Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	york_n	5,445	5	9.8000	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65419	A vindication of the present great revolution in England in five letters pass'd betwixt James Welwood, M.D. and Mr. John March, Vicar of Newcastle upon Tyne : occasion'd by a sermon preach'd by him on January 30. 1688/9 ...	Welwood, James, 1652-1727.; March, John, 1640-1692.; Welwood, James, 1652-1727.	1689 (1689)	Wing W1310; ESTC R691	40,072	42

evil doers nor Ministers of God for our Good except in the sense that afflictions and plagues are and so they are defective in the necessary Qualities of these higher powers to whom Subjection is enjoin'd in the Text. In your seventh paragraph after some expressions becoming the gravity of a Divine you will needs vindicate once more your not making any distinction when you term'd self defence an old Phanatick principle and the reason you give is because the Apostle made none in your Text. By the same reason you would make but a sorry comment upon many places of Scripture to instance one for all our Saviour commands us to swear not at all Now would it be here impertinent to distinguish betwixt the kinds of Oaths in order to explain what Oaths are lawful and what not because our Saviour made no distinction You have unluckily stumbled upon the Euripus in contradicting me for saying that it flow'd and ebb'd ten or twelve times in the natural day and you very confidently allow it no frequenter tides then the River Tyne This in any other would be called an unaccountable mistake the fewest motions any Author allows it being five Tides in the four and twenty hours And that my account is true I refer you to Sir George Wheelers Travels where that ingenious Gentleman gives you an exact Scheme of the ebbing and flowing of this Streight as he had it upon the place from Father Babin and the Millers thereabouts When upon this score you satyrically envy the happiness of Travellers I think such men as you are much more happy then they if Claudians description of the happy man of Verona be good For it seems he took Benacus lake for the Ocean and you take measures of all the Seas of the World by the River of Tyne Next you tell me you expected from me a great many Citations out of the Roman Law for resistance of higher powers and because of your dissapointment you charm me with four Heroick Lines Sir I did indeed tell you the Roman Laws fixt a great many boundaries to the Magistrates power and that the Tribunitial Office was lodg'd in the Plebeians for that very cause I also told you the Romans were of all People the most impatient of Slavery and gave you a hint why after the Government of Rome became more despotick the Emperours were oblig'd to confound the Tribunitial power with the Imperial dignity and all this you wisely pass over It were to transcribe too great a part of the civil Roman Law to instance all the Laws and Sentences against Arbitrary Government But let these two suffice at present The first is of Theodosius the younger Cod. Iustin. lib. 1. tit 24. Princeps tenetur The Prince is bound to the Laws on the Authority whereof his Authority depends and to the Laws he ought to submit The second is of Constantinus Leo in Bizantin pro communi The end of a King is the general good which he not performing he is but the counterfeit of a King. These two I rather instance because the first is a more ample commentary upon Trajans expression to the Praetor than I can my self agree to And the second a clear cofirmation of what I said in stating of the question that Princes divest themselves of that sacred Character by their trampling upon Laws As to your Rhyming albeit you have aped Cleveland in a great many expressions of kindness to my Countrey and have coppied verbatim out of one of his Letters that raillery of the Mares eating Thiftles yet you come not altogether up to the Stile of that ingenious Poet in your lofty Verses In the end of this Paragraph you tell me that my two last Paragraphs are such an Augean Stable of unkind falsities as will tire Hercules to clear and because they contain no Argument you vouchsafe them no other answer but get thee behind me Satan I acknowledg that in these Paragraphs I take notice of more than one single Augean Stable but you know with whose furniture Replenish'd And pray Sir is 't a falsity that you entail'd no less then damnation upon these that meddled with the Kings Forts Army Revenue c. Seeing not only in that Sermon but in your first Letter you repeat it in express words Was there no matter of Argument in what I told you of your rash Censures being levelled no lower than a Crown'd Head Was it not proper for you to answer what I said in relation to you charging me with Scandalum Ecclesiae for checking your inveighing against the Nobility of England Is it a falsity that you neither preach'd your self not would allow your Pulpit to others on the Thanksgiving day appointed for the late mighty Deliverance When you cannot but know that all honest Men of the Place exclaim'd against you for it And you know best what it meant instead of a Sermon on that day to have read in one of the Churches the Homily against Rebellion I am loth to rake up any more of the dung of this your Augean Stable since the naming of Particulars might occasion such Consequences as I do not wish you And my silence herein should oblige you to a blush for your manner of treating me But when you call all these things falsities you put me in mind of the Nature or rather Epologue of that Animal who darkning his own Sight by shutting his head into a hole fancies himself invisible to others Above all things I cannot dream how you came by the Office of an Exorcist I took it for one of the Orders of the Romish and not of the Reform'd Church but I confess I 'm oblig'd to you for a great many things I never knew before Now because your heavy charge of Rebellion was so clearly levell'd against the Nobility and Gentry of England for their medling with the late King's Forts Castles c. And by ther Resisting his Forces which more then once you say is but an other name for Rebellion It were easie to demonstrate that the Nobles and People of England have not only done so before in former ages but depos'd their Tyranizing Princes and alter'd the direct and Lineal Succession of the Crown tho they justly adher'd to the Royal Blood I shall only give you one instance of each of these As to their Resistance and medling with Forts c. We have the famous instance in King Henry the III. from whom the Magna Charta was obtain'd by the Nobles and People of England by the edge of their Swords Of the second Richard II. was a memorable Example where neither the fresh remembrance of his excellent Father nor his own promises of amendment could save him from having fourteen Articles of Maleversation exhibited against him and then deposed Of the altering the direct Lineal Succession we have a paramount instance in Cooke 4. inst p. 36.39 where notwithstanding Iohn de Beaufort Son to Iohn of Gaunt was in his Legitimation formally and expresly excluded from the Crown of England yet the Parliament entail'd the Crown upon Henry VII heir of Lyne to this Iohn of Beaufort and to the heirs of King Henry's Body and that even before his Marriage with Princess Elizabeth of the Family of York who in Cook 's opinion had the nearest right to the Crown in her own Person As to your last Paragraph I deserved to be laught at if I had troubled my self with a formal answer to your Physical questions as you call them Yet methinks I should have had more thanks for giving you a hint of your Distemper without a Fee then to have my words repeated otherwise then I wrote them For I spoke nothing of the principal Cause of diseases but told you that a Redundancy of Choler with a little of adust Melancholly produces more Tragedies in the Body of Man then the Iuice of the Pancreas is capable to do and perhaps you find it so to your own cost Let us not quarrel for the honor of the discovery of the Circulation of the Blood. If you be pleased to compare Andreas Cisalpinus and Harvey together I hope you will alter your opinion and if you send to me for the former it may ease you of a Pisa or Oxford journey Before I leave this I cannot but admire your skill in the Belles Letters for I have often read that Laurels were wreath'd about the Victors head but that they were stuck in their bosoms I owe it to your discovery I expected you would rather have bestowed it on Solomon then on Cisalpinus which I gave you a fair opportunity to do but when any thing of Divinity comes in the Play you are as silent as the Moon in an Eclipse to use your own words tho I knew not before she was more silent at time then any other and would be gladly informed what Language at other times she Speaks As to our Law Question I am not much concern'd on either side being in no great hazard of being either a Vicar or his Curat You know the reason why I proposed it and you may do in it as your Christian Wisdom shall dictate to you But what a wretched notion have you of the term Iure Divino when you confound it with not being contrary to the Law of God And that you fall not into so gross a mistake a second time I refer you to the excellent and learned Author you named his Irenicon where you may learn a better definition of it After so Learned an Answer to my Letter I expected one to my Postscript and thought you might perhaps teach the World some middle way betwixt the poor Protestants of Ireland's Resisting King Iames and their tamely yielding up their Throats to be cut but this so seasonable a Secret you keep to your self Thus I have done with you and your Letter and never any of Loyolla's Sect injoyn'd a more nauseous Penance on their Votaries then I on my self in giving you an Answer Take it as the last you shall be troubled with from SIR Your humble Servant James Welwood ERRATA Page 11. Line 14. for in this read in Thesi. p. 16. l. 27. for Barly r. Barclay p. 22. l. 27. for bold fright r. bodily fright

Sovereign but only to God by Prayer and Patience Bishop Iewell in his Defence of the Apology speaks thus We teach the People as St. Paul doth to be subject to the Higher Powers not only for fear but also for Conscience sake We teach 'em That whoso striketh with the Sword by private Authority shall perish with the Sword. If the Prince happen to be wicked or cruel or burdensom we teach 'em to say with St. Ambrose Tears and Prayers be our Weapons This I hope will be sufficient to evince That Passive Obedience was own'd by our Church in the Days of Queen Elizabeth of Blessed Memory and that in the same sense I did assert in my Sermon Fifthly In the next place you attempt to prove the lawfulness of Resisting the Kings of England from the Coronation Oath which you say is of the same import with the Bulla Aurea in Germany but for this we have no other proof than your own ipse dixit as if the Soul of Pythagoras by a Metempsychosis had at last taken up its Lodging in a Scots Tenement But I assure you Sir your bare word is of no such Authority with me Besides I have already proved That the Emperor by reason of the Bulla Aurea is no proper Sovereign And if you should say the Prince of Orange is no proper Sovereign now that he is proclaim'd King of England it would be as bad or worse than to drink a Health to the Success of King Iames's Forces against all Invaders whatsoever at that very time when the Prince of Orange was coming over to rescue the Nation from Popery and Slavery and yet this you merrily did in a certain House at the lower end of Westgate so that for all your pretended Zeal you are a sneaking Proteus and it would be as easie to shape a Coat for the Moon as for your Latitudinarian Conscience But I must instruct you That the King of England is a Sovereign Prince before his Coronation nor is his Oath necessary to make him so seeing Henry the Sixth Reign'd divers Years in England before he was Crown'd and yet was own'd by his Parliaments for their dread Sovereign Nay further our Chronicles inform us That some of our Kings were never Crown'd and besides all this I desire you and those of your Cabal to shew any thing in the Coronation Oath that allows Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince In the next place you pretend to give such an exact State of the Controversie as you say will in one word refute the Tenet of Passive Obedience and in order hereunto you offer four Cases out of Barclay and others in which as you tell me They all agree that it 's lawful for Subjects to resist and wage War against their Sovereign Princes Had you read your Country-man Barclay as you pretend you would have found that he allows only two Cases in which a Prince may be divested of his Royal Dignity and when you come to propose these four Cases you mention only three Such is the great Excellence of your Memory notwithstanding that according to the Proverb Some stand in need of a very good one First Your first Case is When a Prince does voluntarily and freely relinquish his Crown and Dignity as did Charles the Fifth Christiana of Sweden and to name no more nine Saxon Kings mentioned in Fuller's Church History Now in this Case the Prince who voluntarily resigns the Crown becomes for the future a private Person and should he afterwards by force endeavour to recover his Dignity which by his own consent is vested in the next Heir he may no doubt be resisted But sure this is not resisting a King or the Higher Powers but a private Person in defence of a lawful King and so is nothing to your purpose and pray look your Barclay again and see if this Case as you say is there Secondly If a Prince alienates his Crown and Subjects to another you say he may be resisted this without any harm may be granted too For as I own no Allegiance to a Foreign Prince so my own Prince has voluntarily divested himself and thrust himself into a private Capacity and in this case we do not resist the Higher Powers but a private Person And this instance does also fall short of the mark Thirdly The third Case is more pertinent for you say a King may be deposed or resisted Si hostili animo in populi exitium feratur This you have transcribed from Grotius and the meaning of it is this Whether a Sovereign Prince may be resisted in case he undertakes to destroy his whole Kingdom or any considerable part thereof If we may take your honest word Grotius and all that you have read resolve this Point in the Affirmative To which I answer First That Grotius with due submission to your vast reading did as I shew'd above retract in his riper Years this dangerous Opinion which Erasmus in Luke 22. stiles a most pernicious Heresie Secondly Bishop Taylor calls it deservedly a Wild Tenet and Grotius as well as he acknowledges it can scarce seem possible to happen It is certain that we have not one single instance of it in the whole Race of our British Kings Thirdly More sober Casuists condemn the starting such speculative Cases as Princes cutting the Throats of their Subjects because they have been found the Incentives of Rebellion They were such Fears and Out-crys as these that brought King Charles the Martyr to the Block and have stain'd your Scotch Chronicles with the Murders of above sixty Sovereign Princes So that King William and Queen Mary will have cause to thank you for giving such early Demonstrations of your Loyalty in the very beginning of their Reign teaching their Subjects in how many cases they may resist when the Laws of the Land say expresly That it 's unlawful to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever Fourthly Put the case that Tiberius Caligula Claudius or Nero be the King and your Countryman Barclay instances such Monsters as these as being the greatest he could find in all History you and he both affirm they may be lawfully resisted it is not for me to oppose such Learned Gentlemen but I will assure you once more Grotius is against you and I hope he is not very much inferior to your Doctorship in Learning and Judgment And must I tell you again what I told you from the Pulpit viz. That those Prohibitions against Resistance which are given in the New Testament by our Saviour St. Paul and St. Peter were remarkably given at such a time when these greatest Monsters of Cruelty sat on the Throne and pray ask my Parishioners whether they do not believe our Saviour St. Paul and St. Peter to be as good Casuists as your Doctorship and Countryman Barclay Having thus destroyed the very Foundations your State of the Controversie stood on your slender superstructure and puerile flourishes will tumble with them In the next

told you that the Coronation Oath in England ran parallel with that of the Family of Burgundy in whose right Philip of Spain was Lord of Belgium And this you skip over as all the rest that 's material You use your old way of shuffling in fixing on me the mentioning only the Hollanders in the Protection given by Queen Elizabeth Whereas I named the Protestants abroad in general whereof these of the Low Countries were but a part yet by this little trick of skill you wisely pass over the assistance that Great Princess gave the Protestants of France who never could lay claim to any such priviledges as either the Low Countries or England justly pretend to that Government being as absolute as any in Christendom ever since Lewis XI Notwithstanding of which She protected them at a vast charge in the Reigns of Charles IX and Henry III. Yea it was not only in Q. Elizabeth's time that England assisted the Protestant Subjects of France against their incroaching Princes but in King Charles I. Reign the Expedition of Rochel was carried on by King and Parliament and cordially agreed to by the Fathers of the Church What a poor shift are you forc'd to use to evite my argument from the concurrence of the Clergy in Convocation when you play upon the word Act of Parliament as if I had named the act of Convocation thus which I did not All the World knows they gave considerable summs for managing that assistance given by the Queen and thereby allowed of the action it self Your Citations of Bilson and Jewel are to no purpose the stating of the Question clears sufficiently their meaning You begin your Rhapsody of a fifth Paragraph with a snarl at my saying there was a Parallel betwixt the Coronation Oath of England and the Golden Bull of the Empire and yet you are not able to evince the discrepancy betwixt them If you cast your eyes upon that Bull you may find that by it the Emperor is to swear observance of the Laws and Liberties of the Empire and so does the King of England swear at his Coronation the observance of the Laws and Liberties of England And I would have you to take notice that neither in the Golden Bull nor our Coronation Oath there is any irritant clause expressing power to resist in case of violation of either for the nature of the Contract warrants it without the necessity of any such express clause As to that Calumny of my drinking to the success of King Iames's Arms against all Invaders I 'll give you this advice The first time you Preach upon the ninth Commandment allow your self a Reflection upon that place of Scripture Romans 2.22 23. Thou that sayest a Man should not commit adultery dost thou commit adultery Thou that abhorrest Idols doest thou commit Sacriledg Thou that makest thy boast of the Law through breaking of the Law dishonourest thou God You have been so unhappy in this Calumny that it 's the only one neither my Friends nor Enemies will believe and even in laying the Scheme of it you shew your good nature in insinuating His present Majesty came to England as an Invader whereas none but such as you denyed him the quality of a Deliverer What a needless puther do you make about the Coronation Oath because forsooth the King of England is a Soveraign before his Coronation This ev'ry body knows and yet I would have you likewise to know that a Princes acceptance and exercise of the Regal Power before Coronation is in it self an Homologation of the Coronation Oath and he becomes virtually obliged by it as a necessary condition of the Original Contract betwixt him and his Subjects And in case a King should contradict the whole tenour of that Oath by Male-administration it were no rational excuse to alledge he had not actually taken the Coronation Oath seeing it 's presumed in Law he knew the terms on which he attain'd that dignity In the end of this Paragraph you desire me to shew you any thing in the Coronation Oath that allows Subjects to take up Arms against their Prince I have told you before that it 's not Lawful for Subjects to rise up against their Princes acting as lawful Magistrates and there is no necessity of an express clause in the Coronation Oath to warrant Resistance in case of a Princes overturning all Laws Because the Nature of the thing inforces it And moreover you will find no such express clause in the Golden Bull nor in the Plan of the Government of the Netherlands nor of any Monarchick Government in Europe Poland alone excepted So that if the nature of the Government do not allow Resistance without any such express clause you will be as little able to vindicate the Hollanders and the Princes of the Empire from the imputation of Rebellion as I the Subjects of England In the beginning of your sixth Paragraph you are heavy upon the poor Transcriber of my Letter for the mistake of the Figure 4 instead of 3 and I am displeased at him too for angering you Then after your usual manner of calling me a lyer for what reason I know not you come to answer my three cases which I cited both out of Grotius and Barclay with your good leave And the first case you would answer is none of mine for instead of saying a Prince may be Dethroned when he voluntarily and freely relinquishes his Crown as you would have me to say My words out of Grotius were these si imperium abdicavit vel habet pro derelicto which are as far distant from yours as East and West And the case as you word it will not admit of sense for he that Dethrones himself by a voluntary Renunciation as Charles V. needs not to be Dethroned by others An office may be truly and properly abdicate when there is no solemn formal Renouncing it and to evince this I 'll give you but two instances of Offices that have a near analogy with Monarchy If a General in the Field of Battel would either absent himself or by a supine negligence refuse to give the word of Command or lead on the Army In this case there is no formal Resignation of his Office And yet how unreasonable were it to debar the Soldiers from making choice of another General in so urgent a juncture Secondly What office seems more despotick than that of a Master of a Ship Now in case amidst an imminent hazard of death the Master cannot be prevail'd with to use his skill to prevent Shipwrack and yet will not voluntarily Resign his place to another Who can justly blame the Seamen to appoint one in his place to direct them to a safe Harbour And how near a Parallel there is betwixt these two examples and our late juncture in England the Votes of both Houses have evinced in the word Abdicated The second case wherein you acknowledg Resistance is lawfull is this if the Prince either alienate his Kingdom or