Grotius in his Book De Jure Belli pacis should assert that men at the first did join themselves together in Civil Society non Dei praecepto sed sponte not by any command of God but of their own choice and that hence civil power hath its original which Peter therefore calls an humane ordinance and that it is also called an Ordinance of God because God approved the wholesome institution of men And upon this Principle he thinks it may be questioned whether the people ever intended to excluded themselves from a power of taking Armes in all Cases And therefore without all distinction of Cases he there is not willing to condemn their resisting their Governour But I think it needful to do him so much right as to observe that this was not his constant and fixed sense and judgment For concerning the original of Authority he in another place declares this to be the doctrine of S. Paul Grot. in Rom. 13.1 that there are now no Empires but where God gives to them his authority even as a King gives Authority to his Presidents and he also affirms that in all Governments the Authority is received from God non minus quà m si reges illi per Prophei as uncti essent as much as if those Kings had been anointed by Prophets 10. And when S. Peter requires submission to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake Grot. in 1 Pet. 2.13 Grotius in his Annotations thinks him to intend ordinationem istam quae inter homines in terra agentes locum habet that ordinance which hath place amongst men which Exposition hath this advantage of the other that according to it a good account may be given of the Apostles argument or motive injoining submission for the Lords sake For this must infer that those men who govern in the World do not act only by an humane right since if Government were not by Gods authority and constitution obedience to it could not bear a respect to God himself And touching the unlawfulness of forcible resistance of Governours besides the plain and full expressions I have above produced from Grotius Sect. 1 he in another Treatise asserts that violent defence which is lawful against an equal is unlawful against a superiour Gr. de Imp. Sum. Pot. Cap. 3. n. 6. and he judgeth that the law of nature will not allow this no not for self-preservation But saith he this is more plainly demonstrated from the written law of God for when Christ said he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword he expresly disallows that defence which is made by force against the most unjust but publick violence diserte improbat eam defensionem quae vi fiat contra vim injustissimam sed publicam 11. Now it may be a just prejudice against this assertion Vnreasonable inferences from this unsound foundation V. Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 91. De Jure Magistr c. 6. of Soveraignty being derived from the people that according to these various Proposals it may become dangerous to the settlement of the World But withal their way of arguing who pretend that the people who make the Prince have therefore a power reserved to themselves greater than his is a kind of contradiction to it self as if they who give up their power should by that means have the greater power and they who receive authority should thereby have the less This is such a fond argument as would prove all servants by contract to be superiour of their Masters because by their contract they made them their Masters or that those Countries who became subject and tributary to the Roman Empire or any other had a superiority over that Empire because their becoming subject to it was hat which made its Dominion so large and eminent And concerning that supposition that possibly the people might not intend to deprive themselves of all power of resistance with respect to this Kingdom V. Ch. 1. it is evident from the plain expressions of our Statute Laws above produced that the Subjects did intend to reject all power of resistance And yet they who enter into any relation by their own contract do stand obliged from the nature of that relation and the Laws that God hath established concerning it and not only from their own intention Thus the contracting to become a Wife or a Servant intending to be so to a kind and courteous man doth not hinder the continuance of the bond in these relations and the obligation to the duties thereof though this man contrary to their expectation may prove ill-natured and froward And what I have discoursed in the beginning of this Chapter will evidence that even they who will assert Soveraignty to be of a mere humane original must acknowledge that the rejecting of all forcible resistance against it is necessary to the peace and welfare of the World and therefore this must be intended by the wiser part of Mankind Sect. 5 SECT V. The Divine original of Soveraign Power asserted 1. Soveraignty and rule proved to be the constitution of God By rational evidence That Government and its Authority is originally the constitution of God may receive considerable proof from rational evidence supposing Creation and Providence to be acknowledged For since God is the Lord of the whole Earth he hath a right to govern it and it is in his power to appoint Rulers and Magistrates and to command subjection to them and whosoever besides God shall undertake to confer a power to rule the World as if it were originally derived from themselves do thereby put themselves upon the disposing of Gods right It was owned by the Ancient Poets as Homer and Hesiod Hom. Il. ae Hes Theogon in init Synes de Regno that Kings are from God In Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hesiod saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Synesius observed that it was said by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Royalty was a good thing from God among men And in the Book of Wisdom Wisd 6.4 5. both the Authority of Kings is asserted to be from God and that themselves also are Gods Ministers 2. And it may well seem a strange thing that God who not only gave a being to all other parts of his Creation but framed them in an excellent and beautiful order and made the Sun to rule by Day and gave Man dominion over other lower parts of his Creation should leave Mankind only which is so excellent a being without taking any order for that useful and regular publick Society which is both suitable and beneficial to humane nature And it is yet far more unlikely that he who is the God of Order should for the peace and good of lesser Societies in private Families ordain the Authority of Parents over their Children and the Headship of the Husband over the Wife and yet should leave the more general and publick state of Mankind which is of greatest concernment in an
rely upon a meer fallacy From the different rights of Regality For this Topick would with equal force and evidence prove the paternal right not to be founded in the laws of nature or the institution of God because the authority of the Father and the priviledges of Children are not the same in different parts of the World The Rules of inheriting by the right of devolution in some part of the Low-Countries Goâ—osred not ad Dig. l. 1. Tit. 6. n. 1. de jure Capp de vor Jephthae Instit l. 1. Tit. 9. and of Gavelkind and some other tenures in England do vary from the more general usage And in many places of the World the Father had Jus vitae neeis and Cappellus asserteth him to have had that power of life and death among the Jews The Institutions of Justinian expresly testify that that right of power which the Roman Fathers had over their Children was that which was proper to the Citizens of Rome and it is there added no other men have that power over their Children which we have Nor will it prove Matrimony to be no institution of God because the priviledges of the Wife are esteemed greater in England than in other Countries and are not the same at the Death of the Husband in the Province of York and the City of London with the other parts of the Kingdom But the truth is in those States or Relations which are fixed by divine institution there are some things so necessary and essential that they cannot be separated from them such are in the Conjugal Relation the Headship of the Husband the ordinary inseparableness of that Society till Death and the performance of Conjugal Duties and such are in the supreme Government the necessary care of justice and the common good and even of matters of Religion and the having a power fitted to these ends and which in pursuance of them may not by inferiours be forcibly resisted But in many other particular things the priviledges of inseriour relations and the dignities and rights of superiours may be greater or less according to what is concluded by their mutual consent 9. The Solemnity of Coronation From the Rites of Coronation when the people acknowledge their King and the King again gives the people assurance that he will preserve their Religion Rights and Laws and govern them according to those Laws is far from intending to express the Kings Authority to be derived from the people by a contract as some have weakly argued For the King is actually King by his right of inheritance and succession upon the Death of his Predecessor antecedently to this Solemnity as our Law-Books do generally acknowledge and Henry the Sixth Reigned divers years in England before he was Crowned Du May 's Estate of the Empire Diâ—l 2. vers fin Extrav Com. l. 5. Tit. 10. c. 4. And even in Elective Principalities the rights of Soveraignty are invested in the person elected thereto before the Coronation both in the Empire it self and other Dominions But the intent of this Solemnity is that as the Rites of Inauguration in other Magistrates tend to make such impressions in the people as may beget a reverence towards them so the Prince his appearing with splendour to his people doth both excite them to and give them opportunity for publick acknowledgments and expressions of affection and honour towards him and joyful acclamations To this purpose Henry the Third was twice Crowned once in the first year of his Reign Mat. Par. an 1216. where M. Paris treateth De prima Coronatione Regis Henrici and again in his twentieth year as is manifest in the preamble of the Statute of Merton Fullers Hist an 1194. and Richard the First was observed also to have been twice Crowned In like manner David notwithstanding his right by Divine appointment besides his being anointed by Samuel was twice anointed by the people Sed. Olam Rab. c. 13. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 6. c. 6. And both the Jewish Chronicle and Josephus declare that Saul also was anointed a second time And the kind expressions of the Prince and the assurance that he gives his people that he will govern them by their laws and maintain their Religion and Rights is designed to banish and expel all jealous fears from them and to encrease their affection to him and make their obedience and submission the more ready and chearful by their having security from their Princes reputation honour and integrity that he will intend the preservation of the great things which conduce to their welfare 10. It hath also been objected From the Civil Law Digest l. 1. Tit. 4. n. 1. quod Principi that besides the like expressions in other Law-Books the Civil Law declares Lege Regia quae de ejus Principis imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem confert which words declare that by that Law which was made concerning the Empire of the Prince the people yield to him all their authority and power It also asserteth that Nations were divided and Kingdoms established by the Jus gentium or the Law of Nations Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 5. Ex hoc jurc Ibid. Tit. 1. n. 4. Manumiss Justin Inst l. 1. Tit. 3. and also that liberty is the natural state and servitude is introduced by the Law of Nations Now though it might be said against the force of any such allegations which seem to oppose this truth that the right of God and of his constitution and authority is not to be determined by any humane writings especially if they speak against the Scripture and rational evidence Yet I further observe 1. That the first expression hath respect to the political sanction or establishment of the Civil Government of the Roman Empire and even with respect to the peculiar priviledges of the Emperour himself as having a legislative power in his own breast to which purpose that very law declares Quod Principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote lege regia quae de ejus imperio c. Novel 73. Novel 85. passim And though these political sanctions be a proper consideration for humane Laws to take notice of yet this hinders not but that there may be a superiour divine constitution of Soveraignty and secular power which also is oft asserted in the Civil Law 2. The following expression doth speak of the like political sanction and doth further acknowledge and assert the bounds and limits of the several Kingdoms and Nations to be established by the Law of Nations jure gentium discretae gentes regna condita 3. That liberty which in the last clause above-cited is declared to be the natural state and the servitude which is there said to be introduced do not respect freedom from Government and Laws but from vasallage which is evident because in the Digests this servitude is said to be discharged by
non esse nisi Deum qui fecit Imperatorem which very plainly assert that the Emperour was under none but only God himself But I shall apply my self to such things as will enclude the more general and publick acknowledgment of the Christian Church and shall then answer what may be objected in this particular 4. The actual exercise of Government in the ancient Christian Realms is somewhat considerable to this purpose That the Christian Emperours did exercise authority in matters Ecclesiastical is manifest from the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Roman Emperors Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5 c. which are yet to be seen in the Codex and the Novellae Justiniani Wherein among other things there are laws establishing the Catholick faith and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity Novel 6. 123. passim so as not to allow any to contend against it as also concerning the manner of Ordinations Excommunications and Absolutions and the duty of the Clergy even of Bishops Archbishops and Patriarchs And in these and other particulars the Nomocanon of Photius doth designedly shew Phot. Nomoc Tit. 1. c. how the Imperial law doth provide for various Cases concerning which the Canons of the Church also had taken care 5. The Laws of like nature are also yet extant of the Kings of France Kings anciently governed in things Ecclesiastical and other Realms abroad And in our own Kingdom the Ecclesiastical laws of Ina Alfred Edgar Canutus and Edward the Confessor may be seen in Sir H. Spelman Spelm. Conc. Vol. 1. The Laws made and executed by Christian Emperours against Arians Nestorians Manichees and others guilty of Heresy or Schism were very many and the proceedings by the Imperial law against the Donatists was in divers places defended by S. Austin And that all the godly Emperours of old Aug. Ep. 50.162 164 166. De correct Donatist passim even from the beginning of the Emperours professing Christianity did take such care of the Church that the affairs thereof and the matters of Religion were very much ordered by their authority Socr. Procem l. 5. Hist Eccl. is plainly declared by Socrates And this is a thing so manifest to all who look into the History and Records of those Times that it is as needless to go about to prove this as it would be to prove them to have been Christian Emperours 6. But that which will give the most evident Declaration of the sense of the Christian Church is the considering how this authority of Christian Princes hath been acknowledged and complyed with by Councils and by those especially which were the first general or Oecumenical Councils For whilest the opinion of some particular fathers may possibly be thought not sufficient to give a satisfactory account of the general sense of the Christian Church in those days and whereas the proof produced from the Imperial laws and the constant exercise of the Emperors authority in affairs of Religion may possibly fall under a suspicion of undue encroachment or may be pretended by some to be executed by an authority dependent upon and derived from some Ecclesiastical Officers no such exceptions can lie against the concurrent testimony and acknowledgment of the chief general Councils in the flourishing times of Christianity And I suppose that no man will deny that the assembling of Oecumenical Councils and the matters therein transacted were properly things Ecclesiastical 7. And here I shall begin with the first Council of Nice This Supremacy owned by the Council of Nice concerning whicn I shall need to say the less because many things mentioned in the third Section of the foregoing Chapter do sufficiently manifest the Supremacy exercised by Constantine the first Christian Emperour in whose Reign that Council sate That this general Council was called by the Command of Constantine the Emperour is expresly declared by Eusebius with whom Socrates Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. c. 6. Theodoret and other ancient Historians do agree But the later Romish Writers would perswade the World that it was assembled by the authority of the Romish Bishop Bin. in Not. in Cone Nicen Not. a. So Binius Authoritate Silvestri Romani Pontificis By the authority of Silvester Bishop of Rome this holy Synod was summoned and was gathered together by the consent help and Counsel of Constan tine the Emperour And Baronius likewise declares that no man may doubt Baron an 325. n. 13. but that the authority of Silvester was in this case interposed But in truth they produce nothing that can justly be accounted any evidence hereof 8. But that it may appear past all doubt by whose authority this Council was convened we have a twofold testimony beyond all exception Constantine himself who was able to give an account of his own actions in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 6. which is extant in Socrates declares that it was he who called this Council Ibid. And the Synodical Epistle which was written by the Council of Nice to Alexandria which may be seen in Socrates and Theodoret Theod. Hist l. r. c. 9. doth attest the same and therein the Fathers of Nice themselves who could not but know who summoned that Council declare that it was gathered together by the grace of God and by the Religious Emperour Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who called us together out of divers Provinces and Cities 9. That the most eminent Bishops from the several quarters of the Empire did with much readiness repair to this Council according to the Emperors command is particularly attested by Eusebius Euseb ubi sup c. 6 7. and other Historians Yet it is not to be doubted that if they had received summons and command from a person whom they knew to be inferiour and not superiour to them as a Presbyter or Deacon they would never have yielded general obedience to him but would have rebuked and repressed his insolence and therefore this their obedience to the Emperour was an acknowledgment of his authority and supremacy And this is the more remarkable because these Nicene Bishops were persons of the highest worth and esteem of any in the Christian Church which appears from the general fame and deserved honour which this Council hath obtained in all succeeding ages unto this day 10. And the chief occasion of calling the Council was by reason of the evil opinions of Arius and the difference about the day for observing Easter which things the Emperour considering Socr. Hist l. 1. c. 6. gr though this the only effectual way for the redressing them and thereupon directed this Council particularly to consult about them which was accordingly done And whilest this Council was sitting the Emperour who was present with them used very great care and diligence Eus de Vit. Const l. 3. cap. 12 13. for the suppressing unnecessary occasions of discord and quarrel and for the
be discovered as things which were granted to him in S. Peter and in his power to dispose authoritate omnipotentis Dei ac vicariatus Jesu Christi upon account of the authority of God and the Vicarship of Christ with other such like words And when Bellarmine in his Books de Romano Pontifice had given such a sense of this grant as if it signified no more than to empower them to send Preachers thither and to protect converted Christians and to do such like Offices In lib. Recognit he afterwards found reason to retract what he had there said and acknowledged that when he wrote that he had not seen that rescript it self but only followed the opinion of Cajetan and some others 10. The Bull also of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth declareth that Christ had constituted him a Prince over all Nations and over all Kingdoms And the Bull of Sixtus the Fifth against Henry the third of France asserteth him to have obtained a supreme power delivered to him by divine institution over all Kings and Princes of the whole Earth and over all people Nations and Countries But these usurpations upon Royal Authority were so distastful to a considerable part of the Romish Communion De Benef. l. 1. c. 4. that Duarenus with respect to his own age tells us that he thinks there is no sober and learned man who can approve thereof II. And the proud and stately behaviour and deportment of this Bishop The Popes behaviour towards Princes towards Emperours and Kings when they are admitted into his presence is suitable hereunto which by their own Ceremonialist we have thus described Saer Cerem l. 3. Sect. 1. c. 2. Romanus Pontifex nemini omnino mortalium reverentiam facit c. The Roman Bishop doth no reverence to any mortal man either by rising up openly or by bowing his head or by uncovering it but after the Roman Emperour or other great Kings have kissed his foot and his hand as he sitteth he doth a little rise towards them to receive them to kiss his mouth And again Omnes mortales c. Ibid. c. 3. All mortal men of whatsoever dignity and pre-eminence they be when they first come into the Popes presence must thrice at distant spaces bow their knee before him and must kiss his feet 12. I forbear to mention what our Histories manifest of the haughty insolent and imperious carriage of the Pope towards our English Kings especially King Henry the Second and King John But that proud and arrogant speech of Gratian the Popes Legate to Henry the Second Nos de tali curia sumus quae consuevit imperare Imperatoribus regibus we belong to that Court whose custom it is to command or rule over Emperours and Kings was so hugely pleasing to Baronius Baron an 1196. n. 11. that he thought fit to record it in great letters and in the margent to note Gratiani responsio digna legato that it was such an answer of Gratian as was fit for the Popes Legate to make And what Luciferian insolency appeared in that Speech of Innocent the Fourth concerning Henry the Third Nonne Rex Anglorum vasallus noster est Mat. Paris an 1253. ut plus dicam mancipium Is not the King of England our Vasal and that I may say more our slave And that this was no unusual stile at Rome appeareth from ancient Records in the Tower Pryns Addit to History of K. John f. 18. f. 28. which declare the Pope both in his Council at Rome and in his Letter to the Barons and Commonalty of England to have called King John his Vasal 13. And waving many other things I shall only add that immediately before the framing the Oath of Supremacy Queen elizabeth coming to the Crown signified her Inauguration to Paul the Fourth then Pope by Edward Carne who was then at Rome as an Ambassadour from Queen Mary Hist Conc. Trident. l. 5. p. 333 334. an 1558. the Pope proudly returns his answer That the Kingdom of England was a see of the Apostolical See and that it was intolerable boldness in her to assume the name of Queen or the Government of the Kingdom without his approbation and therefore he propounded to her to renounce her pretended right to this Realm and to leave it to his dispose From these things it may appear what great cause there was for this Crown to take care that all the subjects thereof who are in any chief places of trust and employment do disown such foreign claims which would undermine the very foundations of Regal Authority And the meer recital of such things as these are such palpable evidences of impudent arrogancy despising Dominions and opposing the humble meek and peaceable design of the Christian Religion and even the principles of humane reason and polity that this alone may be sufficient with all understanding and good men to raise in them an abhorrence of and indignation against such intolerable ambition SECT III. Such claims can have no foundation from the Fathers and have none in the direct expressions of Scripture which they alledge 1. Every rational man might well expect that so vast a claim both of Ecclesiastical and temporal power ought to be supported with some very considerable evidence which in this case can be no other but a manifest divine constitution For since the very being of the Church of God depends upon his founding it and the very being of its Officers upon Gods appointing them there can be no other ground for any Ecclesiastical Officer to claim upon a Christian account a supremacy of rule over the World unless he can produce the institution of God to this purpose 2. Some reflections on the sense of the ancient Church concerning this Supremacy And therefore it would be needless as it might also be tedious to examine those expressions of the Fathers wherein they spake with respect and honour to the See of Rome for such expressions if they had been never so plain could not found any original divine right And it would be no difficulty if it had been needful to evidence by examining them Sect. 3 that they were far from asserting that Supremacy which is challenged 3. But instead of this I shall observe that the greatest Authority of the Christian Church hath sufficiently disclaimed all such Supreme Vniversal Authority and Government of the Romish Church For that famous Canon of the Council of Nice Conc. Nic. Can. 6. doth plainly give the same power and authority to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and the other Eparchies or chief Dioceses within their limits which it gives to the Bishop of Rome and makes them stand on even ground with one another which could not be done if the authority of the one was in subjection to the other and the authority of the other without subjection to any The second General Council also determined to the same purpose Conc.
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
the sole pretence of civil rights and secular interests that there may be a provision for this Case as well as for the former it will not be unmeet to accompany this Position of his with another which is much of like nature with it and equally peaceable And this is That all men ought to suffer each other without any disturbance or complaint to take and enjoy whatsoever goods persons and possessions they shall please to possess themselves of And if this principle with the former were entertained by all men as it never was nor can be there would then be no Wars nor contests in the World neither concerning matters of Religion nor any other rights And then we should have a quiet World but with little regard to Religion Righteousness Chastity and Vertue and without all Order Government and civil Societies the Earth being then over-grown with the height of Barbarism far surpassing the wildness of the Native Indians 9. No Peace can be from thence expected But against the former method here proposed for the procuring peace I shall observe further two things 1. That there are so many things necessary for the making this proposal practicable that even that may well make any man despair of its effect For first care must be taken that there be no such pious men in the World who will think that Gods honour ought to be maintained and the true Religion defended and secured by the authority of Governours and yet either the peaceable principle must be forsaken or else thereupon these men must enjoy the liberty of their opinion as well as others Secondly there must be security given that there shall be no such furious men in the World who will at any time vent notions in Religion which may tend to undermine authority and Government to make mens minds fierce and cruel or to evacuate obedience nor yet that there be any such eager and earnest men who will be forward to use what power they can gain for the establishing their own opinions Thirdly as this proposal can never become useful for peace until all men be brought to be of the opinion of the proposer which is as unlike as any thing can be so even then there must be some provision made that the practice of this proposal be not the ready way to hinder the effect thereof For the practice of this general liberty for all opinions in Religion doth according to common experience ordinarily beget instead of peace discords oppositions disturbances confusions and other ill effects which make all men of consideration see the hurt and danger of such licentious liberty and the necessity of Order and Government Fourthly And there must be no men so far Christians and conscientious as to acknowledge that there are any doctrines of Faith duties of Christian worship or institutions of Christ so necessary and sacred that the opposers or contemners of them ought to be checked and withstood And though he be so bold as to assert P. 68 69. that we ought not to teach that any errors in belief overthrow the hope of salvation and speaks of the hopeful estate of persons whatsoever doctrines they embrace P. 70 71. in the whole compass of Religions which large expressions must include those Jews who in our Saviours time asserted him to be a blasphemer and not the Christ yet thanks be to God there are many who will believe those words of our Lord to the Jews Job 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins And from this and many other expressions in the Scripture of the great danger of unbelief will conclude that under the clear promulgation of the Gospel it is necessary to Salvation to believe that Jesus is the Christ and Saviour of the World and to profess and obey his doctrine 10. I observe 2. That the best way to promote the peace of the World Peace best promoted by uniform establishing true Religion and worship is by endeavouring that true Christianity in doctrine and practice be with one accord and with a spirit of Vnity embraced among men For first the nature of Christianity is such that so far as it really prevaileth it must be a strong bond of peace since it makes men tender of wronging any by word or deed and enjoins a necessity of making satisfaction for injuries a readiness to forgive enemies with a care of reverence fidelity and obedience to superiours and of gentleness humility patience and charity towards all men De duodeeim abus seculi cap. 7. On this account it was thought one of the great disorders amongst men that there should be Christianus contentiosus a Christian given to contention And though there are great miscarriages in this particular among many who profess this Religion but do not live according to it yet it is apparent that the spreading of Christianity in the World did greatly amend and reform it Eus de Dem. Evang l. 9. c. 17. De laud. Const p. 486 487. and as Eusebius long since noted did advantage the peace thereof and it will mightily promote this effect in all them who heartily practise it Secondly Vnity in Religion hath a natural force to excite friendliness whence even Jews Mahometans and all Sects are more kind to one another than to others and Philo accounteth concord in the worship of God Phil. de Charit p. 717. to be the greatest cement of love and Josephs Brethren thought it a considerable argument to engage his favour because they were the servants of the God of his Father Gen. 50.17 Thirdly The quiet of the World having chief dependance upon God it may be justly feared that where the care of true Religion is neglected the flourishing and peaceable state of Kingdoms should not long continue This was frequently observable in the times of the Judges and the Kings of Israel and Judah See Judg. 5.8.1 Kin. 11.4 Gild. de Exc. Brit. Mar. Par. an 1067. P. 5. 14 23. And remarkable decay of piety was observed to precede the two great Conquests of this Realm by Foreign Armies SECT II. Of some other rigid and dangerous principles against the supremacy of Princes 1. Of the rigid Presbyterians There are some of the rigid Presbyterians especially those of the Scotish way who though they allow the King some authority both in matters Ecclesiastical and over Ecclesiastical persons do yet in terminis reject the Kings being supreme Governour Sect. 2 Rutherf of Ch. Gov. Ch. 23. p. 508. Henderson's second Paper to the King in all causes Ecclesiastical and civil and withal do plainly misrepresent the sense thereof But that those of this way do in a dangerous manner oppose the just supremacy of Princes in things Ecclesiastical may be partly manifest from their general position That the institution of God hath so provided for all things pertaining to Religion that there is no room left for any appointments of order by the
attempts is a stranger to the proceedings in England from 1640. till 1660. 8. If it should be supposed that the chief power of the Sword and of commanding the military force should be in the whole body of the people or the major part of them this must include the greatest inconvenience of all the other Now though this supposition amongst other things wherewith it is chargeable is impossible because the whole body of the people of a great and populous Kingdom cannot meet together or consult and advise with one another and therefore can give no commands yet in our late distracted times there were some who embraced this assertion Gangr Part. 1. p. 33. In England several Pamphlets from them who allowed the Parliament to have power to levy War against the King did declare that the Parliament having their power from the people the people might call them to an account And Mr Rutherford also allowed Ruth of Civil Poliâ—r Qu. 19. p. 152. they gave to Commissioners of Parliament when they abuse it and may resist them and denude them of their fiduciary power as the King may be denuded of that same power by the three Estates To such extravagant excesses have mens ungoverned heats and passions hurried them But this supposition is a foundation of confusion and is not consistent with the people having any Governours over them to command them and thereupon would lay aside Gods Ordinance of Rule and Government It is also so opposite to Peace that it is the direct way to put the multitude upon insurrections and would turn the World into a disorderly Wilderness And it is dangerous to the state of the World and to all good subjects both because it is unpeaceable and because there can be no security given that the major part of the body of a people who are easily imposed upon at some times shall not incline to any ill design as they evidently did in the instances of Corah and Absalom besides others nearer home and also because rash and ill actions when managed by the body of the people are so much the worse because they are usually attended with violence and fury like the over-flowing of Waters 9. Wherefore since there must some where be placed such a supreme power as hath the highest right to command the force of a Nation and by consequence none can command it or any part of it against that power this from what I have discoursed cannot with so much safety to the people of this Realm be fixed any where else as in the King according to the excellent constitution of our Laws and Government For as Royal Government is free from that heady disorder which attends popular motions so the rule of its exercise is those laws which are not established without the consent of the people Plat. in Politic vers fin Upon this account Plato when he had viewed the various species of Government declared that that which was best of all was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Monarchy coupled with Laws 10. 4. From the insufficiency of the pretended security against these evils Cons 4. If it were granted that people had power to take Armes but not in any other Case save in the highest oppressions and utmost extremities this restriction with respect to the Case would be of very little use for the Peace of the World and the avoiding the inconveniencies and mischiefs above expressed For the instances in the first Section and the experience of this Kingdom and many others testify how apt many people are to be decoyed into gross mistakes in this Case and to be abused and misled by fair speeches of discontented and aspiring men and to draw up such heavy charges against excellent Governours as to conclude their ruine and destruction to be designed where there is not the least intention for their hurt And besides that gross falshoods may easily pass with the credulous vulgar undetected it is an easy thing to perswade many of them Sect. 4 when the ill actions of any men living under the Government are mnanifested to account these to be the faults of the Rulers who did not prevent or restrain them whereas it is no doubt a great truth which was asserted by Bishop Saunderson Sanders de oblig Consc prael 10. n. 7. that in the best constituted Common-wealths there are Gravamina non pauca not a few things amiss which the utmnost care and industry of Rulers and the severity of the Laws is not sufficient wholly to prevent or cure SECT IV. The Plea that self-defence is enjoined by the Law of nature considered and of the end of Soveraign power with a representation of the petence that Soveraign Authority is in Rulers derived from the people and the inference thence deduced examined 1. Of self-defence and self-preservation It is certain that prudence and the Laws of God and Man oblige every man to take just and due care of his own preservation but yet there have been some who under the specious appearance of pleading for self-defence have run into strange exorbitances against the authority of Government It hath been said that self preservation is the first principle and prime law of nature and thence it must be inferred that its obligation is so great in all Cases that all other Laws of Nature and Equity must give place thereto And with respect to resisting a Soveraign Prince by Armes Of Civil Policy Qu. 9. p. 59. Mr Rutherford asserteth that no community can without sin alienate this power of self-defence But though he speaks of the community his argument must have as much force concerning any private person viz. that as man hath nopower from God to murther his Brother so hath he no power to suffer himself or his Brother to be murthered And the consequence of this must be that all men are bound to take Armes against their Soveraign who shall judge any person to be in danger of losing his life without just cause The strange positions of Lessius and Becanus in allowing the killing a King in self defence I have above produced and amongst the Romish Doctors who are very generally prone to embrace disloyal principles Dom. Soto de Justit Jur. l. 1. Qu. 1. Art 2. Q. 5. Art 3. Q. 6. Art 4. Dom. Soto in this particular is as exorbitant as any I have met with He in several places gives such a description of a Tyrant in the administration of Government as discontented persons may easily apply to the most worthy Prince that is that he makes Lawes and orders affairs for his own private and not the publick good Id. ibid. l. 5. qu. 1. Art 3. And he declares that such a person who hath a right title to govern may not be killed by a private person until a publick sentence be declared against him and then any man may be made the Executioner But then he adds Besides this if he forcibly set upon a free
tthat time no part of the Roman empire but was a Nation bordering upon the Empire who then had a distinct King of their own but acknowledged a subjection to the Persians Evag. Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 7. and thereupon this Country was called Persarmenia But for divers years before and after this War they were not under the Roman power and Eusebius who relates this action Eus Hist l. 9. c. 7. gr declares they were friends and Confederates till by this undertaking of Maximinus they became his Enemies 16. I confess some years after the Reign of Constantine was ended This loyalt afterwards declined there were among the Christians some attempts and enterprises undertaken of another spirit and nature Socr. Hist Eccl. l. 2â— c. 12. gr By reason of the great opposition between the Arians and the Orthodox Christians there were in Constantinople and in other places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequent seditions and tumults as Socrates expresseth it and these took place from about the year 340. Ibid. c. 134 then among other things Hermogenes the Emperours commander whom he sent to Constantinople to dispossess Paulus from being Bishop there was opposed with force the House in which he was being fired upon him and himself slain in the year 342. Not long after this also Baron aâ— 350. n. 1 2 4. began the more open and contrived rebellion of Magnentius and though this was undertaken out of ambition and unchristian disloyalty yet he carried on his designs under a pretence for Religion He first engaged against Constans the Emperour who was slain by him for which abominable Parricide Athan. Apol ad Constant Baron an 353. n. 5. Athanasius inveighed greatly against him and then managed a War against Constantius And this according to Baronius was the first time that the Banner of the Cross appeared in the Field on both sides one against another and this was indeed a Rebellious Insurrection against a Soveraign Prince But the true primitive and genuine spirit of Christianity was wholly averse from and unacquainted with such proceedings and when the Christian temper did in divers persons degenerate in this particular such exorbitant and evil practises were always contrary to the judgment of the chief guides and Bishops of the Church CHAP. V. Of the extent of the duty and obligation of non-resistance SECT I. Resistance by force is not only sinful in particular private persons but also in the whole body of the people and in subordinate and inferiour Magistrates and Governours Sect. 1 1. THere have been some who grant the unlawfulness of taking Arms against a Soveraign Prince to be a geneal rule for ordinary circumstances but yet they pretend there are some great and extraordinary cases in which it must admit of exceptions And the proposal of these Cases as they are by them managed is like the Pharisaical Corban an Engine and method to make void the duties of the fifth Commandment concerning obedience and submission to superiours Wherefore in this Chapter I shall undertake the defence of that assertion of Barclay G. Barcl cont Monarchomach l. 3. c. 16. p. 212. who proposeth the Question NullÃne casus c. may there no Cases fall out in which the people by their authority may take Armes against their King B. 2. C. 5. and his answer is Certainly none so long as he is King or unless ipso jure Rex esse desinat 2. The whole Community have no Authority to take Armes against their Soveraign Now the first Question and pretence hath respect to the whole body of the people Whether if the whole or principal part thereof do account themselves injured and oppressed by their Soveraign and judge it needful for their own defence and security and the common good to take Armes and make use of force against him this authority of the Community be not a sufficient Warrant for such resistance This is asserted by the seditious Positions of Mariana Marian. de Reg Reg. Institut l. 1. c. 6. who not only gives a large allowance to Common-wealths and the generality of the people to devest their Kings of their Government and take away their lives but he also grants the same liberty and power to any members of the Common-wealth if learned and grave men be consulted and where there is Publica vox Populi the common voice of the people inclining that way And this notion also though not in the same exorbitant degree is embraced by Bellarmine and many of the Jesuits and other men of disloyal Antimonarchical Spirits But because what I have said in the former Chapters is both of sufficient force and clear enough for the refuting hereof I shall only superadd these brief considerations 3. First That the agreement of the whole body of the people or the chief and greater part thereof can give no sufficient authority to such an enterprise because the whole community are Subjects as well as the particular persons thereof And with especial respect to this Kingdom I above observed that our Laws declare it unlawful for the two Houses of Parliament though jointly to take Armes against the King The same hath been also acknowledged by men of understanding in Foreign Countryes As Bodinus Bodin de Repub. l. 2. c. 5. concerning England and other places where the Kings have jura majestatis concludeth singulis civibus nec universis fas est summi Principis vitam famam aut fortunas in discrimen vocare it is not lawful for the Subjects either singly or all of them together to bring into danger the life honour or possessions of the Prince Secondly this would open a gap to great confusions since the body of the people are apt to be imposed upon and to be led by their passions as the experience of these latter Ages as well as the Cases of Corah and Absalom do testify And the same appears from the whole Congregation of Israel being forward to cast off Moses and to make them another Captain Numb 14. 2 4. Thirdly This liberty may as reasonably be given to a few private persons as to the whole people because in such enterprises of the people they are counselled by and are generally influenced and led according to the motions of a few private persons Fourothly The Laws of God against any evil actions and consequently against resistance do not become void by any great numbers joining together in practising what is contrary unto them When the primitive Christians were the chief part of the Roman Empire they durst not take up Armes against the Emperour out of the fear of God as hath been shewed No sin is to be esteemed the less but the greater when a multitude shall be actors in it If any violence be offered to a Father or Master this is not the more allowable if all his Children or Servants join in the Confederacy And when great multitudes engage in open insurrections the consequents thereof may
Laws of a Government condemn innocent persons who dye Martyrs they may not take Armes either out of great averseness to some good or lawful thing which they embrace or out of favour and kindness to their Enemies and yet where this is done according to the publick laws under which they live it is unquestionably no sufficient Plea to take Armes Of this nature were the Persecutions and all the sufferings of the Christians under the Pagan and Heretical Emperours when the Laws of the Empire were against Christianity and the true profession thereof And from the History of the Book of Esther it seemeth clear that when at Hamans Request Ahasuerus had granted that all the Jews should be destroyed they had no resolution of defending their lives by Armes till they had liberty to that purpose granted by Ahasuerus And the obtaining this libery was part of the benefit they received by the interecession of Esther and the advice of Mordecai Grot. in Esth 8.11 Esth 8.11 Ch. 9.2 And though Grotius thinks that they might have done this by the right of laws of nature yet the Constitution of the Persian Monarchy placing so large a power of life and death in their Kings of which the hanging Haman v. Dan. 6.24 Esth 7.8 10. and the casting Daniels Accusers into the Lions Den is sufficient evidence no resistance could have been made but against the authority of the Laws and Government under which they lived And there is so great an agreement between the condition of these Jews and of the Primitive Christians under their persecutions that if the laws of nature would have allowed these Jews to resist it must also have been lawful for the Christians to have done the same which is contrary to their general Profession and universal practice or else it must be said that the Christians were prohibited this by such a peculiar Christian-Law as is contrary to the Law of Nature which would be a great slander and calumny upon our Religion 16. Upon this account the Novatians were to be blamed Socr. Hist l. 2. c. 38. gr who when the Souldiers of Constantius the Arian Emperour were by his Command sent to force them to become Arians they took Armes in defence of their Profession of Religion especially because the secular laws of the Empire concerning Religion were directed by the particular Edicts of the Emperour who was then a fierce Arian And in such cases though men were able against the Laws and Government to defend their Bodies by resistance they might better defend their Souls and their Religion by suffering as Christians otherwise the spirit of a Jewish Zealot of whom there were great numbers in Jewry among the unbelieving Jews after our Saviours death must be preferred before that of a Christian Martyr Yet where the Laws of any Realm condemn any persons though underservedly they may flee or use any lawful means of escape but not take Armes for their own defence But with respect to such proceedings as these The advantage of the English Laws our English Government gives us this advantage above what divers ancient and modern nations had that the true Religion is established by our Laws and that no Law can be repealed or altered to the prejudice of English Subjects by the pleasure of any Prince alone and without the Consent of the Peers For a Soveraign Power against law and right to resolve to ruine great numbers of Subjects is so inhuman and unlikely that it ought not to be supposed against our ordinary duty and the representatives of the Commons of England 17. The only thing which in this case can farther be proposed is whether if a supreme Governour should according to his own pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subject Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by taking Armes And it is to be heedfully considered that this Question is much notional and speculative and is of small concernment to practice because notwithstanding suspicions and jealousies which may be unreasonably fomented there hath never been in this Kingdome or in most others if not all any such enterprise by the true Soveraign Prince against peaceable and innocent Subjects during our Histories for many hundred years And it is hard to find any such instance of a lawful Prince undertaking to ruine a great part of his People against the plain declarations of the established Laws of the Realm 18. Had Antiochus Epiphanes been the true Soveraign of the Jews his attempting to destroy all those who would observe Circumcision and the Worship of the true God which the Political Laws in Judea established by God and unrepealeable by Antiochus did enjoin them to perform this had then been much to this purpose But he was none of their lawful King but an Enemy and yet died under the dismal lashes of a tormenting Conscience for these and such like wicked actions as I above shewed Jos An. l. 12. c. 6. Liv. Dec. 5. l. 5. And when he invaded Judea he was as a Lion bereaved of his Prey being forced to return from his designed attempts upon Egypt Justin l. 34. by the resolute denunciation of Popilius the Embassadour from Rome The Paris Massacre was also of somewhat a like kind with respect to the greatest numbers who were therein murdered For though I acknowledge the practice of some of them being in Armes about that time was not defensible and towards them this might possibly be intended as an Artifice and stratagem of War or else perhaps it had never been yet that so great numbers as about an hundred thousand should in cold blood be-cruelly assassinated and murdered and most of them manifestly innocent persons without ever being judicially accused Tryed Convicted or Condemned by the Law was such a piece of barbarous savage Cruelty as can scarce be paralleled as some have noted under Mahometanism 19. But if ever any such strange Case as is proposed should really happen in the World I confess it would have its great difficulties De. J.B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Grotius thinks that in this utmost extremity the use of such defence as a last refuge ultimo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the care of the common good be preserved And if this be true it must be upon this ground that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto enclude a disclaiming the governing those persons as subjects and consequently of being their Prince or King And then the expressions of our publick Declaration and acknowledgment would still be secured that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Armes against the King Christian subjection and Vnchrist Rebel Part. 3. p. 519. edit 1585. But Bishop Bilson speaking of such Popish Cruelties as that I lately mentioned saith they are able to set grave men and good men at their wits end and make them justly