Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A49129
|
A resolution of certain queries concerning submission to the present government ... by a divine of the Church of England, as by law establisht.
|
Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing L2980; ESTC R21420
|
45,635
|
72
|
Edict which Mordecai procured for the Jews to defend themselves says Jus naturae munit authoritate Regiâ supposing they might have done it by the Law of Nature And on those words of his Si Rex hostili animo c. hath this Note Jo. Major in 4 Sentent says Non posse populum à se abdicare potestatem destituendi Principis si in destructionem vergeret So Bilson p. 520. If a Prince submit his Kingdom to a Foreigner or change the Form of the Common-weal or neglecting the Laws established by common consent to execute his own pleasure the Lords and Commons may joyn and defend the Laws established From whence I argue thus that Prince who studiously altereth the Form and Constitution of his Kingdom as suppose from a mixed and limited Monarchy to an absolute destroys the Species of Government qua talis and so loseth it for the introduction of the new Form is the destruction of the old but a King that declares and acts accordingly that he will govern absolutely and requires his Subjects to acknowledge his absolute power doth ipso facto destroy that Species of a limited Monarchy which he had therefore he loseth that Monarchy And what was acted in Scotland and intended to be acted in England is sufficiently known and a full confirmation of this Argument And 't is the judgment of Grotius that he that openly in word or deed professeth himself an enemy to the whole Nation and the major and better part may carry that denomination is in that very act presumed to abjure and renounce the Government of it for if such a Prince should proceed to execute all his ruining Designs he would leave none of his People over whom he might reign To these I shall add another Argument viz. That a Prince or People may yield up themselves to a prevailing power as the men of Capua and Collatia did to the Romans and so lost all their authority And that our King did so may appear by disbanding his Army on the approach of the present King and submitting himself to his Guards And as King Agrippa said to the Jews Intempestivum est nunc libertatem concupiscere olim ne ea amitteretur certatum oportuit He ought to have defended his Dominion while he had it it is too late to require what by dedition and dereliction he hath given up 4. There are in Laws as well as in Oaths Casus omissi and tacit exceptions which the greatest prudence of men could neither foresee nor sufficiently prevent nor indeed were it a point of prudence so much as to name them being things odious or rarely contingent as the case of a King 's being lunatick or otherwise incapable of the Administration of his Office which our Laws have not provided against Bishop Sanderson p. 41. De Juramento mentioneth these four Si Deus permiserit quoad licet salvà potestate Superioris Rebus sic stantibus 1. If God permit as in the 4th of St. James So that if Caius swears to Titius to pay him at London on the Calends of January a Sum of Money which he oweth him but is at that time confined to his Bed by a grievous Disease or in his Journey is robbed of his Money by Thieves in this case he is not guilty of perjury because Rei impossibilis nulla est obligatio there is no obligation to a thing impossible and because all things are subject to the Divine Will and Providence therefore in every Oath by a Common Law this Clause is to be understood unless God shall otherwise dispose For this he quotes the Gloss ad quest 22. c. 2. B. Paulus In omni voto vel Sacramento intelliguntur hujusmodi generales conditiones si Deus voluerit si vivero si potero 2. Another Condition to be understood is if it be lawful because there is no obligation to unlawful things as if a man swear to observe all the Statutes and Customs of a Corporation he is bound to observe such only as are lawful and honest A 3d Condition is a Salvo to the power of a Superior as when a Son swears to do a thing that is lawful in it self but his Father being ignorant of the matter commands another thing the doing whereof hinders the Son from performing what he had sworn the Son is not bound by that Oath because by the Divine Law he is bound to obey the command of his Father the reason is because the act of one man ought not to prejudice the right of another The 4th Condition is if things continue in the same state wherein they were as when a man swears to return a Sword that he borrowed and the person of whom it was borrowed grows furiously mad he is not bound to restore it So Seneca l. 4. de Ben. c. 35. Tum fidem fallam si omnia eadem sint me promittente Si mutentur fidem meam liberat It is highly reasonable to presume that such cases may happen which if the Law-givers could have foreseen they would not have made or pass'd into a Law and therefore it may be presumed they will not exact obedience to it Dr. Sanderson p. 166. de Cons When the Law forbids that to be done which the Subject cannot omit without sin or commands that to be done which he cannot do without sin such a Law doth not bind for 1. Rei illicitae nulla est obligatio as when a Prince commands the Worship of a false God Prior obligatio praejudicat posteriori The obligation to preserve the Common Welfare is prior to our Allegiance to the present Governor Falkner in his Book of Christian Loyalty speaks as much for the unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms against the King as can be said p. 372 c. yet p. 542. he proposeth the case Whether if a Supreme Governor should according to his own Pleasure and contrary to the established Laws and his Subjects Property actually engage upon the destroying and ruining a considerable part of his People they might not defend themselves by taking Arms. And he instanceth in the Paris Massacre where about 100000 were slain in cold blood most of which were innocent persons never accused or tried by Law which he says was such a cruelty as can scarce be paralel'd under Mahometism And he grants that if ever such a case should happen it would have great difficulties Grotius saith he thinks that in this utmost extremity the use of such defence ultimo necessitatis praesidio as a last refuge is not to be condemned provided the case of the common good be preserved And he seems to grant that this may be true upon this ground viz. that such attempts of ruining do ipso facto include a disclaiming 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 Now p. 529. he
incipit bellum And it is to be considered that the Bishop wrote this in the Case of Charles the First from which this of James the Second differs toto caelo To those that are not yet reconciled to the now Established Government I shall offer these Considerations First Whether the present King had not a just cause for Invading the Kingdom Secondly Whether having Invaded it and obtained a full and peaceable Possession by a general consent of the People he hath obtained a rightful Title The Causes that do justifie the Invasion are these 1. The Vindication of his Lady's Title which was in a manner endeavoured to be ravished from her by a Prince whose Birth was so much suspected and whereof the Nation was so generally convinced 2. The Invitation of the Subjects Lords Spiritual and Temporal with many Commons groaning under an Arbitrary Power Popery and Slavery for which cause many Lords and Commons had left the Kingdom and sought protection from the present King and came in with him 3. The present King was made the Head of the Protestant Party by those Princes who undertook the Defence of the Reformed Religion against the Popish Princes that had confederated to root it out and a better method could not be taken than to begin with England where if the designs for Popery had succeeded the Protestant Cause had been almost desparate which is now in a hopeful way of Establishment These Causes are so sufficient to justifie the Invasion that I think no good Protestant will doubt of them and as little doubt can be made of the second Consideration that he who on such just Grounds Invades a Kingdom and having gotten a full and quiet Possession is by the general Consent of the People accepted and declared their King hath a lawful Right and Title for first Ubi desinunt judicia incipit bellum and as Law Suits so War may be waged for prevention of Injuries not yet done As Livy says Justum est bellum quod necessarium est pia Arma quibus nulla nisi in armis relinquitur spes When it is manifest our sitting still will make our Condition worse we may adventure on the danger of War. The War was begun by the French King and his Confederates against the Prince England was like to be in the Confederacy by what the King acted and endeavoured against the Protestant Religion And Tune tua res Agitur This is the first Cause that Justifies the War on the present King's part the second Cause is the Recovery of the Right which his Lady and himself had to the Succession which was in a manner taken from them Grotius de Jure Belli l. 2. c. 1. sect 2. De rebus repetendis proves this at large in a considerable Paragraph to which I refer the Reader And of this I shall give but one or two Instances among many in the Scriptures Abraham's War on the King of Elam who had spoiled Sodom was just Gen. 14. And so were the Wars of Israel against the Assirians and other Nations that invaded their Dominion and would have kept them from them of this there can be no doubt nor can secondly the Vindication of a People oppressed by their Prince against the Laws of God and the Land if a Father seek the destruction of an innocent person his Son may piously restrain his Father from that act which would not only ruine the innocent in this World but himself in the World to come So that this War for the asserting the Title of the Prince and Princess to the Crown and for the defence of our Religion against the Confederacy of Popish Princes to extirpate it which is matter of Fact may appear most Just for tho' Religion may not be propagated by Arms yet it may be defended where it is Established by Law against forreign Powers that conspire the destruction of it Grotius l 2. c. 25. n. 4. approves a War on behalf of Confederates For he that doth not repel an Injury from his Confederates if he can is as much in fault as he that doth the Injury He commends Constantine for making War on Maxentius and Licinius who persecuted such of their Subjects as were Christians only for their Religion Grotius l. 2. c. 20. n. 39. Injuries begun only are not to be vindicated by Arms unless the matter be both very weighty and be already proceeded so far that from what is already done either a certain mischief tho' not yet what was intended hath already befallen or some extraordinary danger do threaten thereby If an Enemy hath once assaulted me and comes armed with a resolution to kill me I am not to tarry till he comes within reach of me and receive his Weapons upon my naked breast but seasonably to prevent him And l. 2. c. 25. n. 8. Those Princes who are free may make War for themselves or others And tho' we should grant that Subjects might not take Arms for their own Defence against their Prince no not in case of greatest necessity which yet is doubted even by those whose purpose it was to defend Regal Power yet it follows not that other Princes may not take Arms in their defence that which is unlawful for one to do for himself by reason of a personal impediment may be lawful for another to do for him As in Affairs of the Church the Bishops are said to take on them the care of the Vniversal Church so beside the care of their particular Dominions Kings assume the general care of Humane Societies Seneca resolves Bello a me peti potest qui a mea gente sepositus suam exagitat And Cicero That War should be undertaken only that we may live in Peace and not be injured It will be objected That God will take care of our Religion Deorum injuriae diis curae perjurium satis habet deum ultorem Answer So it may be said of other Sins which God will punish yet the Laws are justly executed on the Offenders by the Magistrate as all grant And if it be objected That such Offences are punished not so much as committed against God as for the damage done to men Ans It is observed that not only such Offences are punished by men as are directly committed against other men but such as by consequence may be prejudicial to others as Self-murder Sodomy c. for tho' the principal end be to procure God's favour by punishing such Crimes yet it is done also to prevent the influence and notable effects on Humane Societies See l. 2. c. 20. n. 44. It may be farther objected That if we wholly forsake the King we shall justifie the Rebellion against King Charles the First who was charged with designs of bringing in Popery and Arbitrary Government Illegal Impositions Evil Counsellors c. Ans I suppose the Objectors that are so tender of committing any act of Disloyalty against King James the Second will by no means approve of what was done against