Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A42674
|
An impartial disquisition, how far conquest gives the conqueror a title
|
Ghest, Edmund.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing G634; ESTC R28401
|
11,429
|
9
|
sure to choose the worst since there are more fools and knaves than wise and virtuous or if they will be ruled by a Senate and for fear of one Tyrant whom death will end submit to four hundred that for one head lopt off will supply two and make slavery immortal or if they do see Monarchy the best and yet will mix it with some trick of their own to spoil it as by making it elective c. tho' these forms of popular contrivance be but degenerations of that paternal power in one which is always chosen when God chooses for us as best suiting with his universal Monarchy yet when the choice is left to the people 't is valid as well as that which a foolish woman makes of a bad husband Thus much of the means of acquiring supreme power now how far the people's submission can operate towards the making the Conqueror's title good 1. While they have a King of God's providing by paternal right they have nothing to do either to confer or transfer that right 2. Tho' when the people have chosen a popular government and are lawfully setled under it their submission perhaps to the Conqueror may transfer a right because then they are in two capacities being both Sovereigns and Subjects so that their submission includes the consent of all that are interessed yet in other forms of Government where the people are meer subjects the supreme power is not theirs to give they cannot give away what is another man's much less what is God's and by his immediate gift confer'd on the lawful King. 3. When people are destitute of a Government and choose one the King chosen holds not his power from them but immediately from God their choice 1. proves not that the King derives his power from them the wife chooses her husband and the Parish the Constable yet the first hath his power from God the other from the King and therefore the power not being derived from the people they cannot resume or transpose it any more than the wife c. 2. The people's choice hinders not the King 's receiving his power immediately from God tho' their choice be an instrumental act by means whereof God's power is conveyed to the King's person which is chosen yet it argues not that God first invests the people with the supreme power and seats it inseparably in them and that then they derive it to the King in subordination to themselves as the King doth to an inferior Magistrate only when they want a Father by Inheritance they choose and make an Adoptive one who derives not his power from them but immediately from God by that Law of Nature which gives the father power over his children Obj. But how is this immediately from the Law of Nature when there comes a voluntary act of man between Ans That voluntary Act of the people is not done by virtue of any supreme power seated in the people but by allowance of the Law of Nature which as other laws contains in it concessions as well as precepts 1. It teacheth that power to rule is necssary for the preserving of mankind which cannot subsist but in society nor that without order and government 2. It allows us to provide necessaries by any means that may be used without impiety against God or injury to man and therefore to appoint themselves a King when they are destitute 3. It commands them to be subject to the King thus chosen so that from first to last this power is founded immediately on the law of Nature now not only this but almost all the laws of Nature suppose a voluntary act of men to constitute the matter of their precepts and prohibitions yet bind meerly by their own force Prayer oaths dedications of holy things all external acts of religion suppose acts of men to give words their signification to administer and take the oaths to dedicate the holy things but yet the precepts commanding the duties and forbidding the abuse bind immediately without any help from humane authority So theft supposeth propriety of goods adultery supposeth marriage c. but yet the commandments that prohibit those sins bind expresly by virtue of the Divine authority CHAP. VI. Qu. WHither Kings c. can deprive themselves of supreme power or give it from the right heirs Ans Here three questions arise one touching resignation whither a King can give up his power and two concerning succession whither a King can invert the natural order and disinherit his lawful heir and whither he can give a stranger right to succeed by adopting him In deciding these three questions there is great diversity both of precedents humane laws but 't is not material since only divine laws can regulate such translations If God hath given Kings power to dispose of their Kingdoms at pleasure they have no Superior upon earth that can take it from them if not they can neither create it themselves for there is no power but by the gift of a Superior Joh. 19. 11. much less can their subjects being inferiors give it them Therefore for the resolution of this question distinguish 1. Between the effect such an act of a King may have upon himself or upon others for tho' he may devest himself of his Regalities it follows not that he can deprive his heir of his title or give it away to another 2. As to his devesting himself distinguish between the lawfulness of the act and the validity of it it may be Fieri non debuit factum valet what ought not in justice to have been done is notwithstanding valid when 't is done Esau lost his birth-right by selling it yet sinn'd in doing it sc by undervaluing the power which God had given him and whatever damage did hereby accrue to Esau's posterity was from God's immediate designation not from any power in Esau 3. Distinguish of Kings those whose Progeny was in their lifetime multiplied into a Nation could not devest themselvs because they could not cease to be Fathers of their children who by the law of Nature are subject to them but an hereditary King may relinquish his title as well as any other Inheritance Psal 106. 40. He abhorred his own Inheritance Jer. 12. 7. I have forsaken mine house I have left mine heritage Shepherds of men may break their staves and cast off their flocks Zech. 11. 10 11. But notwithstanding all this an hereditary King cannot deprive his Heir if he have one nor hinder the peoples choice if he have no Heir 1. He cannot devest his Heir for God designs him by making him first-born or next of blood nor can the father alter his inheritance any more than his primogeniture the King is but God's servant and so cannot make void his Lord's choice by God's Law the rights of primogeniture are the first-born's Deut. 21. 15 16 17. nor can they be taken from him while he lives even if he deserves to be deprived it must be a
compared to Lyons that tear in pieces and fill their holes with prey and their dens with rapine and behold saith the Lord of Hosts I am against you my sword shall devour the lyons and I will cut off the prey from the earth 'T is therefore also that the Chaldeans who possess the dwelling places that are not theirs that keep not at home that enlarge their desires as Hell and as death and cannot be satisfied that gather to them all nations and heap to them all people have heavy judgments denounced against them Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his how long c. See also Jerem. 51. 35 36. Ezek. 35. 10 11. chap. 36. 5. Amos 1. 13. in all which places sore punishments are denounc'd against Usurpers and it were absurd to say that the divine Justice would punish any for useing that which is the direct and immediate way to get a good Title CHAP. III. Conquest proves not a right by God's donation immediate Some men pretend that God by the Event of the War giving victory gives right withal to the Conqueror and for this they have two Colours The first Argument is deduc'd from Reason Providence governs all therefore this victory and so 't is God's Will. To which I Answer It seems the Alcoran hath not been English'd for nothing with the Mahometans indeed all is their own fish that comes into the net but if every attempt crowned with success proves that God gives a right then he who destroys the true Religion and sets up a false he who kills ravishes robs hath right on his side 't is par casus unless they shew that Event shewes God's Will in one thing more than another which it does not since all comes alike to pass by God's Providence Should it be objected that this Assertion must be restrain'd to Kingdoms because War between those who have no superiour on earth to judge them is an appeal to God to determine the right I Answer 1. Then this extends not to Subjects who have a King to judge them 2. If it be meant of all those who acknowledge or pretend to have no Superiours then all wicked men may make use of it since 't is but to pretend and then appeal to God and if they prevail God it seems gave them leave 3. 'T is to throw God's Law the rule of right and wrong behind us and to tempt him to give a particular sentence against Matth. 4. 7. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 4. How knows the Objector that every King who fights for his own makes such an ungodly appeal 5. Suppose both parties are so presumptuous how knows he that God is bound to listen to every presumptuous Appellant and give judgment at his beck the Truth is Event shews no more but that God permits it because he can work good out of it and fulfil his own wise and just tho' hidden counsel but to say he approves whatever he permits is blasphemy 2. The second colour is from Scripture Dan. 4. 17 25 32. The most high ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will. To this I Answer 1. If you mean this of God's gift of right to rule 't is not said he giveth it to every one who is in possession but to whom he pleaseth 2. If you mean it of possession and so it is to be understood as it appears from vers 25. and the whole Context it follows not God gives possession to whom he will therefore he gives right whenever he gives possession the scope of all was to cure Nebuchadnezzar's pride and to shew him that whosoever possesseth a Kingdom doth it by a Providence which can dispossess him Indeed no one possesses a Kingdom without some gift from God but 't is often only permissive it creates no right Thus Saul in the Cave was by God delivered into David's hand and Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel of God had David hereby a right to kill Saul or the Jews a right to kill Christ Nay tho' Nebuchadnezzar was out of possession Dan. 4. 25. They shall drive thee from among men Yet still 't is his Kingdom and his Counsellors and his Lords ver 26. 36. His right it seems remained CHAP. IV. COnquest in a just war gives no just title A just War is that which is made by a Soveraign Prince for a just cause while both conditions are wanting in our Case but suppose they were not if such a Conquest gives title 't is 1. either by extraordinary Donation and that none I think can now pretend to Or 2. By the Law of Nations But 1. that Law according to those who alledge it gives only an external shew of Justice true internal justice obliging at the same time to restitution of which restitution See Grotius proving it to be the opinion of Jews and Mahometans as well as Christians and that the Holy Scripture Isai 58. 6. averrs that those mens fasts are not acceptable to God qui non jure captos detinebant who do not let the oppressed go free and who Jon. 3. 8. do not turn from the violence that is in their hands 2. Shew us this Law of Nations where is it or how is it morally possible that all Nations should meet to give it if you interpret common practise to be the consent of all I presume the dispossessed do not consent and the rest are either gainers or unconcerned 3. The Law of Nature gives not this right for then it must be either by way of reparation of the wrong or punishment of the fault the first allows no more then an equal recompence for the injury and leaves the rest to the enemy still the second supposes Authority for who hath power to punish must have power to examine and to judge the merits of the cause but a Superiour to the Supreme implies a contradiction Par in parem non habet imperium equals have no authority one over another who art thou that judgest another man's servant what have I to do to judge them that are without are most sure maxims of the Law of Nature 4. The Law of Scripture gives no such right Deut. 20. 10 15. There is a rule given how the Israelites were to deal with all Nations except the seven which were given up to utter ruine and the case is double if they will treat take Tribute of them if they will fight it out and you Conquer take the Spoil but in neither case a title to the Government Tribute may be given and service may be done by one King to another as appears from Gen. 14. 4 8 9. 2 Sam. 10. 19. 2 Kings 3. 4. ch 18. 7 14. and yet those who pay the Tribute and do the service be Kings still as appears by the above-cited places so then the Conqueror may exact tribute sufficient to make amendment for the injury but whatever be meant by