Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	great_a	king_n	portugal_n	2,523	5	10.0178	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40071	An answer to the paper delivered by Mr. Ashton at his execution to Sir Francis Child ... together with the paper itself.	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.; Ashton, John, d. 1691.; Child, Francis, Sir, 1642-1713.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1695; ESTC R30132	19,700	32

better became a dying man to judge more charitably of his Fellow Subjects Had he never heard of the Law of England requiring Allegeance to the King on account of the Possession of the Crown and that our most eminent Lawyers in peaceable and quiet Times have been of that Opinion Methinks at least that should make modest men not so peremptory in such a Charge for it is to make such an Oath unlawful which the Law makes not only lawful but a Duty And when the greatest Lawyers this Nation hath had thought this a part of our Law shall such who confess themselves unskilful in the Law charge the Nation with Perjury for taking an Oath which the Law requires But if our Law did not require it there is such a general consent in mankind about it that it seems to me to be a Law of Nations That an Oath of Fidelity should follow Possession because otherwise there would be infinite snares to the Consciences of all such who are required to obey but are not bound to enquire into the Rights of War Is it Perjury and Rebellion in the new French Conquests for the Inhabitants to take Oaths of Fidelity to the French King If not how comes it to be so here Is there not the same Right of War here as abroad Was it Perjury and Rebellion in the Subjects of the King of Spain in Portugal to take a new Oath of Allegeance to the Duke of Braganza when he was declared King And yet they were all sworn before not only to the King of Spain but to his Heirs And even the Duke himself had not only taken this Oath but the Spaniard particularly charged him with Perjury and great Ingratitude Yet the obligation to his Countries good was then thought to overrule that Personal Obligation to the King of Spain But if they were all guilty of Perjury and Rebellion how came the other Princes of Europe so frankly and readily to own his Government and the French as much and as early as any sending Assistance by Sea and Land to support it But in this Revolution of Portugal the best Title was the Success of War sounded on a remote Title to the Crown when the King of Spain had enjoyed the Possession of that Crown to the Third Generation But it may be said That the Practices of other People are to be no Rule ●o us and that we are not to be guided by bad Precedents abroad but by the Principles and Doctrins of our own Church This were to the purpose if our Church had any where declared Taking such an Oath to be Perjury But where is that done I confess I can find no such thing And if Mr Ashton or his Friends had made such a Discovery they ought to have told the World of it But if there be no such Declaration to be met with then we are left to the General Rules of Conscience and the Common Reason of Mankind according to which I see no ground for this heavy Charge of Perjury and Rebellion in our present Case But although Mr. Ashton be so abundantly satisfied in the Design he mentions that if he had ten thousand Lives he would sacrifice them all in so good and necessary a Work yet the Remainder of his Speech is spent in clearing his Innocency as to the Fact for which he was Condemned If it was so Meritorious an Act to Die in such a Cause a Man might have been tempted to be thought Guilty But before he could think fit to Die in Charity with all the World he saith several things with a Design to blacken the Iudges the Iury and the Government The Iudges he Accuses of a Severe Charge and the Hard Measure he received As to the latter it is a very odd kind of Hard Measure when he was so very little sensible of it then that he said He did not Complain of the Court fo 112. and more fully afterwards fo 115. I cannot but own I have had a fair Trial for my Life Where was the Hard Measure then Therefore this could not be Mr. Ashton's Sense unless he would contradict himself and those who would free him from it must take these Words to have been written by others who thought to serve another End by it and were not so near giving an Account for such Calumnies The severity of the Charge lay in applying the Statute 25 Edw. 3. to his Fact Which was a Design to carry into France a Treasonable Scheme and Project of an Invasion in order to the deposing the King and Queen This last the Judges declared had been always held to be High-Treason All the Question was then Whether such a Fact were an Overt-Act of such a Design and so it was left to the Jury whether Mr. Ashton intended to go over with such a Design or not If there be any Severity here it must be in the Law and that all those who suffer by a Law are apt to complain of He particularly chargeth that Iudge and that Iury-man who did he saith signally contrary to common Iustice expose themselves to destroy him This is a very hard Charge from a Dying man and ought to have great Evidence to reconcile it to common Charity but he offers none The Iury were to Act according to their Consciences and if they did so how could they expose themselves contrary to common Iustice to destroy him But what Evidence doth he give that they did not so Some have told him that he was the first man that was ever Condemned for High Treason upon bare suspicion or Presumption and that contrary to my Lord Cook and other Eminent Lawyers Opinions The main point as to the Iury was Whether they were satisfied in their Consciences that Mr. Ashton intended to go into France with such a Design And where the Fact lies in the Intention there can be no direct Evidence without seeing the Hea●t but it must be gathered from a Concurrence of Circumstances strong enough to determine an honest mans Judgment And such the Iury believed to be in his Case My Lord Cooks words are on the Case of Treason That the Compassing Intent or Imagination thô secret is to be tried by the Peers and to be discovered by Circumstances precedent concomitant and subsequent with all endeavour evermore for the safety of the King It is true he saith afterwards Fol. 1● That conjectural Presumptions or Inferences or strains of Wit are not sufficient but there must be good and manifest Proof but still this Proof must be such as the thing will bear for there can be no direct and plain proof of a secret Intention Either therefore no man can be justly Condemned for a secret Intention manifested by an Overt-Act or there must be such a Proof allowed as is sufficient to satisfie a mans Conscience although it come not up to plain and direct Evidence as it is opposed to the highest degree of Presumption But it may be said that the Presumption lies in judging

Speech which at least do not become the Charity of one just going out of the World Therefore I rather believe it to be drawn up by some Persons of more Art and Leisure who thought it best to convey their own Sentiments as they call them under the more popular Name of one who suffered for their Cause But the Weight of what is said doth not depend on the Person and therefore I shall calmly and impartially consider the Things themselves and shew how unjust and unreasonable the Insinuations are which respect the present Government and all such who act in Obedience to it There are two Things this Paper is said to be design'd for to assert his Principles and to testify his Innocency For his Principles he professeth that he dyes in the Faith and Communion of the Church of England And he might have lived longer in both if he had pleased for I cannot see how the Faith and Communion of the Church of England obliged him to do that for which he suffered But by the Faith of the Church of England he means the Doctrine of Passive Obedience Be it so however he suffered not for his Passive Obedience but for the want of it If he had regulated his Life by this Principle he had preserved it yet he saith he did so and dyed for it There must be certainly then some great Mistake about the Doctrines and Principles of our Church I alwayes thought those are to be found in the Articles and Constitutions of it Which of these did he suffer for They are he saith her Principles and late much esteemed Doctrines tho now unhappily exploded I know of no Doctrines or Principles of the Church of England which are exploded among us and therefore this is unhappily insisted on by a dying Man unless he had given some Proof of it Well but he believed himself obliged by his Religion to look upon his Rightful Lawful Prince whatever his Principles were or his Practices might be as God's Vicegerent and accountable to God only from whom he received his Power All this he might have done and have been alive still for the Matter in dispute is not whether Rightful Lawful Kings are to be obeyed but who in our present Circumstances is our Rightful Lawful Sovereign not whether Kings be not God's Vicegerents ' but whether God doth not sometimes confer the Right of Sovereignty by a Law superiour to the Laws of particular Countries that is by the Law of Nations which establisheth such a Right upon the success of a just War not whether Sovereign Princes are not accountable only to God but whether Allegiance be not due where the Rights of Sovereignty are placed by an extraordinary Act of Providence and the concurrent Consent of the Nation But he goes on And alwayes believing it to be contrary to the Laws of God the Church and the Realm upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against him and let all the World take notice in this Belief I dye I had much rathor have taken notice that in this Belief he lived for I see no Reason of his dying for it For why must a Man be said to die for not taking up Arms who was Condemned to die for a Design just con●rary viz. for the subverting the present Government by Domestick Insurrections and Foreign Power So that the Question is not about Passive Obedience but to whom it is due I grant that the Laws of God and of the Realm are to determine the Measures of our Obedience but here lies the only Point whether the Rights of Sovereignty may not be transferred by the success of a just War and the Consent of the People For if they may then according to his own Principles he suffered justly And if the Directors of his Conscience did not speak to this Point they led him into a dangerous Error and have been too much the Occasion of his suffering Therefore to clear this whole Matter and to prevent the like Mistakes in others I shall endeavour to state the present Case of our Government so as to shew both that it is our Duty to submit to it and that no Principles or Doctrins of the Church of England are violated thereby To do this we must of necessity look back to the Occasions of this great Revolution And there were two principal Occasions of it First Great and violent Presumptions of an Injury to the Right of Succession Secondly Too great Evidence of a formed Design to subvert the established Religion and Civil Liberties of the Nation Now there are two very material Questions which arise from hence First Whether these were the just Occasions of a War Secondly Whether upon the success of this War the Rights of Sovereignty were duly transferred If these were just Occasions of a War and upon the Success thereof the Sovereignty was duly transferred then there can be no Dispute left to whom our Allegiance is due It is taken for granted by all who understand these Matters that as there is a Law of Nature which determines the Rights and Properties of particular Nations and that all private Persons are bound to submit to the municipal Laws of those Societies for their Peace and Security So there are other Laws which concern those Nations as they make up several independent Governments upon each other And there are several Rights which belong to them with respect to one another which do not belong to private Persons as they live in subjection to any particular Government And as there are such Rights so there must be a just and lawful way for Reparation of Injuries In particular Governments the thing is plain by established Laws and Courts of Judicature whose Sentence is Executed by the Civil Power but in Separate Nations and Independent Governments although there be Laws by consent called the Law of Nations yet there is no common Judicature to determine of Right and Wrong and therefore in case of Injury there is an allowance for the injured Party by this Law of Nations to Right himself by Force as there would be to every particular Person if there were no Laws nor Power to see them executed There is then a Right in every Sovereign and Independent Prince to exercise Force against another Prince who detains any Right from him or doth any Injury to him or to those he is bound to defend The Question then comes to the Iust Occasions of such a War and here are two assigned First great and violent Presumptions of an Injury to the Right of Succession This is expresly mentioned and insisted on in the Declaration of the then Prince of Orange our present King in these Words But to crown all there are great and violent Presumptions inducing us to believe that those evil Counsellors in order to the carrying on of their ill designs and to the gaining to themselves the more time for the effecting of them for the encouraging their Complices and for the discouraging of all good

of the Reformed Religion as plainly appeared in the Affairs of Germany had such an Influence on the Councils of France as to make them break Promise in such a manner as hazarded the loss of the whole Party in Germany The next is That he had broke his Articles with his Protestant Subjects when he had been a Mediator of Peace between them and they had done nothing to violate them So that a Design to suppress the Protestant Religion in a Neighbour Country was looked on as a just Cause of War when he was concerned to preserve it And then another Form of Prayer was Appointed to be used suitable to that Occasion which plainly evidence That such a Design was no ways thought repugnant to the Doctrins and Principles of the Church of England But since the French Conduct seems to be now admired by this sort of Men I shall bring some remarkable Instances from them It is Notorious to the World what Powerful Assistance the French gave to the Confederate Princes of Germany against the Emperour their Lawful Prince and what Defence they made for this They Published an Account to the World of the Reasons of it and the Chief was this viz. That they had Reason to suspect that from Charles the Fifth's Time the difference of Religions had been secretly supported by the Emperours in order to their making themselves Absolute and that the Changing the Form of Government in the Empire was sufficient for a Neighbour Prince to interpose by force of Arms. In the Revolt of Catalonia from the King of Spain their Lawful Prince the French King accepted of the Sovereignty over them being offered him by the States of that Country and caused Discourses to be written in Justification of their Transferring their Allegeance And yet their Complaint was nothing but the Severity of the Spanish Government and a desire of some greater Liberties than they enjoyed under it Why then should it be now thought an Unjust thing for a Sovereign Prince so nearly related to the Crown of England to espouse the Cause of our Religions and Civil Interests when the Design was so apparent for the Suppressing them If that Opportunity had been lost they might before this time have been past all reasonable hopes of Recovery II. But suppose this were allowed yet here is another Difficulty ariseth concerning the transferring Allegeance from a Lawful Prince to him that met with unexpected Success in his Design And here I shall endeavour to make it plain That this is not against the Doctrins and Principles of the Church of England If we allow the Church of England to have declared its Sense in the Matter of Government it can only be with respect to Subjects But I think the Measures of our Obedience are not to be taken from the Rules of the Church but from the Laws of the Realm Because they are not the same in all Countries where the same Religion is Professed as is plain in the Case of France and Poland The Reason of the different Measures in these Countries is not from the Church but from the different Constitution of the Kingdoms And I do not see how the Rules of the Church can alter the Fundamental Laws For the Church only enforceth the Duty of Obedience on the Consciences of Men but it doth not prescribe or limit the Bounds of it Whether our Monarchy be Absolute or Limited or if Limited whether in its Exercise of Power or in the Right of Sovereignty how far the Limitation gives a Right of Resistance in case of the Breach of it are nice Questions but not to be Resolv'd by the Rules of the Church but by our Legal Constitution and the General Reason of Mankind And therefore in such Cases where the Right of War and a Foreign Power are concerned we are not to judge meerly by Municipal Laws but we are to proceed by a more General Law viz. that of Nations which takes in the Effects of a just War which the particular Laws of a Country have n● regard to But where hath the Church of England declared its sense about the Right of War The Articles of our Church declare that the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm doth appertain to the Civil Magistrate But they no where say that in a just War the Supream Power cannot be acquired or that God doth never confer it in an extraordinary method The Book of Homilies is very severe against Disobedience and wilful Rebellion but it is no where said that where the Right of Sovereignty is transferred by a successful War there is no Allegeance due to those who possess it On the contrary it is said in the first Part That If God for their wickedness had given them an Heathen Tyrant to Reign over them they were by God's Word bound to obey him and to pray for him Can it then be agreeable to the Doctrins and Principles of our Church to refuse Allegeance to good Religious Princes whom God hath made the happy Instruments of preserving our Religion and Liberties In the same Part the Iews are commended for praying for the King of Babylon when they were in Captivity that they might live under his Protection and do him Service and find Favour in his sight And what is this short of Allegeance to one who had nothing but bare Success in War to plead for his Title to it If any Princes of their own Religion had rescued them from that Captivity would they have scrupled Allegeance to them when we see how far the Maccabees went in the Defence of their Religion and Laws In the Second Part the obedience of the Iewish Nation to Augustus is commended and it is evident that he had no Authority over them but by the Right of War And our Blessed Saviour's example is mentioned who being brought before the Roman President acknowledged his Power and Authority to be given him from God And how was this Authority conveyed to him but by the success of War So that we can find nothing in the certain established Doctrin and Principles of our Church which is repugnant to our Allegeance to the present Government I might easily produce considerable Testimonies of some of the greatest Divines of our Church which assert that Soverignty may be transferred by a just War but I leave that to others and proceed Mr Ashton saith That we were born leige Subjects to another that we have solemnly professed our Allegeance and often confirmed it with Oaths I know no body denies it But is this all Is our Allegeance so inseparable from the Person we have once sworn to that no Case whatsoever can alter it Not the Case of plain voluntary Dereliction Not the Case of putting the Kingdom under a Foreign Power Not the seeking the utter Ruin and Destruction of the People Is Allegeance inseparable in these Cases because we were Born Subjects and did swear Allegeance If not then it is not always so notwithstanding the Oaths For