Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A40719
|
A review of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully declare and subscribe as by the late act of uniformity is required? : in reply to a book entitled A short surveigh of the grand case, &c. : wherein all their objections against both the declarations are considered and answered / by the same hand.
|
Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing F2514; ESTC R20121
|
61,527
|
240
|
Case you only return a discovery of three Principles which you affirm I take for granted though they are denied by my Adversaries 1. That the Long Parliament is dissolv'd 2. That the Covenant is only private and personal 3. That each single person is concluded by my subsequent Arguments These you call ungranted Principles but if they may not be granted though they are Principles I shall endeavour that they may be proved though I hope very few of the people of England need satisfaction in such points as these SECT 1. Of the dissolution of the long Parliament 1. TOuching the Dissolution of the Long Parliament I could not dream that so ingenuous persons had any scruple I would fain hope that you want a Refuge when I find you in so bad a Sanctuary 2. Yet when I read your words so warily conditioned in this great particular I find some small encouragement to think that though you now stumble at this stone if every other stone were removed you would stumble over it You say it hath been said you dare not say it and in obedience to present laws you are submissively silent 3. Are you indeed Obedient to what to the present Lawes Who made them the Parliament How comes this to be a Parliament if the Long Parliament be not dissolv'd 4. If the Long Parliament be yet in being the Present is none their Laws are none your Obedience is none if you acknowledge the present Laws you acknowledge the present Parliament and thereby you are over the stone of stumbling before you are aware for you acknowledge the Long Parliament dissolv'd 5. Now there are but two ungranted principles for one you have granted upon a better Argument then I had thought of your own Obedience to the present Laws 6. Truly I took you to be so ingenuous before hand and therefore I presumed to take this for granted and thought I might do it without offence For it is not only the ground of Obedience to the present Laws but the Foundation of our Peace our Liberty our Pardon our Lives and indeed of all we are worth in this world and such a stone not of stumbling but of the Comer that it is hardly safe to touch it though with an intent to fasten it But blessed be God it is fast enough already in our constitution and I hope not much loosned in your opinions 7. Yet if you are in doubt of what disease that great body died I refer you to Judge Jenkins and Mr. Prin who though in other things they differed too much agree very well in this great point 8. Indeed the Name Parliamâ—â—t which signifies to consult and treat together with the Writ whereby the two Houses are Assembled are a full Demonstration of its departure or dissolution long agon They are thereby called to consult and treat with the King therein it signified that Rex est habiturus Colloquium Tractatum cum praelatis magnatibus proceribus Rex in hoc individuo 9. Hence Judge Jinkins argues that the Parliament dissolved upon the Kings being forced from them and put into an incapacity of Treating with them however at his death they died on course 10. The King dying with whom they are to Treat and for which end they have their being the end of their assembling and consequently of their being is gon with him and they are no longer a Parliament A Parliament is a Relative term the Relate and Correlate die together Therefore the King in our Laws is Principium Caput finis Parliamenti 11. It may be said the Act secured them against the Kings death 12. 'T is plainly otherwise indeed it secured themselves from any violence to be done to that end by the King himseâ—f there is no such clause in the Act that they should not be capable of dissolving any other way much less in particular by the Kings death no security to save the Body when the Head was off 13. But a Parliament may be dissolved or dissolve die or be kill'd the Act secured them from being dissolved by the Kings power without their Consent not against the law of Mortality or their dissolving on course at his decease 14. This is very evident in ull Parliaments if the Kings favour shall continue a Parliament his whole time that Parliament hath all that the long Parliament desired or obtained by the Act specified yet upon the Kings death such a Parliament dissolves according to the nature of the thing and the constitution of the Nation 15. Who can be so fond as to imagine that it was ever intended either by the King or both Houses especially if the Reasons be weighed with which this Act was prosecuted that the constitution of the Nation or the nature of a Parliament should be altered by it or more then that the King should not dissolve them by violence that is without their own consent 16. 'T is as frivolous to mention that the King never dies in this respect For 〈◊〉 is evident that as the King is the Head of the Parliament the Relate Reasons of a particular Parliament so he doth die For as was said a Parliament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolv'd by the King in his life time dissolves of it self at his death and why but because in this sence the King dies 17. I never heard such Arguments as these following answered though indeed we need them not They are Judge Jenkin's He affirms that the Act for the continuance of the long Parliament is Repugnant to those for Annual and Triennial Parliaments which being all Acts of one Session are all Acts of one day and repugnant to common Right and common Reason and impossible by the Kings Mortality and maintains that when an Act of Parliament is thus against common Right and Reason and repugnant and impossible to be performed the common Law shall control and adjudge such an Act to be void and that these are the words of the Law 1. Par. D. Downhams Case fol. 11S 8E 3. 3. 30. 33. E. Cessavit 32. 37. H. O. Annuity 41. 1. Eliz. Dier 313. 18. I hope you will not demand who shall judge of such a Case since all parties have practically resolved this long agon 19. The Rump thought that Parliament too long the whole Nation were offended at the Rump The Long-Parliament men themselves when they were together again in order to the blessed Restauration of the King had a desire to be dissolv'd and did what they could themselves to do it and you know that both King Lords and Commons have since made a Law to which you say you yield Obedience that brandeth it for an high offence for any to say that the Long Parliament is not dissolv'd 20. But my dear brethren because you intimate that you are not fully satisfied in this point out of my hearty desire to do you any service I have advised with a very learned Sergeant in the Laws from whom I received these 3. Reasons every one
of which he affirms demonstrates that Parliament to be dissolv'd in sua arte credend c. and I hope you will be fully satisfied with them they are these 21. 1. By the death of the King there being nothing in the Act of continuance that doth or can secure them against that 2. Because every Court in England dissolves on course if it rises without adjourning or doth not meet again at the time and place appointed 3. Because when a Parliament Recedes and the Electors chuse new Representatives the first are dissolv'd thereby I need not apply these Rules onely if you yet doubt the force of them and desire as I know you will do more full satisfaction you will certainly without my advice confer with some able Lawyer whom you may safer in your own apprehensions conâ—ide in In such a case we must take things upon trust and if we will be satisfied we must trust some body choose your Friend SECT 2. Of the Reality and Nationality of the Covenant 1. IN the second place you intimate that I take it for granted that the Covenant was personal and not Real or National But Master Crofton hath affirmed it is real and National Obliging all the Nation and all after Generations side Anglorum thereby engaged This you say he hath enforced beyond all capacity of Contradiction 2. Truly I confess I did not imagine however confident I find you to the contrary that such a principle had needed proof with such as I proposed to deal with but I see the Foundations are yet out of Course 3. Much less could I divine that whether the Covenant be personal or reâ—l it could any way concern me in my present Design to trouble myself seeing it was my work only to prove that the matter of the Covenant was sinful and then whether it be a real or a personal Covenant I think it comes all to one viz. A sinful Covenant and not Obliging 4. Besides upon your second Survey you will easily discern that I distinguished single and private persons from the Parliament and not from the Nation and considered both Members of my distinction as taking the Covenant And did not find my self obliged to say that some not but rather that none at all were so far bound by vertue of it as to endeavour any alteration or change of Government so that your exception here If it have any weight it is impertinent and ill placed 5. But seeing I must be assaulted with Mr. Crostons authority give me leave to oppose it with Authority as valid I hope without any disparagement to him in your own apprehensions it is that Reverend Casuist Bishop Sanderson 6. Bishop Sanderson asserts that it is essential to an Oath to be personal and consequently that there is no such thing as Juramentum reale such a Real Oath as you have pretended 7. Non tantùm inquit ille vir Magnus tenetùr Haeres vi Juramenti defuncto praestiti It a ut si non solverit injustus tantùm sit non item perjurus cujus ratio est quia Juramentum est vinculum personale inducit Obligationem Spiritualem tantùm c. At in personalibus nemo ligatur fine proprio consensu p. 115. 8. Again he adds At non potest quis alteri inducere Obligationem nisi ipse quoque volverit proinde non potest Actu suo spiritualiter nisi seipsum tantùm Obligatio Juramenti non transit ad successores p 117. 118. nothing can be more plain 9. Therefore I must have leave to demand what Casuist Authour of Note or Learned Man uninterested in the present Controversie hath used or allowed this distinction besides Master Croston Thus his authority is matcht what reasons you hint for it I proceed to give reason to Answer 10. You add no reasons in this place yet because I shall make but one work of it I shall gather the reasons that serve to this purpose from the other parts of your book where I find them they are but two to the best of my Observation both received from Master Crofton and I presume the best he hath for that you improve no other 11. The first I find upon Case the 14. by way of Expostulation thus Was the law of Saul the Princes of Israel against the Gibeonites to be justified Why should they and all other Conventions of them be bound by the Oath of Joshua and the Princes with him 12. The answer is at hand in the Reverend Bishops words Saul Injustus tantùm sit non item perjurus Pauls sin was cruelty and injustice and not perjury Not the Oath of Joshua immediately but the Law of Righteousness bound Saul to the contrary 13. If any Obligation lay upon Saul rom Joshua's Oath it was not formalier but effectivè only not as an Oath but in the effects of it which was to preserve and maintain Justice and every mans right even that right of the Gibeonites which they had obtained by vertue indeed of their Covenant with Joshua long before 14. Methinks it may thus be resembled a Parliament in England is not obliged to continue all the Acts of precedent Parliaments but hath power to alter them as they think fit yet no Parliament can void an Act of pardon made by any former Parliament 15. The Reason is not that one Parliament hath not power to undo what another hath done abstractly confidered but because a Parliament it self may not be unrighteous and do injustice 16. But why is it injustice from a Parliament to void an Act of pardon the Reason seems to be this An Act of pardon hath its effect the first day of its being and gives actual Right to every one concerned in the mercy granted they are actually pardoned and the offence forgiven and done away And now if this pardon should be taken off again Right is violated and punishment inflicted where there is no Crime 17. Thus was it in the Case of the Gibeonites they had received an Act of pardon long before a Legal restitution to the priviledges they enjoy'd by virtue of the Oath of Joshua and the Princes of Israel and the violation of their Rights so long after with the taking away of their lives by Saul was iniquity and cruelty in him and most justly though severely punished by the God of Righteousness 18. This Answer is plainly gathered from the Holy Scripture whence the Objection it self is framed 19. The Famine saith the Lord to David is for Saul and for his bloody house because he slew the Gibeonites 2 Sam. 21. 11. 20. It is rendred in several of the Oriental Tongues House of bloods and so it is in the Hebrew it was not perjury but blood fill'd his house because he slew the Gibeonites and broke the Act of Pardon not the Oath of Joshua formally considered 21. It is said that the children of Israel had sworn to them v. 2. but not Saul yea the children of Israel in opposition to Saul the children of