SHERLOCK against SHERLOCK.
The Master of the TEMPLE. In his Case of Allegiance, Affirms
THat all Soveraign Princes, who are settled in their Thrones, are placed there by God, and invested with his Authority, and therefore must be obeyed by all, Subjects, as the Ministers of God, wthout enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne. Alleg pag. 10.
That the Scripture has given us no Directions in this Case, but to submit, and pay all Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers. It makes no distinction, that ever I could find, between Rightful Kings, and Ʋsurpers; between Kings we must, and whom we must not obey; but the General Rule is, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers for all Power is of God, Ibid. p. 18.
The English Monarchy is Hereditary, and the Lineal Heir has the Legal Right to the Crown: Grant this; But still we must consider, how far this is a Law to all private Subjects; how far every Subject is [Page 2]bound in Conscience by this Constitution, to give the Possession of the Crown to the Right Heir and not to suffer any one else to take it; or it he do, not to pay Allegiance to him, or own him for his King. What Law is there that says this? And I think the reason of the thing doth not prove it. The Law doth not refer the Cognizance of such Matters to private Subjects; and therefore they are not Bound by Law to take care of it; and I know nothing but Law can Bind us to a legal Constitution. Legal Rights must be determined by alegal Authority; and there is no Authority can take Cognizance of the Titles and Claim of Princes, and the disposal of the Crown, but the Estates of the Realm: They indeed are oblidged to take Notice of the legal Descent of the Crown; and if through mistake, or any other Cause they set the Crown upon a wrong Head, they must answer for it; but private Subjects, who have no legal Cognizance of the matter, are Bound by no Law, that I know of, to disown a King, whom the Estates have owned, tho' they should think the Right is in the other. If Authority may not over-rule private Subjects in these Cases, even against their own private Opinions, and [Page 3]justifie their Obedience to a King, who is placed in the Throne, Subjects are in a very ill Case, who have no Authority to Judge, and no Power to Resist: There are numerous Cases, wherein Subjects must acquiesce in the determinations of a legal Authority, against what they think a legal Right: The reason and necessities of Government require it; and the Law, which gives a Right will not allow us to vindicate our Right against a legal Authority. And therefore it doth no follow meerly from the Law of Succession, that Subjects are Bound in Conscience to own no Kings, who is not the rightful Heir. Ibid. pag. 52. 53.
The Queston is not, Whether the Monarchy be Hereditary, that is agreed, but whether in an Hereditary Monarchy we must pay Allegiance to no Prince who is not the legal Heir, tho' possessed of the Throne; this the Lawyers deny, and produce Law for it; and if there be such Laws, It is certain by Law, we may pay Allegiance to a King in Possession, notwithstanding the fundamental Constitution of an Hereditary Monarchy; for the Law, which makes one, allows and commands the other; and then it is an Hereditary Monarchy, with this [Page 4]reserve of paying Allegiance to the King in Possession, when the legal Heir cannot obtain his Right.
And this I take to be a very wise Constitution, which secures the Kings Right, as far as Law can do it; but if the King should be deprived of his Right, (which the Experience of all Ages proves he may be) doth not think fit that the Government should sink with him, and therefore makes provision for the Security of the Government, and of the Subjects under the Regnant Prince, which the Reasons and Necessities of Government require and justifie, tho' there had been no Law for it.
Now it is enough to prove, that Allegiance is by Law due to a King de facto, if Treason may be committed against him; for no Treason can be committed where no Allegiance is due.
This is confessed, that all such Acts as are Treason against a King de jure, are Treason, when comited against a King de facto, but not, say they, because Allegiance is due to him, but because they are against the order of Government, and therefore are Treason by the presumed consent of the King de jure. In Ans.
That such Acts are against the [Page 5]Order of Government, and very destructive to it, is the only reason why they are made Treason by Law; and this is a good reason why the Law should make them Treason against a King de facto, as a King de jure Ibid pag. 57, 58.
Yet one may reasonably presume, that a King who forsakes his Kingdom, to consult his own Safety will give his Subjects leave to consult theirs: If this will justifie a King to save himself, by leaving his Kingdom, why will it not justifie Subjects, when their King has left them, to submit and comply with the prevailing Powers, as far as is necessary to preserve themselves? That is, even by Oaths of Allegiance; Self-preservation is as much a Law to Subjects, as to the Prince; and he is as much Sworn to Govern and Protect his Subjects, as they are to Obey and Defend him; and if the necessities of Self preservation, Absolve him from his Oath of Governing and Protecting his People, I desire to know, why the same necessity will not absolve Subjects from their Oaths to their Prince. A Prince may Govern by Law, and Protect his Subjects, and yet in Fact they deny their Allegiance to him. Alleg. p. 42.
[Page 6] It is true, we must in all Cases be contented to suffer in doing our Duty; for we must chuse rather to Suffer, than to Sin; and it is no Argument, that anything ceases to be my Duty, because it exposes me to Suffering: But then we must be very sure that it is our Duty; that it is expresly enjoyned us by the Laws of God and Nature, before we venture to suffer for it. But then we are to learn our Duty, not from any express Law of God or Nature, but from the Reason and Nature of things. It is a sufficient Argument that it is not my Duty, which will expose me to great sufferings, without serving any Good end; nay, which exposes me to Sufferings, for contradicting the natural end and intention of that Duty, for which I pretend to Suffer.
But let us grant, that this Principle is the best Security to the Rights of Princes; is the Right of any Prince so Sacred, as to stand in competition with the very being of Human Societies, and the Safety and Preservation of all his Subjects? and must we then defend a Princes Right, with the Destruction of the Nation, and the Ruin of all his Subjects? Which is most necessary, That the Nation should be, or, that such a Prince should Govern it. p. 45.
The Rector of Saint George Botolph-Lane. In his Case of Resistance.
THere is another Objection a gainst what the Apostle affirms, That there is no Power but of God: The Powers that be, are ordained of God. For, is the Power of Victorious Rebels and Ʋsurpers from God? Did O C. receive his Power from God? then it seems, it was unlawful to Resist him too, or to Conspire against him.
To this I answer, That the most Prosperous Rebel is not the Higher, while our Natural Prince, to whom we owe Obedience and Subjection, is in Being. And therefore tho' such Men may get the Power into their hand by God's Permission, yet not by God's Ordinance; and he who Resists them, does not Resist the Ordinance of GOD, but the Usurpations of Men. In Hereditary Kingdoms ( which is England) the King never Dies; but the same minute that the natural Person of one King Dies, the Crown descends upon the next Blood; and therefore he who Rebelleth [Page 2]against the Father, continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son, which commences with his Father's Death.
It is otherwise indeed, where none can pretend a greater Right to the Crown, than the Ʋsurper; for there Possession of Power seems to give a Right. Thus many of the Roman Emperors came to the Crown by very ill means; but when they were Possest of it, they were the Higher Powers; for the Crown did not descend by Inheritance, but sometimes by the Election of the Senate, sometimes the Army, which always draws a consent after it: And therefore the Apostle does not direct the Christians to enquire by what Title the Emperors held their Crowns; but Commands them to submit to those who had the Power in their hands; for the Possession of Supreme and Soveraign Power is Title enough, when there is no better Title to oppose aginst it.
There are Two Examples in Scripture, which manifestly confirm what I have now said.
The first is, in the Kingdom of Israel, after the Ten Tribes had divided from the House of Judah, and the Family of David, GOD had not entailed the Kingdom upon any [Page 3]certain Family; He had indeed by Abijah the Prophet promised, after Solomon's Death, Ten Tribes to Jeroboam, the Son of Nebat 1 Kings 11.29. &c. but had afterwards, by the same Prophet, threatned Jeroboam to destroy his whole Family, Chap. 15.10, 11. Baasha fulfils this Prophesie, by the Traiterous Murther of Nadab (who successed his Father Jeroboamin the Kingdom) and Ʋsurpt the Government himself, and slew all Jeroboam's House, ver. 28, 29. This Murther and Treason is numbred among the Sins of Baasha; for which GOD afterwards threatened to destroy his House, as he had done the House of Jeroboam, chap. 16. ver. 7. Ela succeeded Baash, who had no better Title than his Father, and yet Zimri, who Slew him, is accused of Treason for it, v. 20. Zimri Ʋsurpt the Kingdom when he had Slain his Master, but he was only a vain Pretender to it, when he wanted Power; for when the People who were Encamped against Gibbethon, heard that Zimri had Killed the King, they made Omri King, and went immediately and Besieged Tizza, where Zimri had naken Possession of the King's Palace; who, finding no way to Escape, set Fire to it himself, and died [Page 4]in the Flames of it. And now Israel was divided between Omri and Tibri; but those who followed Omri, prevailed against those who followed Tibri; and Tribri died, and Omri Reigned, ver. 21.22. All which plainly shews, that where there is no regular Succession to the Kingdom, there, Possession of Power makes a King, who cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the guilt of Treason.
But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Judah, which GOD himself had entailed on David 's Family, as appears from the Example of Joam, who was concealed by his Aunt Jehosheba, and hid in the House of the Lord for Six Years.
During this Time, Athaliah Reigned, and had the whole Power of Government in her hands; but yet this did not make her a Soveraign and irresistable Prince, the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive: And therefore in the Seventh Year, Jehojada the Priest set Joash, upon the Throne, and Slew Athaliah, and guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so, 2 Kings 11. which shews, That no Usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a natural Prince. Such Usurpers, though they have the Possession of the Supreme [Page 5]Power, yet they have no right to it; and though GOD, for wise Reasons, may sometimes permit such Usurpations, yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such Deposed and Banished Princes from Violence, he secures their Title too. As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision, Dan. 4.26. The Tree is cut down, but the Stump of the Roots is left in the Earth. The Kingdom shall be sure to them, after that they shall know that the Heavens do Rule.
Case of Resistance of Supreme Powers Pages 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 132.
Self-Defence was never allowed by GOD or Nature, against publick Authority, but only against Private Violence.
There was a Time, when Fathers had the Power of Life and Death over their own Children: Now, I would only ask these Men, if a Son, at that time, saw his Father coming to Kill him, and that, as he thought, very unjustly, he might Kill his Father to defend himself. This never was allowed by the most Barbarous Nations in the World: and yet it may be justified by this Principle of Self-Defence, as it is urged by those Men; which is a plain Argument that it is false. It is an [Page 6]express Law, That he that Smiteth his Father or his Mother, shall be surely put to Death. Exod. 21.15. and yet then the Power of Parents was restrained by Publick Laws. And the Authority of a Prince is not less Sacred than of a Parent; He's God's Minister and Vicegerent, and Subjects are expresly forbid to resist; and it is a vain thing to pretend a natural Right, against the express Law of God.
2. For the Sole Power of the Sword is in the Kings hands; and therefore no Private Man can take the Sword in his own Defence, but by the Kings Authority; and certainly he cannot be presumed to give any Man Authority, to use the Sword against himself. And therefore, as Christ tells Peter, He that takes the Sword, shall Perish by the Sword; He who draws the Sword against the lawfull Powers, deserves to dye by it.
3. We may consider also, That it is an external Law, That private Defence must give place [...] publick Good. Now, he that takes Arms to defend his own Life, and some few others, involves a whole Nation in Blood and Confusion, and occasions the Miserable Slaughter of more Men than a long Succession of Tyrants could destroy. Such Men Sacrifice many Thousand Lives, both of Friends and Enemies. to a private Self-Defence, and if this be the Law of Nature, we may well [...] Nature a Step-Mother, that has Armed us to [...] own Ruine and Confusion.
Considerations and Reflections upon some of Doctor Sherlock's Celebrated Positions, concerning Passive Obedience, and Non Resistance.
WE shall now consider the Doctor's Reasons, why the King is Irresistible in all Cases, which are these.
1. That the King has a Personal Authority, antecedent to all the Laws of the Land, independent on them, and superior to them. Case of Resistance, pag, 196.
Now, This is not true, for the King is King by Law, and has his Authority from the Law. Indeed, our Authors says, (in the same Page) That the great Lawyer, Bracton (by those very words of his, Lex facit Regem) was far enough from understanding, that the King receives his Soveraign Power from the Law. I confess I never was so well acquainted with Bracton, as to know what secret Meanings he had, contrary to the Sense of his Words; and therefore cannot tell how far he was from understanding. That the King receives his Soveraign Power from the Law; but I am sure he was not far from saying so; for he says it in the very next words; Attribuat igitur Rex quod Lex attribuites, videlicet, Dommationem & Potestatem. He proves, that the King is under the Law, and ought to Govern by the Law, because he is made King, by the Law, and receives his Power and Authority from the Law; and then adds, what the Doctor is pleased to cite, Non est enim Rex, ubi dominatur Voluntas, & non Lex: He is no King who Governs by Arbitrary Will, and not by Law; that is, no lawful English King, Bracton must mean, for still he may be a Good Outlandish and Assyrian King and Tyrant, though his Arbitrary Will does all: For the Doctor ( Case of Resist. pag, 41.) quotes out of Dan. 5.18.19. That God gave Nebuchadnezzar such an Absolute Kingdom, that vvhom he vvould he slevv, and vvhom he vvould he made Alive, and vvhom he vvould he set up, and vvhom he vvould he pulled dovvn, And I hope no Man Tyrannizes over his People who uses the Prerogative which God has given him; therefore the Doctor rendring Lex facit Regem, To Govern by Lavv, makes a Soveraign Prince a King, and distinguishes him from a Tyrant, will pass with none but such ordinary Readers as he write his Book or, and who never saw Bracton.
[Page 8] Chancellor For tescue likewise says. That a limited Monarch receives his power, a Populo estaxam, which unriddles the Doctors Riddle in the same place, Hovv the Law can make the King, vvhen the King makes the Law? But it is such a wonderful thing, that there should be a Lavv to create a King, and to enable him so far in the making of Laws, as to make his consent necessary to the being of all Future Laws; was it not thus when the two houses were Erected, and endowed with the like Power, notwithstanding the Doctors says. ( pag. 196.) That the Law has no Authority, nor can give any, but what it receivs from the King. For the Laws are made Authoritate Parliamenti, which is by the Authority of the King, Lords and Commons.
But to lay aside Bracton and Fortescue, let us a little reason the Matter. This Personal Authority of the King, antecedent to all the Laws of the Land independent on them, and superiour to them: whence is it; has be a Throne like God? Is he of Himself, and for Himself? Or has he a Personal Authority from God, antecedent to Laws, to be a King? Then shew a Revelation from God where he is named. Or has he the Natural Authority of a Father to Govern his Children? Then it must be proved That he has begotten his three Kingdoms, and all the People, in all other His Majesties Dominions? Or has he a Personal Patriarchal Authority which is set up as a shadow of the Authority of a Father, whereby the Eldest Son is his Father by Representation? Then it must be proved. That the King is the Eldest Son of the Eldest House of all the Families of the Earth. Or were mankind made in the day of their Creation, by Nations, and Created Prince and People, as they were Created Male and Female? but if none of these things can be said, then it remains. That a Civil Authority, that is, a mutual Consent and Contract of the Parties, first Founded this Civil Relation of King and Subject, as we see it every day does of Master and Servant, which is another Civil Relation; and that the Consent of a Community or Society, is a Law. and the Foundation of all Civil Laws whatsoever, is proved beyond all contradiction, by Mr. Hooker Eccl Pol. Li [...], 1, chap. 10.
Another Reason which the Doctor gives, why the King is Irresistible in all Cases, is Because he is Soveraign: and it is essential to Soveraignty to be irresistible in all Cases. Which is false: For the King of Polland [...] [Page 9]Soveraign, he Coins Money with his own Image and Superscription upon it, which, according to the Doctor, pag. 50 Is a certain Mark of Soveraignty, and pag. 51. By the very Impression on their Money it is evident, That he is their Soveraign Lord: He stiles himself by the same Grace of God with any King in Christendom, and wears the like Crown: He Assembles Diets; he disposes of all Offices; he judges the Palatines themselves, and is full of the Marks of Soveraignty. And yet he that shall take a Polish Penny, and make such work with it, as the Doctor does with the Roman Tribute Money, and out of it read Lectures either of Active or Passive Obedience in all Cases, will read amiss: For in case he breake his Coronation Oath, they owe him no Obedience at all, of any kind; for this is one Clause in it: Quod si Sacramentum meum violavero, Incolae Regni nullam nobis obedientiam praestare tenebuntur. So that in case he violate his Oath, his Irresistibility departs from him, and he becomes like other Men.
I come now to the Doctor's Second Case; which is resolv'd under the covert and Countenance of the former, That as well inferior Magistrats, as others imployed by a Popish Tyrannical Prince, in the most Illegal and Outragious Acts of Violence ( such as Cutting of Throats, &c.) are as Irresistible as the Prince himself (under pretence of having the Prince's Authority to do these Acts) and must be submitted to, under pain of Hell, and Eternal Damnation. Now, to shew the Authority which we are bound to submit to, not in Laws, but in Persons who Act contrary to Law, he has brought the following Argument, which is the most laboured of any in his Book: Nay, it is very false and absurd to say, That every Illegal. Is an Ʋnauthoritative Act, which carrie no Objection with it. This is contrary to the practice of all Judicatures, and the daily Experience of Men, who suffer in their Lives, Bodies and Estates, by an unjust and Illegal Sentence: For the most illegal Judgment is Valid, till it be reversed by some Superior Court; which most illegal, but Authoritative Judgment, derives its Authority, not from the Law, but the but the Person of him whose Judgment it is. Case of Obed. Pag. 193.194.195.
Now, to use his own words, this is very false and absurd all over.
For first. Legal and Authorative are all one▪ and Illegal Authority [Page 10]is in England, unlawful lawful Power. Secondly, It is not true, That an Illegal Judgment is valid, till it be revers'd: For the Judgment of a Man to Death, in an Arbitrary way, either contrary to the Verdict of his Jury, or without a Jury, is not Authorative or Valid at all, no not for an hour. But, I suppose, by illegal Judgments, the Doctors means legal Judgments, which have Error in them; and if these should not be Valid, and stand good till that Errour be found in some Higher Court, there could not be legal nor Illegal, nor any Judgments at all; but all humane Judicatures must come to an end: For if Judgment cannot be given, till we have Judges who are not subject to Errour, the Laws must ly by and rust; and there can be no administration of Justice. Thirdly, The Authority of a Judgment which is Erroneous, is not from the Judges Personal Authority above the Law, nor from his Mistakes beside the Law but from that Jurisdiction and Authority which the Law has given to Courts and Judicial Proceedings, which, if they be in due course of Law, are legal, and are presumed to be every way right, and as they should be, and free from Errour, till the contrary appears in some Higher Court. But if the Judges in Westminster-Hall should use a Personal Authority, superior to Law, in Judging Men to Death without a Jury, or in condemning a Man when his Jury acquit him, or the like, the Law having given no Authority to any such proceedings, these Judgments would be illegal and void, and have no Authority at all.
Secondly, Another Reason why we must submit to Illegal Violence is this: Because though they have no legal Authority for it, yet we have no legal Authority to defend our selves against it, pag, 192 But he himself has given as full an answer to this as can be desired, in these words, For no Man can want Authority to defend his Life against him that has no Authority to take it away, pag. 59.
Thirdly, We must submit to Illegal Violence, because the People cannot call inferiour Magistrates to an Account, pag 191. But sure the People may defend themselves against the Murderous Attempts of inferiour Magistrates, without pretending to call them to an account, or sitting in Judgment upon them: And when they themselves are called to an account for this Defence, they may give a very good account of it, by the 28. H. 8. cap. 5.
[Page 11] Fourthly, We must not defend our selves when we are Persecuted to Death for our Religion, contrary to the Laws of England, because we must not defend our selves, when we are thus persecuted contrary to the Laws of God and Nature, which are as Sacred and inviolable as the Laws of our Country. Case of Alleg p 200.
Answer. I grant that the Laws God and Nature are more sacred and Inviolable than the Laws of our Country; but they give us no Civil Rights and Liberties, as the Laws of England have done. Every Leige Subject of England has a legal Property in his Life, Liberty and Estate, in the free Exercise of the Protestant Religion established amongst us; and a legal Possession may be legally defended: Now, the Laws of England, in Queen Mary's Time were against the Protestants, and stript them of this unvaluable Blessing, and therefore tho' they chose rather to observe the Laws of God and Nature, than those of their Country, which at that time violated both the other; yet withal, they submitted to the Laws of their Country, which alone [...] and take away all legal Rights and Titles, and, when all is said, are [...] only Measures of Civil Obedience.
Fifthly, Men must not defend their Lives against a lawless [...] Persecution, when they are Condemned by no Law, becau [...] the [...] defend their Lives, when they are Condemned by a Wicked, Persecuting, Popish Law: For such lawless Persecution, has as much Authority as such a Wicked Persecuting Law. pag. 202. This is manifestly false: For a lawless Popish Persecution has no Authority at all, but has all the Authority of Heaven and Earth against it; whereas a wicked Popish, Persecuting Law, tho', as it is wicked, it cannot Command our Obedience; yet, as it is a Law, it may dispose of our Civil Rights. If Queen Mary's Laws were no Laws, because they were wicked Persecuting Laws, why were they Repealed? why were they not declared to be null from the beginning?
Sixthly, That Non Resistance of Illegal Violence, is the best way to secure the publick Peace and Tranquility, and the best way for every Man's private Defence; for self-defence may involve many others in Blood, and besides, exposes a Man's self. pag. 205, 206. That is to say, when the publick Peace is violated in an high manner, the best way to secure [Page 12]is quietly to suffer it still to be broken farther; a Man's best defence is to Die patiently, for fear of being Killed: And when [...] are broke loose, the only way to prevent the effusion of more Christian Blood, is to let them alone. Now, in opposition to this Doctrine I shall only remember the Doctor, That if there had not been a Defence made against the Irish Cut-Throats in Forty One, though they had the Impudence to pretend the King's Commission, there had hardly been Protestant left, but the Prestilent Northern Heresie had been through [...] extirpated in that Kingdom:
Seventhly. Another Reason is, Because Non Resistance is certainly the best way to prevent the change of a Limited into an Absolute Monarchy, pag. 212. Now, this is so far from being true, that on the other hand, absolute Non Resistance, even of the most illegal Violence, [...] actually change the Government, and sets up an Absolute and Arbitrary Power in the shortest way, and by the surer side. For a Prince, whom the Laws themselves have made Absolute, has thereby no more than a Right and Title to an Absolute Subjection; but Non Resistance puts him into the actual Possession of it. The Doctor himself has made this [...] beyond all contradiction; for, he says, That Non-Resistance is as perfect Subjection, as can be paid to Soveraign Princes, pag. 44. and 11 [...], he calls it, The only perfect and absolute Subjection we owe to Princes. Now, the most perfect and absolute Subjection that can be paid, erects the most absolute Government that can be devised. For these words are of Eternal Truth, which we read in pag. 64. of this Book; For Authority and Subjection are Correlates, they have mutual respect to each other, and therefore they must stand and fall together: There is no Authority, where there is no Subjection due; and there is no Subjection due, where there is no Authority. And is not this as bright and as evident a Truth: There is no absolute Authority, where there is no absolute Subjection due; and there can be no absolute Subjection due, where there is no absolute Authority?
I shall now produce some Reasons, to prove the Lawfulness of Defending our selves against Illegal Violence; which is a Truth so obvious, and so agreeable to the common sense of Mankind, that even those Men, who set themselves to oppose it, do often times assert it unawares, and [Page 13]gave unanswerable Reasons for it; I shall therefore, first set down those Concessions which the force of Truth hath Extorted from the Doctor, and secondly, add some other Arguments to them.
First, No Man wants Authority to defend his Life against him who has no Authority to take it way, pag. 69. But no Man whatsoever has any just and legal Authority, (that is, any Authority at all,) to take it away contrary to Law, pag. 191. And from these premises, it is easie for any Man to infer the Conclusion.
Secondly, He that Resists the Ʋsurpations of Men, does not Resist the Ordinance of God, which alone is forbidden to be Resisted. But Acts of Arbitrary and Illegal Violence, are the Ʋsurpations of Men. These again are the Doctors Doctrines, the former, pag. 128. the other, pag, 211, 212. he acknowledges, that the assuming of an Absolute and Arbitrary Power in this Kingdom, would be Usurpation; though he says at the same time, That no Prince in this Kingdom ever Ʋsurped such a Power, which is notoriously false, for Richard the Second by Name did. not to mention any other.
Thirdly, The Doctor, pag, 126. has these words, Every Man has the Right of Self-Preservation, as inti [...]e under Civil Government, as he had in a State of Nature: Ʋnder what Government soever I live, I may still kill another Man, when I have no other way to preserve my life from unjust Violence by private Hands. Now the Hands of Subordinate Magistrates, Imploy'd in Acts of Illegal Violence, are private Hands, and Armed with no manner of Authority at all; of which this is a most convincing Proof, That they may be Hanged by Law for such Acts, which no Man can or ought to Suffer for what he doth by Authority. They are no Officers at all in such Acts, for Illegal Violence is no part of their Office. Now, after the Doctor has answered his own Arguments, I shall desire him to do as much for these which follow.
First, No Man can Authorize himself: But in Acts of Illegal Violence if a Subordinate Magistrate have any Authority at all, he must Authorize himself: For it is a contradiction to say, The Law Authorize him to do an Illegal Act, as the Doctor well observes, pag. 195. And it is false to say, That the King, who can do no wrong, can Authorize another to do it. In the great Conference of the Lords and Commons, 3 Caroli, [Page 14]concerning the Contents of the Petition of Right, the Law was held to be, That if the King Command a Man to do Injury to another, the Command is void, and the Actor of it Author, and the Actor becomes the Wrong doer; that is, he Acts of his own Head, and Authorizes himself.
Secondly, The Illegal Violence of Subordinate Magistrates cannot be more Irresistible, only by being more Criminal than it is in other Men; for that would be to make a Mans Crime to be his Protection. [...] Illegal Violence done by subordinate Magistrates, is not only as inauthoritative, as if it were committed by private Persons, but likewise more Criminal, as being done with a face and colour of Authority, and under pretence of Law, making that partaker of their Crime, violati [...] and blemshing the Law at once.