The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate, Chapter 10 · Section 1
CHAP. X. SECT. I.SECT. I. The objection [that this Text commandeth the Roman Chriſtians obedience to the then Roman Emperour, as the ſupream power of God ordained in that Empire, and that he was a uſurper] anſwered.
Object. 1. WHen the Apoſtle wrote this to the Chriſtians in Rome, the Roman Emperour that then was in the Throne, was an uſurper: yet the Apoſtle, in willing them to ſubject to the higher powers in this Te…t, looks upon him as the higher, ſupream, or Sove…aign power of the Roman State; and meaneth him to be the power of God, ordained of God.
Anſw. There are two things, which make up the ſubſtance of this Argument, the which, could they be evidenced, would make this objection unanſwerable, and carry the ſenſe of this Text quite contrary to the whole Diſcourſe I have hitherto made of it: But, if either of them be left inevident, or doubtfull, the objection failes, and the ſenſe given ſtands notwithſtanding it.
The two things that muſt be certain to make the argument good are,
1 That the Apoſtle in this exhortation unto ſubjection to the higher powers, and this affirmation of the power to be of God, ordained of God, intendeth, or hath his eye upon the Roman Emperour, as the ſupreame power of the Roman State.
2 That the ſaid Emperour was then an uſurper.
As for the former: who ſo looks into the Roman Hiſtories of thoſe times will underſtand, that there was then (to wit, in the time of the Emperours Cajus, Claudius, and Nero) a Roman Senate in being, a…d exerciſing authority; and that not meerly ſubordinate, but Soveraign; ſometimes without, ſometimes againſt, and ſometimes in conjunction with the Emperour. Sometimes (I ſay) without, ſ…metimes againſt him. Without him, as upon the death of Cajus, and Claudius, and ere their reſpect ve ſucceſſors were inveſted: againſt him, as about the depeſall, and death of Nero.
Yea, Mr. Prin hath undertaken to make good, and hath collected a plentifull ſtore of teſtimonies out of antiquity, ſufficient to render it more then p obable to any Reader, that in the Roman State, from the fi…ſt, continually, and par icularly after the Emperours came in, the ſupream power reſided in the Senate, and people, and not in the Kings, C…nſuls, or Emperours. Unto whom I refer the Reader in his f…urth part of the Soveraign power, &c. the Appendix, pag 2, &c. and his third part, pag. 109, 110, 111. See alſo Grotius, de ja…e belli lib. 2. cap. 9 ſect 11. and his Annotat. on that Section.
If H ſtorians obſerve there was any debate at any time ſt…rted betwixt the Senate, and the Emp…rou s about the title, or exerciſe of the ſoveraignty in a y point; or if the Emperou s overtopping the S na e in ſome things be ſet againſt the Sena…es acting without, or againſt the Emperour in o…hers, t… … at the moſt will cauſe but the more uncertainty in this poin…, and leave both the preciſe matter of fact, or the then conſtitution of the Roman power, and the queſtion whom the Apoſtles reflection, or intention was upon as the ſupream power there, the mo…e to us dubitable, & in medio: or rather will induce us to conclude this as certain, that, what ever diſpute, or alternateneſſe of prevailing there might then be, or may now ſeem to us (by what the Authors now extant hold forth of th ſe times) then to have been, betwixt the Emperour, and Senate about the ſupremacy; the Ap…ſtle relates not to that matter; meddles not with the ſtating, or determining of it; that being a queſtion of civill right, which either might have little matter of doubt in it, as to the Chriſtians practice, or might not be ſo doubtfull to them that lived in thoſe times, as it is now to us at this diſtance, or might have other ways of clearing it, in ſo far as the Chriſtians conſcience was concerned, then by the Apoſtles expreſſe writ in this Epiſtle. But taking the government that then was (in complexo) as juſt, and therefore neceſſary to be ſubjected to, he exhorts to that duty towards it, and that with this reaſon, becauſe, of God, ordained of God.
Indeed the queſtions which were now on foot among the Chriſtians, in reference to civill obedience, and which lay more upon the Apoſtle to deale in, and reſolve, (by the conſent of Expoſitors, ancient, and modern) were not ſo much in whom the ſupremacy was, as, whether Chriſtians were at all bound in obedience to any civill ſuperiours? and, if at all to any, whether to Pagan, and perſecuting Magiſtrates?
For the other, (the preſumed uſurpation of the Emperour) It is true, ſundry Authors, both Proteſtant, and Popiſh do occaſionally inſtance in the Roman Emperours of this age, as uſurpers: but, upon what evidence? as far as I can trace their cenſure in antiquity, all their ground for it is, the changes and ſimulties about Government that had then for a long ſpace troubled that State, and the oppoſiteneſs of divers worthy Romans (ſuch as Cato, Brutus, Cicero,) to the prevailing parties.
But let the alterations which the firſt Chieftaines made to the prejudice of the Senatorian, or Conſular intereſt be admitted violent, and illegal, and the power which the firſt Emperour, or Emperours aſcended to by them to have been in that its firſt riſe, or emergency of the ſame character; I ſhall affi…me there is yet alledged no good reaſon to pronounce, that the power of thoſe forenamed Emperours, taken to have been Contemporaries with St. Pauls Apoſtleſhip, was of that nature: This I deliver, not upon any exactneſſe of mine own ſearch of Hiſtory, but upon this two-fold conſideration.
1. The atteſtation of ſome Authors of this preſent age, very eminent.
As Junius (of whom Scaliger is ſaid have given this higheſt Elogy, That no age ſince the Apoſtles can ſhew ſuch a Divine *Ab Apoſtolorum temporibus hactenus parem Theologum nullum vidit ſeculum. Apud Gatakeri Cinnum, lib 2 cap. 9. pag. 267.) In his controverſie with Bellarmine about the Tranſlation of the Romane Empire from the Greeks to Germany, and in them to Charles the great (Bellarmine endeavouring to defend it to have been the act of Pope Leo the third, and to have been done lawfully by him) he firſt aſſerts his opinion of that Tranſlation. That a difference is to be put betwixt the tranſlation in doing, and the tranſlation after it was done. In the former there was a fault, which ceaſed in the latter. Though the beginning was injurious, there was a poſt-fact which made it right. And then he brings in as a parallel, to illuſtrate this the caſe we are upon, the Monarchy of Julius Caeſar;Alia eſt ratio tranſlationis in fieri quam in factum eſſe. Tranſlatio in fieri fuit vitioſa, in quâ, nec Leo tertius, nec populus Romanus, nec ipſe Carolus officium fecit. Sed tranſlatio in factum eſſe deſiit vitioſa eſſe, praeſertim cum Irene imperatrix, & Conſtantinus filius, &c. quorum intererat, cedemes jure ſuo pacem cum eo ſtatuerunt, &c. Nempe ex poſt-facto jus invaluit, cujus non ita fuerunt initia juſta. Exemplo eſto, ſi placet, Julii Caeſaris Monarchia. Haec enim ortu iniqua ſic fuit, ut conſtituta ſemel Rep. coeperit eſſe juſta. Nec ſolvi, niſi per in…uſtum ordinis publici conturbationum poterit. Junii Animad. in Bellarmin. Controv. 3. lib. 5 cap. 8. ſect. 18. pag. 872. of which he ſaith, this was ſo unjuſt in its beginning, as that being once conſtituted, to the Common-wealth it became juſt, neither could be diſſolved without an unjuſt diſtu…bance of the publique order.
Chamier may ſecond this of Junius. Whereas Pighius denies Pilate to have had any ordinary, or lawfull authority over Judea, or over Chriſt, becauſe Caeſar had not: and Caeſar (ſaith he) had not, becauſe he got his powe… both over the Roman Empire, and over Judea unjuſtly Chamier thus anſwers him. What then? If that Authority were from bad, and unjuſt beginning, did therefore Chriſt untruly ſay it was from ab…ve? Quid tum? ſi a malis, & injujuſtis principiis ea authoritas fuit, an proptereà falſo Chriſtus dixit eam eſſe foreign? an proptereà perperam docuit Caeſari cenſum ſolvendum? an verò nulla poteſtas ab initio injuſta, poteſt poſted juſta eſſe? Hoc verò ſi eſſet, tum ſane aut nulla, aut pauciſſima regna erunt juſta. Chamier panſtrat. Tom. 2. lib. 15. cap. 16. Sect. 8. & 9. pag. 635.did he therefore ill to teach that tribute was to be paid to Caeſar? Can no power at firſt unjuſt afterward become juſt? If that were ſo, then either none, or very few Kingdomes would be juſt.
Another (to add no more) may be Arniſaeus, he, moving the queſtion, Whether the act of a Tyrant (as to title) may be ſo rectified by the peoples after-conſent, that what was null before may become valid; even as Sylla got himſelfe created Dictator for 80 yeares, and Caeſar procured the ſame to himſelfe for ever? Abſque m…tu verò ſi populus, ad exemplum Romans, deponat omnem poteſtatem in principem, aut conſenſum tacitum confirmaris praeſcriptio immemorialis, quae vim habet privilegii, acquieſcendum eſſe conſilio illorum, qui cenſent inveteratas cauſas non eſſe renovandas. Arniſaeus de Authoritate princi…m. Cap 4 Sect. 14. pag. 127, 128.reſolves it thus. If the people, according to that example of the Romans, diſpoſe of the power to the Prince: or if preſcription of time out of mind convey a tacite conſent, that is to be acquieſced in without ſcruple.
2. The evidences I meet with in Hiſtorians of the vote or conſent of the Senate, and people, which thoſe Emperours had, giving them a juſt title, and aſſoyling their government from the brand of uſurpation.
Chronicon Carionis ſaith of Julius Caeſar, that he was confirmed by a publique decree in the ſupream power. And the ſame ſaith Cluverus of him.Revera Julius Magiſtratus eſſet decret… publico confirmatus, quo ei tributa erat ſumma poteſtas, & quo ſanxerat ſenatus eum eſſe inviolabilem. Chron. Car. part 1. lib. 2. cap. penult. pag. 187. Tum vero abſens (Caeſar) Romae Dictator creatus, paciſque & belli Dominus. Cluver. hiſt. lib. 7. p. 237.
Of Auguſtus his entrance Tacitus witneſſeth, both the Nobles and Provinces aſſent to it. And for further teſtimony (very luculent) of the Senates and peoples hearty ſubſequent ſubmiſſion to him from time to time, and their conſerting on him the honour, and power that he aſſumed, yea, and m…re then he fought, or accepted, I ſh ll refer the Reader to the collections (out of their Hiſtorians) of Archbiſhop Ʋſher, Ʋſſeri Annal. part 2 pag. 379. 497, 498, 549, 554. Cluver. hist lib. 7. pag. 240. Em. Theſauri Caeſares in Tiber. Vide etiam Sueton. Aug. vita cap. 58. & 70. Greg. Tholoſ. Synt. juris, lib 47. cap. 15. ſect. 21. & cap. 20. ſect. 4.in his Annals, and to Cluverus. Unto which let that be noted of the Elogiſt, Theſaurus. Doluit pat…ia cum principem fecit: gaviſa cum habait.
Of Tiberius his admiſſion by the Senate, and people, let be conſulted. Tacitus, Suetonius, Arch biſhop Uſher, and Emanuel Theſaurus *Tacit. Annal. lib. 1. cap. 2. Sueton. in Tiberio. cap. 24. Uſſeri Annal. pag. 549, 554.. Of whom the laſt ſaith, Sponte ſe Roma tyranno tradidit, tempori ſerviens, non Regi.
Of the moſt cheerfull coming in of Cajus Caligula, let Suetonius teſtifie†Sueton. in Caio cap. 13, & 14.. And of Claudius, ſee Joſephus, Cluverus, and Mr. Lightfoot *Joſephus de Bel. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 10. & Antiqu. lib. 19 cap. 3. Cluver. hiſt. lib. 8. pag. 267. Lightfoot on Acts, Ann. Chriſti 42. Sect. 4, & 5.. Of Nero, Tacitus †Tacit. Annal. lib. 12. cap. 14..
If againſt the validity of the conſent given to any of theſe it be alledged that it was enforced by armes, and therefore void, It may be ſaid,
1. Unto ſome of them, as Auguſtus, Caligula, and Nero, the conſent of the Roman S a e, is related to have been ſuch as leaveth no colour for this obj…ction.
2. It will be a very hard, yea, I think, an impoſſible thing for any at this diſtance of time, and in ſuch an imperfection of hiſtorical narration of circumſtances to bring ſufficient ground upon which to conclude any ſuch awe to have been upon the Senate, and people at the time of their conſent given to any, or to ſuch of them as might be in the Throne at the miſſion of this Epiſtle, as may ſerve to make the ſaid conſent invalid. Let the definition which Civilians and Caſuiſts give of that terrour which may annull a civill act (to wit, that it muſt be 1. From a cauſe extrinſical. 2. Probable. 3. Grievous. 4. Unjuſt. 5. Impreſſed on purpoſe to overawe to ſuch an act *Metus 1. Extrinſecus. 2. Probabilis. 3. Atrox. 4. Injuſtus. 5. Incuſſus ad hoc. Vide Bonacinam Tom. 2. Tract. 2. de Reſtit. Diſp. 3. qu. 1. punct. 2. ſect. 3. Et Tom. 1. Tract. 2. qu. 3. punct. 8. Et Greg. Thol. Synt. Jur. lib. 21. cap. 2. ſect. 3. Et lib. 36. cap. 25. ſect. 5.) he made out to have been then the caſe.
There is no great ground of preſumption for it that I met with in ſtory, in any of them ſave in that of Julius Caeſar, which will no way concern the title of them that followed, particularly of that Nero, in whoſe reign the writing of this Epiſtle is computed to fall.
3. There are that conceive, though in foro civili, promiſes made under ſome kind of feare, or force are voyded, that is, are made politically null, yet by the law of nature, and ſo in the Court of Conſcience, a contract, notwithſtanding any force impelling the contractor, is obliging†Grotius de Jure Bel. lib. 2. cap. 11. ſect. 7..