Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
B06596
|
Sherlock against Sherlock. The master of the temple's reasons for his late taking the oath to their Majesties, answered, / by the rector of St. George Botolph-Lane. With modest remarks on the doctors celebrated notions of allegiance to soveraign powers.
|
Wagstaffe, Thomas, 1645-1712.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing W216A; ESTC R186142
|
12,557
|
24
|
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. ZimriVsurpt 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 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 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 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 Case of Resistance pag. 203 204 205. 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 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
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 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 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. 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 Vsurpers 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 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 Vsurper 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 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 Vsurpt 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