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 |
|
A46957
|
Notes upon the Phœnix edition of the Pastoral letter Part I / by Samvel Johnson.
|
Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703.
|
1694
(1694)
|
Wing J835; ESTC R11877
|
45,073
|
120
|
that it should be Treason for any Man to deny it What Offence it were to contravene this Act Sir Thomas More answered that he should offend if he said No because he was Bound by the Act but that this was Casus levis Whereupon Sir Thomas More said he would propose a higher Case suppose by Parliament it were enacted quod Deus non sit Deus and that it were Treason to contravene whether it were an Offence to say according to the said Act Richard Rich replied yea but said withal I will propose a middle Case because yours is too high The King you know is constitute Supream Head of the Church on Earth why should not you Master More accept him so as you would me if I were made King by the Supposition aforesaid Sir Thomas More Answer'd the Case was not the same because said he a Parliament can make a King and Depose him and that every Parliament-man may give his Consent thereunto but that a Subject cannot be bound so in the Case of Supremacy Quia Consensum ab eo ad Parlamentum praebere non potest Et quanquam Rex sic acceptus sit in Anglia plurimae tamen partes exterae idem non affirmant Because the Parliament-man cannot carry the Subject's Consent to Parliament in this Case that is to say no body but Christ could make his own Vicar and the Head in Heaven make the Head on Earth and although the King be held to be Head of the Church here in England yet the greatest part of the World abroad are of another mind Here Sir Thomas More stuck for I believe stick He did because he laid down his Life for it but you see that the undoubted unquestioned Law of the Land was this That a Parliament can make and Depose a King for it is the Foundation of their Arguing And it cannot be thought that a Learned Lord Chancellor and Sollicitor General should be both Ignorant in the First Principles of the Law Neither would Richard Rich have been made a Lord and the Head of a Noble Family of Earls if it had not been Current Law in those Days for such a Principle upon Record would have been as bad and hurt his Preferment as much as if he had been Stigmatized And therefore my Lord of Essex's Argument was more than Measure That if a Parliament could make and Depose a King and make Richard Rich King much more they might foreclose the Duke of York who was no King and more unqualified than Richard Rich and might make the Prince of Orange King an otherghess Man than Richard Rich. Thus that Great Man Argued but Care was taken that he should Argue for the Good of his Countrey no more and therefore we that are left behind partly to bewail the loss of such Great Men and partly to imitate them ought to uphold their Cause and as mean a Man as I am able to maintain these plain Truths against all the World Though indeed my Lord of Essex told me that his Adversaries in that Debate waved the Jargon of Divine Right and the Line of Succesâ—ion which had been inculcated in the Second Volume of the History of the Reformation and by the Heroe himself to whom it was Dedicated and at that time they betook themselves chiefly to Reasons of State They were got at the old Scarecrow Venient Romani the Foreign Catholick Princes would espouse the Duke of York's Quarrel the Ancient Kingdom of Scotland would admit him for Their King in opposition to our Act of Parliament and this would entail a Dangerous War upon the Nation That is I suppose the Navy Royal of Scotland would have given Law to the English Fleet They were likewise doubtful of Ireland and if these two Kingdoms were dismembred from us the solitary Kingdom of England would not make that Figure in the World as it used to do And therefore according to the Method of all hired Politicks they must make sure of sinking Three Kingdoms for fear of losing Two and Deliver up the Castle for fear the Suburbs should Revolt With such fitting Arguments was that Cause supported and if I have broke any Rules in repeating that Great Man's private Discourse now it is done I cannot help it But I say let his Integrity be known and speak as Loud as his Blood cries And I am sure they that would stifle that Man's Honour would stifle his Death But the Bill of Exclusion is of no Concernment at this Time though if we had then ventured our Lives for it we had done well and it had been good Husbandry for it had saved more than an Hundred Thousand Lives since which are all of a price and as dear to them as owned them as ours are to us I grant a True Statesman is of another Opinion and values being called his Grace or Noble Marquess more than a Million of Lives provided that in such a general Destruction he can but save one And to confirm themselves in their ill-gotten Honours they generally hatch Plots suborn Rebellions or any thing that they think may create Business keep themselves from being Questioned and thin Mankind whereby they lose so many of their Enemies which by their Oppression they have heaped up to themselves So I have been told a certain Person being asked why he Destroyed my Lord Russell said it was Self-preservation he did it in his own Defence because my Lord Russell would have Destroyed him A fit Answer for the Answerer because it is just the Excuse of a Highway-man who adds Murder to his Robbery and Wrong because otherwise the True-man might have pursued him and Hanged him for it But the Masterpiece of their Policy they have stoln from the Old Popes of Rome to send their Princes into the Holy Wars while they domineer'd and plaid their own Game at home I express'd my Fears as soon as he was Crown'd that our King would be so serv'd and that taking advantage of his Matchless Courage they would put him upon hazardous Expeditions for such Counsels are on Nature's Side and are soon hearkned to by a Cordelyon or an Edward the First who were all on fire for Crusadoes And it was easy to tell what Advices the Statesmen would give such to be sure as agreed with His Inclinations but were much more for their own Interest for if a Man but look into the Tyring-room and see the old Actors he knows what the Play will be without a Bill It is the Observation of the Learned Antiquary Selden that our Nation got nothing by those fruitless Voyages into the Holy Land after a vast Expence of Blood and Treasure but only the Sign of the Saracen's Head For after our People came home again worsted and with great loss they had no other way to save their Credit but to represent the Saracens as Giants and to picture them with Eyes like Saucers and a Mouth big enough to eat a Man And it is well if the English bring home any
it is no more than Common Honesty to stand to one's own Act and Deed But in the way of the Passive Doctrine to prostitute the Lives Liberties and Estates of the People of England to the Will of the Prince is Treason against the Realm and Higher Treason than the Highâ—Treason against the Prince For as Fortesâ—ue and the rest of the Lawyers â—ay the King was made for the Kingdom and not the Kingdom for the King And as Treason against the Realm is such as the King cannot pardon so it is such as an Actual King by Succession is capable of being guilty of as appears by several Acts of Parliament which I can shew to any Dabbler in our Government that understands it not He clenches his third Paragraph with a Fourth which follows in these words This is either true or all these who live upon a Continent and that are subject to the Conquests and Invasions of their Neighbours must be misâ—rable For though our Happy Scituation has exempted us for a whole Age from falling under any such Difficulties yet this is a Case that falls often out in all different States which are on the same Continent for if Subjects owe their natural Prince such an Obstinate Allegiance that neither Desertion nor Conqueâ—t can dissolve it then in what a miserable Condition must they be when they fall under the Power of their Enemy that never thinks himself secure of them but treats them still as Enemies till they swear Allegiance to him Now all the true Maxims of Government being such that they must tend to the Preservation and not to the Ruin of Mankind it is certain that all those are false which tend to the inevitable Destruction of Cities and Societies and therefore this of an indiffeasable Allegiance must be reckoned among these since the fatal Consequences that must attend upon it are evident and this is the Opinion in which all who have considered this matter either as Lawyers or Casuists do agree This is shifting the Scene for he knows that we are a World by our selves and have nothing to do with the Continent It is a Londlopeing Argument and till we are in the Condition of the Flanderkin Towns he need not urge us with their Practice and Example And he is wholly out of the way in every word he utters For we are not Deserted or Forsaken nor Conquered or Subdued nor under the Power of an Enemy nor treated as Enemies and cudgelled into an Oath of Allegiance nor ever will be If I were hired to write against the Oath of Allegiance I would use such Arguments as this is Are we in the Case of those that are Slaves under the Spaniard and Slaves under the French that often change their Master but never their Condition that are Prize and Retaken and Prize still Let him answer me to that If not why must our Vertue be taught us by their Necessity God help thâ—m my Soul pities their Case and I should not readily know what to do in it because I never considered it And perhaps it is like one of those wherein our Saviour forbids Forecast and would have no Man Premeditate but promises help at a dead Lift Dabitur in illâ Horâ But in all his Travels could he find no Copy for us to write after nor no Body to match us with but a Conquered People What then is become of our Thanksgiving Deliverance which God and Man have been told of If after all we are to be in the Condition of a Conquered People it is a Deliverance downstairs and our last State is worse than the First For we were not Conquered in King Iames's Time though we were in election to be so and though his Westminster-hall Red-coats had made a fair Progress in it And therefore I am sure neither King nor Parliament have reason to thank him for the Choice of this Argument When all is done as I said beâ—ore all Arguments that come from abroad are Foreign to Us. We live under Municipal Laws and Local Statutes and By-Laws that are Peculiar to this Empire And therefore if he had offered us the tenth part of an Argument fetch'd out of the Bowels of our own Laws we would have hearkn'd to him but as for his Stories from abroad he may even if he pleases carry them home again But I love to talk with his Maxims as I do the sight of an Ass who looks like Wisdom and Gravity and is not For Allegiance Defined by Convenience is much like Religion Defined by maintaining a Coach and Six However let us have his own words over again For if Subjects owe their Natural Prince such an Obstinate Allegiance that neither Desertion nor Conquest can dissolve it then in what a miserable Condition must they be when they fall under the Power of their Enemy that never thinks himself secure of them but treats them still as Enemies till they swear Allegiance to him Now I can tell him that Allegiance is so Obstinate a thing that neither Desertion nor Conquest nor any thing in the World but what is intrinsecal to it that is Breach of Covenant or Consent of both Parties can Dissolve it It is a Moral Duty and Heaven and Earth may pass away before Allegiance can pass away As for Desertion we must first know what it is before we can know whether it will affect our Allegiance A Souldier's Deserting and running away from his Colours we know but what is this Deserting a Crown or a Kingdom A Resignation Renunciation Cession accepted by the People is valid and they are words currant in our Law and the Prince being thereby Deposed Allegiance ceases But as for Desertion we must enquire further about it Did the King Desert Willingly or Unwillingly Did not his People Desert him first If so then for shame never say that King Iames Deserted but say that he was Deserted Well now we are coming to the Merits of the Cause Had the People Reason to forsake King Iames or no had he Forfeited had he broke his Allegiance first was He the Aggressor Yes He had made our Allegiance to him Impossible For we were by the Constitution Sworn Brethren Conjurati Fratres ad Defensionem Regis Regni and he had brought things to that pass that we must either part with our King or our Realm The keeping our Allegiance to King Iames's Person would have Perjured us for we owed a Higher Duty to our Country and Laws to which he was sworn as well as we But instead of the double Duty which lay upon him of observare observari facere of Keeping the Laws and Causing them to be kept he abridged our Common Law and Statutes into five Positions of a Dispensing Power After which I would never look upon a Statute-Book more but kept the Copy of that Compendious Law always in my Pocket to see whether it would outlast the Paper which fell in pieces at the Prince's coming Now an Allegiance to the Destruction