Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A46961
|
Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's book intituled The case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures written in the year 1683, by Samuel Johnson.
|
Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing J839; ESTC R32984
|
24,921
|
80
|
does the 13 th of Eliz and says the Subjects of England must be Compelled and shall be Compelled to march out of the Kingdom if those that are Commissionated by the King shall think fit For though these have no Power to Compel yet the Subjects of England are bound in Conscience to know their Duty and their Drivers and to supply this lack of Legal Power by the inward Impulses of their own Spiritual and never-failing Passive Obedience and must either go out of the Kingdom upon this Occasion or go to the Devil for their wicked and rebellious Refusal It likewise repeals all the Legal Limitations which have ascertained Penalties for the several Offences committed against the Laws As for Instance in this Act whereas the Law says That the chief Commissioned Officer upon the place may imprison Mutineers such Souldiers as do not their Duties and shall and may inflict for Punishment for every such offences any Pecuniary Mulct not exceeding five Shillings or the Penalty of Imprisonment without Bail or Mainprise not exceeding twenty Days The Doctrine of Passive Obedience makes nothing of these Legal Restrictions and says that Men must submit to perpetual Imprisonment or to be hanged for such Offences or for no Offence at all if those that are Commissioned will have it so I humbly submit it to the Wisdom of our Legislators when they shall be assembled in Parliament Whether they will endure to have all their Laws thus used and suffer them to be put into a Bottomless Bag as the Poets say Iupiter disposes of Lovers Vows of a boundless and endless passive Obedience But because some Men have moved another Question Who shall be Judg when there is an Insurrection Rebellion or Invasion and consequently whether there be occasion or not according to Law to imploy the Militia and to draw them forth into Actual Service it is fit to say something to it To which I answer That the Law has judged already and determined the matter to our hands and all English-Men know as well as if they had the Opinion of all the Judges that going peaceably to Market or to their Parish-Church is neither Insurrection Rebellion nor Invasion But I have long since observed that those who would inslave Men either under an implicit Faith or a blind Obedience are very pert in putting such Questions The Scripture is the Rule of Faith but who shall be Iudge of the sense of it And when you have once allowed them that point of an Absolute Judg then presently an Apple shall be an Oyster Bread shall be Flesh and Blood and Bones Pig shall be Pike and a Dog shall be a Catawimple Now I humbly conceive there is no need at all of constituting a Judg to resolve that the Barbar's Bason is not Mambrino's Helmet when none but a Madman who is bent upon seeking Adventures and is ready to pick Quarrels with all Mankind will say it is As to the third Act concerning the Militia 15 Car. 2. c. 4. I shall only take notice of one Clause of Indemnity in these Words And it is further declared and enacted That all and every Person and Persons which since the five and twentieth day of March one thousand six hundred sixty and two have acted or done any thing in the dismantling of any Cities or Towns or demolishing of Walls and Fortifications thereof or relating thereunto shall be and are hereby indempnified and saved harmless Now this was long after the Militia had been declared to be in the King yet these Persons having exceeded their Legal Powers stood in need of an Indemnity by Act of Parliament which had bin vain if the King's Command or their own Commission would have justified them and born them out in it I come now in the 2 d place to produce some Reasons to prove the Lawfulness of defending our selves against Illegal Violence which is a Truth so obvious and so agreeable to the common sense of Mankind that even those Men who set themselves to oppose it do oftentimes assert it unawares and give unanswerable Reasons for it I shall therefore first set down those Concessions which the Force of Truth has extorted from this Author and 2 dly add some other Arguments to them 1 st No Man wants Authority to defend his Life against him who has no Authority to take it away p. 69. But no Man whatsoever has any just and legal Authority that is any Authority at all to take it away contrary to Law. p. 190 191. And from these premises it is easy for any Man to infer the Conclusion 2dly He that resists the Vsurpations of Men does not resist the Ordinance of God which alone is forbidden to be resisted But Acts of Arbitrary and Illegal Violence are the Vsurpations of Men. Therefore c. These again are our Author's Doctrines the former p. 128. l. 15. the other p. 211. l. 11. as likewise 212. l. 22. he acknowledges that the assuming of an Absolute and Arbitrary power in this Kingdom would be Vsurpation tho he says at the same time that no Prince in this Kingdom ever usurped such a Power which is notoriously false for Richard the 2 d by name did not to mention any other 3 dly A 3 d Argument which this Author furnishes us withall is this p. 164 165. The Reason why we must submit to Governours or Subordinate Magistrates is because they are sent by our Prince and act by his Authority and we must never submit to them in opposition to our Prince Now nothing is better known in this Kingdom than that those who commit Illegal Violence do not act by the Princes Authority for as our Author says p. 190. he himself has no just nor legal Authority to act against Law and therefore we need not submit to them in such Acts. Nay farther according to this Author we must never submit to them in this Case because they are in opposition to our Prince for they act against the Peace of our Soveraign Lord the King his Crown and Dignity as the Law has evermore interpreted such Acts. 4 thly Our Author p. 126. has these Word Every Man has the Right of Self-Preservation as intire under Civil Government as he had in a state of Nature Vnder what Government soever I live I may still kill another Man when I have no other way to preserve my Life from unjust Violence by private Hands Now the Hands of subordinate Magistrates imployed in acts of Illegal Violence are private Hands and armed with no manner of Authority at all of which this is a most convincing Proof That they may be hanged by Law for such Acts which no Man can or ought to suffer for what he does by Authority They are no Officers at all in such Acts for Illegal Violence is no part of their Office. This is sufficient to shew that this Author holds so much Truth as would have led him to his own Conviction if he had but attended to the immediate consequences of it instead of blending it with a great many Falshoods and after he has answered his own Arguments I shall desire him to do as much for these which follow 1. No Man can authorize himself But in acts of Illegal Violence if a subordinate Magistrate have any Authority at all he must authorize himself For it is a Contradiction to say the Law authorizes him to do an Illegal Act as our Author well observes p. 195. and it is as false to say that the King who can do no wrong can authorize another to do it In the great Conference of the Lords and Commons 3 o Caroli concerning the Contents of the Petion of Right the Law was held to be That if the King command a Man to do Injury to another the Command is void Actor fit Author and the Actor becomes the Wrong-doer That is he acts of his own Head and authorizes himself 2 dly The Illegal Violence of Subordinate Magistrates cannot be more Irresistible only by being more Criminal than it is in other Men for that would be to make a Man's Crime to be his Protection But Illegal Violence done by subordinate Magistrates is not only as inauthoritative as if it were commited by private persons but likewise more criminal as being done with a face and colour of Authority and under pretence of Law making that partaker of their Crime violating and blemishing the Law at once I might multiply such Arguments but if this Author will please to give a full and clear Answer to these only I here promise to be of his Opinion FINIS Pag. 196 197 c. Pag. 196. Page 54 55 c. Pag. 193 194 195. Page 192. Page 191. P. 200. â—age 202. Page 205 206. Page 212. Pag. 32. Pag. 41. Pag. 61. Page 79. Ephemeris Parliam