Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	ordinance_n	power_n	resist_v	2,543	5	10.0817	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47295	The duty of allegiance settled upon its true grounds, according to Scripture, reason, and the opinion of the Church in answer to a late book of Dr. William Sherlock, master of the Temple, entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated, and resolved, according to Scripture, &c. : with a more particular respect to the oath lately injoyn'd.	Kettlewell, John, 1653-1695.	1691 (1691)	Wing K366; ESTC R13840	111,563	86

opposition to this St. Paul tells them the Powers then in being were of God Rom. 13. 1. and to resist them would be to resist the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Ordinance or Precept carrying Obedience which called for it as much and as expresly to these Powers as to any the most Anointed King Thus is the meaning of the Commandment about Obedience to Princes to carry Authority and call for Obedience to rightful Powers or to those only who in absence of Divine Revelation have legal or human Rights to their Thrones And thus by Kings or Higher Powers and Authorities in these Commandments must be meant Rightful Powers Yea I add in all Precepts towards one in a State as towards a King an Husband a Master or the like Right is supposed The reason is because these are Things that go by Right and the Person is not vested with the State or it is none of his nor can be till he has a Right to it so Right is sufficiently imployed though it be not mentioned Thus Honour thy Father is Honour thy true and real not thy false and pretended Father And Husbands love your Wives as your own Flesh is your right and true Wives not your Concubines And Wives obey your Husbands is your true Husbands not any as they shall call so as Usurping their Husbands Place who are only nominal Husbands but real Adulterers In all which Cases Right is not only supposed as I say it must be in Things that come to a Person by Right but is judged so in the common Understanding of Mankind Nay the expressing the King or Husband simply without any Epithet of Diminution is a sufficient Expression of it for the Wrong is not the Person simply speaking but only with a Note of Diminution either expressed or imploy'd As in the Case of Kings they are not real Kings but real Usurpers and only pretensed Kings or Kings de Facto as the Phrase and Style of Law is And this takes off what the Author objects viz. That the Scripture makes no Exception or gives no express Caution against submitting to usurping or pretensed Kings for Caution enough it gives though not in express Words The Precept of submitting and keeping subject to Kings is sufficient Prohibition not to turn subject to Usurpers For since we cannot have two Allegianoes or two Kings as he rightly observes we cannot be subject to both and therefore the same Scripture that bids every Soul be subject to the King forbids them to turn subject to the Usurper who is not the King which being a State that comes to one by Right the Command means of the rightful Person And had there been no more express Prohibition in Scripture of Wives adhereing to an Adulterer than there is of a Subjects adhereing to an Usurper I suppose the Author would think that sufficiently forbid when she is Commanded to adhere to her own Husband Why not in the other Case then when Subjects are required to adhere to their King For Right is equally expressed and equally supposed and one is to go by Right as much as the other is I add in the last place That the World was in the Hand of rightful Rulers when the Apostles gave Subjects Precepts of Obedience So that as the Nature of the Thing admitted not and the use of Speech needed not so neither did the present Circumstance of Times and Persons prompt any Occasion to make Exceptions This the Author urges on the other side and imagines the very giving of these Commands of subjection to the Subjects of the Roman Empire is little less than a Demonstration that they were not meant only of legal rightful Powers But had not the Roman Emperors human Rights Yes the Empire was set up by Law when the Senate by joynt Consent in open Court Devolved their Sovereingn Power upon Augustus From which time by the Lex Regia it became the legal Government And the Emperors that sway'd this legal Empire Had some kind of Consent from the Senate says the Author himself Extorted by Fear or Flatery or other Arts. I know not what he means by some kind of Consent but this was a Consent of the Senate legally Convened and Sitting and Acting in open Court and giving every Man his Vote when it was put to the Vote And such a Consent in Form and in open Court is that which makes an human Right or such as the State of Rome had And as for Practices by Fear or Flatery or hopes of Preferment or other corrupt Arts they are not tyed to the Senate of Rome but are as lyable to be used on all Electors in Elective Kingdoms and on all Publick Assemblies But for all this if a Thing is Voted and pass in Form it makes a legal Right and there is no going to null the Acts by making such Exceptions So that as the Empire was a Legal Government the Emperors I think were Legal Governors at least those Emperors under whom our Saviour Christ and his Apostles gave these Precepts But for so many Ages together their Titles he says were all of them stark Naught or the very best of them very Doubtful Why were there so many then that Reigned without the Content of the Senate No that is not his meaning I suppose but only that Numbers of them and sometimes for several Successions set up and usurped upon their Masters and came to the Empire by Rebellion and Murder of the former Emperors These ways indeed were stark Naught And whilst their Lawful Emperor was alive they usurped on him and when he was dead till the Senate had put an end to the Usurpation by their Consent they usurped on them but when by the Murder of the Legal Emperor the Senate had no Emperor they were free to make one And when they had Consented and Voted this Usurper Emperor he would then be Rightful and have the same Right viz. their Consent as the formerr ●had And this was the way of these Usurpers when they had slain their Masters and possessed themselves of the Army and Power of the Sword they sent to the Senate for a Title and their Consent gave them a Right to it which Consent of theirs could wrong none Nor in an Elective Empire had they had no Consent but Ruled without Right could any Subjects have had the present Hindrances to voluntary Submitting by being under a contrary Obligation to any other Person But whatever the Emperors were over the Romans the Romans themselves he says were great Usurpers over other Nations and yet these Scripture Commands are for having those Nations keep under their Obedience But had not these Nations submitted the Kings themselves if alive coming into those Submissions to the Romans And so long as People only Consent to give up what is their Own not what is the Right of a Third Person such Consent gives an human Right So by means of this Consent and Submission

of Authority and he that has Possession though against Right has God's Authority which is the Notion that runs through his whole Book To clear this therefore I shall here enquire into the Nature of Authority and into the way of coming by it which will shew the way of losing of it A right Understanding whereof will be of great use to clear up his most fundamental Mistakes as I conceive and answer the main of what he has alledged on this Subject I. First I shall say something to the Nature of Civil Authority or shew what it is that we may know what to seek for in one when we seek after Authority There is the more need of this because I sind Men are very apt to take External Might and Strength which they see in Persons of Authority for their Authority And to conclude When they see one possessed of this External Strength that he is possessed of Authority but if he loses this External Strength that he loses his Authority Civil Authority speaks a Right or Liberty in one to order or do a thing in Civil Matters laying an Obligation on others to follow or submit to him as particularly in a Prince to give Order and Commands for a Rule of Practice to judge and determine Disputes about Rights or Properties to use the Sword which God has allowed him alone the Liberty of for Defence or Punishment And all with an Obligation to these under him to obey or acquiesce in or submit to them The most Essential Property of this and of all other Authority is to lay Obligation or a Conscientious and Internal Bond on those who are subject to it And some Authority has no other Inforcement being furnish'd with no External Compulsory nor using Force over the Bodies of those who are subject thereto as the Ministerial Authority which yet is a good Authority and God's Authority as truly as Civil Authority it self is But since the generality make so little of this Internal Obligation and can so easily break it External Strength and Might is added to this Authority to be a tye upon the Bodies as the other is upon the Spirits of Men and to make them observant out of fear of Wrath as St. Paul says Rom. 13. 4 5. who would not otherwise be so out of the true Obligation of Authority that is the Bond of Conscience And this External Strength lyes in a Princes having the Command of Courts and Officers Prisons and Executions in being possessed of Armies Ordinances Magazines Navies Treasures and Strong-holds of a Nation and the like But now this External Force and Strength is not the Prince's Authority it self but a Means and Instrument to exercise to back and inforce his Authority The Authority as I noted lies in Rightor Licence of Ordering with effect of Obligation and all this is a Spiritual Thing as Right Licence and Obligation and other Moral Things are So that Authority is a Moral Quality but this External Strength is no Moral Quality but a bodily Thing The ins●p●rable effect of Authority is to lay an Internal Obligation this an External that a Power of affecting the Conscience this only the Bodies of Subjects For what External Strength has Power over is only our Bodies bodily Force can take away bodily Things but mere External Force lays no such Internal Bond of Submission upon the Conscience If a Man falls into the Hands of Thieves or Pyrates or in time of War if he and all he has in the Power of the Enemies their Ezternal Strength will give them Power over his Body but his Spirit is free And such Men for all they are under the Power of External Strength may refuse all they require with safety enough to their Consciences if they can with safety enough to their Persons There must be Authority as I say to bind the Conscience when this External Might that is only the means to exercise back and inforce Authority binds us in fear for External Interests And both these distinct Effects St. Paul distinctly Marks in the Higher Powers whose Authority which as being God's Authority binds the Conscience is backed with Strength for present Wrath upon the Bodies of Subjects Ye must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Rom. 135. Accordingly we find this External Stength separate from Authority and that shews plainly that External Strength is not Authority If a Man is in the Hands of Thieves or Pyrates or of Enem●es in time of War as I said he is the subject of External Strength but yet he is not there the subject of Authority For no Man pretends as this Author says p. 34. That Theives and Pyrates have God's Authority nay not although they proceed upon him in Form of Law and Judically as the High Court of Justice did upon the Blessed Martyr who for all in that Court he was the subject of External Strength yet I think no wise Man will say he was the subject of Authority And on the other hand we find Civil Authority separate from External Strength and yet for all that it is Authority As it was in Saul when on Mount Gilboa he fled before the Pursuers and Sought Death for the Anguish of his Wounds and that he might not fall alive into the Hands of his Enemies For all which Discomfiture and Desperate State David tells the Amalakite he ought still to have looked upon him as having the Inviolableness of God's Anointed And as it was in David when he fled out of the Land for fear of Absalom notwithstanding which Flight and Dispossession Shimei was still to have owned him as the Anointed of the Lord and was guilty of Treason against the Regal Authority in his Carriage towards him Thus also our Law owns this Authority in a Dispossessed King and under any Breach or Interruption of Possession Thus the Statute says of Q. Mary that for all the Interruption of her Possession by the Possession of Q. Jane the Crown with all Authorities thereunto belonging was all the time immediately from the Death of K Edward invested and by Law adjudged to be in her Royal Person And in Case of any of the Heirs of Henry VIII usurping the Crown before their time one taking Possession whilst another had the legal Right to the Throne every such Offence is made High Treason And the Dispossessed Heir I think has Authority if Treason can be committed against him King Charles the First was intirely Dispossessed of all the External Strength of the Nation when he stood Arraigned before the High Court of Justice but yet he was not Dispossessed of his Authority because all the Proceeding was Treason and is confessed by all so to be against his Authority And all the time of his Exile King Charles the Seond was under like Dispossession but yet he had the Regal Authority all that time else how came his Reign to commence immediately from his Fathers Death and all that was done against

the way of the Principles I have been hitherto laying down And as to what he says p. 27. 28. c. about the Difference betwixt a maintaining and defending and a restoring Allegiance I may take some notice of that anon 2. His next Reason p. 36. for this Right of Providence is That without it there is no defending the Doctrine of Passive Obedience But why so Because there is no irresistable Authority but that of God and unless Sovereign Princes received their Authority from God Non Resistance would be Nonsense But they may and do receive Authority from God and not by a Right of Providence but either by Divine Nomination as sometimes in Iury or by human Rights and Titles as in all other places And this way of Right doth give a Person God's Authority as I have shewn which his way of Providence doth not And his fancied way of Providence would not be more immediate nor so good and righteous a way of giving it And this Authority of God conveyed thus to a Person by Rightful Title is an irresistable Authority because it is God's and because it is a Sovereign Authority There is no resisting any Authority derived from God but under God or by seeking to have it by an higher Authority which is God's too And thus the Authority of Fathers or Masters which is God's Authority may be restrain'd and checkt when it is abused by the Authority of the Prince which is God's too and an higher Authority And so may the Excesses of any inferior Magistrate by the Authority of the supreme Magistrate All which opposing Authority by way of Regular Appeals and under Protection of an higher Authority is not the criminal resisting God's Authority but keeping under it and seeking to be relieved by it But when this Authority is not only given by God but is a Sovereign Authority then there is no Resistance or worldly Remedy against that because the Sovereign has none above it Thus may the Doctrine of Non Resistance be a Rational Doctrine without his Right of Providence The Law of Subjection to Sovereign Powers and not Resisting makes it a Sin to resist for 1 Ioh. 3. 4. Sin is the Transgression of a Law And Sovereigns having not only God's Authority but a Supream Authority under God on Earth is a Reason why it necessarily should be so But that they should come by this Divine and Supreme Authority by his Right of Providence is neither necessary nor just nor fit in my Judgement But the way of rightful Title either by Divine Nomination or Human Right is the best and justest and I think I may say from what I have Discoursed thereupon is the only true way of coming by it But though the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance may very well stand without his Right of Providence and still transferring and paying Allegiance to present Powers against rightful Titles I think on the other hand it is necessarily overthrown by it I know Numbers of those that Swear the Present Allegiance upon the Ground of a King de Facto are of another Mind and believe it is no Breach of Passive Obedience to one that has a legal Right to transfer and ingage their Allegiance to stand by another who is possessed of his Right which I judge only shews non Attention to the Nature and Import of such Actings For Passive Obedience implies above all Things To keep under a King's Obedience And to cast off his Authority is the highest Disobedience And in this lies the uttermost Heinousness and Aggravation of Resistance that thereby Subjects disclaim their King's Authority over them and throw off all Obedience to him and this is plainly done by transferring Allegiance from him They cannot bear Allegiance to Two nor have any more than one King as the Author truly says p. 14. So that in transferring Allegiance to another they throw off all to him and are as Men no longer under his Obedience and Subjection Besides it puts them among Resisters and so can be no good Payment of the Duty of Non Resistance For it ingages them as I observed the Nature of all Allegiance is to stand by the Possessor and to withstand the other some by Arms others by Prayers every one in his Station And since both Competitors cannot have the Crown and both seek it all that will stand by and support one will therein unavoidably resist the other who comes to recover and get it from him 3. Another Reason is p. 37. If we deny this Right of Providence to carry Allegiance to Usurpers against legal Titles we deny God's Authority to remove or set up Kings against human Laws But if God please to set up a King by particular Revelation that will make him a King against human Laws because God is above Laws and this no Man denies that denies this Right of Providence If God is not pleased to take this way of special Revelations he is pleased to leave Authority to be carryed by human Rights And I suppose he will think it no Impeachment of God's Authority in making or removing Kings to say he cannot do them but by human Rights when he will take no other way but is pleased to leave it to them Besides to come to ways of doing it among other Nations as well as among the Jews human Rights as I observed is larger than human Laws And when a Man cannot be set up or removed by the Laws God may do both according to human Right by the Death or Submission of Competitors If God please to take a King out of the World which is his great way of Removing them and is a way particularly referred to in this Scripture Phraise of Removing Kings as I before observed his Right is removed with him Or if he bring him to give it up by his own Consent his legal Right is that way too removed from him And the other gets Right over a willing People by his Competitors Oath or Subm●ssion Though Kings then are denyed to be set up or removed by mere Providence without other Title yet is that no denyal of God's Setting up of Kings which he may do by all the ways of Setting them up viz. by all the ways of giving Right to Kingly Authority yea and that against Laws too if he pleases by all the other ways of conferring that Right viz. Special Revelation which is above Laws or Death of Competitors or Consent of Parties which departs from the Right that accrued by them And this limitting God in giving Right to 〈…〉 s of giving it is a limitation he has made himself and is very well pleased with And in matters of Right to be limitted to ways of Right seems no harder limitation than being limitted to be Righteous Indeed it denies his way of Setting them up viz. By Providential Possession without other Title But that I think is no denyal of the Authority of God in this Point because God doth not convey his

Revolutions Now he designs his Right of Providence to give Authority to the Revolution that is to authorize ones being pulled down and the others being set up or to make God transfer the Authority from one to the other thereby And the Principle it self and like Scripture Sayings about Providence in that Case too will give as good Right to those that act in them as to what is got by them as I have formerly shewn So by this Principle the Usurpers in Revolutions get Right to attempt and invade a Prince's Rightful Crown and when they have got it from him to make it their own and to bind all the Subjects as fully and fast to them as they were bound to the former King And what more Service would a Man desire from Principles whose part is not to act and accomplish things but only to justifie and confirm Actions and the Actors in them But quite contrary the other Principle of Legal Right gives all the Check to Revolutions that Principles can do leaving no Man Right to invade a Rightful Prince's Throne nor to hold it when he has unrighteously got it but to restore it to the true Owner again Nor Liberty to the Subjects to turn over to the Usurpers against their Rightful Prince which were both to resist Authority and to oppose Right and support Wrong And this is to bar and prevent Revolutions as far as Principles can do it that is among all that will be guided by Principles and do only righteous things But if it would prevent all Revolutions of Government that says he p. 44. is a Demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle and comes not from God Indeed this seems an odd Fetch That doing Right cannot come from God if it would prevent Unrighteousness which therefore comes from him because it would do so But his Reason is because then God could not exercise a Prerogative he has reserved to himself of removing or setting up a King whom he cannot set up unless he can oblige the Subjects to obey him He should have inferr'd therefore when God will exercise that Prerogative he will remove one King's Right that the Subjects may owe him no Obedience and give it to another that they may pay him Obedience and that because God will have them follow Right and carry themselves righteously towards both And though human Laws are the ordinary way yet God has other ways of making or unmaking Kings that is Rightful Kings when he pleases For he may put an end to the dispossessed King's Right by taking him out of the World or by bringing him whil●t he lives to resign and part with it by his own Consent or give it away from him to the other by immediate Revelation if he sees fit as I shewed before And these are his ways of exercising this Prerogative of Removing or setting up Kings when that is to remove and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects But if he only by Course of Providence changes Possession but neither by human nor divine Title transfers the Right to a Crown it is a Punishment or Tryal both on dispossessed Prince and People and is not the Removal of a King which sets them loose from him And this adhering to such dispossessed Princes till they are some way disauthorized and deprived of Right as well as Possession is not for Mankind to be Slaves of Princes as he says p. 45. but only to be Slaves of Right if Slavery must be the Term for it as Princes themselves must be too if they will be Righteous He also p. 43. 44. charges the Inconvenience and Defects in Government all the time such dispossessed Rightful King is shut out upon this Principle of unalterable Allegiance to Legal Right Those Inconveniences and Defects indeed are apparently to be imputed to his being kept out But unalterable Allegiance to his Legal Right surely doth not keep him out And in such Case if a Man will speak Justice and direct the Charge where the Blame is he must not say they cause all the Inconveniences or Overthrow of Government for want of him that are careful conscienciously to do him Right but they who unconscionably keep him out of his Right Before I dismiss this Consideration of his Reasons I shall take Notice of the Distinction he makes p. 28 29. between Maintaining and Defending and Restoring in the matter of Allegiance and the Oath for it But unless he can set this aside by the Conventions Principle and that of the Publick Acts viz. the translation of the Legal Right this nicety I believe will not solve or take it off He p. 27 28. distinguishes between Natural and Legal Allegiance And they are distinct as to the Bond and Ground of Obligation one being from the Law of Nature and the other from our own Laws But the main of that D●stinction lies not in their calling for distinct Offices particularly not in Legal Allegiance binding Subjects to defend their King's Authority and Natural Allegiance binding to no Defence thereof For all Subjects were bound to defend their Kings before they had any written Laws for Allegiance By the Law of Nature when Authority is set up it is to be Defended And it can have no other Defence but the Subjects Allegiance It s inseperable Effects is to oblige and if it oblige to any Service it must oblige more especially to such as is necessary for its own Preservation and Defence The Union of Subjects to a Prince is that of Members to the Head which are certainly bound to defend it as I at first noted And therefore when the Law comes to bind this Defence faster by the Legal Oath it doth not pretend to bring in a new Duty but by the addition of an Oath to make that more secure which Nature had bound on all before The Effect and Substance of Ligeance is by the Law of Nature as is declared in Calvin's Case but the Form and Addition of the Oath est ex provisione hominis And the Statute it self which imposes the Legal Oath declares it To tend only to the Declaration of such Duty as every true and well affected Subject not only by Bond of Allegiance but also by the Commandment of Almighty God ought to bear to the King's Majesty Now since Defence is implyed as a necessary Duty and Ingredient of Allegiance if he leaves any Man Authority to call for Allegiance How will he hinder him by the same Authority from challenging Defence And this whether it be in holding Possession or in getting it and seeking Restauration to it If Allegiance is left Due in both Defence will be like to be left Due in both because Defence is part of Allegiance Indeed as he says p. 31. 27. All Subjects are not bound to turn Soldiers Nor will they be alike p. 29. in the way of obliging Calls and Opportunities to defend a Prince when out of his Throne as when Seated on his Throne But as to such Defence