Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

SECT. III.

What is to be done in such a contention ?

Ir it be demanded, then, how this cause can be decided? And which way must the people turn in such a contention? I answer, if the non-decision be tolerable, it must remain undecided, whilst the principle of legal decision is thus divided, and by that division each suspends the other's power. If it be such as is destructive, and necessitates a determination, this must be evident; and then every person must aid that part, which, in his best reason and judgment, stands for publick good against the destructive. And the laws and government which he stands for, and is sworn to, justify and bear him out in it, yea bind him to it. If any wonder I should justify a power in the two houses, to resist and command aid against any agents of destructive commands of the king, and yet not allow them power of judging when those agents or commands are destructive: I answer, I do not simply deny them a power of judging and declaring this; but I deny them to be a legal court ordained to judge of this case authoritatively, so as to bind all people to receive and rest in their judgment for conscience of its authority, and because they have voted it. It is the evidence, not the power of their votes, must bind our reason and practice in this case. We ought to conceive their votes the discoveries made by the best eyes of the kingdom, and which, in likelihood, should see most: But, when they vote a thing against the proceedings of the third and supreme estate, our consciences must have evidence of truth to guide them, and not the sole authority of votes, and that for the reason so often alledged.

REASONS FOR CROWNING

THE

PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF ORANGE,

KING AND QUEEN JOINTLY,

[ocr errors]

And for placing the Executive Power in the Prince alone. London, printed in the Year 1689. Folio, containing one page.

WHEREAS the grand convention of the Estates of England, have

asserted the people's rights, by declaring, 'That the late King James the Second, having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out

out of this kingdom, has abdicated the government; and that the 'throne is thereby vacant.' For which misgovernment, he has forfeited the trust of the regal inheritance of the executive power, both in himself, and in his heirs, lineal and collateral; so that the same is devolved back to the people, who have also the legislative authority, and consequently may of right give, and dispose thereof, by their representatives, for their future peace, benefit, security, and government, according to their good-will and pleasure. And, forasmuch as it is absolutely necessary at all times, but in this dangerous conjuncture especially, that the government be speedily settled on sure and lasting foundations; and consequently that such person or persons be immediately placed in the throne, in whom the nation has most reason to repose an intire confidence; it, therefore, now lies upon us to make so judicious a choice, that we may, in all human probability, thereby render ourselves a happy people, and give our posterity cause to rejoice, when they read the proceedings of this wise and grand convention. Who is it, therefore, that has so highly merited the love and good opinion of the people, the honour of wearing the crown, and swaying the scepter of this land, as his illustrious Highness the Prince of Orange? Who, with so great expence, hazard, conduct, courage, and generosity, has happily rescued us from popery and slavery, and, with so much gallantry, restored us to our ancient rights, religion, laws, liberties, and properties; for which heroick action, we can do no less, in prudence, honour, and gratitude, than pray him to accept our crown.

II. It is better to settle the exercise of the government in one who is not immediate in the line, than in one that is. 1. Because it is a clear asserting of a fundamental right, that manifests the constitution of the English government, and covers the subjects from tyranny and slavery. 2. It cuts off the dispute of the pretended Prince of Wales. 3. The old succession being legally dissolved, and a new one made, the government is secured from falling into the hands of a Papist.

III. The making the Prince and Princess of Orange, king and queen jointly, is the nation's gratitude and generosity; and, by recontinuing the line in remainder, is manifested the inestimable value the people have for the two princesses, notwithstanding the maleadministration of their unhappy father.

IV. The present state of Europe in general, and of these kingdoms in particular, requires a vigorous and masculine administration. To recover what is lost, rescue what is in danger, and rectify what is amiss, cannot be effected, but by a prince that is consummate in the arts both of peace and war. Though the prince and princess be king and queen jointly, and will equally share the glory of a crown, and we the happiness of their auspicious reign; yet the wisdom of the grand convention is manifested, First, In placing the executive power in one of them, and not in both; for two persons equal in authority, may differ in opinion, and consequently in command; and it is evident, no man can serve two masters. Secondly, It is highly necessary and prudent, rather to vest the ad

ministration in the husband, than in the wife. 1. Because a man, by nature, education, and experience, is generally rendered more capable to govern, than the woman; therefore, 2. The husband ought rather to rule the wife, than the wife the husband, especially considering the vow in matrimony. 3. The Prince of Orange is not more proper to govern, as he is man and husband only, but as he is a man, a husband, and a prince of known honour, profound wisdom, undaunted courage, and incomparable merit; as he is a person that is natnrally inclined to be just, merciful, and peaceable, and to do all publick acts of generosity for the advancement of the interest and happiness of human societies, and therefore most fit, under heaven, to have the sole executive power.

THE

DOCTRINE OF PASSIVE OBEDIENCE,
AND JURE DIVINO, DISPROVED,

AND

OBEDIENCE TO THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT PROVED, FROM SCRIPTURE, LAW, AND REASON.

Written for the satisfaction of all who are dissatisfied at the present Government,

BY A LAYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

London, printed for Randal Taylor, near Stationers-Hall, 1689. Folio, containing two pages.

GOD by no word binds any people to this, or that form of govern

ment, till they by their own act bind themselves.

None ought to advance the greatness of his sovereign, with the publick detriment.

The end of magistracy is the good of the whole body, head and members conjunctly; but, if we speak divisim, then the good of the society is the ultimate end; and, next to that, as conducent to that, the governor's greatness and prerogative.

The measure of our government is acknowledged to be by law; and therefore the king cannot confer authority to any beyond law; so that those agents, deriving no authority from him, are mere instruments of his will, unauthorised persons, in their assaults, robbers.

King Charles the First's declaration at Newmarket, 1641, says, that the law is the measure of his power.

There is no absolute authority, where there is no absolute sub. jection due; and there can be no absolute subjection due where there is no absolute authority. No man wants authority to defend his life against him, who has no authority to take it away; but no man whatsoever has any just authority, that is, any authority at all, to take it away contrary to law.

He, that resists the usurpations 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 usurpations of men, therefore may be resisted.

We are bound not to part with our lives, but to defend them; unless, when the laws of God, or our country, require us to lay them down.

Voluntary slavery is a sin against the law of nature, which no man, in his right mind, can be guilty of.

Self-defence never did any mischief in this world, and it is im. possible, that one man's righting himself can do another man wrong; the mischief, that happens in that case, is wholly to be charged upon those, that invade men's lives and liberties, and thereby put them upon a necessity of defending them.

Every man has the right of self-preservation as intire under civil government, as he had in a state of nature. Under 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, employed 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; for illegal violence is no part of their office.

What can be more contrary to reason, and the government of the world, yea, to the goodness and wisdom of Almighty God, than that some thousands, or millions of people, should be so subjected to the power of one man, of the same infirmities with themselves; and, in case he should command all their throats to be cut, they are obliged under the pain of no less than damnation, by a thing called passive obedience, to submit their necks tamely to the blow!

Kings were made to govern and protect the people, not to destroy them; but I never heard that the people were made for kings.

Ah, but some do object, the corporation oath binds us to be passive, the design whereof I shall here inquire into, viz. This oath was made quickly after the restoration of King Charles the Second, from an unnatural rebellion; and a Popish king was not then thought of, King Charles the Second being as likely or likelier to live, than the late King James. And can it be thought this oath was made with any other design, than to prevent the like rebellion, for the future; that, as soon as we were delivered from one unreasonable tyranny and oppression, we should run ourselves wilfully into another? Which is in effect, if this oath is to be taken in the strictest sense, or, at least, standing to the mercy of the prince, whether he will be so or no; can any man be so ridiculous as to think, the legislators

should cry unto the Lord, therefore they had no other means to help them but cries to God; though, I confess, in that monarchy they had not. That speech, 1 Sam. xxvi. 9, was most true there, and is as true here, but not to the purpose, being spoken of the king's own person. But the main authority, brought against resistance, is that, Rom. xiii. and on that Dr. Fern builds his whole discourse. Let us therefore something more largely consider what is deduced out of that text: First, he supposes the king to be the supreme in St. Peter, and the higher power in St. Paul. Secondly, He collects all persons, every soul is forbidden to resist. Thirdly, That then was a standing senate, which, not long before, had the supreme power in the Roman state, it is confessed; but that they could challenge more at that time when St. Paul writ, than our great council will or can, I deny; for, that state devolving into monarchy by conquest, they were brought under an absolute monarchy, the senate itself swearing full subjection to the prince; his edicts and acts of will were laws, and the senate's consent only pro forma, and at pleasure required. He who reads Tacitus, cannot but see the senate brought to a con. dition of basest servitude, and all laws and lives depending on the will of the prince: I wonder then the doctor should make such a parallel. Indeed, the senate had been far more than ever our par. liaments were, or ought to be; but now, that was far less than our parliament hath been, or, I hope, ever will be: They were become the sworn vassals of an absolute emperor; ours, the sworn subjects of a liege or legal prince. Fourthly, he says, Then was more cause of resistance, when kings were enemies to religion, and had over, thrown laws and liberties. I answer, there were no causes for resistance; not their enmity to religion, had they but a legal power, because religion then was no part of the laws, and so its violation was no subversion of established government. And, for the over. throw of laws and liberties, that was past and done, and the govern ment new, the senate and all the rest actually sworn to absolute principality. Now an ordinance of absolute monarchy was con stituted, the sacred bond of an oath had made it inviolate. But what would he infer hence, all being granted him? Sure this he doth intend, that every soul amongst us, several, and conjoined in a senate, must be subject for conscience, must not resist, under pain of damnation. All this, and whatever besides he can justly infer out of this text, we readily grant, But can any living man hence collect, that therefore no resistance may be made to fellow-subjects, executing destructive illegal acts of the prince's will in a legal monarchy? Will he affirm that the ordinance of God is resisted, and damnation incurred thereby? God's ordinance is the power, and the person invested with that power; but here, force is offered to neither, as before I have made it appear. And herein we have Bishop Bilson consenting, where he says, * that the superior power, here forbidden to be resisted, is not the prince's will against his laws, but agreeing with his laws. I think the day itself is not more clear than this satisfaction, to all

Bilson of Subjection, p. 94, and 280.

« AnteriorContinuar »