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	scotland_n	2,696	5	8.4241	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40805	Christian loyalty, or, A discourse wherein is asserted that just royal authority and eminency, which in this church and realm of England is yielded to the king especially concerning supremacy in causes ecclesiastical : together with the disclaiming all foreign jurisdiction, and the unlawfulness of subjects taking arms against the king / by William Falkner ...	Falkner, William, d. 1682.	1679 (1679)	Wing F329; ESTC R7144	265,459	584

shall stand in the way of such an ill-designing party of men or shall displease them may easily be charged with treason and thereby be cut off upon pretence of opposing the Laws and Government when the very discharge of honesty and integrity may be so accounted 4. Thirdly They who made use of this Position did give the World sufficient proof that it was only a designed pretence to serve a present turn For when in our late sad commotions they used the Plea of the Kings Authority in acting against his person before they had murthered his person they then laid aside also all pretence of reverent regard to the Kings Authority and by several Acts as they were called Acts May 19. 1649. and of Treason July 17. 1649. declare the supreme authority of England to be in the Commons not at all regarding this Ideal Authority of the King which if they had been true to their own notion must have been acknowledged still remaining And they then required the Engagement to be taken to be true and faithful not to the Kings Laws and Government according to their own Idea but to the Common-wealth of England without King c. Which is evidence enough that those men intended as much to act against and oppose the true Regal dignity and authority as the person of that excellent Prince and that this distinction was not only void of truth and justice in it self but of honesty and good meaning also in these contriving men who were the maintainers of it 5. The last part of this Clause of the acknowledgment Taking Arms against them who are Commissionated by the King unlawful hath respect to them who are commissionated by the King the sense of which must be measured from the intent and tendency thereof which is to secure the Kings safety and Government and to maintain the Subjects true allegiance and fidelity And therefore I doubt not to aver that the use of quirks and niceties Manual p. 102. in supposing some extraordinary Cases which are inconsistent with these duties and which we may well presume or hope may never be in act ought not to be considered in making this acknowledgment Wherefore to supppose that the person of any King of England should be violently surprized and seised by any seditious and ill-designing men which I trust will never come to pass and they should by force or fraud extort Commissions from him against his loyal Subjects and Friends this acknowledgment concerning the ordinary duty of Subjects doth not take in such extraordinary fictions of imaginary Cases which are not fit to be supposed but they who are the Kings regular Officers ought to resist such evil men who offer violence to his person for the good both of the King and Kingdom 6. And also that Case which some put of the King granting a Commission against the legal power which he hath committed to a Sheriff or against any other Commission which himself hath given and doth continue to other Officers is such an unreasonable and undutiful supposition of cross Commissions which no good subject ought to make or to consider in this acknowledgment Only in such an extraordinary Case where any persons whosoever in any Office or Commission shall become Authors or Abetters of Sedition or Robellion and oppose the Kings Authority and Government it is reasonable to be expected that the King will grant Commissions to suppress and reduce them And since no Office or Commission either can or is intended to warrant any man to act against his Loyalty and Allegiance such revolting Officers ought to be opposed by them who are impowered and commanded by their Prince so to do nor is it to be supposed that this acknowledgment doth at all assert the contrary But the true sense of this clause is that it is a traiterous design and therefore to be abhorred for the Kings Subjects without any command from their Prince to take Arms against those who act by vertue and in pursuance of his Commission regularly granted to them And that these words of this acknowledgment may be reasonably taken in this fair and just sense is evident from the result of what I have above discoursed B. 1. Ch. 6. Sect. 1. concerning the sense and interpretation of such publick Declarations 7. And it was reasonable for the avoiding evasions that this acknowledgment condemning the taking Armes against them who are Commissionated by the King should be declared in such general termes If only taking Armes against the Kings person should be disclaimed in a strict sense then the fighting the Kings Armies destroying his Subjects resisting his Government and those who are invested with his Authority which are the usual methods of the most open and daring Enemies would not be provided against But these are the highest oppositions against the King which the most disloyal Subjects can ordinarily make by taking up Armes who cannot probably act immediately against his person unless they can first vanquish those loyal subjects who are his strength and defence Fourth Sermon before King Edw. 6. Bishop Latimer tells us that when he was in the Tower a Lord who had been engaged in Rebellion told him If I had seen my Soveraign Lord in the Field against us I would have lighted from my Horse and taken my Sword by the point and yielded it into his hands To whom the Bishop replied It hath been the cast of all Traitors to pretend nothing against the Kings person subjects may not resist any Magistrate nor do any thing contrary to the Kings Law And the Imperial Law declares that all and every of them are Rebels or Traitors who in any wise publickly or secretly Extravag Henr. 7. Tit. 2. do the works of Rebellion against our honour or their fealty and do enterprise any thing against the welfare of our Empire contra nos seu officiales nostros in iis quae ad commissum eis officium pertinent rebellando by rebelling or taking Arms against us or our Officers in those things which belong to the office committed to them CHAP. II. The Laws of Nature and of general Equity and the right grounds of humane polity do condemn all subjects taking Armes against the Soveraign power SECT I. The preservation of peace and common rights will not allow Armes to be taken in a Kingdom against the Soveraign Prince and Governour Sect. 1 1. THose Laws do carry along with them the strongest obligation which are not only established by a positive constitution but are also inforced by the common and necessary Rules of justice truth righteousness and order Rules of common equity are against Subjects taking Arms. Bishop Ferne Episcop and Presbyter considered For here is a joint tye from the Bond of obedience to Superiours of Religion to God and of the general Principles of equity and reason Of this nature is the duty of non-resistance against Soveraign Rulers which our Laws establish And the doctrine of our Church doth

subject either to kill him or to take away his goods potest civis ille vim vi repellendo eum interimere that subject in repelling force by force may kill him 2. Now this disorderly and unruly management of self defence would fill the World with tumults and subvert the foundations of its Peace and Government since by this means the power of the sword would be put into every private mans hand to use it against his Governours when he shall think it fit for his own interest But that the falshood as well as the danger of this pretence may be manifest I shall return an answer thereto in three heads 1. That it is notoriously false that men are obliged by the law of nature in all Cases to defend their own lives and outward interests by force And it is a sufficient prejudice against this that he who will maintain it must acknowledge that all those who died Martyrs for the Christian Religion did violate the Laws of nature in not resisting their Persecutors and that all malefactors ought to fight for their lives rather than to submit themselves to justice The prime laws of nature to rational beings are the rules of good Conscience 2. That the prime law which the nature and being of man who is a rational Creature and capable of happiness doth oblige him to observe is that he ought to take care of his own welfare and chief good and to endeavour after true perfection And because this is chiefly procured by well doing therefore to be pious and sober loyal and peaceable just and good whereby purity of heart and integrity and peace of Conscience is preserved and a good name here and a blessed state hereafter obtained these are the things which our nature and being and our Religion also oblige us principally to design and all outward interests of this life must be placed in subordination to them And sure no Christian will believe that our Saviour by his Religion did subvert the prime laws of our nature and being when he required his Disciples to take up the Cross to be ready to lose their lives for his sake and to forsake all and follow him 3. That self defence is then only lawful to be managed by force when this may be done by lawful means and without transgressing any necessary duty to God or Man It is therefore justly allowed so far as it necessary against private violence and assaults being then warrantable by the Rules of right reason and good Conscience which are the laws of our nature But to allow a right of self-defence to every man by taking Armes against his superiour is as much as to say that no man is bound to own the Ordinance of God in the World or to submit himself and his interest to be governed by any civil power 3. It is also urged Rutherf ubi sup Qu. 25. Jun. Brut. Qu. 3. p. 110. c. that in the Constitution of Government Princes are appointed for this end to wit the good of the people and therefore the peoples good is to be pursued though against the person or Government of the Prince and they most comply with the great end of Government who will take care of the community Armin. Disp publ Thes 25. n. 10. And therefore if a Prince do not promote the peoples good the end must be preferred before the means and the good of the Common-wealth is otherwise to be provided for Of the end of Government Anbs 1. That though the good of the people be a great end of Government yet it is not the sole end thereof But as when a Prince appointeth a chief Officer of a Corporation this is not only for the benefit of the members of that Society but it is also intended that they may be more useful to do the King service and that the Common-wealth may receive benefit thereby so in Soveraignty there is a claim of Gods authority in the World for his honour and therefore out of Conscience and duty to God there must be a subjection shewed to Rulers as his Ministers besides what the interest of the community will require 2. If Government were wholly intended with respect to the good of subjects I have proved in the former Sections that order peace and justice cannot be thereby established among men unless it be acknowledged that none may resist the Rulers Authority 3. To lay down such Rules that men are no longer obliged to observe any constitution intended for a further end than as the parties concerned shall judge it to conduce to that end is dangerous and unsound By this rule discontented persons might break the indissoluble bond of conjugal Relation where they account it not to answer the end by mutual helpfulness and comfort Gemer in Sanhedr Cap. 2. Par. 11. And when God forbad the King of Israel to multiply Wives lest his heart should turn away from God Deut. 17.17 the Jewish Writers account Salomon justly blameable for his multiplying Wives though he mightpresume there would be no danger of his forsaking God thereby 4. Of the original of Government being from the people Sov power of Parl. Part. 1. p. 35 36. Ruth Civ Pol. Qu. 4. p. 10. Qu. 19. p. 148. This asserted by many Papists But thee is another thing which hath been much insisted on and will require a larger Examination concerning the original of Soveraignty and the deductions which may be made from thence It was urged in our late unhappy times in England that the Soveraign power was more in the people than in the King or Prince who was originally created by them And in Scotland it was asserted then as a ground of taking Arms against the King that Royal power was radically in the people was communicated from them and that they may take it again if the conditions on which they gave it be violated and that the people being the fountain power are still superiour to the King 5. V. Bannes in 2. 2ae Qu. 40. Art 1. Dub. 2. And it is ordinary with the Writers of the Romish Church to make the people the original of the Princes Soveraign power and many of them make use of this Assertion as one way to shew the excellency of the Pope above Princes Thus Salmeron Salm. Tom. 12. Tract 63. Civil power saith he is indeed from God so far as he made the community free and gave them light and power to set up Governours and therefore secular power doth not so descend from Heaven but that it rather ascends from the community unto the King or other chief Magistrate Dominicus Soto asserts De Justit Jur. l. 4. Qu. 4. Art 2. Reges à suis Regnis potestatem recipiunt Kings receive their power from their Kingdoms Bell. de Laicis c. 6. Bellarmine asserteth indeed political powder and Government to be from God but that he gave it immediately to the whole multitude and they transfer it to

of their duty in loyal obedience And indeed it would be an high reflexion on the Laws of our Realm if such things as these should be acknowledged to be matters of such a perplexed intricacy that honest and indifferent minds who stand obliged to the practice of peace and loyalty should not without consulting skillful Lawyers be able to understand the general rule of thier duty and to whom they ought to yield obedience and submission 12. Besides the words of this publick Declaration and acknowledgment against lawfulness of taking Armes which yet might be accounted sufficient in the Statutes in the time of King Edw. the third ●t Edw. 3.2 it is declared without allowance of any case or pretence to the contrary to be treason if any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm or be adherent to the Kings enemies in his Realm giving them aid or comfort in the Realm or elsewhere 13 Car. 2.1 And since the restauration of his present Majesty it is also in general terms declared treason to levy War against the King within the Realm or without And to cut off all pretences either from the nature of the War as defensive only or from the authority of a Parliament or of the Lrods or commons we have in two several Statutes this Declaration 13 Car. 2.6 that both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy any War offensive or defensive 14 Car. 2.3 against his Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors In which Statutes also the sole supreme Command and Government of the Militia is declared by the Law of England ever to be the undoubted right of his Majesty and his Predecessors Kings and Queens of England 13. And from the Declaration and evidence of these Laws that Plea which hath been made from the Authority of Grotius becomes wholly void Grot. de J. B. P. l. 1. c. 4. n. 13. That learned man indeed did assert that if the supreme Government be part in the people or Senate and part in the King if the King invade what is not his right he may be opposed with just force because he hath not so far any Supremacy And this he thinks must take place though it be said that the power of War is in the King for that saith he is only to be understood of Foreign War when whosoever hath any pat in the supreme power cannot but have a right to defend that part But these words seem very strange and inconsiderate from so intelligent a person if they be intended as they seem to be concerning one simple and unmixt supremacy For to assert two capacities where each hath authority to make War with the other is not to found one only regular Government but to erect two distinct Governments each of which have a supreme power of judging and of execution Indeed in such a mixt and divided Government as is in the German Empire it is allowed by the Constitutions and Capitulations of the Empire that the several Principalities or rather the Princes and Governours thereof have a power of taking Armes if their rights be invaded by the Emperour but then these Princes in their own territories enjoy a right of peculiar Soveraignty But if the whole of this notion of Grotius be taken together it will according to his judgment conclude that the people of England Lords Commons or both jointly have no part in the supreme power because these publick Laws declare that they have no power of making so much as a defensive War against the King 14. And if we look into the Records of the former Ages we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an Authority to bear Armes against the King To which purpose it may be sufficient to consider the Conclusion of the Barons Wars in the latter end of the Reign of King Henry the Third Very many of the Peers and chief Barons of the Realm undertook to make War with the King under the Conduct of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester M. Par. An. 1264. whom M. Paris calls Baronum Capitaneum and after several Battels had been fought the Kings person was seized and taken at Lewis And not long after this Idem an 1265. the King Summons a Parliament at Winchester in which all those who acted under or with Simon de Montfort are disinherited Sir W. Raleigh Priv. of Parl. p. 31. which act of disinheriting is reported to have been confirmed in a following Parliament at Westminster But in order to the setling the State of the Realm upon more mild and gentle terms by agreement between the King and the Barons a Plenipotentiary Power was delegated and committed to twelve Peers that they might establish what they thought fit and convenient concerning them who thus stood disinherited 15. These twelve published their determination An. 51 H. 3. Dict. de Kenilw. c. 2. which had the force of a Law under the name of Dictum de Kenilworth In which it was concluded that they who had been engaged in Armes against the King unless the King had pardoned them should pay the revenue of their lands for five years And they who had no Lands were to give their own Oath and to find other Sureties for their peaceable behaviour and also make such satisfaction and undergo such pennance as the Church should appoint Ibid. c. 9. And that they who were Tenants should lose their right in their Farms C. 11. saving the right of their Lords And that they who by their perswasion did instigate any to fight against the King should forfeit the profit of their Lands for two years with many other provisions for particular Cases And they also determined that if any persons should refuse these terms which were proposed as a favourable mitigation of strict justice they should be de exhaeredatis C. 29. and have no power of recovering their Estates But some persons and particularly Simon de Montfort himself C. 21. was excluded from these terms of favour and left to the ordinary proceedings of justice in manus Regis Now those practises and enterprises which were so publickly censured condemned and punished by our Parliaments and proceedings of justice must needs be accounted by them unlawful actings 16. In the year following An. 52 Hen. 3. the Statute of Marlbridge mentions it St. Marlbridge c. 1. as a great and heavy mischief and evil that in the time of the late troubles in England many Peers and others refused to receive justice from the King and his Court as they ought to have done which is more expresly contained in the Original Latine than in the common English Translation justitiam indignati fuerint recipere per Dominum Regem curiam suam prout debuerunt consueverunt and did undertake to vindicate their own causes of themselves Now to declare that all Peers and all other persons ought to have