Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A47819
|
The character of a papist in masquerade, supported by authority and experience in answer to The character of a popish successor / by Roger L'Estrange.
|
L'Estrange, Roger, Sir, 1616-1704.
|
1681
(1681)
|
Wing L1215; ESTC R21234
|
71,116
|
87
|
God and the Gospel to be Subject to Him to Fear Honour pay him Tribute and Legally obey him Nay the same reverend Prelate Pag. 54 in confirmation of this Doctrine cites the Precept of our blessed Saviour himself as well as St. Paul Our blessed Saviour Says he whose Vicar the Pope pretends to be does himself pay Tribute to Caesar Tho' a Pagan and Idolatâ—r leaving us an Admirable and most Pious Example of that obedience and Loyalty due even to Impious and Pagan Princes Nâ—r is this all for he further gives express Command that all should render to Cesar the things which are Cesars He acknowledgeth the Imperial rights of Câ—sar of which his Impiety and Idolatry did not deprive him Our Author said but just now that Passive Obedience was no more then a Bug-bear and a Doctrine groundless and only slipt into the world as by the By. But he tells us now Fol. 20. toward the bottom that in case of a Vow'd Allegiance to an Absolute and Arbitrary King a Passive Obedience was due But what 's this says he to a King of England With his leave I take it to be the same thing as to the Peoples Obedieâ—ce or Submission tho' in respect of the assuming and Exercising that Power the Case on the Kings side is greatly differing for the question is not whether the King does Well or Ill in forcing his Authority beyond the due hounds but whether the Tyranny on the one side will justify an undutiful behaviour on the other And the Law it self will easily determine This Controversy If the Subject be ty'd up by the Law to an Allegiance unconditional as aforesaid and without any Exception or qualification to discharge him of that Duty in any Cace whatsoever the Cause is clear against him And this is enough said to shew that under the Masque of a zeal to crush one Sort of Popery there is a design Carryed on for the introducing of another See now what he says of Monarchy Monarchy says he fol. 21. can be acquir'd but by two ways First By the Choice of the People who frequently in the beginning of the World out of a natural desire of Safety for the securing of a Peaceful Community and Conversation chose a Single Person to be their Head as a Proper Supream Moderator in all Differences that might arise to disquiet that Community Thus were Kings made for the People and not the People for Kings This Principle of Popular Liberty and placing the Original of Government in the People is highly derogatory to the Providence of God contrary to the express Letter of the Text and destructive of the very Being of Human Society First By implying Mankind to be cast into the World unprovided for Secondly It makes Magistracy which the Apostle tells us Rom. 13. 2. is the Ordinance of God to be of Human Institution or at best Nature's second Thought but in truth an effect either of Tumult or Chance according as Men were led to 't either by Choice or Necessity Thirdly in supposing Power to be radically in the People and the grant of it to be only an act of conveyance by common Consent and with a power of Revocation upon certain equitable Conditions either express'd or imply'd there goes no more than the Peoples recalling of their Power to the dissolving of all Commuâ—ities and Humane Society at this rate lyes at the Mercy of the Multitude But how this Revocation shall be notify'd unless by way of Advertisement in one of the True Protestant-Anabaptist-Mercurys I cannot imagine But then consider again That this Grant and Revocation must Pass with a Nemine Contradicente nay and a Nemine Absente too for one single Dissâ—â—â— or the want of one single Vote spoils all and makes void both the Original Grant and all that was done subsequent upon it for by reason of that defect it is no longer the act of the People It may put a Man in admiration to see what Credit this Phantastique and Impracticable Conceit has got in the World if he does not observe the Address in the Application of it and the use that is made of it All violent Motions of State we see are wrought and brought about by the Favour and Assistance of the People And there can be no readier way in the World to make them sure then either to calumniate or otherwise to lay open the Nakedness of the Government and to tell them that Princes are only Trustees for the Peoples good the Sovereignty in themselves and that if Governours break their Trust the People may resume their Power When the Multitude has once imbib'd this Doctrine the next work will be to set up for the recovery of their inheritance and when it comes to that once we need but look behind us to see the end on 't Our Author has already admitted upon this mistake of the Fountain of Power that the People may yet pass away their Original Right without power of Revocation Here indeed says he speaking of a Concession of Absolute Power a passive Obedience was due but what 's this to a King of England Now though the Doctrine of this Passage fol. 20. seems to clash with an Equity of Resumption reserved to the People in the last Paragraph above-recited fol. 21. I shall yet lay no hold of that implication but turn the force of his own allowance against himself If the Peoples alienation of their Power to a Prince without conditions shall stand good against them so shall the alienation of their Power also to a Prince under conditions stand every jote as good within the limits of those conditions And where shall we find those conditions but in the Establish'd Law which marks out the bounds both of King and People Now if the Law Pronounces the King to be Supream in all Causes and over all Persons c. and yet with some Limitations and Restraints upon his Prerogative Suppose he passes those Terms who shall judge him but God if he be Supream and has no other Power above him Or if the People have reserved in such a case any controuling Power to themselves how comes it that the Law takes no notice of it but on the contrary makes the Subjects accountable for any act of Disobedience or Violence to or upon the Person or Authority of the King upon what pretence soever So that under the colour of opposing or preventing an Arbitrary Power the Law is subverted here at a bâ—ow and a Foundation laid of the most pernicious and shameful sort of Tyranny He says that Kings were made for the People and not People for the Kings which is well enough if he means that Kings were made for the Government of the People which is the great Blessing of Mankind and not People for the Government of the King which turns Society into Confusion But after all these words to shew that Government Originally was not Popular I shall add a few more to prove the Institution of it to
a Mental Reservation First We swear in this Oath as in all others to the Sense of the Authority that imposes it And can any body imagine that the Government impos'd this Test of Allegeance upon the People to leave them still at Liberty to play fast and loose with Reserves and Qualifications of their own And so to frustrate the main intent of the Oath by accommodating the Exposition of it for the serving of a Turn or a Faction The Oath binds them to Subjection and they absolve themselves of That Subjection by giving it the Name of Slavery And so every man is left at pleasure to take off his own Shackles But what if it were Slavery it self The Prince were to blame for straining his Authority but the Subjects nevertheless Criminal on the other side for withdrawing their Duty He has found a Loop-hole to evade This Oath by turning SVBIECTS into SLAVES But That will not do his business without turning a Lawful Successor to a Protestant Establisht and bounded Government into an arbitrary absolute Popish Tyrant In which supposition he holds forth This Doctrine to the People that in This Case there is a Forfeiture of the Government and that this is the very Case which we have now before us wherein contrary to Law Reason and the Fundamental Essentials of all Government he does as much as in him lyes authorize and incite the Multitude to a Sedition I answer that the Law is clearly against him for tho the Prerogative is bounded the Duty of the Subject is yet left unconditional there being no Law nor so much as the colour of any incase of the Kings passing his legal Limits to absolve the People of their Allegeance And it is not the Plea of Provocation or the exercise of a Tyrannical Power that will save the Subject from the Sentence oâ— the Law in case of any disloyal act of Assault or Resistance It is against Reason likewise that the Inferiour shall overrule the Superiour and invert the last Resort of Decision and Judgment from the Prince to the Subject It is lastly destructive of Government it self to suppose such a Reserve in a Political Constitution as carries the last Appreal to the People which is the case in this Proposition The King as a Trustee that abuses his power incurrs a Forfeiture as our Author will have it of that Trust and so all subordinate Trustees may incurr the like Forfeiture till all Communities are melted down again into the ridiculous conceit of the Original Soveraignty of the Multitude which is onely a Chaos of Anarchy and Confusion He is over again here with the Royal Constitution of the three free States of England which must be understood either of the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons or of the King Lords and Commons reckoning His Majesty to be one of the three Estates Take it the former way and instead of Your Majesty's Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament which was the style even of the last Rebellion it self the Petition should run t'other way and say The humble Petition of Charles the second to your Majesties the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons â—ssembled in Parliament Now take it as accounting the King to be one of the three Estates that Imaginary Câ—ordination leaves him at the mercy of the other two whensoever they please The Learned and the Right Reverened Bishop of Lincoln in his Discourse of Popery pag. 4. England says he is a Monarchy the Crown Impâ—rial and our Kings Supreme Governours and sole Supreme Governours of this Realm and all other their Dominions c. In our Oath of Supremacy we sweaâ— That the King is the Only Supreme Governour Supreme so none not the Pope above him and Only Supreme so none Coordinate or equal to him The Character brings in the Subjects Petition of Right for a further countenance to his pretension but what noise soever it makes in the cars of the people there is not one syllable in it that appears in his favour And yet once again upon the presumptions ascresaid he grounds this Assertion That in such a case neither is he the same King that we swore to nor we the same Subjects that took the Oath If this be not Rome against Rome and Popery against Popery I know not what is But at the worst it is but paraphrazing upon the Oath of Allegiance as they did upon the Covenant Give me leave now to retort the Argument His Popish Successâ—r will be a Tyrant he says for it is a Tyrannical Religion But after all the stress of â—rreverent Language upon his R. H. he cannot charge any thing in the worldupon him that looks that way in his inclination But yet here 's enough says he to conclude the Reason and the Necessity of his Seclusion The Compiler of this Character would take it ill now on the other side if a man should say that his very argument against the Duke holds as true against the Author of the Character For that Dominion is founded in Grace is the Principle both for which and by which he pretends to Supplant the Successor Now why may we not apprehend Sedition from the one as well as Tyranny from the other Nay and with more Justice too considering that there is but a bare Contemplation the One way and the Practice of an enflaming Discourse over and above that Contemplation the other Char. But alas says he that Bug-bear Passive obedeience is a Notion crept into the world and most Zealously and perhaps as ignorantly defended Fol. 20. This Period brings him well nigh to his Journeys end For till now he contented himself with only opposing the primitive Practices and the Common Principles of Christianity in justifying a Violence upon an Impulse of Religion But the making of Passive Obedience only a Bug-bear and the Defence of it an effect of Ignorance brings it home to the very person of our Saviour and to the Doctrine that was delivered by those Holy Lips So far says the Learned Prelate above mentioned Pag. 55. was St. Paul from believing those Popish Rebellious Principles Denying the Superiority of the Civil power and from Dissoyalty or Disobedience to that Imperial tho' Pagan Power under which he Lived that he publickly acknowledged and humbly submitted to it Nor was he only in his own Person Obedient and a Loyal Subject to the Emperor but writing to the Romans he did as an Apostle of Jesus Chrâ—st command them also to be Loyal and Obedient Let every Soul every man be Subject to the Higher the Supreme Powers c. And then he adds that they should render to them Tribute Custom Fear Honour and all their Duties By Supreme Power there he means men possessing Supreme power and the Supreme power under which He and the Romans then were was Nero a most Impious Pagan and Persecutor of Christ and Christians and yet every Soulq within his Empire even Peter as well as Paul was by the Law of