Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	john_n	king_n	york_n	2,504	5	9.4841	5	false

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

subject it to another But the reason you give for it is wide from the purpose For a Prince may Subject his Crown to another and yet not thrust himself into a private capacity as you call it When King Iohn subjected his Crown to the Pope he ceas'd not thereby to be King of England and the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily are true Monarchies in the Family of Spain and yet Feudatory and Subject to the Pope One would have thought that you might have taken some notice of what I said upon this case in relation to the Native incroachments of the Sea and Court of Rome and how far a subjection in Spirituals may usher in a dependance even in Temporals But your self denyal will not allow you to be thought too knowing in what relates to your own Profession When you come to my third Case thô you at first confess it a pertinent Case yet you bring four pretty Answers against it The case being thus a King may be Dethron'd si in populi exitium feratur you answer 1. Grotius retracted this opinion how true this is I refer you to that Edition of his Works I formerly mentioned wherein instead of retracting this Case he confirms it by his Notes upon it you are as far in the wrong to Erasmus as to Grotius for having lookt upon the place cited there is not one word there relating to this case 2ly you tell me B. Taylor calls it a wild Case which is nothing to the purpose for none but wild Men can be capable of it then you say Grotius calls it a Case that scarce seems possible to happen That there have been such Monsters in the World appears by Nero's Firing the City of Rome and Caligula's wishing the Roman People had but one single Neck yea in the late Age have we not seen a Northern Prince invite his whole Nobles aboard his Ship and order them all to be murder'd before his Eyes It 's true we have been blessed with a better Race of Kings in England than to find any such Monsters in our Annals But how proper it was for a Divine to take notice of what I told you upon this Head How far a Prince may fall under this Category who endeavours to introduce a Religion inconsistent with his Peoples Eternal Happiness I am willing as well as you to appeal to your Parishioners Thirdly In answer to this Case you tell me More sober Casuists condemn the starting of such Speculative Cases and would fix upon me ill Service done to their Majesties in teaching their Subjects in what Cases they may Resist For the first part of this Answer you are pleas'd to instance no particular Casuist and I presume you are not able to do it unless you wrest their words as much as you use to do mine that is make them say what you please But when you so positively assert that in no case a Prince may be Resisted give me leave to think I refel sufficiently your assertion by instancing a case wherein you acknowledg you self Resistance is warrantable tho that case be very rare As to the second part of your answer I hope I shall be found to do no bad service to their Majesties in vindicating a Revolution wherein they have acted so glorious a part from the aspersions you have cast upon it And they have given the World so many and great demonstrations of a Sublim Vertue and of their abhorrence of Arbitrary Power as none but such as refuse to pray for them will dare to imagine they can possibly fall under any of the Cases I have mentioned And I heartily agree with you so far in point of Resistance that I firmly believe he who Resists such two darling Princes falls under the inevitable hazard of Damnation in the sense of your Text unless he repent Among a great deal of Rubbish of gentle Expressions I find nothing in your Fourth answer merits any notice but one thing that has been canted a thousands times over by your sort of Men Viz that the Precepts for Obedience given by our Saviour Saint Peter and Saint Paul were given at a time when the greatest Monsters of Cruelty were upon the Throne for so your express words are Sir even in this matter of Fact you commit a gross mistake for tho probably the two Apostles named wrote their Epistles in the Reigns of Caligula Domitian and Nero yet every Body knows that our Saviour's preaching was from the fifteenth till the eighteenth of Tiberius inclusivè who was none of the worst of Princes especially before that time of his Reign But as to that of the Apostles commanding subjection at a time when Monsters were upon the Throne to answer this I shall take occasion to give you my gloss upon that Text Romans 13.1.2 which has occasioned all our debate and in so doing perhaps I obviate all you have preached from it for Passive obedience and non-resistance The subjection there commanded to be given to the Higher Powers is in a proper sense a standing in order under them as on the contrary the Resistance prohibit is a Contraordinatness to them and so the very Etymology of the Greek words bears This being the genuine Critick of the words the meaning of them does fairly resolve into these two Corollaries First That the Gospel destroys not Magistracy nor exempts Christians from the Oeconomy of Subjection as some Hereticks at that time vainly imagined to which fond opinion it 's very probable the Apostle had an eye as many learn'd Men have thought particularly Gerhardus de Magist. polit n. 34.38 Secondly That Christianity exempts not the Professors of it from subjection to Heathen Magistrats as some Christians of that Age did maintain having imbib'd that principle from the Gaulonites among the Iews who held subjection to the Romans or any other Strangers unlawful and that likewise this heresie or error was in the Apostles view the same learn'd Author and a great many others do agree Now Resistance of open and notorious Violations of Magistracy in which case only I say Resistance is lawful contradicts not the subjection enjoyn'd in the Text being thus explain'd That subjection being nothing more but an acknowledgment of Magistrates as a Lawful Power ordain'd of God for the good of Mankind And that even at that time this was the Christians sense of this precept would appear by what I told you of the Senats declaring Nero an Enemy of Mankind and adjudging him to Death approv'd by the Christians of old and by the best of Lawyers and Casuists of late as for instance Bodinus de Republica Lib. 2. Cap. 5. And further That the Subjection here required is not to Princes abusing their Power by trampling upon all that 's Sacred as you would have it in naming of Nero is evincible from these Reasons First Such Princes are not the Ordinance of God the Relative of Subjection being they act in opposition to God. Secondly they are not a terror to

Burnet to be Author of that Pamphlet whether you will or not and in so doing you say I derogate from his Credit since he subscrib'd the Book of Homilies and has asserted Passive Obedience A strange shuffle indeed and of a piece with the rest of your Letter I never so much as insinuated any such thing and whether it be his or not I know not But sure I am all your Hearers thought and I have evinced it as much as the matter can bear That in the scurrilous Epithets you gave the Author of that Pamphet as you call it you design'd Dr. Burnet and this you wisely pass over without an Answer I was willing to think you were now asham'd of these Expressions but the whole Tenor of your Letter forbids me to think that blushing is your greatest fault It were a piece of odd presumption to suppose that Great Man needed any Mans Vindication especially mine And sure I am in his subscribing the Homilies and asserting Passive Obedience he sufficiently understood the sense of the Words and his Reason and Learning is too great to have been cheated into your Notion of them But you know the Sun loses none of his Rays by being barkt at In your second Paragraph I find nothing but a Repetition of the Homilies yet once more to prove Passive Obedience a Principle of the Church of Englands and this requires no other Answer but what I have already given you in stating the Question and clearing the sense of the Words You begin your third Paragraph with another shuffle in making me call Passive Obedience the darling Principle of the Church of England than which nothing was farther from my thoughts and to call it yours meaning Mr. Vicars was not in my Opinion to father it upon the Church of England Then you tell me I am forc'd to own That the Government of the Empire is so far different from that of England that what would be Rebellion here would be but a legal Defence there This requires indeed a considerable Talent of Confidence for I acknowledge no such thing Yea upon the contrary I asserted That the Bulla Aurea of the Empire and the Coronation Oath in England were so far parallel that they were both Barriers against the Incroachments of the Sovereign One would have thought that instead of mis-citing my Expressions a Man of your Character would rather have endeavoured to give a fair Answer by evincing That the Bulla Aurea warrants Resistance and the Coronation Oath disallows it You are as unjust to Sleidan as to me for the Duke of Saxony is mentioned by him to use no such Expressions as these you mentioned but instead of saying The Emperor was not a proper Sovereign his words are He is not an absolute and despotick Monarch and so may be resisted When you aver That Luther at first understood not the Government of the Empire when he was for Resistance I cannot but regret his misfortune in the want of your acquaintance seeing he might have been better instructed by you at Newcastle than either by his Reading or Converse with the Greatest Men upon the place And I have as little reason to believe his Ignorance on that Head as his recanting his Opinion for both are equally true As to what you say of Calvin and Melancthon's being for Passive Obedience if I had their Works besides me as I have not I could evince the contrary from their Writings But who knows not that the first did vindicate the Genevans their throwing off the Jurisdiction both of the Bishop of Geneva and Duke of Savoy whereof one of them behov'd to be their Soveraign and the last did allow of the Famous Smalcalde League against Charles V. Next you are so kind as to instruct me a little of the power of the Ephori whereof you suppose I am utterly ignorant I cannot in good manners but thank you for this condescendance And yet it 's somewhat strange how you come to have so intuitive acknowledge of me as without search to find me ignorant of what ev'ry School Boy may know I never dream'd that Keckerman Aristotle or Plutarchs works were so rare in Scotland as you insinuate perhaps the Books we have under these Names are spurious and you by a vast charge of enquiry have found out the Genuine ones that have not yet come our length I am hopeful your charity will oblige you to bestow one true Copy of these great Mens Works upon a whole Nation you have so great a kindness for And yet Sir if what we have of Plutarch be true you are as ignorant of the Spartan Kings as I of the Ephori for if you will consult his Lives of Agesilaus Agis and Lysander you may find that albeit Lycurgus found the Government lodged in two Kings and left it so yet both before his time and afterwards the Spartans were ruled but by one King and particularly from Archidamus to Agis the last of the Heraclidae including six Kings one after another Thereafter you are pleased very obligingly to accuse me of a downright Lye in saying Grotius allows of Resistance and yet with the same breath you confess he dropt in his younger years some unmeet expressions and unsound arguments in his Book de Iure Belli Pacis which afterwards you confidently affirm he retracted I can hardly be perswaded to take with a Lye in saying Grotius allows of Resistance since in my second Letter I gave you his own words for it and you your self acknowledge he did so But I am fully convinc'd you are guilty of a thing called a mistake in saying he retracted his Opinion for Bleaw's Edition of that Book with the addition of Notes written by himself a little before his death as the very title bears not only repeats all he had formerly said upon that Head but confirms it with new Additions to which I refer you Your Reflection upon Gillespy I am willing to impute to your love to his Country and yet I perswade my self it will meet with no better name among the most of Men than that of a groundless calumny In your fourth Paragraph you would fain fix upon me a contradiction in first asserting Passive Obedience to be the darling Principle of the Church of England and then denying it Certainly this is to try how far you can push forward an untruth without lying I did indeed call Passive Obedience your darling meaning Mr. Iohn Marches but that it 's the Principle of the Church of England I have evinc'd the contrary The next time I have occasion to name any thing that belongs to you I find I must play the Quaker and use the word Thine otherwise you will Father it upon the whole Church Next with the same ingenuity you say I confessed the Government of Holland to be so far different from that of England that what were Lawful Resistance there would be Rebellion here I need not tell you I said no such thing upon the contrary I