Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A45944
|
The interest of the English nation under the happy government of King William III once more asserted in answer to the challenge of a Jacobite : wherein is proved that the law which forbids taking up arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever is consistent with the late revolution / by Philo-kalo-basileos.
|
Philo-kalo-basileos.
|
1696
(1696)
|
Wing I268; ESTC R25207
|
22,742
|
31
|
Exception lies Yet you urge that Maxim of the Law That the King can do no wrong as if it were on your side which makes altogether as much against you for these two Expressions are of the same importance it being all one in effect to say he is King by Law and to say He can do no wrong For what 's the reason that the King being but a Man can do no wrong It is not because he does not do amiss in granting illegal Commissions for no doubt he sins in it and does that which is Morally Evil But the reason is because he can act nothing qua Rex but by or according to Law So that unless the Law be wrong the King can do none From whence it naturally follows that whatsoever the King does beside or Contrary to the Law is not the Act of a King but of a private person Suppose for Example a King at one time Corrects a Servant moderately for a real Fault at another time he beats him severely without a Cause and the third time he kills him without any provocation These are none of them Regal Acts for the First he does as Master of a Family the Second as a Man in Passion the Third as a Tyrant Yet I do not say that this Tyrannical Act Vnkings him For one Act makes not a Habit and 't is possible he may repent of it and lay it so to heart as to become a better Man and a better King ever after But this I do say That a constant Course of Arbitrary Proceeding so far as to lay aside the Laws and actually Change the Government does Vnking him and the reason is because he destroys that by which he has his being It is the Law makes him a King which being removed and laid aside he has no Foundation to stand upon This I said before and by your Favour it is not Gratis Dictum as you are pleased to say but you have Answered my paper without reading it or at least without regarding what you Read Nor is this a Parallel Case with that which you put of whipping your Boy too Severely and thereupon ceasing to be his Father There is a wide difference between the Dissolution of a Government and the Correction of a Child the one is Destroyed and the other Improved But if you destroy your Child that is kill him by Correcting him this will bring the Comparison nearer home For as a King Ceases to be a King when he has destroyed his Kingdom So a Father ceases to be a Father when he has no Child So that your own Comparison with a little improvement makes altogether against you Besides there is a manifest difference between a Natural and a Political Relation The one can never be dissolved while the parties are in being but the other may A good King may happen to lose his Kingdom and remain in Exile that I know you 'l readily grant But he that Succeeds him in the Administration of Sovereign power is King at least de Facto and the Law requires Allegiance to be paid him so that the former relation Ceases But this puts me in mind to recommend to you Sr. Ro. Filmers Political Babel whereof this is the Corner Stone that we are all born Slaves and that a Son a Subject a Servant and a Slave are all one without any Difference If you are not yet acquainted with that worthy Author its great pity you should not for I believe you would greatly admire him You tell me next To bring the Authority of K. James the First is all over Jargon with a great deal more to the same purpose where you make Reflections upon that Learned King so shameful and so false that it will be a kindness to you to suppress them I shall only hint at Two Things and pass on First You suppose that these imprudent Sayings as you imprudently call them were spoken to Court the People at his coming to the Crown and you will find them in the Ninth Year of his Reign Secondly This is the first time that I have heard the Cause of our Civil Wars and the Crime of K. Charles's Munder laid at his Door I rather think with submission to better Judgments that if his Cautions had been observed it might have been a means to prevent the Evils following You approve it seems of those Determinations made in Parliament at several times namely under Q. Elizabeth K. James the First and K. Charles the First with the Judgment of Archbishop Laud according as I set it down before for you say you cannot but grant it very Lawful And I tell you once more you have intirely given up your Cause for I cannot understand how any thing can go higher in Defence of the Late Revolution But you go on with the greatest Confidence in the World saying It was to suppress a Rebellion begun by the Subjects Cujus contrarium verum est it was to stop the Incroachments of Princes upon their Subjects But this it is to write before you read the words are these When a Prince breaks in upon the Religion and Liberties of his People they ought to stand up in their own Defence and may also Call in a Neighbour to their Assistance This you may find upon Record and taken notice of by several Learned Men of late See especially the Protestant Mask supposed to be written by Dr. C. In the next place you falsifie my words to make me speak what I was not thinking of and you jumble together a deal of Nonsense and would have me to own it concluding with your usual Confidence This you 'l say your self I suppose needs no Confutation So indeed I do and with very good Reason for 't is your own Stuff and none of mine And thus it follows You cannot but Wonder that a Man of my parts c. Should make no Difference betwine a people Rebelling against their Lawful King and a people Rebelling against God when there is no such passage to be found nor any thing like it My words are these So long as a King remains a King and Maintains the Laws he is a Rebel that opposes him But when he falls from that he is a Rebel himself For this I quoted the place as may be seen 1 Sam. 15.32 where Samuel Charges Saul with Rebellion And I now add that a King of England is as much obliged to Govern by Law as the King of Isfrael was to observe God's Commands As for the Story of Anâ—â—â—eck It is only toucht upon to bring in Samuel's severe Reproof and Davids taking Arms against him But say you Saul was at that Instant rejected from his Kingdom What trifling is this He was King so long as he liv'd and David was his Subject never pretending to the Crown in his lise time yet he took Arms to defend himself And his behaviour towards Saul is a good Example both ways Namely of Dutiful respect towards the King in sparing his Person and giving
himself of his Crown and Dignity and is no longer a King But because our Adversaries will storm heavily at this Saying how Undeniable so ever it be let us see if we can Strengthen it by Authority And first That of a Wise and Learned King viz. James the First who in a Speech before the Parliament 1609. has these words A King Governing in a Settled Kingdom leaves to be a King and Degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws and they that perswade them the Contrary are Vipers and Pests both against them and the Commonwealth So that it seems a King may fall from his Power and cease to be a King and he actually does so when he leaves off to Rule according to his Laws Let us now see what the force of Truth has Extorted from a Learned Man of our Adversaries Party a Mighty Asserter of Monarchical Power the Famous Barclay Two Cases he saies there are whereby a King ipso facto becomes no King and loses all power and Regal Authority over his people for he divests himself of his Royal Crown and Dignity he returns to the state of a private Man and the People become freeand Superiour All the words in the Dictionary cannot cutt deeper than these nor kill the Cause more Dead upon the Sport to Add any thing would be Substraction and to offer at Illustration would be to darken I shall only mention his two Cases and leave it The first is If the King Endeavour to overturn the Government and have a purpose and Design to ruin the Kingdom and Common wealth The Second is If he make himself the Dependant of another and betray his people into the Power and Dominion of a forreign Nation These two Cases are both so like ours of Late that one would think this Author had written by Inspiration And the best of all is he is taken for an Enemy which makes his Testimony on our sides the more Considerable By this time I think it may appear that Non-resistance is not to be taken in the rigid and inflexible Sence of our Adversaries but so qualified as to let the English Frame and Constitution of Government stand where it is But there is nothing almost which may not be Spoiled by overdoing Nothing better in a well-settled Government than Obedience but once misplaced there 's nothing worse This is that which had it been Universal had left nothing ere this day but Grief and Lamentation Chains and Slavery Superstition and Idolatry for which Posterity might have had cause to Curse the Servile Baseness of the present Generation had not K. William and many Noble English-men stood in the Gapp to Save the Nation from Sudden Ruine and from a Sad Character in after times Now let our Adversaries stand still a little and Consider whether they be not righteous overmuch Eccl. 7.16 And whether they do not make themselves over-wise I would as soon pass my word for Wisdom and Righteousness that they should not be Capable of Excess as any thing Else that I can think off And yet even in that Case the wisest of Kings thought a caution Necessary And this is the Character of those men we have to deal with they will be wiser than the Publick Wisdom of the Nation and more Righteous than the whole Church whereof they profess to be Members I very well remember the time when these Men above others were Continually Charging the Dissenters with Pride and Self-Conceit with willful Obstinacy with Faction and Disobedience some could find nothing Else to Preach on and others made it their common Discourse and now out of their own mouths they are Justly Condemn'd Some Dissenters indeed have some needless Scruples about Cermonies but These only scruple Deliverance and to be Saved from Ruine and Misery lies heavy upon their Conscience They pay Faith and Allegiance to a Tyrant or a Non-Ens and they return Malice and Ignominy for Security and Protection I shall conclude this matter with a Sentence taken from a very learned Pen which also has been asserted by others Namely That when a Prince breaks in upon the Religion and Liberties of his People they ought to stand up in their own Defence and may also call in a Neighbour or Forreigner to their Assistance And this very thing has been Declared Lawful by Queen Elizabeth by K. James the first by K. Charles the first with their Parliaments and by Arch Bishop Laud into the Bargain as may be further made Evident upon occasion And here I thought to have made an End But I find our Adversaries when other reasons fail them betake themselves to the Bible wherein they think to find their Unlimitted Power and passive Obedience I cannot pretend to Remember all those passages of Scripture which they have Press'd for this Service but two or three of the more remarkable I shall Endeavour at present to Release from the Unnatural force and Violence put upon them and the rest as I meet with them First Prov. 30.31 A King against whom there is no rising up I grant it in the Sence afore-mentioned That is So long as he remains a King and Keeps the Laws he is a Rebel that opposes him But when he falls from that he is a Rebel himself I speak not this at Random but I 'll make it good The first King of Israel was a Rebel if you will believe the Prophet Samuel For he plainly Charges him with Rebellion Behold saies he to obey is better than Sacrifice and to harken than the fat of Rams For Rebellion is as the Sin of Witchcraft c. 1. Sam. 15.22 God had given a Command to Saul that he should Smite Amaleck and Destroy utterly all that they had This was the Law he was to observe But he disobeyed it and thereupon the Prophet not only gives him a severe Reprimand but Saul left his Kingdom beside After this David was so far from Nonresistance that he Armed himself in his own Defence and about 600 Men. And he Seiz'd upon Strong-holds at Engedi T is true David would not Kill him Cowardly which was a Noble and brave Example but had he met him fairly in the Field no doubt but he would have Fought him He gave him at one time such a Lecture as made him fall a weeping At another time he preach't to him from the top of an Hill so long till Saul Prophesied David's Success and the ruine of his own Kingdom Thou shalt both doe great things and also shalt prevail 1. Sam. 26.25 Now all this being done by David in a posture of Defence and probably with Goliah's Sword in his hand amounts sufficiently to a Rising up against Saul and Consequently that these words are not to be taken Strictly but in such a qualified sence as may comport with other parts of Scripture as will further appear by considering another Text here following Eccles 8.4 Who may say unto a King what doest thou With the