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 |
|
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
|
force of his Authority ceaseth also And as to the Law of Nature for Self-preservation cannot be dispensed with saith that Bishop by any Humane Power 1. Because God is the Author of it 2. Because this Law for the preservation of the Common Welfare is as necessary to the support of Societies as Nourishment is for support of their Bodies 3. Because Natural Laws are the Dictates of Natural Reason and no Man hath power to alter Reason which is an Image of the Divine Wisdom and therefore unalterable And concerning the Obligation of the King's Oath this learned Bishop gives his Opinion quite contrary to what our Historian contends for l. 3. p. 144. of his Cases he says Kings are bound by Natural Justice and Equity without Oaths to do what they swear for they are not Kings unless they Govern and they cannot expect Obedience unless they tell the Measures by which they will be obeyed which are the Laws and these are the Will of the Prince If Kings are not bound to Govern the People by Laws why are they made By what else can they be Governed by the Will of the Prince the Laws are so which are Published that wise Men may walk by them and that the Prince may not Govern as Fools and Lyons by Chance or Violence and unreasonable Passions Ea quae placuerunt servanda saith the Law De Pactis And p. 143. Whatsoever the Prince hath Sworn to to all that he is obliged not only as a single Person but as a King for though he be above the Laws yet he is not above himself nor above his Oath because he is under God and cannot dispense with his Oath and Promises in those Cases wherein he is bound Although the King be above the Laws that is in Cases extraordinary and Matters of Penalty yet is he so under all the Laws of the Kingdom to which he hath Sworn that although he cannot be punished by them yet he sins if he break them And p. 149. he says The Prerogative of Kings is by Law and Kings are so far above the Laws as the Laws themselves have given them leave And p. 143. The great Laws of the Kingdom do oblige all Princes tho' they be Supreme The Laws of the Medes and Persians were above their Princes as appears in Daniel And such are the Golden Bull of the Empire the Saler and Pragmatical Sanctions in France the Magna Charta and Petition of Right in England c. And whereas the Historian doth urge at large the Doctrine of our Church in the Articles Homilies Liturgy and Canons c. it may be observed that there is no distinction in any of those of a King de Jure and de Facto but as by that Law of 11 Henry 7. did require Allegiance to the King de Facto so did the Subjects under Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth pay their Obedience to both successively although one of those Queens was not Legitimate and if we pay our Allegiance to our present Soveraigns we do not transgress either her Doctrine or Practice unless it could be proved that we had resisted the late King And therefore our Historian reflects too severely on Dr. W who said That Passive Obedience in the narrow sence we take it in was not so much as thought on when these Homilies were Published those Homilies being aimed against the Vsurpations of the Church of Rome to which they never intended Obedience And when as our Historian observes That as well evil as good Kings do Reign by God's Ordinance and that it is a perillous thing to permit Subjects to judge which Prince is wise and godly and his Government good and which otherwise it may be supposed they intended our Obedience should be payed to the present King. But because the Laws are the Measures as well of the Princes Power as the Subjects Obedience I shall therefore act the part of an Historian so far as to give you an account of our Laws in both these Cases And I shall begin it with our Magna Charta which hath been confirmed by Parliaments in every Age since it was first made wherein the King grants That neither He nor his Heirs shall procure or do any thing whereby the Liberties therein granted shall be infringed and if any such thing be procured it shall be of no force And in the Original Grant yet preserved and in the hands of the Bishop of Salisbury it is provided That in case the King should violate any part of the Charter and refuse to rectifie what was done amiss it should be lawful for the Barons and People of England to distress him by all the ways they could think on such as the seizing his Castles Lands and Possessions c. Bracton hath been often quoted who says l. 1. c. 17. The King hath for his Superiors God and the Law by which he is made King as also his Court the Earls and Barons who when they see him exorbitant may restrain him And l. 1. c. 2. The Laws of England being approved and confirmed by the King's Oath cannot be altered And c. 17. Let Kings therefore temper their Power by the Law which is the Bridle of Power And c. 8. The King in receiving Judgment may be equalled with the meanest Subject L. 2. c. 24. The Crown of the King is to do Justice and Judgment and to preserve Peace without which he cannot subsist i. e. As in the Laws of King Edward c. 17. The King is constituted for the Liberty of the People which if he do not Nee nomen Regis in eo constabit And that by the word Heir all Successors are meant though not expressed in words Fortescue fol. 27. says From that Power which flows from the People it is not lawful for him to Lord it over them by any other Power that is a Political not a Regal Power And fol. 32. The King is set up for the Safeguard of the Laws of his People The Sword called Curtein was given to the Counts Palatine of Chester to this end Vt Regem si aberret habeat potestatem coercendi saith Matth. Paris p. 563. The Parliament in Richard the Second's Case did refer to an Ancient Statute whereby it was provided That if the King through a foolish obstinacy and contempt of his People or any other irregular way should alienate himself from his People and would not Govern by the Laws of his Kingdom made by the Lords of his Kingdom but should exercise his own Will from thenceforth it was lawful for them with the consent of the People to depose him from the Crown This Law it seems was embezelled by that King for in the Twenty Fourth Article against him it was alledged That he had caused the Records and Rolls concerning the State of the Government to be crazed and imbezelled to the great detriment of the People The Author of the Mirrour says p. 8. speaking of the Rise of the English Monarchy That when Forty Princes chose
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