Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
power_n king_n ordinance_n resist_v 5,553 5 9.4425 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A48169 A letter to a friend in ansvver to the enquiry into the present state of affairs 1690 (1690) Wing L1647; ESTC R218607 6,921 4

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

A LETTER to a Friend IN ANSWER TO THE Enquiry into the present State of Affairs SIR I Thank you for sending me the Enquiry into the present State of Affairs for I am very glad to find that it is a question still whether we should treat with the King and call him back which I was afraid was quite out of doors but the Zeal of this Author who seems to be a dear Friend to Kings to prove we ought not to treat makes me hope that a great many are of the mind we should and his Reasons against it I hope will make a great many more of that mind It is a great satisfaction to me to find a Man who seems neither to want Wit nor Words not to be able to speak common Sense in this Argument There needs no other reason to prove that we are bound in Conscience to treat with our King and to bring him back if we can than that he is our King still and therefore the Enquirer begins with this to prove that he is no King and if he can prove it then fare him well But how does he prove this His Argument is That the reciprocal Duties in Civil Societies are Protection and Allegiance and wheresoever the one fails wholly the other falls with it pag. 3. Now if the relation between King and Subjects did depend on their mutual Duties to each other and not the Duties result from the antecedent Relation there might be somewhat in this But if the King be a King not by governing well but by Birth-right and an hereditary Succession he no more ceases to be a King by governing ill as far as this reason goes than a Subject who is a Traitor and Rebel ceases to be a Subject the Relation continues tho the Duty fails because the Duty is not the Foundation of the Relation but a moral Obligation resulting from the Relation But I confess I thought the Enquirer mad when I found he would prove this from the paternal Relation and absolve Sons from all Duty and Obedience When a Father ceases to be a Father by becoming an Enemy For this is so sensible a Confutation of his Maxim that every Father understands it A Father can never cease to be a Father how great a Tyrant soever he be nor can a Son ever cease to be a Son or to owe the Duty of a Son to his Father he is not indeed bound to obey his Father to his own apparent Ruine and Destruction but he is bound to pay all the Duty of a Son to him as far as he can and if the Father ever return to a better Mind the Relation is not dissolved nor new made by it As Fathers like our Casuist in this let them swallow the rest only remembring that their Sons may deal by them as they deal by thier King But I can pardon his hardiness in this when I find he ventures upon S. Paul and hopes to prove the Doctrin of Deposing Kings from 13. Rom. read the first seven Verses at leisure and judg of the Enquirers Comment I shall only observe the Apostle assigns the reason and foundation of our Obedience and gives a motive to it the reason is that the powers that be are ordained of God and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and must be damn'd for it Now this reason I think is not for Deposing the King and refusing to treat with him and yet this reason eternally holds for all Sovereign Princes if all Powers be the Ordinance of God and the Ministers of God But then the motive or encouragement to Obedience is that they are the Ministers of God to thee for good which is generally true as moral Motives are and if they fail in any instance our Motive to Obedience is lost but not the reason of it for if we were excused from every Duty when any Motive to the Duty fails especially such Motives as concern present and sensible Advantages there are few Duties of Religion which would always oblige us It is a good Motive to Temperance Sobriety and Chastity that these Virtues preserve our health and increase our Estates but I hope our obligation to these Virtues don't cease when it is for our health to Fornicate or gives us great Advantages in our Trade to drink with drunken Customers this is all he has to say why the King is no King and those who can be satisfied with this may be his Disciples The sum of his next Section is p. 4. That the King attempted the Subversion of our Government and Laws Suppose that then Nature teaches a short way of reasoning to forget that one is their Governor when they clearly see that he intends to turn their Destroyer Grant this too that Nature will teach Men to resist unjust Violence and suppose that this will justifie what has hitherto been done what is this to what some Men are now a doing When this illegal Power is broken by the glorious undertaking of the Prince of Orange and we may have all just Securities that it shall never hurt us more Is this any reason against treating with the King who is our King still and may be our Governor without any danger of being our Destroyer But there is an untoward Maxim in our Law which greatly troubles him that the King can do no wrong for if this be true it is a demonstration by our Law that the King can never forfeit his Crown unless he may be deposed without doing any wrong To get rid of this he tells us p. 11. the meaning of it is only this that the King's Power cannot go so far as to support him in the doing any Injustice or Wrong to any that is the meaning of the King can do no wrong is not that he can do no wrong but that if he do wrong he shall be as accountable for it as any of his Subjects which is a great priviledg Kings have This he proves from the Examples of Ed. 2. and Rich. 2. Who were judged in Parliament for Mal-administration and since these Judgments were never vacated by any subsequent Parliaments these Proceedings are a part of our Law I shall not trouble you with an account of these particular Stories which are wide enough from our Case But suppose what he would have Have such Practices as these never been condemned No Laws ever made against the like Practices Yet he dares not say nay confesses the contrary but yet as long as the Proceedings remain upon record they are good Presidents and justifie our right to defend our selves in extreme necessity as if it were not enough to make a Law against such Practices without an express condemnation of all contrary Proceedings in former times As if the contrary Proceedings of former Ages could justifie us in the breach of express Laws now But to return to our Maxim Our Law is not so absurd as to suppose that it is impossible for a King to command perswade solicit his
diminution of the Regal Authority imposed upon the King as the condition upon which only he can be admitted is as real a breach of the Oath of Allegiance as a total shaking him off p. 10. But not so great a breach by his favour Now since we can have no legal Parliament without swearing first the Oath of Allegiance to the King it is a scorn put on God and Religion if one swear this Oath to the King after he is reduced to that naked state to which these Treaters pretend to bring him p. 11. But now suppose these Treaters do not intend to reduce the King to such a naked state nor to diminish his Legal Authority I hope there is no hurt in it then and yet this is all they desire not to strip the Crown of any Legal Authority but to reduce the King within the bounds of Law and to have security from him that he shall not exceed these bounds 3. This you 'll say were somewhat indeed but that is the great Objection of all That the King can give no security to govern by Law p. 8 9. His Promises and Oaths are very insignificant when Popery is in the other Scale Then to please him we won't take Oaths and Promises for security well but no Limitation by Law will do neither witness the Test Act which was broke through by a Dispensing Power But if this Power of Dispensing be regulated or condemned by Act of Parliament I hope that Objection is gone but all such Limitations must be a disherison of the Crown which are null and void of themselves It may be that as it has been applied is as good Law as the Dispensing Power and may have the same fate with it but if you take away no Legal Authority there can be no disherison of the Crown how to do this I won't pretend to direct the Wisdom of a Parliament will easily find that out and if such Laws may be made as will secure us and execute themselves I think we are safe In short the sum of this Argument is that a Parliament it self can do nothing for our security without deposing the King and yet the whole Nation thought they could and desired no greater security than a Parliament that had free Liberty to make Laws could give them and the Prince himself thought this would do and therefore desires no more in his Declaration And yet he is at this again particularly with reference to the Tryal of the Prince of Wales which he thinks cannot be done by a Parliament if we treat with the King but the Prince was contented to leave that also to a Parliament and all his Arguments against it are only so many scandalous Libels against one of the most August Assemblies in the World p. 12 13. And it is a hard case that a King must be first Deposed that they may afterwards try the Cause for which they Depose him 4. Another Argument against Treating with the King is That the Nation can have no Security by Law either for what is done or for what may remain yet to be done but by Acts passed by King Lords and Commons and it is unmerciful to keep Men in suspence so long for a Pardon that is The King must be Deposed without Treating that he may have no power ever to hurt but for his comfort I can tell him the King's Pardon under the Broad Seal is good in Law at least against himself or any one else but a Parliament and when a Parliament sits this may be passed into an Act and to be sure will be since the Nation is so much concerned and the Prince present to see it done and if this will not satisfie our Enquirer yet I think few besides him will think it an Objection Some other things he says which are not worth notice Sometimes he is afraid that after all their Talk of Treating with the King they should bring him in without Terms p. 8 9. which is well guessed when so many Men are concerned to have terms and the Prince is here to demand them At other times he is afraid that while Men talk of a Treaty Peoples minds should alter and they should be in good earnest for bringing back the King and let him lear on by my consent I do not desire to answer that Argument but the vilest Insinuation is as if the Talk of a Treaty were only a Ceremony and Complement to part with the King more decently and says well That it is more sutable to the Dignity and Wisdom of the Nation to act frankly and above-board than to think to varnish it over with some outward Appearances and I am very much of his mind upon this Supposition but hope the Treaters are honester Men. In his Conclusion he gives a Bit and a Knock to some great Men of our Church commends them for their Zeal against Popery but thinks it a blemish to them that they are so obstinate in their Loyalty I believe they take it for no great Complement to be commended at the end of such a Pamphlet and as much as he thinks Nature prevails over them not to own an Error I dare undertake for those of them I know for I can easily guess whom he means that they will be ready to recant all they have writ for Submission to Princes when he can answer half of it I am SIR YOURS