Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45908
|
An Enquiry into the nature and obligation of legal rights with respect to the popular pleas of the late K. James's remaining right to the crown.
|
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing I218; ESTC R16910
|
35,402
|
66
|
has Authority enough to right those who suffer against natural Right But this Liberty is restrained for the advantage of Human Societies and the administration of Justice is put into the hands of the Prince and his Ministers But Princes themselves are under none of these Restraints and therefore may not only administer Justice to their own Subjects but may repress the Violences and Injuries of other Princes not only against their Neighbour Princes but against those who are subject to them and cannot help themselves They have certainly as much Authority to relieve oppressed Subjects as an oppressed Prince and no man thinks it ill for one Prince to assist another against a Powerful Oppressor And I do not know it was ever thought a fault yet to relieve Subjects against an oppressing Prince where the Oppression was notorious and not made a mere pretence for Usurpation I would desire any man to give me a tolerable Reason why it was not as lawful for the Prince of Orange had there been no other reason for it to rescue and defend the Subjects of England against the illegal Power and Oppressions of their King as it is for the French King some mens Pattern of Honour and Bravery to endeavour by force of Arms to restore the Late King James to his Throne again And if Religion be concern'd in the Quarrel it is never the worse for that but the more reasonable and just For why should not Princes be concern'd for the Glory of God from whom they receive their Authority and vindicate his Worshippers from the Persecutions of Cruel Tyrants Subjects indeed must not rebel Christianity must not be forced upon Men by Fire and Sword but must it not be defended neither by Christian Princes When God has put the Sword into their hands must they stand by and see the Worshippers of Christ persecuted and not help them when they can I am sure God delivered the Christian Church from the most bloody Persecution that ever was by the Arms of Constantine and made the Cross his Banner And this was none of the least Causes of his War with Licinius That he persecuted the Christians When Constantius the Arian Emperor persecuted Athanasius and the Orthodox Bishops and Christians Constantine advised him of it and threatned War against him if he persisted in it and it does not appear that the Christians of those days who fled to Constantine for refuge thought he would have done ill in it and yet their Dominions and Authority were as distinct and absolute as France and the Grand Signior though the most Christian King follows other measures Now I know not how to think that men are serious when they will not allow an oppressed people delivered by such a Generous and Charitable Prince to own their Deliverer and pay Duty and Allegiance to him I think slaves have so much liberty as to own the Conqueror and if he deliver them and set them at liberty and make Subjects of them instead of slaves to be his Liege-men for ever But some mens Notions make them greater Slaves to Princes than ever the world knew before 2dly But this brings me to a more difficult Enquiry viz. How Subjects even in case of Conquest can be delivered from their Rightful Prince while he lives and be at liberty with a safe Conscience to transfer their Allegiance to the Conqueror for tho Foreign Princes are not obliged by the Laws of the Land yet Subjects are and therefore are still bound to pay their Allegiance to that Prince whom the Laws of the Land make their Prince How difficult soever it may be to assign the Reasons of this it is certain it must be so if a Prince may lose his Crown by a just Conquest for if a Prince justly lose his Crown he must lose the Allegiance of his Subjects which must follow the Crown and it is impossible one Prince should lose his Crown and another win it were it unlawful for Subjects to transfer their Allegiance to the Conqueror which is reason enough to conclude That the Laws of the Land do not oblige Subjects in such cases and if we carefully consider the true nature and obligation of National Laws we shall be easily satisfied That they do not For it is certain National Laws have their whole dependance on the National Authority it is that only makes them Laws and they can continue Laws no longer than that Authority lasts which gives Being and Obligation to them and therefore National Laws must of necessity partake in all the Changes and Alterations of Government Our Obedience is not due to Laws but by virtue of the Authority that commands them and when the Authority is at an end the Obligation of Laws must cease as far as they respected that Authority Laws are made for a settled Government and they oblige Subjects while the Government is and can be administred by these Laws but when the Authority and Government is changed and they cease to be Laws in Westminster-Hall they are no Laws in Conscience neither For how can Laws oblige without Authority Or what Authority can mere humane National Laws have against all the present Authority and Government of a Nation As for example The Legal Right to the Crown concerns a Regular and Legal Succession but not the beginnings of a Regal Power The Law of Inheritance continues the Regal Power in the family possessed of it whose Inheritance originally it was not for the first King of the Family could not be Heir to the Crown by whatsoever other means he came by it and therefore it can oblige Subjects only against their own voluntary Interruption of the Royal Line but not against violent Revolutions for this is to make a Law that no Prince shall conquer the Legal King and possess himself of his Throne that is to make a Law that the Sea should never break its banks and in case of such a Revolution to make a Law That no Subjects should own or submit to the prevaling Prince is like making a Law That no Cottages or Villages should be drown'd or carried away when such a Deluge happens Laws were never made for such cases as these and therefore in such cases cannot be said so properly to lose their Obligation as not to be Laws We may as reasonably say That the Subjects of England are bound to observe the Laws of England when they are in France as that they are bound in conscience to observe the Old English Laws if the French King should by Force ascend the English Throne No Laws can be made against violent Revolutions because such Revolutions over power Laws and it is as absurd to suppose that any Laws should oblige the Conscience to oppose the Ruling and Governing Power when setled by a Legal Investiture Which is to suppose That Laws which are only Rules of Government and owe their Being to a National Authority should oppose all the Authority of the Nation Thus I observe farther That mere human Laws
cannot oblige the Conscience against Force for when Authority cannot protect it cannot command Civil Societies are instituted for mutual defence but when I am out of the Protection of Civil Authority my Natural Liberty of Self-defence returns If a man fall among Thieves he may make the best terms with them for his life that he can and no Laws can deny him this liberty for Self-preservation is a Natural Right and Nature is superior to human Laws and of greater Force it does not hence follow that the mere Oppression of Government restores this Natural Liberty because we have granted away this Right of Self-defence by entring into Societies and God has taken it away by forbidding us to resist Authority and it is a very different thing to defend our selves when Authority cannot defend us and to defend our selves against Authority the first we have not granted away the second is against the Fundamental Reasons of humane Government and the Nature of Societies supposeth that while the Constitution of the Government is secured we must sacrifice our private Rights and Interests to Publick Peace and Order but it was never the intention of Human Government to deny men the Right of Self-defence when Authority could not protect them This is the case of Slaves and Captives of besieged Cities and Garisons who have a Natural Right to submit to the Conqueror when their own Prince cannot relieve them And this wholly waves the Dispute about Authority for whatever Authority may be supposed to remain in the Prince his Authority is at an end as to those persons whom he cannot protect as Civil Societies themselves must dissolve and all their Authority end when they cannot defend themselves and when any Subjects are delivered from the Authority of the Prince who cannot protect them in paying their Allegiance to him they are at liberty to make the best Composition they can with that Prince in whose power they are and to become his Subjects and when they have bound themselves to him by Oath their former Allegiance is utterly extinct when we are at liberty from one Prince we may make our selves Subjects to another and when we have done so we can owe Allegiance to none but him To confirm all this I observe farther That the Laws of particular Countries are subordinate to the Laws of Nations and must give place to them By the Laws of Nations I mean such Laws as from the reason and nature of things and by common practice and implicit consent are made the rules and measures of Justice between Sovereign Princes and Independent States Now as I have already shown by the Laws of Nations Princes by a Just Conquest may acquire a Just Title to the Conquered Prince's Throne and if Princes may acquire such a new Right and Title it is certain Subjects by the Law of Nations may own such a New-acquired Right For the universal reason of Mankind must over-rule private and National Constitutions for every man is a Member of the Universe and a Citizen of the world as well as a Subject of a parricular Kingdom and the more universal Obligation always take place of particular Obligations for they are prior Obligations and supposed in that which is particular which therefore cannot derogate from them And it would be very strange if a Prince by the Law of Nations may acquire a new Right and yet it should be unlawful for Subjects to own his Right Nay The universal consent and practice of all Nations both of Princes and People have made this the standing Law of all Revolutions to submit to the prevailing Power even when there is no pretence of Right but only Force No people ever scrupled this till of late upon Principles of Conscience though the Laws and Liberties of a Nation have made some struggle to the last to shake off the yoke of an Usurper The Primitive Christians complied with all the Revolutions of the Empire and never disputed the Rights and Titles of their New Emperors and those who can find out Legal Rights for all their Emperors are well qualified if they so please to be Advocates-general for all the Usurpers that ever were in the World But the Christians of those days never concerned themselves either with making or unmaking Emperors but took them as they found them and believed them all to be set up by God as is evident from Tertullian's Apology The Christian Bishops of those days submitted even to Maximus himself and though Sulpicius Severus tells us they were censured for their forward and flattering Courtship to that Tyrant yet no man blamed them for their bare Submission and Obedience to him as Emperor which St. Martyn himself did though he treated him at first with a Monkish Liberty and Rudeness The irruptions of Goths and Vandals furnish us with as many Examples of this as they obtained Conquests for there were no Christians found so hardy in those days as to dispute their Titles and reserve their Allegiance for their Emperor And to this day it is as constantly practised without any scruple as there are Cities and Garisons besieged surrendred or taken and that before any Composition made by the Prince whose Subjects they were The Duty of Alleg. as a late Author insinuates contrary to the known and visible daily practice of all people This is what all Princes expect from the Subjects of other Princes when they fall into their power by the successes of War and therefore what in reason they must allow their own and such a general consent of Princes and People makes a standing Law for Revolutions And no man's Loyalty or Fidelity to Princes ought to suffer even in opinion upon this account Nay farther The Laws of our Country which are the rules and measures of our Civil Government can never oblige Subjects to the overthrow of all Government Yet should these Jacobite Principles take place that we must upon no pretence own any King but the Rightful Lineal Heir while he is living many cases may so happen wherein Subjects must be bound in Conscience to own no Government thus it must necessarily be whenever the Rightful King can't Govern and yet no body else must When he is Conquer'd and driven out of his Kingdoms and Subjects must not own the Conqueror though they can have no other Prince to Govern them I would only desire these men to tell me Whether any Laws can oblige men to live under no Government To dissolve Civil Socities into a state of Anarchy If there were such a Law made it would be a void nay an impious Law as being against the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God who has Created man a Sociable Creature and instituted Civil Societies for the Government of Mankind and is it not as unreasonable then to expound any Laws to such a sense as shall oblige Subjects to dissolve the Government of the Nation as far as in them lies and not to own any Authority but Force Whenever they