Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	liberty_n	papist_n	protestant_n	1,212	5	9.6046	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58387	Reflections upon the opinions of some modern divines conerning the nature of government in general, and that of England in particular with an appendix relating to this matter, containing I. the seventy fifth canon of the Council of Toledo II. the original articles in Latin, out of which the Magna charta of King John was framed III. the true Magna charta of King John in French ... / all three Englished.	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.; Catholic Church. Council of Toledo (4th : 633). Canones. Number 75. English & Latin.	1689 (1689)	Wing R733; ESTC R8280	117,111	184

a Law cannot be valid nor derogate from other Laws except in the said Law express mention be made of the said Derogation with a Notwithstanding to the Reglements set down in other Laws that are in Authority on that Subject De Decimis c. nuper Ought not they also in like manner to have declared and that very precisely too that they dispensed Charles II from keeping his Coronation-Oath and to have set down in very distinct terms that in case the King should think fit to call in an Army of French Dragoons to ravish their Wives and Daughters and to force all his Subjects to change their Religion they do not think it lawful to take up Arms against him or them for to repel their Violence 6ly They are to take notice that Charles II did never conceive that those Acts had changed the Government of the State. Do we not know that he offered to the Parliaments of Westminster and Oxford to impose such Conditions on the D. of York as the Parliament should judg necessary provided only the Succession might be assured to him now could any thing be more ridiculous and extravagant than this Proposition of the King had he believed that the Acts already past in his Favour had given him and his Successors a Right to overturn all without being able to be challenged or opposed by any one for so doing They themselves did suppose the same thing and went upon that Ground what else could be their meaning in Crowning James II if they supposed that he was in full and rightful Possession of the Government by virtue of the Succession without being obliged to take the Oaths by which the Kings of England oblige themselves to keep the Laws of the State. 7ly They ought to take notice that they themselves supposed that the Fundamental Laws of the State were not abolished I don't speak here of those loud Murmurs that were heard every where when James II by an Act of his Council of his own Authority raised the same Sums which had been granted to Charles II which he could not do without the Authority of Parliament nor of the Complaints that were generally made when he turned out my Lord Clarendon from being Lord Deputy of Ireland banish'd several Protestant Lords out of his Council and put Papists into all Offices whether Civil or Military I only take notice here of the Petition presented in the Name of the Clergy by the seven Bishops upon occasion of reading the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience for had they been of another opinion with what pretence of reason could they have complained of James II governing with an Arbitrary Power and his dispensing with the Laws Why in their Petition did they alledg those Acts of Parliament which had condemn'd that Power in 1673 when Charles II published his Proclamation for Liberty of Conscience These Acts of theirs upon this Supposal could not be accounted of otherwise than as Acts of Rebellion nor could they be made use of with a good Conscience after they had been convinc'd that the Fundamental Laws being repealed and abolished they were now subject to an arbitrary and unbounded Government Indeed we cannot enough commend the Constancy of the Clergy and those worthy Prelates who refused to read the Declaration of James II for Liberty of Conscience that Declaration being grounded upon the Power he attributed to himself of dispensing with the Laws But on the other Hand neither can we imagine any more convincing Proof to make out that at that Time they did not conceive any more than the whole State who so generally applauded them that they themselves as well as the whole State had cast themselves headlong into Slavery by their Oaths because the Power of the Kings of England was become unbounded and Arbitrary In a Word how ample an extent soever these Gentlemen may give to the Oath they have taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament in the 13 Year of Charles II they must remember one Thing which is always supposed which is the natural Condition of all Oaths rebus sic stantibus c. ad naturam Things continuing in the same State for indeed as soon as things have changed their Nature or that Circumstances are altered there remains no more Obligation in Cases where exceptions are naturally supposed I am bound to Obey my Father in all Things this being what the Scripture expresly teacheth me but I am not bound to Obey him any farther than he Acts like a Father neither am I oblig'd to keep this Command of obeying him in all Things but only so far as the Things enjoyned by him are just and lawful I am bound to obey the King according to the Laws neither may I lawfully resist Him in his executing of the Laws or upon any pretext whatsoever take up Arms against him but if in stead of governing according to Law he useth his utmost Endeavours to overthrow the Society by destroying the Laws which are the Band of it then all the Oaths I have taken are no longer of any Force 't is my Right to Endeavour to preserve the Society which he goes about to overthrow and to oppose his Violence by taking up Arms against him and to put a stop to the unjust Proceedings of a Prince who declares himself an Enemy to the State by the ways which providence affords me for my Security But if after all these Considerations these Gentlemen will still maintain that they have taken these Oaths in so strait a Sense that nothing is capable of satisfying their Consciences we have great Reason to be Astonished how it was possible that Men of so Tender and Delicate a Conscience could take such Oaths which taken in their Sense do visibly overturn both the State and Religion Indeed there is no need of any ones being a Prophet to make him conceive that they were rather obliged in Conscience to refuse the taking of such Oaths and to fly to the End of the World rather than take them than they are bound to keep them with the hazard of the utter Ruin of their Native Country and their Religion or see them Perish without having any Power to Defend them as they are obliged by the Laws of nature and by all the Duties of the Society and Religion It has already been made out by several Writings that God seeming to spare and wink at the weakness of those who believ'd themselves thus fast bound and tied by their Oaths and destin'd to become Victimes to Popery and Tyranny has been pleas'd happily to deliver them from the trouble wherein they had involed themselves in sending them a Deliverer whose Rights in a War which James II. unjustly wageth against him are above all those Difficulties which seem to be matter of Scruple to them so that it is not needful for me to insist any longer on this Matter CHAP. XVIII A Reflection on some Remarks made out in this Treatise I Am perswaded that every equal Reader cannot but

otherwise than by Patience when they are convinced in Conscience of the Injustice of the Laws and Commands enjoyned 'T is an easie matter to overthrow the First of these Suppositions First I would fain know who has given these Gentlemen the Power of determining as they do what is Essential to Sovereignty Do they derive these their Notions from Revelation or from Reason which is common to all Men If they say they derive the definition they give us of Sovereignty from Revelation they will do well to point us to the places of Scripture where this Notion is set down If they draw it from Reason then I cannot but wonder that so many Statesmen and Writers of Civil Matters have fail'd of stumbling on the same Notion and it seems to me an inextricable thing that so many Nations should agree to reject what they approve and to approve what they reject To say here That they draw this definition from the Idea of Sovereignty which loseth its nature when divested of these Characters shews they are willing either to abuse themselves or others by a pitiful Equivocation The word Sovereign imports a relation to Inferiors and as the relation has a certain foundation so it is likewise evident that it hath its bounds set proportionable to its foundation Where there is no Authority neither is there any foundation for Obedience Now there is no Authority but in proportion to the Laws which establish the Authority wherefore it incontestably follows There can be no Authority where the Law is so far from allowing any that it opposes it It will never cease to be true That the Authority is Sovereign though it be not so in all respects The Consuls of Rome were Sovereign Magistrates though the People had Power to oppose themselves against their Authority when they abused the Power they were intrusted with for the good of the Commonwealth In France they give their Parliaments the Name of Sovereign Courts though their Sentence be not always irrevocable The Second Supposition is only founded upon this Notion That Conquerors having invaded the Liberty and Privileges of the People were afterwards so kind to restore some part thereof to them again by their Concessions but that these Acts of Grace do not at all divest them of the Right of Acting whenever it shall please them as if their Power was altogether Unlimited and Arbitrary This Notion is much the same with that of the Partisans of the Court of Rome who maintain That the Liberties of the Gallican Church are only Acts of Grace and Favour granted to that Church whereas the French pretend That they are common Rights and Franchises which their Ancestors have constantly maintained according to what P. Pithou declares concerning them But indeed to speak truly this Supposition cannot be admitted with respect to conquered States at least for the most part Ordinarily a Conquest is made upon the Power that governs the State so that the State only changes its Master the fundamental Laws of the Land receiving no Alteration from this Change. Of this we have an Instance in England when King William conquered it who at his Coronation sware to keep the Laws of St. Edward and his Successors were fain to swear the same Now one of these Laws c. 15. T. 1. Spelm. p. 622. imports That a Prince that abuseth the Power he is intrusted with does lose the Title of King From whence it follows That his Subjects need not own or obey him and that consequently it is lawful to resist him To maintain That a King whose Power is limited by the fundamental Laws of a State and which he is invested with upon that condition when at his Coronation he swears to the People is indeed obliged to keep the said Oath for fear of God but that he is not at all engaged by this his Oath to the People is rather a piece of Raillery than Reasoning What Does not the Oath the People swear to the King oblige them in Allegiance to him and how can we then suppose that the reciprocal Oath of the King should not as well oblige him to his People Surely if we well weigh the case 't is impossible but we must discern a palpable falsity in this Opinion of Passive Obedience in the way these Gentlemen propose it First They grant a Right unto Sovereignty which is diametrically opposite to the end of Sovereignty according to the Divine Destination For the good of the Society and its Subsistence was God's End in insticuting of the Sovereign Power whereas by their Hypothesis the Sovereignty may become an instrument of the utter ruin of the Society whensoever it shall please the Sovereign his Subjects in the mean time having no means to attain the said End or being in any condition to hinder their being deprived of it Secondly They suppose That God in allowing a lawful Right to Sovereigns has subjected the People to a necessity of groaning under an Illegal Right and which God has never bestowed upon them and for the Usurpation of which he will condemn those who do arrogate the same to themselves which is much to the same purpose as if I should say That because God has established Judges he has thereby obliged the People to suffer Robbery when the Judges shall think fit to turn Robbers Thirdly They make the condition of a Civil Society more unhappy than was the condition of Families in the state of Nature before Societies were formed For the liberty of defending one's self is permitted to every one by Nature but after the Society is once formed it would follow That the whole Society would be obliged by a Principle of Conscience to suffer their Throats to be cut by a Prince of the humour of a Nero or a Caligula Fourthly They turn to meer Chymera's and Visions whatsoever the wisdom of Men have been able to find out to make States happy by securing them against Tyranny I speak of Laws and Oaths the Laws are the bands and cement of the Society and the foundation as well as the measure of the Obedience we owe to Princes The Oaths are the Seal of the Contract by which the Subjects are obliged to obey them upon condition that they govern according to Law. But all this is to no purpose and is of no use to the People as soon as the Tyrant thinks fit to overturn the Laws and to m●ke a Scoff at his Oaths Forasmuch as the Third Supposition viz. That the Scripture maintains Non-resistance with regard to Sovereigns whether they act according to or against Law is of greater importance it will be convenient to examine the same more heedfully and the rather because Men of Abilities and Learning have endeavoured strongly to assert it and to make it pass current with others and that with all their might CHAP. VII That the Scripture doth not assert the point of Non-resistance FOrasmuch as the Doctrine of Non-resistance directly thwarts a natural Principle to wit that of our