Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	king_n	power_n	3,247	5	5.0875	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45786	A dialogue between A. and B. two plain countrey-gentlemen, concerning the times	Irvine, Alexander, d. 1703.	1694 (1694)	Wing I1050; ESTC R8342	85,253	56

suffer or be left to shift for it self than owe its Security ●o any unlawful Means such as are inconsistent with its Principles or may any way bring a Reproach upon it That there may be unlawful Means used for the Preservation of Religion and many times are used is most certain unless you will say that the Sacredness of Religion consists in justifying every thing that is done for its Sake than which nothing can be more absurd And it is no less certain on the other hand that the Means you have used for that 〈◊〉 are such for if the dethroning of Kings and defrauding Men of their Right be not unlawful I know nothing can deserve that Name These Things you have done for the Sake of Religion and by that Means have brought such a Stain and Reproach upon it that can never be wip'd off Certainly it had been a great deal better to have entrusted God Almighty with the Preservation of it whose peculiar Care it is and to have chose rather to have suffered with it if so the Will of God had been for that in all Ages has prov'd the surest way both to preserve and propagate Religion and would at least have kept it pure and undefiled till better Times Whereas you by taking the Work out of God Almighty's Hands and rescuing Religion out of pretended Dangers by such means as are utterly inconsistent with its Principles have most basely sullyed and depraved it You may see in 2 Sam. 6.6 and 7. what befel Uzzah for his indiscreet touching of the Ark though it was to save it from tottering and have reason to be afraid of the same Fate since by your indiscree● Zeal in offering to rescue Religion by unjustifyable Means instead of preserving you have most horribly prolan'd it But that is not all for besides that you have done a very ill Thing for the Sake of Religion I do not see how you have preserv'd it at all or that it is in any better Security now than formerly but rather in much more danger Pray How do you like the Reformation of Religion in Scotland Has not the present Government turn'd out the whole Order of Episcopacy there and all the Regular Clergy though many of them were willing to comply with it and had actually submitted to it Had King James attempted such a Thing it might in some measure have excused his Subjects revolting from him but you know he never did No all that can be objected against him concerning his invading of our Religion and Properties comes very short of that And yet he must be called the Destroyer of our Religion and the other the Restorer and Preserver of it Good God! How partial and disingenuous are Men when once engaged in the Defence of a bad Cause But in good earnest is it now come to that that the abolishing of Episcopacy is become a necessary Means for the Preservation of Religion If so it is time for our Bishops to look to themselves for I suppose it is no unreasonable Conjecture to affirm that what is thought a necessary Expedient for the Preservation of Religion in one pace may in time be judged to be proper in another A. What was done in Scotland in abolishing Episcopacy and setting up Presbytery was not by an Arbitrary Power assumed by the King himself but by Act of Parliament and at the Request of the generality of the Nation and therefore if there was any thing amiss in it it is not to be imputed to him Besides the Church of Scoland and that of England are so different in their Constitution that what is a proper Expedient for the Preservation of Religion in the one may b● very improper in the other B. That what was done in Scotland was by Act of Parliament I grant but that it was at the Request of the generality of the Nation I deny for I am very well assured that the greater and better part of the Nation are utterly against it That the Presbyterian Govern and Clergy are m●erly obtruded upon them against their Consent But what though it was done by Act of Parliament is it ever the more justifyable for that Is it not the ●ame thing to be under an Arbitrary Parliament as under an Arbitrary King Or has the one any better Right to domineer over Mens Consciences or to invade their Religion and Properties than the other has But I suppose you men●ion that only to take off the O●●um of it from the King and to make a Difference between what he has done and what King James attempted to do But I must tell you it will not serve your Turn not only because your King having a Negative Voice there as well as here might have refused to have passed that Bill nay by his own Declaration was obliged to refuse it but also because it is very well known what crafty Ways and indirect Means were used to pack a Parliament for that very Purpose whi●h is the same Grievance we complained of under King James only with this Difference that the one has actually done what the other did but in vain attempt to do for you cannot choose but remember that the chief Thing objected against him was not so much his endeavouring to w●●ken and undermine the established Religion by giving a free Toleration to all Sorts of Dissenters for that was look'd on as a thing that would be of no long Continuance as being grounded only on the falle Bottom of his dispensing Power The great Grievance was that he used indirect Means to get such a Parliament as would make it a Law which whether true or falle of him is true enough of your King in this matter of abolishing Episcopacy and turning out the whole Clergy o● Scotland or then Free-hold to beg their Bread For the Estates were conv●n●d there meerly by virtue of Circulatory Letters from the P or O. w●enas yet he had no manner of Authority there by reason whereof several Counties sent no Commissioners at all not would be present at the choosing of any Only some few dis●affected 〈…〉 the Opportunity and cho●●● one another by which means they made 〈◊〉 a Thing which they called a Convention o● Estates which Convention a●ter they had him turn'd him into a King was afterwards by him turned into a Parl●ament and that was it that turn'd out the Bishops and planice a Parcel of old musty Presbyt●●ats in them ●●om who however 〈◊〉 they may be to cant in a Conven●ci● are so far 〈◊〉 being fit ●o govern a Church that I am confident there is no 〈◊〉 man would ●o much as entrust them with teaching his Childred their Catechisms But my 〈◊〉 is no with then but with the King and Parliament that empowered them and 〈◊〉 there was such a notorious juggle o● such indirect Means used to pack a Pa●liament I may very safely leave to the Judgment of any reasonable Man From Scotland let us return to England and consider what better Security we

against Grievances to pretend a most tender Compassion for those that suffer them and a mighty Zeal for having of them redrest when yet it appears that those very Grievances are chiefly owing to the pernicious Counsels and mischievous Contrivances of such Perions as for that very purpose have been corrupted by such a Pretender is such a Master-piece o● Hypocrisy and Dissimulation as I think none but a Dutch-Man is capable of But why should I insist ●o long on these Things Let it be supposed that the Grievances we lay under during K James's Reign were really as great as they who maliciously aggravate them would make the World believe and that they were not in any measure to be imputed to the ill Conduct of his Counsellours and Ministers but were the effects of his own Natural Tempet and Inclination even that cannot justify the Measures that have been taken to redress these Grievances This brings us to the Consideration of the Second part of the former Pretence namely that because of these Grievances and Male-Administrations the Estates of the Realm did unanimously dethrone him In this are two Things to be examined First Matter of fact Secondly Matter of Right As or the Matter of Fact I must tell you that however confidently Mr. Johnson and they that adhere to him may affirm it there 's nothing of Truth in it The Convention did not go that way to work So far were they from assuming any Power or Authority over the King's Person so as to call him to an Account and judicially to depose him that they did not in the least pretend to it nor so much as mention it but went upon a quite different Ground as is very well known But besides that the Matter of Fact is not more false than the Matter of Right is defective That is to say I● they had done so de facto it had been de jure null and of none effect as being utterly unlawful I hope you will grant me that what is in it self unlawful ought not to be done and if it be done ought to be undone again A. If I do you will get nothing by it unless you can prove that it was utterly unlawful to dethrone King James even though he did not govern according to Law B. Very right But that I can easily prove both because there is no Law for it and likewise because there are express Laws against it First I say There is no Law or Statute that the Subjects or People of England can in any Case depose or dethrone their Lawful King This being a Negative Proposition it cannot be expected that I should prove it It lies upon your Party at least those of them that shelter themselves under this Pretence not only to produce such a Law but to make it appear that it has never yet been repealed till which time the Proposition will stand good against them 'T is true Mr. Johnson in his Argument does mention such a Statute and lays the greatest Stress of his Argument upon it and yet confesses afterward that whatever there might be formerly there is no such Thing now to be found which is enough for my purpose because not to be found and not to be in being are the same Thing in Law Secondly As there is no Law to warrant or authorise the Deposition of any of our Rightful Kings so there are express Laws against it Such is that of the 12. Car. 2. where it is declared That neither the Peers nor Commons nor both Houses together nor the People collectively nor representatively in Parliament or out of Parliament nor any other Persons whatsoever have any Coercive Power over the King of England And in the 13 Car. 2. it is declared That the Sword is solely in the King's Power and that neither one nor both Houses of Parliament can or lawfully may●aise or levy any War offensive or defensive against his Majesty To these I may add what is declared in the Act of uniformity namely That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatever to take up Arms against the King If it be said that there is nothing mentioned of dethroning of Kings in any of these Acts I have quoted and consequently that they are nothing to the purpose I answer That to dethrone a King is a degree of Rebellion beyond any thing mentioned in these Acts For the reason why Subjects do assume to themselves a coercive power over their King or pretend to take up Arms or levy War against him is that by these means they may dethrone him And if so it must needs be g●an●ed that the former being condemned by these Statutes the latter is much more so as being a higher degree of the same Crime So that they of your Party who found K. W's Right on the Peoples deposing of King James for Male-Administration have no imaginable way to evade the Force of these Laws I have mentioned unless they say that they are above all Laws and can dispence with them at their Pleasure which was one of the chief Things objected against him and what was thought absurd in him I am sure is much more so in them A. I hope you have now done with that Pretence for the Truth is I never much lov'd it nor laid any great Stress upon it and therefore I do not think my self much concerned in the Arguments you have brought against it which is the chief Reason why I have made little or no Reply to you since you entered upon the Examination of it B. Had you told me so at first it would have saved me a great deal of Trouble for then either I would not have mentioned it at all or at least would not have insisted so long upon it But that is your Cunning. Whichsoever of your Pretences happens to be examined you are resolved to say nothing of it till first you hear what can be said against it And if it so fall out that the Arguments against it make no great Impression upon it then to be sure that is the Pretence you always confided in But if it happens ●o be baffled why then forsooth you did not like it from the beginning But perhaps we may meet with more such before we come to an end The next that comes to be examined is that of Forfeiture The Substance of which is that by these violen●and a●●itrary Proceedings and Male-Admini●trations form 〈◊〉 mentioned K. James did really and truly forfeit all Right and Title to the Crown This Pretence I hope will be sooner discussed thin the former because though in ●o n● Respects they di●●er very considerably from one another the one affirming That he was deposed by the People And the other That ●e did really unking himself and forfeit his Right so that there was nothing lest for the People to do but only to declare it and dispose of the Forfeiture yet they both agree in this The same Grievancer and Male-Administrations are alledged by both Parties as the Ground