Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A49127
|
Reflections upon a late book, entituled, The case of allegiance consider'd wherein is shewn, that the Church of England's doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience, is not inconsistent with taking the new oaths to Their Present Majesties.
|
Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing L2979; ESTC R9832
|
10,302
|
20
|
of England quâ talis long before he left the Land for the Government being an Office entrusted for Administration according to Laws and the late King's Grandfather having declared to his Subjects in the Star Chamber June 20. 1616. that being sworn to Maintain the Laws of the Land he should be perjured if he should alter them and our ancient Lawyers declaring that Non est Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non lex And that of Fleta Rex non à regnando sed regendo nam Rex est dum bene regit Tyrannus cùm populum opprimit And Spelman of the word Allegiantia that it is a word importing vinculum Arctius inter regem subditos utrosque invicem connectens And the resolution of some very judicious Divines that if one party that is mutually ingaged do violate his obligation the other is not obliged and that that Oath is not to be kept the execution whereof is destructive of the common safety On these grounds many great men may judge that for these and the like causes a Crown may be forseited yet I suppose there are other Foundations layed by those great men in which I do acquiesce As first that the present King being a free Prince and no Subject of the King of England and having a right Title to the Succession to the Crown of England as well in his own right as in right of his Queen whereof he was endeavoured by the subtil arts of Jesuits to be deprived and the present King being also constituted the Head of the Protestant party who were destinated to utter ruin by confederacies against them did for these causes successfully vindicate his Title and the legal Succession and put the Protestant Cause in a fair way of establishment upon which success the late King having deserted first the Government and then the Land and fled to an inveterate Enemy of our Religion and Nation whether through his own or the counsel of the Jesuits to whose conduct he had committed his Conscience and the administration of the Government directly contrary to the Laws of the Land and leaving us under a standing Army wherein was a considerable party of Irish Papists who being left unpaid and ordered to disband were likely to be very injurious to the English Subjects I am convinced that he hath lawfully vindicated the Succession to himself and the Royal Family And secondly I assent to the judgment of my Superiors that the Crown of England being thus made void was rightfully set on the Heads of the present King and Queen and that the present Transactions are much more justifiable than what was done in the Case of Henry the Seventh and acknowledged by Parliament my Reasons whereof I shall give hereafter and shall now give you my Remarks on the Case of Allegiance wherewith I was generally well pleased both with the Matter and Stile and which I hope may have a good effect with many men for their full satisfaction for which I verily believe it was charitably and ingeniously intended by the Author until in the last Page I read this following passage whereupon I began to make my Remarks viz That in the next Reign after King James which all know was that glorious Martyr Charles First when Popish and French Counsels found admission at our Court then arose together the new Principles of Super-conformity in the Church and Super-Loyalty in the State which like a preternatural ferment have ever since disturbed the peace of both and must be again cast out if ever we recover a true English temper or peaceful settlement c. This and some other passages which I shall name made me suspect that he was under some discontent though p. 2. he says he had no angry resentment of his sufferings And p. 19. speaking of the Bishops who petitioned the late King he calls them some of his Bishops And of the Clergy he says p. 31. There have been for some time a Party among us who have appropriated to themselves the Church of England exclusive of their Brethren yet we shall find enough on our side to justifie our Doctrines to be consistent with her Principles And p. 32. That the Principles of Loyalty which obtained in the Church at that time viz. Queen Elizabeth were no other than what he asserts He would prove from the Prayer they are charged with by the Parliament in Queen Mary's Reign That God would turn her heart from Idolatry to the true Faith or else shorten her days and take her quickly out of the way and more to this purpose out of the Journal of Simon D'Eurs of which I doubt not to say that these Assertions are not agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England These passages did a little amuze me as reflecting too severely on the best of Kings and the most discreetly Loyal Church in the World. As for the King of Blessed Memory his first years were full of peace till being reduced to some necessities not thrô his own fault but such as by other unhappy circumstances he was reduced to some Malecontents took advantage thereof to drive him to greater the vogue was his being misled by evil Counsellors such as the Archbishop and Strafford who I have reason to believe were as far from Popery or French Counsels as any Ministers of State before or since As for that good Prince I can't without indignation hear that he inclined to Popish Counsels for thô he be termed the head of the Grotian Religion and Grotius for an arrant Papist yet it is well known in what Religion he both lived and died as also did those two great Ministers the Earl and the Arch-bishop of whom Sir Edw. Dearing said That he had smitten the great Champion of the Papists under the fifth rib And though the King married to a French Lady yet he espoused not her Religion much less the Counsels of that Court to which he was alway averse Yet I remember it was said by a late Writer That the Parliament whom he was bound to believe made it their great argument and advantage against the King that he favoured the Papists on which supposition thousands came in to fight for their cause And one Article against the Arch-bishop was That he endeavoured to introduce Popery though Mr. Prynne proved a design of the Papists to cut them both off as their most formidable Enemies And the Relation of Dr. Du Moulin saith That at the death of that good King a known Papist was heard to say That now their greatest Enemy was cut off I think no good man will accuse the Nation of Super-Loyalty in the State when so much real Mischief was wrought by such groundless Jealousies that caused a fatal War against so Religious a Prince and by the same Arts a preternatural Ferment as he says has ever since disturbed the Peace of the State. As to the other head the Super-Conformity that troubled the Church which must be cast out or he
says there can never be a peaceful Settlement in the Church I would gladly be informed whether the many Sects which have abounded among us all which conspired against both the Church and State were not rather the Superfetations of the first Nonconformists who raised Divisions in and Separation from the Church on the like pretences that the Bishops were Popishly affected Which Ferment made the Presbyterians and other Sects to impute Popery to the Bishops ever since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and such a Suspicion the Author would still cherish in the minds of the People And whether the Author be not soured with the same Ferment that calls the Petitioning Bishops some of his i. e. James the Second's Bishops I much doubt Nor can I tell how he should be of the Church of England and yet record his Sufferings unless for some Nonconformity he was one of the Excluded Brethren which I guess by his distinguishing between the Doctrines on his side i. e. the Excluded Brethren and those of the Church of England which he would make to be consistent which I shall disprove 1. By shewing what was the Doctrine of Allegiance constantly received in the Church of England not from the Reign of Charles the First but from the beginning of the Reformation And 2ly What is the different Doctrine that hath been taught by him and his Excluded Brethren and the Reader may guess how irreconcileable they are Now the reasons of this my endeavour are 1. The great Scandal that might justly be imputed to the Church if she should be so inconstant as to recede from her own Doctrine 2ly From the jealousie which the Kings under whose protection the Church subsists might entertain of her if the Doctrine of Resistance should be allowed by her 3ly Because in the case which hath now hapned she hath not made use of any Resistance 4ly Because some whom the Author calls Super-loyal and Super conforming persons for their maintaining the Doctrine of Non-resistance may be thought to have now cast it off and are disposed to engage in a Rebellion against a lawful Prince for Male-Administrations I begin with the first viz. to shew what was the Doctrine of Allegiance professed in the Church of England ever since the first Reformation The judgment of the Bishops in the days of Henry VIII and Edward VI. who were our first Reformers did set forth a Book called The Institution of a Christian Man whereof Cranmer Ridley and other Martyrs were the Compilers On the fifth Commandment they say Subjects be bound not to withdraw their Fealty Truth Love and Obedience towards their Prince for any cause whatsoever ne for any cause may they conspire against his Person ne do any thing towards the hurt thereof nor of his Estate And by this Command they be bound to obey all the Laws Proclamations Precepts and Commandments made by their Prince except they be contrary to the Commandments of God. And on the sixth Commandment No Subjects may draw the Sword against the Prince for any cause whatsoever it be and though Princes which be the Supream Heads of their Realms do otherwise than they ought yet God hath assigned no Judges over them in this World. To these succeed the Authors of the Homelies whereof Bishop Jewel is said to be the Pen-man Of these the Author says p. 32 That they teach us to submit to lawful Authority and to know our bounden Duty to common Authority but they teach no Loyalty besides or contrary to Law. Her Homelies no-where that I know of assert the Errours that I have here condemned or condemn any of the Positions I have here asserted Now Homely the first against Rebellion says p. 1. That Kings and Princes as well the evil as the good do reign by God's Ordinance and that Subjects are bound to obey them If Servants ought to obey their Masters not only being gentle but froward much more ought Subjects to be obedient to their sharp and rigorous Princes Rebellion is worse than the worst Government of the worst Prince that hitherto hath been What if a Prince be evil indeed and undiscreet and it is evident to all mens eyes that he is so I ask again what if it be long of the wickedness of his Subjects that he is so shall the Subjects by their wickedness both provoke God to give them an evil and indiscreet Prince for their punishment and also rebel against him and against God Hear what the Scripture says God makes a wicked man to reign for the punishment of a people Let us deserve to have a good Prince or let us patiently suffer and obey such as we deserve and whether the Prince be good or evil let us pray for his continuance and increase in Goodness if he be good or for his amendment if he be Evil. Our Liturgy our Articles our Constitutions do all inculcate the same Duty So have the prime Bishops and Ministers of the Church especially Bishop Andrews and Bishop Sanderson in the Reigns of King James and King Charles the first who condemned the Doctrine of Resistance as a Popish Doctrine Thus Bishop Sanderson in a Sermon preached July 26. 1640. when that unnatural Rebellion began on 1 Cor. 10.23 says That no conjuncture of circumstances whatsoever can make that to be done at any time which in it self is unlawful and to take up Arms against a lawful Soveraign offensive or defensive may not be done at any time in any case upon any pretence whatsoever And on 1 Tim. 3.16 As for our Accusers if no more were to be instanced in then that one accursed Position alone wherein notwithstanding their agreement in other things they both i e. the Dissenters and Papists do consent viz. That lawful Soveraigns may be by their Subjects resisted and Arms taken up against them for the Cause of Religion it were enough to make good the Challenge against them boâ—â— which is so notorious a piece of ungodliness as no man that either feareth God or the King as he ought can speak or think of without detestation And beyond these Doctrines I suppose no Super-Loyalty hath been taught nor beneath these hath the Church of England at any time practised How they behaved themselves in the Rebellion against Charles I. doth appear by their constant adherence to him and sacrificing their Lives and Fortunes to his Service Their Loyalty to Charles the Second was not any way culpable unless their Super-Loyalty was a crime And to James the Second had not the Monmouth Rebellion to which the Sectaries gave assistance been opposed by those of the Church he might have been more certainly forced out of the World than he was out of his Kingdom Hitherto then we find no resistance in the Doctrine or Practice of the Church and I hope that until there be any cause given our present Gracious Soveraigns they never will on any malicious suggestions or groundless jealousies entertain a contrary Opinion of the Church or any of her