Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33923
|
Vindiciæ juris regii, or Remarques upon a paper, entitled, An enquiry into the measures of submission to the supream authority
|
Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing C5267; ESTC R21083
|
43,531
|
52
|
our Government which as the Enquirer acknowledges lodges the Militia i. e. the Power of the Sword singly in the King. So that without his Order none of his Subjects can Form themselves into Troops or carry the face of an Army without being lyable to the highest Penalties And whereas he urges That if we have a Right to our Property we must likewise be supposed to have a Right to preserve it He means by Force To this I Answer First That a Man may have an unquestionable Right to some Things which he has no Warrant to recover Vi Armis but must rest the Enjoyment of them with the Conscience and Prudence of another E. G. If the Father of a wealthy Person falls into deep Poverty he has an undoubted Right to a Maintenance out of his Sons Estate and yet he cannot fairly recover it by Force without a Legal Provision for this purpose To bring the Instance nearer home The Right of making War and Peace is an Indisputable Branch of the King's Prerogative yet unless his Subjects assist him this Authority can seldom be exerted to any Successful effect because his Majesty cannot Levy Money which is the Sinews of War without the consent of Parliament Farther every one who is injured in his Property and endeavours the regaining of it by course of Law has without doubt a Right to have Justice done him But if the Court where the Cause is depending happens to be mistaken or corrupted I desire to know whether it 's Lawful for him to raise his Arrier Ban upon such a Disappointment Our Author is obliged by his Principle to say no and therefore he must either Answer 1. That the Party aggreived ought to appeal to a higher Court to which it may be replyed That it 's possible for him to meet with the same misfortune theÌ„re for our Constitution does not pretend to any Insallible or Impecable Judges 2. His Second Answer must be that this is a Private Case and therefore a Man is bound to submit to ill usage rather than disturb the publick Peace But to this I return that we may suppose a general failure of Justice through Subornation Bribery c. and then the Oppression will be of a publick and Extensive Nature and yet if a grievance of this Magnitude should continue unredress'd after complains our Author will not allow us the benefit of any rougher Methods for he frankly tells us That it 's not lawful to Resist the King upon any Pretence of ill Administration in the Execution of the Law. Pag. 14. so that by his own Argument we may have some very considerable Rights which it 's not justifiable to demand of the Government with a drawn Sword. Secondly This Liberty of Resistance dissolves all Government For as I have already Observ'd when every man is the Judge of his own Priviledges i. e. when he is made the Authentick Interpreter of the Laws and may use all the force he can get at his discretion against the State he is then most certainly to be govern'd by no body but himself And therefore Thirdly This Liberty must be the worst security for Peace and Property imaginable as I shall shew more at large by and by As for his limiting Resistance To plain and visible Invasions This is a very feeble Remedy against Confusion For since every one is made Judge of the Evidence and the generality are naturally over credulous and apt to believe ill of their Governours when designing Men have once impos'd upon their understandings and almost har'd them out of their sences then every thing will be plain to them but their Duty Thus it was plain that Charles the First intended to introduce Popery though possibly never any Person since the Reformation gave â—etter proof of his Adherence to the Church of England than that â—rince Thus likewise at the beginning of this present Revolution it was plain to the greatest part of the Nation that his Majesty had made a League with the French King to Extirpate the Protestants and their Religion Though now the World sees there never was a more Malicious and unreasonable Calumny invented But though Reports of this Nature are never so monstrous and nonsensical yet at this rate we shall never want a Demonstration for a Rebellion as long as such loose Principles as the Enquirer advances are allowed His Thirteenth Section contains nothing but Objections which to do him Justice are fairly put considering the small compass they are drawn into How well he gets clear of the Difficulties he was sensible of the Reader must judge for now we are coming to his Fourteenth and Dead doing Paragraph in which he offers to take off all the Arguments which are made for Non-resistance Now before I reply distinctly to his Answers I shall endeavour to offer something more than I have urged already in Consutation of his main Principle And here it 's not amiss to observe That the Enquirer in his Ninth Section Makes the Measures of our Submission much shorter than those of the Ancient Christians because Our Religion is Established by Law. By vertue of which Distinction he makes our Faith fall under the consideration of Property and from thence concludes by Implication That we may resist our Prince in defence of it But we are to consider though our Religion has a legal Settlement yet we have no Authority to maintain it by Force Nay our Laws are express as it 's possible against all manner of Resistance as himself acknowledges Now the Law is certainly the Measure of all Civil Right and therefore to carve out our selves a greater Security than the Law allows is Destructive of all Government If the Mobile get this hint it 's to be feared they will give him no occasion in their Second Expedition to admire them for Burning and Plundering with so much Temper and Moderation Further he grants by Consequence That the Roman Emperours were irresistable For I don't find that he allows the Primitive Christians a Liberty of Resistance though they were invaded in their Lives and Properties as well us in their Religion Now if these Emperours were irresistable I desire to know what made them so if he Answers the Laws I Reply That the English Constitution is as full against taking Arms to oppose the King as is possible If he Replies That it was unlawful to resist the Roman Emperours because the making of Laws was wholy in their own Power but where the Legative Authority is partly in the King and partly in the People the Case is otherwise To this I Answer That the Division of the Legislative Power does not weaken the Obligation of a Law when all the Distinct Authorities concur to the making of it E. G. I Question not but our Author will grant that the English Laws though the People have a share in Enacting them are as perfect and ought to be as inviolable as those in Turkey where all depends upon the Princes Will Therefore if the
was not counted a good Protestant who would not believe them How well they have been proved since the World knows And here I cannot omit taking notice what a Frantick and Ruinous Maxim it is to assert That it 's Lawful for the People to set their Kings aside upon a bare jealousie and apprehension of Rigour Give them but this Liberty and an Impostor will easily fright them into a State of Nature and carry them whether he pleases If we may renounce the Government as often as any bold Pretence is made against it and translate our Allegiance upon conjecture and report the contests about Dominion would be so frequent and terrible yet we had better Disband into Solitude than live any longer together If Calumnies and Aspersions and all undemonstrated Reports ought to go for no more are sufficient to cancel our Obedience then no Prince can have any Title as long as there is either Knavery or Folly in the World. This Principle lays a Foundation for a Rebellion every Week and renders all Government impracticable By acting in this manner we put it in the Power of Slander and Perjury to determine the weightiest points of Justice and make it an easie Task to over-turn a Kingdom with a Lye. If it be urged that it is needless to search after farther proof that the Subversion of Protestancy was intended because a Prince of his Majesties Perswasion and Zeal must necessarily think himself obliged to pursue a design of this Nature Before I return an Answer I shall just Observe that Religious Zeal though it acts upon misinformation is really a commendable Quality For it 's an Infallible sign of a good Intention it argues great Charity to the Souls of Men and a generous desire to propagate Truth and to promote the Glory of God. To speak freely I cannot be heartily angry with a Man though his Methods of Discipline are never so unacceptable who I am perswaded has no other Design than to carry me to Heaven though I had much rather he would permit me to go thither my own way because it 's almost impossible I should go any other For Rigour is usually very unfortunate both to the Proselyter and Proselyted It creates Prejudice and Aversion to the one and makes no more than a Hypocrite of the other But to proceed to the Objection in order to the confuting of which I shall endeavour to prove these Two things First That his Majesty is not obliged by the Principles of his Church to attempt the Converting his Subjects by Severity Secondly That in all humane probability such a Method would prove Unsuccessful First That his Majesty is not obliged by the Principles of his Church to attempt the Converting his Subjects by Severity The Doctrine of the Church of Rome I conceive is to be collected these Four ways Either from her eminent Divines The Bulls of Popes The Decrees of Councils or the usual Practice which when a Case is doubtful ought to be taken for the Sense of a Communion To begin with their Divines Cassander a Person of great Learning and Judgment and whose Writings were never censured insists upon gentle Methods for the propagation of Religion disapproves of Severity and tells us it has been a miserable occasion of the spreading of Schisme De Offic. Pii Viri pag. 187. 196. But because it may be objected this Author was more gentle in his Censure and allowed a greater Latitude than the generallity of Communion I shall subjoyn the Testimonies of others of a straiter Principle and who are well known to carry up Popery to the height 1. Thomas Aquinas yields 22 ae q. 10. Art. 11. c. That Unlawful Worship Ritus Infidelium under which Words he comprehends an Heretical Religion as appears both from this Conclusion and from his next Question 22 ae q. 11. 1. May be tolerated in some cases Which he proves 1. Because the Church ought to take her Measures of Government from the Administrations of Providence Now God permits many ill Practises in the World least a forcible Restraint should prevent a greater Good or prove the occasion of a greater Evil. Therefore Infidels and Hereticks have been sometimes tolerated by the Church when their Numbers were great and Discipline could not take place without the hazard of giving great Offence without occasioning a Commotion or civil Disturbance and hindring the Salvation of those who by fair means might by degrees be won over to the Catholick Faith. These Arguments for Toleration are much stronger now than they were either in Aquinas his Time or before it And therefore if he had lived since the Reformation we have reason to believe he would have pressed them more at large Which probably is the reason why Cardinal Lugo who wrote since the Counsel of Trent is more full and particular in the point For though he won't allow a Tolleration but upon a very great Occasion yet in such a case he acknowledges That a Catholick Prince may give Liberty of Conscience to his Heretical Subjects For this Opinion he quotes Acquinas and says he Was followed by the rest of the Divines particularly naming Suarez Coninch and Hurtado He adds That this Practice has been used by many of the most Pious Christian Princes who Tolerated open Heresie when they could not oppose it without the danger of a greater Inconvenience For this Urgent Occasion causa gravissima is then supposed to happen as he proves from Hurtado When Religion is likely to be more damnified by the denial than by the grant of such an Indulgence when the People are in danger of growing Mutinous and Diserderly by strict Usage And therefore in an Heretical Country such a Liberty of Conscience may be granted without any difficulty And in a Catholick one too when things are desperate He proceeds farther and tells us That such an Allowance to Hereticks is a thing Lawful in its self and therefore when a Prince has passed his promise he ought punctually to keep it Lugo de Virt. div Fid. Disp. 19. Sect. 4. Numb 121. 123. 128. 130. We see therefore That in the Opinion of these Schoolmen though none of the kindest we are not to be roughly managed till the Major part of us are gained by dint of Argument which is so improbable a supposition in England that I think we need not trouble our selves about the Consequences of it It 's true Bellarmine de Laicis Lib. 3. Cap. 18. pretends to prove by Scripture the Fathers and Reason That Kings ought not to permit a Liberty of belief but then he supposes their Authority to be Absolute as appears from his Instances of the Jewish Kings and Roman Emperors Therefore his Doctrine does not oblige Princes who have only a Part though a Principal one in the Legislative Power especially when a different Communion is Established by the Laws of the Realm which cannot be Repealed but by consent of Parliament A King when he exceeds his Prerorogative is in some measure out