Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A34269
|
A Confutation of sundry errors in Dr. Sherlock's book concerning allegiance
|
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing C5812; ESTC R20781
|
14,713
|
16
|
That Power does not give Right but is a certain sign to us that where God has placed and settled the Power he hath given the Authority therefore my Doctrine is not the same with Hobbism p. 15. Confut Your Doctrine is the very same with Hobbism because you plainly confound Right and Wrong most rightful and most wrongful Monarchs and make them to be equally the Effects of God's Omnipotent Power and Providence which is perfect Hobbism and destructive of True Religion and Morality If God's permission of Might and Power to this or that Man be a certain sign to us that God hath given him Authority and Right then it unavoidably follows that Might and Right are inseparable and then all Murders Treasons Robberies Rapes Sacriledges Injuries Oppressions and unjust Violences are for ever justified and legitimated and there can be no such thing as Good and Evil Right and Wrong Lawful and Unlawful Error 20. The Outrages of Thieves and Pirats are very impertinently alledged in this Cause They have Force and Violence which every Man must submit to when he cannot help it but Sovereign Power is God's Authority though Princes may be advanced to it by no honester Means than Thieves take a Purse or break open my House and take my Mony or Goods p. 34. Confut. Though the Case of an Usurper doth in many things greatly differ from that of Thieves and Pirats yet in this they both agree that neither hath true Right the Divine Providence by permitting the Usurper to be in the Throne gives him no more Right to it than his permitting a common Cut-purse to steal my Mony gives him Right to it As we submit to an High-way Robber because he is too strong for us and we cannot help it so do we to an Usurper For I do not think you can name one Mâ—n truly Loyal that would submit to a manifest Usurper if he could help it And if you suppose the Regnant Prince not to be manifestly an Usurper of necessity he is lawful and rightful Prince before God and all the World For de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio things not plainly evident are to be esteemed as not at all And this doth principally sway with me as to the present Government The great Law and Rule of Conscience touching Allegiance I take to be this that whoever is in possession of the Crown compleat Allegiance is due to him unless it be plain and evident to each Man's Conscience sincerely studious of his Duty to God and the King that he is an Usurper But that their present Majesties are so is impossible to be proved That an Hereditary Kingdom be governed by a Monarch is from God as Principal and from the People as Instrumental but that it be governed by a notorious Usurper is from Satan and not from God though God doth innocently permit it as he doth all other Sin Error 21. All Kings are equally rightful with respect to God p. 14. Error 22. Nor does it make any difference in this Case to distinguish between what God permits and what he does p. 12. Confut. That all Kings are not equally rightful with respect to God is plain from God's own words They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knew it not Hos 8.4 And from this undeniable Truth that God is Author of Just Monarchy but he is not Author of Usurped Monarchy it is contrary to his Holy Nature and to his Holy Law For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in Wickedness Psal 5.4 True it is that God doth innocently permit Usurpation and his Permission is not idle but unsearchably operative but still he is no way Author of it for Usurpation is Sin and God cannot be Author of Sin to think it is Impiety and to speak it is Blasphemy So that all usurping Kings are made by Satan and not by God and every time we say the Lord's Prayer in Faith we do inclusively and by implication pray against usurping Kings Error 23. The distinction then between a King de jure and a King de facto relates only to Humane Laws which bind Subjects but are not the necessary Rules and Measures of Divine Providence p. 14. Confut. It relates to Divine Laws as Principal and Supream and to Humane Laws as Subordinate and Instrumental and all such Humane Laws as are manifestly good just necessary and convenient for the Common Safety and Quiet are in a large sense rather Divine than Humane though in a strict sense they are not Divine The Divine Laws are the necessary Rules and Measures of our Duty but not of God's Providence For he permits all the Sins of Angels and Men contrary to his Holy Laws and yet is no way Author of Sin Error 24. The Doctrine of the Church of England is That usurping Kings after they are once throughly settled in the Throne are to be submitted to as God's Ordinance and compleat Allegiance is to be paid them as invested with God's Authority whatever their Legal Right be For the proof of which I appeal to Bp Overal's convocation-Convocation-Book p 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Confut. Not to dispute whether Bp Overal's Convocation Book is to be admitted as an authentick and adequate Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of England that Book doth not prove your Point For it proves only this That usurping Kings when once throughly settled in the Throne cease to be Usurpers and become lawful Kings and invested with God's Authority This I grant But doth this convocation-Convocation-Book say that there can be a through settlement of Kings in the Throne without Legal Right This it saith not and therefore you greatly err in replying upon that as a Proof which really is none but your own Mistake and Miscollection You your self confess pag. 9. That the foresaid Convocation has not determined when a Government gotten by Usurpation may be said to be throughly settled Now I affirm in contradiction to the Scope and Tenour of your Book that no Government can be thoroughly settled without Legal Right It is very probable that Convocation had in their Eye the two recent Cases of Holland and Scotland 1. As to Holland while the King of Spain denied them to be a free independent and Soveraign State and claimed them as his Right and maintained his Claim by the Sword and refused to treat with them as a Soveraign State the Convocation might probably think that the revolution in Holland was not throughly settled But after King Philip by his Agents condescended to treat with them as a Sovereign State and did so own and admit them it is manifest that from this time they began to be throughly settled and though the begining should be supposed to be by Usurpation yet now it ceased to be so and became a Just Government by the Law of Nations 2. As to Scotland while Mary Queen of Scots was alive though Prisoner in England the Convocation might perhaps
A Confutation of sundry Errors in Dr. Sherlock's Book concerning Allegiance Error 1. THE Scripture hath given us no Directions in this Case but to submit and pay all the Obedience of Subjects to the present Powers It makes no distinction that ever I could find between rightful Kings and Usurpers pag. 18. Confut. Why then did you stand off so long from swearing Allegiance to their present Majesties out of scruple of Conscience And why do you condemn Oliver Cromwell and the Rump-Parliament and the late Inter-regnum as a Rebellion And why do you approve the Peoples Combination against and killing Athaliah as an Usurper and setting young Joash the right Heir in the Throne To say that there is no difference as to our Duty and Allegiance between a manifest Usurper and a manifest rightful Owner of the Crown is in effect to say that a manifest Usurper is not an Usurper which is a Contradiction The Scripture largely taken doth comprize the Principles of Natural Religion and all the Rules and Maxims of Order Government and Civil Society common to Christians and Heathens who all agree in this That there are two sorts of Kings a manifest Usurper and a manifest rightful Owner of the Crown and accordingly there are two kinds of Subjection one due to an Usurper and another due to a rightful Owner of the Crown for as these two Kings differ in specie in kind so the Subjection due to the one doth differ in specie in kind from what is due to the other If you abandon this Distinction you justify the Cause of traiterous Absolom and his Adherents against Innocent David and his Adherents and there can be no such thing as Usurpation of Crowns and Kingdoms Error 2. Joash was first anointed and proclaimed before any one stirred a Finger against Athaliah Now this is a very different Case from raising Rebellions against a Prince who is in the possession of the Throne to restore an ejected Prince p. 34. Confut. Though Joash was first anointed and proclaimed King before Athaliah was kill'd yet it is plain that the preparations to kill her and the full purpose of their Mind so to do were long before And were these not so much as the stirring of a Finger against Athaliah's Person Crown and Government If the same kind of Subjection was due to Athaliah a notorious Usurper which was due to Joash the rightful Owner as you all along assert then Jehoiada and all the Godly and true Loyalists in Judah were guilty of traiterous and wicked Conspiracy If not then the grand Principle of your Book falls and you shew your self a Betrayer rather than a Defender of true Loyalty and Allegiance Error 3. This of Athaliah was a peculiar Case for God himself had entailed the Kingdom of Judah on the Posterity of David and therefore nothing could justify their Submission to an Usurper when the King's Son was found to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine Entail But c. p. 35. Confut. It is plain from the Story that the Nobles Commons and Clergy of Judah did out of conscientious Prudence and Respect to the Common Quiet submit to the Government of Athaliah after they knew she was an Usurper and that Joash the right Heir was in being and preparation for the Crown until they had by innocent Policy made themselves strong and were sufficiently prepared to depose and kill her this their Submission was just and laudable And this Case doth strongly prove that a notorious Usurper is to be submitted to by all the People when he cannot be deposed and cut off without endangering the Common Quiet and Safety of the Realm but when it can with general Safety and Quiet to the Realm be effected it is lawful and laudable to effect and accomplish it For though the Kingdom of Judah was a Theocracy yet other Nations and Kingdoms are not without Order and Government agreeable to the general Rules of God's Word and in that respect are a kind of Theocracy though not in the strict sense And it was upon Grounds and Reasons common to other Nations and Kingdoms that Athaliah was deposed and killed viz. because she was a notorious Usurper and it was against the Common Quiet and Interest of the Realm to bear with and submit to her any longer Vbi eadem ratio ibi eadem lex It was never God's intention to continue the Crown in the Posterity of David let them live as they list but on supposition of their walking in God's Ways as David did Which because they did not therefore God made Jeroboam King over ten Tribes and afterward did alienate the Crown of Judah from the House of David to the Babylonians Persians Grecians and Romans Error 4. If the Choice and Consent of the People makes a Prince then no Man is a Subject but he who consents to be so for the major Vote cannot include my Consent unless I please that is the Effect of Law and Compact or Force not of Nature pag. 24. Confut. It was the Choice and Consent of the greater part of the People according to God's Word Deut. 17.14 15. which made Saul the first King of Israel Whose Election not being consented to by some therefore the Scripture brands them for Sons of Belial 1 Sam. 10.27 Here the major Vote did conclude the rest You cannot be a good Subject without your own Consent but a Subject you may be against your Will tho the King be made by consent of the People according to the general Rules of God's Word because it is pro bono Publico for the common good and absolutely necessary for the uphold of Order Unity and Government among Men that in such Cases the major Vote concludes all the rest the Light of Nature doth so dictate and common Sense allows it Error 5. If Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away again if they please there can be no irresistible Authority derived from the People for if the Authority be wholly derived from them who shall hinder them from taking it away when they see fit Upon these Principles there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can only chuse for themselves their Posterity having as much right to chuse as they had pag. 24. Confut. If indeed the People be the sole principal Cause of conferring Authority upon the King then they may take it away when they please even as God himself doth But this they are not they are only Causes instrumental and subservient yet so necessary to the Being of just and legal Monarchy that without their Consent Tacit or Express no just Monarchy can begin and be sounded Yet will it not hence follow that the People may at their pleasure recal the Authority which they have given for being only Causes instrumental and subordinate they can act nothing without the Concurence of God the supream Cause and Governor of the World But God doth oblige them to stick to and abide by their King whom