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 |
|
A49117
|
The historian vnmask'd, or, Some reflections on the late History of passive obedience wherein the doctrine of passive-obedience and non-resistance is truly stated and asserted / by one of those divines, whom the historian hath reflected upon in that book ; and late author of the resolutions of several queries, concerning submission to the present government : as also of an answer to all the popular objections, against the taking the oath of allegiance to their present majesties.
|
Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing L2969; ESTC R9209
|
38,808
|
69
|
Chains beyond which he cannot go and even tempt Men to be of the Opinion of the Gnosticks That all the Governments of the World are a contrivance of some evil Spirits to destroy the lives of Men and to abridge them of their Liberties which God and Nature have given them And with what Countenance can this Author aver that he doth only the Office of an Historian when the whole Design is a Satyr and an Indictment of Treason and Perjury against all those Divines that he quoteth who have since their Writings submitted to the present Government and sworn Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary and seems willing that King James should return with his French and Irish to be their Executioners It is not material to enquire whether he hath misquoted any passages but it is plain he hath mis-applyed them and stretch'd them beyond the meaning of their Authors for which I Appeal to the Author himself and shall only demand of him whether he himself doth or any of those whom he quotes ever did declare their Approbation of those Tenets of Sibthorp and Manwaring in the days of Charles the First or of the Bishops of Chester and Oxon in the Reign of James the Second whose Authorities in their own times were as he confesseth excepted against as of Men that did not write soberly on the Subject as our Author acknowledgeth And yet his whole Design is to shew that the King hath a plenitude of Power paramount to all that either of those four have mentioned over all the Laws of the Land over the established Religion and the Lives Liberties and Estates of all the Subjects with a quicquid libet licet This is not barely to plead for an inconsiderable rate of Ship-Money for granting Tolerations and Indulgences for a Power of Dispensing with some Laws but for the Legality of any Impositions even to the seizing our Freeholds of abrogating and making void all the Old Laws and giving the Prince's Will and Personal Commands the force of New and contrary Laws without any muttering or complaint of Grievances And if this Author have any spark of Ingenuity in him he must with shame acknowledge how Partial he hath been in relating the Opinions of many the most eminent of those Divines whom he hath quoted and leaving out the Opinions and Arguments of others whom though obvious to every ordinary Eye he hath wholly omitted I have already instanced in the decision of the present Case made by Mr. Faulkner and Barclay and Bilson and it were easie to fill a Volume far greater than I intend to shew only the Judgment of some of those Authors by him quoted when they considered what might be Lawfully done in some Cases against which being so odious and so rarely incident that the Laws have taken no notice of them or made any provision against them I shall give but two Instances more to this purpose The first is that of Grotius of whom p. 128. he says Whatever the learned Grotius says in his Books de Jure belli in his later works wherein he may be presumed to speak his truest sense he asserts this Doctrine on Mat. 26.52 If it be once admitted that private Men when injured by the Magistrate may forcibly resist him all places would be full of Tumult and no Laws or Judicatories would have any Authority since there is no Man who is not inclined to think well of himself This Comment is alledged with a Non obstante to whatsoever he had written in his Book de Jure belli because this was the latter Work whereas it is well known that his Book de Jure belli was not only written when he was in his full Maturity and acted in his proper Sphere as a Statesman and often reviewed it even after his Comment on the Gospels and was the Text on which almost all Civilians and Politicians did Comment as Authentick and for which we have his irrefragable Reasons as well as his Authority and in which he doth not deliver his Opinion in general but condescends to the consideration of particular Cases and Accidents whereas in that Comment he only delivers his Opinion as to the general and that not without restriction of the Resistance of private Men that were inclined to think well of themselves whereas when he considered the Constitution of particular Monarchies and Governments where the Legislative Power is not solely in a single Person as he knew it was not in England he hath otherwise determined for thus in that Famous Book p. 21. wherein having urged all the Arguments for Non-resistance he could think of he admonisheth his Reader of something else As first That such Persons as are under Compact with their People if they offend against the Laws may be restrained by force And secondly If a King abjure his Kingdom and desert it all things are Lawful against him as against a private Person for which he quotes Barclay That if a King alienate his Kingdom or subjects it to another he loseth it and then adds of his own Si Rex reipsa tradere regnum aut subjicere moliatur quin ei resisti in hoc possit non dubito nam aliud est imperium aliud habendi modus qui ne mutetur obstare potest populus id enim sub imperio non est Again he says If a King have one part of the Empire and the People another the King attempting to destroy the Peoples Right a just Force may be opposed and this I think to have place though it be said That the Power of War or Militia is in the King for that is to be understood of Foreign War for he that hath Right hath Power to defend that Right and he quotes Barclay That a Kingdom may be lost if a King be carried on to the destruction of his People Consistere enim non potest voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi that if a King be intent on the destruction of his People to resist such a one is not to resist a Soveraign King but one who ceaseth to be such Qui se hostem totius populi profitetur eo ipsa abdicat regnum on which place Grotius his Annotator mentioneth a Note of Jo. Major in 4 Sentent Non posse populum à se abdicare potestatem destituendi principis si in destructionem vergeret and Grotius himself thinks that the Law of Nature allows it in his Notes on Esther 8.11 speaking of the Edict obtained by Mordecai for the Jews to defend themselves he says Jus naturae munit autoritate regia Much more might be added from Grotius to our purpose but he is so commonly quoted that I forbear and leave the Reader to judge how well the Author hath performed the Office of an Historian who picks and chooseth out of an obscure place and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what may make for his own Opinion omitting those plain obvious and elaborate Discourses of the same Author which would confute it
and granted Commissions in the King's Name And the Case of the present Irish comes home to the point who being invaded by the French pretending Commissions from the late King James who now acts under them may undoubtedly defend themselves by Arms. Mr. Faulkner pleaded the Case of Non-Resistance as far as any yet p. 542. he considers this Case If the Supreme Governour should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the Established Laws and his Subjects Property actually ingage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People whether they might defend themselves by taking Arms And he instanceth in the Parisian Massacree where about 100000 were slain in cold Blood most of which were innocent persons never accused or tryed by Law which he says is such a Cruelty as can hardly be parallel'd under Mahometism And he grants if ever such a Case should happen it would have great difficulties Grotius says he thinks That in this utmost extremity the use of such Defence Uâ—timo necessitatis praesidio is not to be condemned provided the Common Safety be preserved Which may be true says he because such Attempts of ruining do ipso facto disclaim the Governing those Persons as Subjects i. e. according to Law and consequently of being their Prince or King. And so the Expressions in the Declaration That it is not lawful on any Pretence whatsoever c. would be secured And p. 529. he quotes Barclay l. 3. c. 16 Se omni principatu dominatu exuit atque ipso jure sine ipso facto Rex esse desiit l. 6. c. 23. With whom he joyns Grotius l. 1. c. 4. n. 11. Si Rex vere Hostili animo exitium totus populi feratur To resist such a one is not to resist the King but him who ceaseth to be such and his Reason is Consistere simul non possunt voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi quare qui se hostem totius populi profitetur to ipso abdicat regnum And p. 531. Mr. Faulkner says That on yielding such Suppositions to be true I shall grant the Answer to be true The Historian is much troubled how to evade the Judgment of Bishop Bilson which he delivers in these two passages among other The first is in p. 520. If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a Forreiguer or change the Form of the Common-wealth or neglecting the Laws Established by common consent or execute his own pleasure the Lords and Commons may joyn to defend the Laws Established The other is where he speaks of the Roman Cruelties Which are such saith he as are able to set good Men at their Wits end and make them justly doubt since you refuse all good Laws Divine and Humane whether by the Law of Nature they may not defend themselves against such barbarous Blood-suckers To these passages the Historian acting the part of a Disputant replies That this is but one Doctors Opinion contrary to the Doctrine of the Church Which is apparently false for both the Parliament and Convocation gave ready and liberal Contributions to assist the Queen in the Wars of Holland against the Spaniards at that time of which I have spoken already 2. He says Bilson was not infallible for he was deceived in other things Answ And most probably he was so when he wrote contrary to those passages which were approved by all Protestants abroad as well as by our own Nation 3. He would invalidate the Judgment of Bilson by the Censure of Charles the First in these words I remember well what Opinion my Father King James had of him for these Opinions and how he shewed him some Favour in hope of a Recantation but whether he did or not I cannot say Answ King James was of the same Opinion as to the Wars against the Spaniards and so was King Charles in the Case mentioned by our Historian viz. His assisting the Protestants of Rochel under the Oppressions of Lewis the Thirteenth And it is improbable that he would ever Recant that Opinion wherein the whole Nation and the two succeeding King's did agree For the Historian says 4ly That Bilson's Book was written when the Queen was assisting the Dutch against her and their Common Enemy Answ The War then was undoubtedly lawful and the Bishop's Determination seemed sound as to that War but the Historian may see that he applies his Opinion to the English Government when in the Cases mentioned by him viz. If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a Forreigner or change the Form of the Common-wealth or neglect the Laws and execute his own Pleasure the Lords and Commons may in such Cases defend the Laws Established and therefore it is very unlikely that he was hired to write only in justification of the Wars of Holland And if our Constitution be founded on a Compact there is no difference But 5ly he says If the Bishops Opinion be contrary to that of Christ and his Apostles we ought to renounce it As if the Bishop had not considered that the Gospel doth no where abridge the Civil Constitutions of particular Governments and that it requires subjection to the powers that are in being But he objects again That the Presbyterian made very dangerous use of that Book against King Charles the First Answ They were therein inexcusable by seeking to justifie a Rebellion against so good a Prince by what was chiefly intended against the Spanish Usurpations and Cruelties who invaded all their Priviledges Sacred and Civil contrary to Agreement introduced the Inquisition slighted all Petitions and barbarously Murthered some Hundreds of Thousands which much altered the Case against so pious and merciful a Prince And lastly That which that Bishop says doth not concern the Clergy of England who always did and are still resolved to maintain and practice the Doctrine of Non-Resistance for to that the Bishop applys his Discourse in which the Divines whom the Historian accuseth have not transgressed But to go on with the Historians Preface some affirm saith he That the Tenet was no older than Archbishop Laud and was introduced by a few Court Bishops for the attainment and establishing of their own grandeur To which I answer It must be acknowledged that in Bishop Lauds time this Doctrine was scrued up to the highest and frequently urged and with great reason the people being prepared for a Rebellion against the best of Kings and had the Doctrine of Non-Resistance been so well practised as it was prest the effusion of that Deluge of Blood might have been stopped but even then there was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more than what was due was demanded that the people might not yield less which that ancient Rule Iniquum petas ut aequum feras might justifie Yet the Doctrine of Sibthorp and Manwaring who would have raised the Prerogative to an Absolute Power as Cartwright and Parker of later days did also attempt hath been generally exploded by all sober Divines and Statesmen and yet the design of