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 |
|
A25327
|
The Anatomy of a Jacobite-Tory in a dialogue between Whig and Tory : occasioned by the Act for recognizing King William and Queen Mary.
|
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing A3053; ESTC R22595
|
20,621
|
38
|
obnoxious to Judgment W. If you are strong enough then that you may prudenly venture for your King de jure you do but your Duty T. Very true W. I fear by the sense which you put upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you give all Subjects the like liberty even against a King of Right T. No Pag. 45. they shall receive Damnation who resist the present Powers which by the Law are such however they demean themselves in the Government W. Before you are aware you will make the Powers the Apostle speaks of to relate only to them that are Lawful and if they are unlawful either in the exercise or acquisition it seems the Apostle takes no care of them But by what Rule do you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Damnation when applied to resisting a King of Right and only Temporal Judgment when applied to the other tho' he acts beyond the Power which God or Man had entrusted him with T. Because one is by Law and the other not W. You mean one had some Power by Law the other none but still that Power which he exercised beyond the Law was none in the Eye of the Law and either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is threatned only against resisters of a lawful Power or whether the Power be lawful or unlawful resistance is in all cases damnable T. I am sure 't is at least Damnation to resist him that has the Right W. Yes to that Power which he exercises But by what Law will you judge which has the Right or what that Right is T. By God's Law for this is a Divine Right W. Do you mean that God has ascertain'd not only the Rights of Princes but appointed the very Persons T. I mean as Dr. Hicks means Preface to Jovian p. 54. who tells us God hath given the Crown to the Royal Family for a perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birth-right and proximity of Blood W. If the Doctor had considered the broken Succession he would never have argued thus from Providence for if as it will appear upon an exact enquiry more have come to the Throne out of the course than according to proximity of Blood Then all that can be inferr'd from this rectified by the true History is that God has in his Providence given it to a Family but not tied it to the next in Blood and by consequence King William and Queen Mary are our Rightful King and Queen T. You don't consider what Prejudice you do His Majesty by detaining me so long W. I should hope to do King William good Service if I could bring you to a due sense of the Obligation of the Oath which you have taken to him and since Dr. W. is a Judge which you have chosen I must refer you to his Preface for what may give you full satisfaction T. I am for the Book rather than the Preface for as the Preface to his Second Part of the Brotestant Reconciler was written after he had smarted for his Officiousness perhaps the last was written when some prosperous Accident to King William made him lay aside those Niceties with which men were to pretend to merit on both sides and perhaps he may be of the same mind with those prudent Divines of the North who were going in a full body to take the Oath of Allegiance but made an halt upon a Report of Major-General Mackay's being defeated in Scotland W. That may be but in his Preface he says Pâ—eface to Consid He does by no means condemn those Writings which plead for taking the imposed Oath upon such grounds as do more fully justifie the title of our present Governours And is so modest to own that he has not knowledge enough in the Law to pass an exact Judgment in that matter T. Then it seems he turns us off to the Lawyers and makes no determination in the point W. Tho' he pretends not to Law Preface to Consid he produces Evidences out of History to shew that VVilliam I. was received upon an Election and Compact that the keeping St. Edward's Laws was part of the Bargain that this became part of the Coronation-Oath of our Kings And that our Learned King James the First declared in a Speech to his Parliament That he was bound to observe that Paction made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereto And therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off to Rule according to his Law T. King James you know was a timorous Prince and full of Dissimulation no doubt he thought to wheadle his people into something which might insensibly give him that power which he disclaimed But for Dr. W. I doubt he is of Republican Principles he would never else talk of a Compact between Prince and People W. What if you should find the same thing in the Author of the History of Passive Obedience T. That is impossible W. Does he not excuse Bishop Bilson for justifying the Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain Hist of Passive Obedience First Part p. 27. upon supposition that the Government in the Low-Countries was founded in Compact This you cannot but remember that he does and therein admits that some Governments may be so founded T. But the Second part of that History shews Second Part p. 72. that Bishop Bilson is wilfully mistaken and that what he says relates only to such Republicks and States in which upon the Invasion of Subject's Priviledges they are allowed by fundamental written known Compact as in Germany by the Bulla Aurea to resist as if that were applicable to Free Monarchies and particularly England contrary to his own express Assertion That the Subjects of England have not that warrant to draw their Sword without consent of their Prince Bilson p. 518 519. where he says he proves it at large W. I am satisfied no Prince will consent it should be drawn against himself but I take St. Edward's Law which shews that a King of England may cease to be King upon his violating his Coronation Oath of which the maintaining that is part to be as full a Compact as the Golden Bull. And Jasper Main one of the Historian's Authors admits that the Instances of the Cases of E. 2. and R. 2. may be proper if any Original Compact can be produced where 't is agreed that where the King ceases to govern according to Law he shall for such misgovernment cease to be King Besides if Bishop Bilson lays down any general Rule for resisting in all Monarchies not absolutely despotick 't will be hard for you to prove that England is to be excepted till you produce Bishop Bilson's own words without taking that Historian's Judgment who refers you to Passages where he will have his Assertion in relation
to England to be prov'd at large T. Does not Bishop Bilson expresly condemn the Papists for saying the People may punish the Prince Farther yet does he not say that God has reserv'd the Magistrate to be punished by himself W. Very true and yet says that which justifies resisting a King of England in some cases T. If you may resist him you punish him but he says God has reserv'd the punishment to himself W. What is done for necessary defence of the Constitution tho in consequence it may be a punishment is not so directly and I am sure Bishop Bilson says Bilson of Christian Subjection Ed. 1586. p. 279. If a Prince shall go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or change the form of the Commonwealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws establisht by common consent of Prince and People to execute his own pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be accounted Rebels T. However he speaks not a word of a Compact here in England W. He supposes that in all Governments the People have a power for preserving the foundation P. 280. freedom and form of their Commonwealth which says he they fore-prized when they first consented to have a King T. Bishop Bilson I find did not understand the consequence of admitting that Princes can have their Crowns from any consent or election of the People W. Is not that better than to have no Title at all but pray what is the consequence of supposing an Election T. The late Bishop of Winchester Hist of Passive Obedience ad part p. 147. in his Sermon at the Coronation of King Charles the Second says As Monarchy by Usurpation is res fine titulo so Monarchy by Election is titulus fine re W. Admirable chime but how does he prove it T. For says he Elective Kings are but Conditional Kings and Conditional Kings are no Kings W. I must confess I did not apprehend that Conditional Kings should be no Kings even while they performed the Conditions T. But what say you to the late Historian's Proofs That the Doctrine of the Church of England is absolutely against resisting Princes in any case whatsoever W. I am of the same mind that no King while such or till he ceases to be King is to be resisted But I must confess I am to seek what he means by the Church of England what by a King of England T. By the Church of England he means the Church-men W. I hope though he contracts the Church in this he does not take in Romish Churchmen to make up the number T. Yes but he does and with very good grounds for as Infallibility attends St. Peter's Chair in relation to the Government of the Church whoever comes into it so they that come into the Preferments of the Church of England succeed to their Doctrines in Government though as to other matters they have a latitude of dissenting Thus the bloody Romish Bishop Bonner though at one time he retracted what he had declar'd at another is an Authority when he spake right because says our Historian P. 4. he spake not his own sense but the sense of the whole Church of England W. I thank you for explaining his Notion of the Church of England but if we take in the Romish Clergy I should think that famous Bishop of Lincoln Grosthead who said Vid. Matth. Par. Hist that all who died on the side of the Barons in the War against H. 3. were Martyrs was as much of the Church of England and as great an ornament to it as Bishop Bonner But I am yet to learn what your Historian means by a King of England does he mean a King only with Title or in possession any way T. No he shews out of Bishop Sanderson P. 133. that we are no otherwise to comply with the Persons of a prevailing usurped Power than I may submit unto Comply with or make use of a High-way Thief or Robber when I am fallen into his hands and lie at his mercy W. Ye are a very wise sort of People to publish and cry up such Books now when at the same time while ye would be thought true and faithful to King William ye deny that he is King by Right But I must needs say I do not well know of any Foundation of Right setled by your Historian but what is in the Clouds or in Obeyance till the right Heir from Adam start up with his Pedigree about his Heels T. He had no occasion to prove wherein a Princes Right consists 't is enough that he shews Instances of Passive-Obedience in all Reigns W. Yes indeed he brings Instances of it where himself owns that the Law had damn'd the Title but does not consider that he carries it further than your Passive-Obedience-Men would have him and brings a Confessor Bishop Coverdale to shew that Bodies Goods and Lives are to be at the Commandment of the Prince who is not Rightful by the Law of England T. You mistake him I am sure for he speaks that in Queen Mary's Reign W. I grant it P. 22. but then he tells us That Queen Mary had been Disinherited by Act of Parliament a Bill of Exclusion pass'd into the formality of a Law and that for Illegitimacy as it is there declared T. What is that to the purpose She had a Divine Right of Succession which no Law could alter W. By what Law did She succeed to E. 6. T. By the Divine Law and that contrary to the Law of England P. 26. for the Historian shews that both the Sisters were declared illegitimate and that by Act of Parliament and were they not so yet being but of the Half-blood to the King by the Law they could not succeed W. As he admits their Title contrary to Law I fear he leaves nothing but the Consent or Choice of the People for the late King joyn'd with his being of the Blood Royal. T. I cannot apprehend your consequence W. Indeed few Tories can see three consequences off but if James I. had no Title by Law what had James II. in the third Descent from him T. The Historian I am sure says nothing against the Title of James I. W. But he shews that by the same Law of England no Foreigner could succeed and James I. was a Foreigner T. You still drive at your Commonwealth-Principle as if Kings could have any right from the Choice of the People W. You I am sure are either against all Right by Law or for placing it where it is by Law determined T. I 'll warrant it you will go about to prove that King James by laying aside his Political Power to exercise his Imperial Law ceas'd to be King of England when in this he did but put on his Royal Robes W. Tho I know of