligation upon the greatest persons in the World not to be injurious to the meanest and the watchful providence of God who unless it be for the punishment of the grievous sins of a people doth not suffer them to be afflicted and oppressed are considerations which are not in this Case to be over-looked But there are two thins which I shall chiefly insist upon 3. From the Laws they have the security of good and wholsome Laws fixed with us by general accord of King Lords and Commons And that Laws were originally established that right and justice might thereby be impartially administred to every man Cic. de Offic l. 3. de leg l. 4. is reasonably declared by Cicero And it is a great priviledge in this Realm that both civil rights and matters of Religion are established by our Laws and that no Law can be made or repealed nor publick moneys raised but by consent of the Commons by their representatives And somewhat a like form for the Enacting Laws was resolved on a most Excellent method Cod. l. 1. Tit. 16. leg 8. by the Emperour Theodosius And since no design can be managed to defeat legal rights but the instruments therein must be private persons every one of these may be called to an account and suffer their deserved punishment by the justice of the Law And this is a like security to that which may be had against the meanest Subject in the Realm if he be the stronger man or get an advantage whereby he is able to do another a mischief And it is here worthy to be noted that whereas many plausible notions and pretences when they are reduced into practice fall short of accomplishing what was expected by their proposal in the Theory the benefit of the protection which Subjects enjoy from the Law is such that for divers Ages past in many hundred years the general rights and properties of the people of England legally established have thereby been excellently preserved And the like may be asserted concerning many other parts of the World and therefore they who will dispute against this provision must dispute also against the evidence of sense and of a long continued experience 4. But because jealous and suspicious minds may possibly suppose that at one time or other a Prince having the authority of administring justice and appointing Judges and Officers in his Kingdom may design to destroy his Subjects rights and property and thereby the fruitful inclosures of their civil interests may be laid wast and all respect to Laws utterly laid aside I shall take these suspicious jealousies into consideration And here we must all grant Naz. Orat. 19. that the state of this present World is such that at the best it is not above all instability uncertainty and danger And I shall in the next Section shew that there is much more cause of jealous fears of Subjects losing their legal rights by
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
comparing several places in that Book will necessitate the interpreting those expressions to extend only to this case which allow the people under the fiercest and highest tyranny to resist provided they exceed not the bounds of mere defence without any attempts of invading or revenging But then withal he will not allow in this case or any other the taking Armes against the Soveraign Power but saith a Prince by such an undertaking as this loseth his Royal Authority and is no longer King se omni dominatu principatu exuit atque ipso jure sive ipso facto Rex esse desinit Cont. Monarchomachos l. 6. c. 23. And Grotius also agreeing with Barclay whom he here cites granteth that the People may in such a case as this resist by force De Jur. Bel. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. si Rexvere hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur And he also proceedeth upon the like foundation that this is not to resist a Soveraign King but him who ceaseth to be such consistere simul non possunt volunt as imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem populi totitus profitatur eo ipso abdicat regnum 6. Now the design of these learned men is thus far herein to be much approved that they though it necessary to take care that whilst the Right and Authority of Princes was asserted the safety of the people and the common good should still be provided for Yet because I conceive these answers to leave things too loosely and afford over-much occasion for unquiet spirits to lay hold on I shall endeavour to speak a little more closely to this matter Wherefore I assert 1. That there is a great difference between the discoursing of such things as mere notional suppositions and the considering them as matters of practice and reality In the former way there may be suppositions made of things which actually are not never were nor are ever like to be and there may also be supposed such evidence as is clear and beyond all possibility of mistake when there is no such thing in reality And only upon the yielding such suppositions I shall grant the answer given to be true Thus the River Thames may be granted to be hurtful and pernicious upon supposition that it should overflow and drown the whole Kingdom but though such a thing may be imagined in speculation men of common understanding cannot much fear any such actual danger Now the taking Armes is not a notion but a matter of fact and therefore the reason and ground of such undertakeings must be from things as they actually and really are in the World 7. I assert Secondly That if we consider this as a Case of practice which is that to which our publick acknowledgments also must be referred this pretence is no sufficient Plea for Subjects to take Armes upon these two reasons 1. From the unreasonableness of the thing supposed and the great unlikelyhood of its ever being true though it may be so pretended For such a thing probably never was actually in the World and Grotius acknowledgeth Grot. ubi sup that this can scarce seem possible to happen in a King who is compos mentis towards his whole Dominions Adv. Monarchomach l. 3. to c. 16. Indeed Barclay gives instance in Nero whom Aurelius Victor relateth to have talked of destroying Rome and the Senate with Fire and Sword and placeing his residence elsewhere Sueton. in Calig n. 30. 49. and much to the same purpose is declared concerning Caligula Now though these were Monsters of men and it may be hoped that no Princes like to them will ever live under Christianity especially yet these expressions had not respect to the whole Empire but only to Rome and furious speeches even of such men whose actions spake them savagely cruel might probably vent much more than would ever be enterprised and attempted And it seemeth considerable that S. Pauls Prohibition against resistance was written to the Romans within a few years after the end of Caligula his Reign and about the entrance of Nero and therefore was a firm rule and binding obligation even under their Government 8. I know it is not simply impossible that such a Case should be in act If Antiochus had been really King of Judea while he resolved to destroy all persons of the whole Nation of the Jews who observed the Law of Moses this had been a Case of somewhat like nature and upon this Foundation Barclay also goes Ibid. l. 6. c. 24. to justify the Wars of the Maccabees of which I have given another account But though it be not utterly impossible yet there is as much or more reason for those Children who maintain and support their Parents by their industry to fear the these Parents do design to poyson them because there have been some unnatural and Saturnine Parents than that Subjects should fear any such design of their Prince against his whole Realm And such Children might with as much justice attempt the murdering of these Parents upon such suspicions which would be horrid and inhumane and Subjects upon the mentioned pretence take Armes against their King both having equal appearance of self-preservation and being defensive and both being impious and opposite to Righteouseness and Christianity 9. 2. The other reason is from the dangerous effects and great mischief that hath been and still may be in the World by proceeding upon such pretences For he who doth observe that Moses who was so great a deliverer of Israel was charged by them in their murmurings as one who intended to ruine and destroy them and that this was done not only once but frequently Ex. 16.3 Ex. 17.3 Numb 16.13 14. and that they spake to like purpose concerning God himself Num. 14.2 Numb 21.5 Deut. 1.27 may discern that upon small or no occasions the suspicions of discontented spirits carried on by plausible insinuations will easily pretend to certain evidence of the design of ruining the people in the best Governours to the neglect of their duty and the disturbance of peace and quiet It is manifest both in our own and other Nations that much Christian blood hath been shed by giving way to such false surmises against truth and Christian Charity And it is to be expected that male-contented persons if they have any ill enterprises will shell them over with the fairest pretences they can take up as a disguise for themselves Duct Dubit b. 3. c. 3. rule 3. n. 15. and a way to inveigle others But as Bishop Taylor asserting the unlawfulness of resistance well observed such wild Cases as this of a King endeavouring to destory his Kingdom are not to be pretended against that which Religion and natural reason hath established 10. But I come now to consider the other part of this Question Of a Prince or Soveraign power undertaking to cut off a considerable number of Subjects if a Soveraign