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 |
|
A49129
|
A resolution of certain queries concerning submission to the present government ... by a divine of the Church of England, as by law establisht.
|
Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing L2980; ESTC R21420
|
45,635
|
72
|
the Head of the Empire is bound by the Laws and how should the King of England be above all the Christian Kings It was too much for him to aspire to be like the most Christian King. Henry the First acknowledged That if he would submit to the Pope his Nobles would not permit it And the Lords and Commons under Edward the First signified to the Pope concerning his claim to Scotland that they neither ought nor would permit it although the King should attempt it And under Henry the Third it is recorded That if the King and Nobles should agree to it yet the Commons would not permit the entrance of Adomer the Pope's Legate into England Bodmin treating of the King of France says Principem contra leges nil posse rescriptis ejus nullam rationem haberi debere nisi aequitate perinde veritati consentanea sint Bracton of the King of England says Rex est sub lege quia Lex facit Regem This Bracton who lived in the Reign of Henry the Third was of the judgment That the Barons had a power to restrain the Kings Exorbitances lib. 3. ch 26. Rex habet superiorem deum item legem per quam factus est Rex item Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones suos The Barons proceeded in their Wars on this Principle That they had a power to restrain their Kings from subverting the Laws and Religion established And what Opinion the Religious Men of that Time had of those Wars may appear by the Opinion that the Chronicle of Mailros had of Simon of Monfort of which I have spoken before This may suffice to resolve the Conscience in respect of the Law. Thus have I given an Account of the Judgment of many learned Men concerning the Queries proposed How far they may prevail with others I cannot presage But I plainly perceive that many very learned and good Men are yet of another Opinion and indeed there are many very difficult Arguments both from Scripture and Laws which by the several Interpretations given of them by learned Men of this and former Ages may confirm them in their prejudices Therefore my humble Request to them that are yet unsatisfied is That laying aside all Prejudices they would maturely consider of the Arguments Pro and Con and after diligent Enquiry and hearty Prayers follow the dictates of a well-informed Conscience Si quid novisti rectius istis Candidus imperti si non his utere mecum In the mean time let the Apostle's Rule be observed by the Parties of different Persuasions Rom. 14.1 c. which he gives in the Chapter immediately after the Rules for Obedience Him that is weak in the faith receive but not to doubtful disputations for one believeth that he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not And let not him that eateth not despise him that eateth Who art thou that judgest another mans servant Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind POSTSCRIPT THE Arguments that have been proposed may prevail with some persons to alter their Judgements concerning their Obligations to the late King and if so they will be sensible of the necessity of transferring their Duty to the Established Government which they may do with all cheerfulness and confidence of Acceptation and Favour for their present Majesties cannot but judge that they who were so conscientiously Dutiful to the late King while he kept his Station among them tho' he industriously sought to Ruine them as to their Civil and Religious Interests and were doubtful how they might Desert him when he had abandoned and deserted them I say they cannot but judge upon their ingaging to be true and faithful to them who have redeemed them from Slavery and Popery and have adventured all their Substance and their very Lives that they might secure to them their Laws Liberties and Religion which doubtless they will make their chief business because it is their interest so to do As to such who having weighed these Arguments are yet in Aequilibrio and doubt whether the late King or their present Majesties have the better right in such a case a man is to act according to his reason and discretion and then tho' he may be mistaken yet his mistake is pardonable now his discretion will teach him to recollect all the inconveniencies and Miseries that will most probably follow on his refusal to submit to the present Government if he still adhere to the interest of the late King and he should prove successful then in all probability he will intail Popery and Slavery not only on himself and Family but on the whole Nation for succeeding Ages and on the Protestant Nations throughout all Europe whereas if he live in due Obedience to the Established Government in conjunction with the Body of the Nation and study to be quiet and to do his own business following Peace and Holiness all those Evils may be prevented and the Lord will bless our Sion and we may see the good of Jerusalem all the days of our Life yea we may see our childrens children and peace upon all the Israel of GOD. These Considerations ought to turn the Scales which hung in equal ballance before To such a doubting person I shall propose this Case Suppose a person that hath been given to Quarrels and Brawels found dead and some wounds and bruises found by Inquest on his body whereby it is presumed that he was murdered and a Neighbour of his a person of a sober and peaceable conversation being known to have been in his company near the time and place where he was found dead is arrained for the Murder but no Evidence of the matter of Fact produced against him only some probable Circumstances the question is whether a Jury man that hath only some Circumstances to guide him in his Verdict may find such a person Guilty of that Murder which if he do he may draw the Guilt of shedding Innocent Blood on himself and undo a Neighbour's Family I think an Ignoramus would be more justifiable than a Sentence of Guilt Where the case is dubious we should choose that part which infers the least danger in case we should err as Aristotle says and thence he concludes It is much better to Absolve the Guilty than to Condemn the Innocent And Minus malum rationem induit boni In rebus dubiis pars tutior eligenda I know that Bishop Sanderson in his Judicium Ox. p. 44. hath determined That when a King is hindred from protecting his People Culpa non sua sed alienâ nec voluntatis defectu sed potestatis for want of Power we are not freed from our Allegiance but in case there is not only a defect of Power to protect us but a plain declaration of a Will to destroy us this will plainly overthrow that determination as the Bishop himself hath in other of his Writings done Ubi desunt judicia