IN Obedience to your Commands, I have read, and soberly considered the Papers, which you were pleased to send unto me. The Discourse is strong and Masculine; but I must beg your Pardon, if I cannot obtain so much favour of my Reason as to agree with you, That it's Lawful for Subjects in a Monarchical State, as England is, to take up Arms for Religion, or in defence of it, without warrant and Authority from the King.
Sir, this Assertion of yours is so horrid and pernitious in consequence, and so fatal to all Kings and Princes, and to Religion it self, that I must tell you, it's,
- 1. Contrary to the Doctrine delivered to us in the sacred Scriptures.
- 2. Contrary to the Laws of this Kingdom.
- 3. Against the Judgment of the most Pious and Learned men in all Ages.
1. It's contrary to the Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures, which teach us, the Sword belongeth only to the King, and to them that are sent by him, Rom. 13. 1 Pet. chap. 6. ver. 13, 14. And that we should be subject, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience-sake, because the Powers that be, are ordained of God; whosoever therefore, saith St. Paul, resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they which resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation. In the words of St. Paul there is a remarkable Opposition between Subjection and Resistance; [...], and [...], implying, that all military [...], whether Defensive or Offensive, if it be against the Superior Power, which [Page 2] God hath set over us, is forbidden. But this hath been so excellently discoursed of by many learned persons, that I shall not give you further Trouble herein; yet there is one Objection which you make your Achilles, which I shall endeavour to answer, and that is 1 Pet. c. 2. v. 13. Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of man, whether it be to the King, as Supreme: from whence you conclude, that the King is the Ordinance of man, and deriveth his power from the People, and in case of breach of Trust, its lawful for them to take up Arms against him.
Ans. 1. The Original is [...], &c. Submit, or be subordinate to every Ordinance amongst men, &c. For Ajectives in ( [...]) do not denote efficiency in the Subject, but its passivitive; so that it's not meant of any Ordinance created by man, but established in, or amongst men.
2. There is a signal Character in that very Text, that keeps it from concluding the Supreme Power to be Originally in the People, not only by calling the King Supreme, such as in St. Pauls Divinity, Rom. 13. are affirmed to be ordained of God, and so no human Ordinance: but also by distinguishing the Governours, v. 14. from the King or Supreme, v. 13. by this, that the Governours are sent by (i. e. have Commission from) the King; which might in the like manner be also affirmed of the King, that he were sent by the people, if he were the Creature or Creation of them, but is not so much as intimated by the Apostle: But on the contrary, Supremacy affixt to him, and Subjection to be paid to him (not for the people, but for the Lords sake) as Subordination to, and Mission from the King, is affirmed of all other Magistrates.
3. It's contrary to the Laws of this Kingdom for Subjects to take up Arms upon any pretence whatsoever, without Warrant and Authority of the King.
1. Because the King is the only and Supreme Governour in all Cases, 1 Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1.
2. The King is an absolute Monarch,lib. 5. de Jure Regis Ecclesiastico, Cassannus in Catal. Glor. Mundi.
[Page 3] 3. The Kings Crown is an Emperial Crown, 28 H. 8. c. 7. 1 Eliz. c. 1. 1 Jacob. c. 1.
If so, then the Supreme Power is in the King, and by consequence the sole power of making war is in him.
In the Parliament 7 E. 1. it was declared by the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and Commonalty of the Realm, That it belongeth to the King and his Royal Seignory strictly to defend force of Armour, and all other force against the Kings Peace where it shall please him, and to punish them that shall do contrary to the Law and Usage of the Realm, and hereunto they are bound to aid their Soveraign Lord at all seasons, when need shall be; Old Mag. Char. fol. 156. Lamb. fol. 135. Inst. par. 1. fol. 75.
All Commissions to levy men for the War, are awarded by the King, 4 & 5 Philip & Mary c. 3.
His Majesties Subjects, according to their bounden Duties, ought to serve the King in his Wars, 2 & 3 E. 6. c. 2. 11 H. 7. c. 1. lib. 7. Calvins Case.
The people without the King, cannot make a War, but the King without the people can; 19 E. 4. 6. Fitz. Abridg. Tit. Jurisdiction plac. ultimo.
The King ows a Protection to his people, and is the Conservator of the Law, 8 H. 7. fol. 1. If the King hath not Jus gladii, how can he protect the Laws, or his People? If there should be an Invasion ab extra, or an Insurrection ad intra in this Kingdom, if the Jus gladii were not in the King, who should defend the Kingdom? If it be in the people (as you would have it) then all have an equal Right to command, and so for want of a good accord amongst them (as they will rarely agree to reason) the Kingdom would be lost.
Therefore the Posse Regni by the Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom, doth solely belong unto the King, F. N. B. 113. Glanvil lib. 1. c. 2. lib. 14. c. 1. Bracton lib. 3. fol. 118. and by the Statutes of 13 Car. 2. c. 6. 14 Car. 2. c. 3. the Jus gladii is setled, and declared to be solely in the King.
Therefore if Subjects, upon any pretence whatsoever, shall take up Arms, without the Authority of the King, it's [Page 4] high Treason by the Common Law, and by the Statute, 25 E. 3. for they usurp Royal Authority, and it's a Machination and Compassing of the Kings Death, and a levying of War against his sacred Person and Authority.
It was resolved by all the Judges of England in the reign of Henry the Eight, That an Insurrection against the Statute of Labourers for the inhansing of Sallaries and Wages, was a levying of War against the King, because it was against the King and his Laws, and so in destruction of the King; and for that the Offenders took upon them the Reformation thereof, which Subjects by gathering of power ought not to do; Inst. part. 3. fol. 10. The Imperial Law doth assert the same: Ad Legem Ju. Majestatis Leg 3. eadem lege tenetur, & qui injussu Principis bellum gesserit, detectum habuerit, exercitum comparaverit, its Treason without the Command of the Prince, to make War, levy men, or raise an Army. And Codex armorum usus inscio Principe interdictus est: Nulli prorsus nobis inscitiis atque inconsultis quorumlibet armorum movendorum copia tribuatur; It's not lawful for any, without our Authority, to take up Arms. These are the words of the Emperors, Valentinian and Valens, and Codex de re militari, Leg. 13. Nemo miles: Nemo miles vel sibi vacet, vel aliena obsequia sine nutu Principali peragere audeat. And Bodin doth tell us the same de Repub. lib. 1. c. 10. n. 155, 156. fol. 244. Edit. Latin. Ursell. Anno 1601.
2. It's not lawful for Subjects in the Realm of England to take up Arms for Religion, either to reform it, or to take away that established, or to introduce a new one without Warrant or Authority of the King. Because,
1. The King is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, 26. H. 8. c. 1. 2 E. 6. c. 2. And at a Convocation holden Anno 22 H. 8. by a publick Instrument made by all the Bishops and whole Clergy of England, the King was acknowledged to be Supreme Head of the Church of England; Inst. part. 3. fol. 121.
2. All Ecclesiastical Authority and Jurisdiction in this Kingdom are originally derived from the King, lib. 5. De Jure Regis Ecclesiastico; he hath power within his Dominions to declare what are Articles of Faith, according to [Page 5] Scriptrue, to make Laws for the Government of the Church, to appoint forms of Worship and Discipline; and he hath power to make Orders and Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy, as it was resolved by all the Judges of England, 2 Feb. 2 Jac. Croke part 2. fol. 37. Moors Rep. 755. And these Rights and powers of the King are inherent in him, as Essential Flowers of the Crown, and as ancient as the Crown it self.
For Subjects to raise Arms in opposition of any of these Powers, or against the Laws and Constitutions to that purpose by the King made, it's High Treason within the Statute of 25 E. 3. for the Church and Common-wealth make but one Monarchy; therefore they which take up Arms against the Ecclesiastical Power of the King, take up Arms against the Monarchy, and so against the Monarch. And I must tell, you, Sir, That originally there was no difference between Church and State, as to Jurisdiction, until Christian Monarchs divided Jurisdictions, and delegated Civil and Ecclesiastical persons to take Conusance, and judge of Causes separate: And those Jurisdictions are called Civil and Ecclesiastical, in respect of the Delegates only, and not in respect of the Cases whereof they take Conusance, and judge. And the same persons which ratione Ligeantiae, are Members of the Common-wealth, ratione Fidei, are Members of the Church.
Sir Edward Coke (that great Oracle of the Law) saith, If Subjects take up Arms, to alter Religion established within the Realm, or the Laws, or to any other end, pretending Reformation of their own heads, without Authority from the King, this is a levying of War against the King; because they take upon them Royal Authority, which is against the King, and per Consequence it's High Treason, Inst. part. 3. fol. 9.
Sir John Old castle of Cowling in the County of Kent, in Parliament was adjudged a Traytor, for that he and others to the number of twenty men called Lollards, did conspire to subvert the State of the Clergy, Rot. part. 5 H. 5. n. 11.
[Page 6] In Queen Maries time Sir Nicholas Throgmorton conspired with Sir Thomas Wyat to levy War within the Realm for alteration in Religion; he joyned not with him in the execution of this Conspiracy, yet both adjudged Traytors by the Common Law, before the Declaration of the Stat. 25. E. 3. Dy fol. 98.
1 Jac. The Lord Gray and other Conspirators met, and conspired to make an Insurrection, whereby they designed to seise the King into their power, until he should grant them a Pardon of all Treasons, a Tolleration of the Exercise of the Popish Religion, &c. They were indicted for Compassing the Kings Death; the Lord Gray was tryed by his Peers, and had Judgment to be drawn, hang'd and quarter'd.
In the Fifthty first of Henry the third, it was declared by Parliament, that for Subjects to associate or enter into any Covenant to reform Church or State, without the consent of the King, was High Treason by the Fundamental Laws of this Nation, and entred upon the Roll, Nullo contradicente. Rot. part 51 H. 3. n. 8.
If the end of raising Arms be to overthrow any Statute, any part of the Law, and setled Government in Church or State, this is war against the King, and High Treason.
In that great Insurrection of the Villains and meaner people in King Richard the Second's time; they took an Oath, Quod Regi & Communibus fidelitatem servarent, to be true to the King and Commons, and that they would take nothing but what they paid for, punished all Theft with Death; here was no intendment against the person of the King; the intent was to establish the Laws of Villenage and Servitude: this in Parliament, 5 R. 2. is declared to be Treason against the King, 5 R. 2. part 1. n. 31, 32.
In the Eighth year of Henry the Eight, William Bell, and Thomas Lacy in the County of Kent, conspired with Thomas Cheyney, called the Hermite of the Queen of Faires, to overthrow the Laws and Customs of the Realm; and for the effecting of it, they with 200 more met together, and concluded upon a Course of raising greater Forces in the said County of Kent; this was adjudged Treason: It's the same offence by force of Arms to conspire to overthrow the [Page 7] Ecclesiastical Laws and Government of the Church.
Richard Bradshaw, and Robert Burton, and others of Oxford-shire, conspired and agreed to assemble themselves with so many men as they could procure at Enslowhill in that County, and there to rise, and from thence to go from Gentlemans house to Gentlemans house, and to cast down Inclosures as well for enlargement of High-ways, as of Errable Lands; and they agreed to get Armour and Artillary at the Lord Norris's house, and to bear them in going from Gentlemans house to Gentlemans house for the end aforesaid, and to that purpose perswaded divers others; and all this was confessed by the Offenders, for which Bradshaw and Burton were attainted of High Treason, P. 39 Eliz. by all the Judges of England.
If it be Treason to conspire and agree to assemble to cast down Inclosures, certainly it must be Treason to conspire and consult by power of Arms, without Royal Authority, to cast down the Inclosures of the Church (which is Hortus inclusus) and fenced with so many excellent Laws to defend it against the Ravage of the Beasts of Ephesus, and the Fury of unreasonable men.
For Subjects to take up Arms to remove evil Counsellors from the King, it's High Treason, as it was adjudged in the Case of the Earl of Essex; what then is the Offence by force of Arms to remove the sacred Oracles of the Church, and to pull down the Pillars of it?
So that it doth demonstratively appear, that the sole power of the Sword is in the King; for to suppose that another hath right to bear the Sword, besides the Soveraign, is to suppose, that the Soveraign hath an equal, which is a Contradiction to the notion of Soveraignty, and that in the same Government there may be two Soveraign Powers.
3. In the next place we shall consider whether this Doctrine of taking up Arms for Religion, or in defence of it, or to prevent any other from setling, or upon any other godly pretence, without Authority from the King, be warranted by the Judgment of the most Learned and Pious men in all Ages, That it's not lawful for Subjects, without Warrant from their King, to take up Arms for Religion, [Page 8] or defence of it, or upon any other godly pretence whatsoever.
Tertullian in his Apologeticks c. 30, 33, 37. tells us, That the Ancient Christians in his time, although having an Heathen and persecuting Emperor, did honour him, as chosen of God, and second from God, and first after God; and did chuse rather to suffer, than to make resistance by force of Arms, although they lacked not number and strength to do it.
The like Example we have in that renowned Thebaean Legion of 6666 Christian Soldiers called Agaunenses from the place of their Suffering, who, without making resistance as they had strength to have done, suffered themselves rather to be slain for their Christian Profession, by the Officers of Maximinian the Emperor, Executors of his cruel Commandment against them: This fell out in the 18. year of Dioclesian, as Ado Viennensis writeth in his Chronicle, which was in the year of God 297. as Cardinal Baronius reckoneth in his Annals; and of that pious and Christian Resolution Venantius Fortunatus an ancient Bishop of Poictiers hath left unto us a noble Eulogium, as you may see in Bibliotheca Patr. Tom. 8. Edit. 4. fol. 741.
Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oration, speaking of the Persecution by Julian the Apostate, where the Christians were more in number, and stronger in power to have made open Resistance, if they had in their Consciences found it agreeable to their Christian Profession, declareth plainly, that they had no other remedy against that Persecution, but patient Suffering for Christ, with gloriation in Christ.
St. Ambrose having received commandment to deliver the sacred Houses or Churches to be possessed by the Arrians, declared what he thought convenient to be done in such a case, to wit, neither to obey in that which he could not perform with a good Conscience, nor yet to resist by force of Arms. His words to the people (Concione tertia contra Auxentium) are these; Quid ergo turbamini? volens nunquam vos deseram, coactus repugnare non novi: dolere potero, potero flere, potero gemore, adversus arma, milites, Gothosque lachrimae meae arma sunt, talia munimenta sunt Sacerdotis, aliter debeo, nec possum resistere: Why then are ye [Page 9] troubled? I shall never willingly leave you: If I be compelled, I cannot gainstand; I may be sorry, I may weep, I may sigh, against Arms, Soldiers, the Gothes also, my Tears are Arms; for such are the Guards of a Priest: otherwise I neither ought, nor may resist. And in the second Book of his Epistles, 14 Epist. to his Sister Marcellina, speaking to the same purpose, he saith, Non ego me vallabo circumfusione populorum, rogamus, Auguste, non pugnamus—tradere Basilicam non possum, sed repugnare non debeo: I shall not fortifie my self with a multitude of people about me—We beseech, O Emperor, we fight not—I may not deliver the Church, but I ought not to make resistance.
Such also was the Doctrine and Practise of many other great Lights which shined in the days of Julian the Apostate, and in the days of the Arrian Emperors, and Gothick Arrian Kings.
St. Augustine writing of a lawful War, acknowledgeth that only to be lawful, which hath Authority from the Prince; Interest enim quibus causis, quibusque Authoribus homines gerenda bella suscipiant, ordo tamen ille naturalis mortalium paci accommodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli Authoritas atque Consilium penes Principem sit. Aug. lib. 22. contra Faustum, c. 75. For it's much to be regarded, saith he, for what Causes, and by whose Authority men undertake Wars, but that natural order which is accommodated to the peace of mortal men, require this, That the Authority and Counsel of undertaking War, be in the power of the Prince.
Doctor Bilson saith, In making of War, the person must be respected as well as the Cause; be the Cause never so just, if the Person be not authorized by God to draw the Sword, they be not just or lawful Wars. Private men may not venture on Wars, unless they be directly warranted by him that hath the Warrant from God. Dr. Bilson in his Book entituled, The true Difference betwixt Christian Subjection, and Ʋnchristian Rebellion; Printed at Oxford 1585. fol. 380.
He sheweth, that the Subjects of England have no lawful Authority or Warrant to draw the Sword without the consent of the Prince. fol. 518.
Peter Martyr saith, That it's certain, that wars may not be made without the Authority of the Prince. Loc. Com. class. 4. c. 16. §. 2.
[Page 10] Calvin, a person of no mean esteem with you, in the 4th Book of his Institutes, in the last Chapter of that Book, disputeth the Question at large, and by many strong Arguments concludeth, That it's no ways Lawful for Subjects to resist their Prince by force of Arms, whether the Prince be Godly and Just, or Ungodly and Unjust in his Conversation, and commands, that nothing remaineth to Subjects in such a case, but to obey or suffer.
The same Doctrine also is delivered by Hugo Grotius in his first Book de Jure Belli & Pacis, ch. 4. To. Gerherd in the 6. Tom. of his Common Places in his Treatise de Magistratu Politico n. 483. where he discourseth learnedly of this matter: Albericus Gentilis in his Regal Disputations, Disput. 3. de Vi Civium in Reg [...]m semper injusta. Jo. Bishop of Rochester in his Book written against Bellarmine, de Potestate Papae in rebus Temporalibus lib. 1. c 8. M. Antonius de Dominis, in his Book called Ostensio Errorum Francisci Suarez. c. 6. §. 27.
If the Authority of these persons, who made so great Figures in the World for their Piety and Learning, cannot convince you of your Error, I know not what will.
But, Sir, I must tell you, let your Pretences be never so firm and religious, and that you act according to the Dictates of your Conscience, to secure Religion against Papacy, and to reduce the Church of England to the primitive Purity, if you take up Arms to effect it, without Royal Authority, it's High Treason. Obedience to your Soveraign Prince and his Laws, is part of your Duty towards God: And Conscience is not your Rule, but your Guide, and so far only can Conscience justifie your Actions, as it is justifyed by God, and his sacred Word. Subm [...]ssion to your Prince is your Duty, and confidence in his Goodness will be your Prudence. So I take my leave and rest,