Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	argument_n	church_n	true_a	3,018	5	5.1635	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28440	King William and Queen Mary, conquerors, or, A discourse endeavouring to prove that Their Majesties have on their side, against the late king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good title shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of Parliament, King James abdicated the government, &c. : written with an especial regard to such as have hitherto refused the oath, and yet incline to allow of the title of conquest, when consequent to a just war.	Blount, Charles, 1654-1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing B3309; ESTC R23388	40,332	68

by two Princes put to the Decision of the Sword and the Sword hath decided it in favour of him whom the far-greater Part of the Nation did at that time for good reason believe to be injured he ought still to leave it to an Arbitration as if it were not already decided And if an Arbitration ever was in any case unreasonably expected after a Decision it is so in this For when King James fled he took along with him all that were able to have given positive Evidence all that had been Intriguers supposing a Trick and all that by answering of cross Questions might unawares have discovered the Truth 2. In bar of the Right of the Prince of Wales supposing him to be Genuine or of whatever other Issue King James may have had since or may have at any time hereafter I have this further to offer The Title of Conquest is good against the conquered Prince and his Heirs born after the Conquest So that in an Hereditary Monarchy as he loses the Crown so do his Posterity lose all Right of Succession For certainly we must not say the Conqueror may hold the Government during the Life of the Dispossessed but is bound at his Death to surrender it to his Heir The Mischiefs and Absurdities that follow such an Opinion every Man sees so plainly that they need not now be particularly mentioned Let it suffice at the present to say that the Good of the Community which is the End of Government and the chief Reason that makes Conquest a good Title against the Conquered Prince makes it likewise hold against his whole after-Line For the Inthroning of any of the whole Line is as difficult and as full of Hazard and Detriment to the Publick as the Re-inthroning of the Conquered Prince and therefore the former ought no more to be attempted than the latter Nor doth this that I have said at all prejudice the Right of the Princess Ann of Denmark and her Heirs To clear this 1. It is to be remembred that I have already said our present Soveraigns conquered King James but not the Nation and therefore they acquired a Title to all the Rights of King James but not to any one of the Rights of the Nation Now King James before this Conquest had a Right that his Children should succeed Had he not been conquered to have put any of them by the Succession when legally it should have come to their Turn would have been an Injury to him and to them as having his Right descend upon them But by his being conquered that Right is lost and to put any of them by is no Injury to him nor to them by virtue of any Right derived from him considered solely by himself But then the Nation also hath a Right that his Children succeed as aforesaid and since the Nation was not conquered it hath not lost that Right 'T is true the Prince of Wales supposing him to be Genuine and whatever other Issue King James may since have had or may hereafter have is uncapable of the Succession because whatever Right comes to them as descended from him is lost by his being conquered and the Nation by Act of Parliament hath given away or annulled her Right to have them succeed But as I have said the Right of the Princess of Denmark and her Heirs which was before the Conquest is secured And not only for this Reason but 2. Because their Majesties the Victors having given their Consent to the Act of Settlement have thereby established it If it be said Supposing this to be true King and Parliament may at any time alter the Succession by a Bill of Exclusion of the next Heir Whether they may or no I do not take upon me to determine however it doth not follow from what I have written that they may ever do it but when it is manifestly as necessary to the End of Government viz. the Good of the Community as it is that the Heirs of the Conquered Prince do lose their Right of Succession 6. It follows from what I have written that no Imputation of Disloyalty can justly be laid on the Church of England Nor are the main Body of her Clergy who have sworn Allegiance to their present Majesties to be censured for so doing They have done no more than what the Principles of Government when rightly understood do justify nor have they in so doing renounced any one Doctrine taught either by the holy Scriptures or by our Church So that God whose own Right Hand at the first planted this Church and hath ever since watered her and been as a Hedg about her hath not only continued to defend her at this dangerous Crisis but hath done it after such a way as leaves no Stain upon her And I hope this Effort of his Power and Goodness and Wisdom is an Argument that he intends still to preserve her notwithstanding the Malice of her Enemies and the Weakness of some of her Friends who have at this time unhappily joined Hands with them and act against her Interest altho without any such Design When in the late Reign I considered the restless Malice of her Enemies the bold Steps that had been already taken and that were daily taking to her Ruine that no Petitions on her behalf would be heard no not so much as pardoned that nothing but Horce was left to save her and that any Resistance to Sovereign Authority offered by her Members would in the Judgment of many rob her of that bright Character of Loyalty which her very Enemies had not hitherto had Forehead enough to deny her It was a very melancholick Thought But when I further considered that her Members were so fully perswaded of the Unlawfulness of resisting that it was not to be expected from them however not such a vigorous united Force as would have effected her Deliverance and that any lesser Force would have helped forward her Ruin I say when I considered these things I greatly feared that was the time when God resolved to visit her in Anger and to reckon with us for our walking so unworthy of the most holy Faith professed by her and for our horrible Abuse of all our other Mercies But he is pleased not only to consult the Safety but the Honour and Reputation of our Church He hitherto spares us for the sake of those holy Souls that pray for the Peace of our Jerusalem and as it seems to me that he may give this unbelieving Age another Argument of his Being of his Providence and of his Care of the Protestant Religion that is of True Christianity And therefore such as make the late little less than miraculous Revolution an Argument against these go a great way towards the filling up the measure of their Iniquity I hope Authority will be so careful to restrain them that their horrid Impiety shall not be charged upon the Nation And now I shall leave what I have written to the Reader 's sober Thoughts repeating my Request That he would consider maturely and judg impartially I know some will be apt to say There is no occasion for so much Caution to Protestants whose Interest may be suppos'd to be a Byass on the Side I write for and not against it But to such I observe That a fancied Reputation of extraordinary Loyalty Scorn to change an Opinion that a Man has pleaded for suffer'd for and perhaps written for having espoused a Party and been considerable on that account and imbittered against the contrary side These and some other Circumstances do many times with some Tempers out-ballance even Interest it self and turn the Scale of Mens Judgments against it And of this I am so fully perswaded that I cannot but fear worse Effects from these and such like Prejudices than from any thing that can be objected against what I have said The God of Light and Love open our Understandings govern our Wills cool our Heats and temper all our Affections so as we may see and embrace the things that belong unto our Peace before they be hid from our Eyes FINIS 〈◊〉 ●st of ●he Deser●●on Pa. 81. Hist. of the Desertion Pag. 7. Pag. 24. Prince of Orange's Declaration Reasons for withdrawing himself from Rochester Prince's 1st Declaration Hist. of the Desertion p. 8. Pag. 10. Pag. 13. Pag. 43. Object Answ. Pag. 76. Pag. 79. P. 81 82. Pag. 89. Pag. 92. Pag. 93. P. 91 92. Pag. 92. Pag. 100 101. Ibid. Pag. 105. Pag. 104. Pag. 106. Object Baker's Life of Rich. II. His Life of Hen. IV. Pag. I. Reign of Hen. VII Pag. 3 4 5 6. Pag. 11 12. Speed Edw. 4. p. 886. Object Ansm. O 〈…〉 Reasons for withdrawing himself from Rochester Object Lord Herbert's Life and Reignof Henry 8th p. ag 184 to 192. Pag. 192. Pag. 204. De Serres p. 617. De Jure Belli Pacis lib. 3. cap. 15. Sect. 1 2. Ibid. Sect. 1. Object Answ. Object Answ. Object Answ. P. 45 to48

against him amounts as to Matter of Right to a Conquest over him it must follow that they have acquired as great a Right against him as ever any Conquerors against such as they have vanquished and that is to all they can get the possession of In many Cases Conquest will justify the Subjects in transferring their Allegiance to the Victor when he had not a just Quarrel against the Vanquished although in such a Case the Victor sins in accepting of it But now in the Case of a just Quarrel both the Conqueror and the Subjects are justified the latter in transferring their Allegiance and the former in accepting And the Reason is plain When a Prince refuses to give Satisfaction to an injured Neighbouring Prince he puts the Matter to the Decision of the Sword For Princes have not like Subjects Courts of Law to implead each other in where the Injured may try their Cause and recover their Right Their Sword is their only Remedy nor can they have any other Redress than it gives And he that has once injured his Neighbour gives him to understand how he will use him if he overcomes him that he will follow his Fortune and extort from him all he can And therefore if he himself is overcome the same Measure may justly be meeted out to him Nor must it be said that the Conqueror in such a Case gains a Right only to what he demanded before the War for that was his Due before the Hazard and Expence of it and he is not only to be satisfied for that first Injury but also for the Hazard his Enemy has unjustly made him run and the Expence he hath put him to and he has Reason to be very well paid for both Nay as his Enemy hath unjustly made him run the Hazard of his own Life so has it always been understood that if afterwards he comes into his Hands he forfeits his Life in lieu of it And if so then if he escapes either with or without his Leave yet must the Victor have a Right to all of his that he can get possession of I grant what Grotius saith that in many Cases a Prince should be so merciful as not to make use of his Victory with Rigour but to accept of moderate Satisfaction and to take from the Vanquished nothing but the Power of Injuring as he cites it out of Crispus Sallustius But what if the Vanquished will rather give up or desert all than be abridged of that Power Was i● not so in the Case we are speaking of And what shall the Victor do in such a Case Certainly he should rather take all than leave the Vanquished still the Power of injuring For I assert what Grotius also grants that the Right I plead for is acquired and may be made use of Quatenus fert aut poenae nascent is ex delicto aut alterius debiti modus and that in using of a Victory all Circumstances are to be considered It is one thing to say a Man hath or hath not a Right and another to say Humanity or Christianity obliges him either to make use of it or not to make use of it A Man has a Right to every Penny of his Estate and if he will not give any thing to a poor Man he doth not injure him But yet may he be obliged upon the Score of Humanity or of Christianity to give largely And yet some Circumstances may free him from the Obligation of giving to that particular Man by laying greater upon him as in case his Father or other near Relation be fallen into such a Condition as to want every Penny that he can spare Or if that be the very Condition of his King or of his Country In such a Case he is excused from giving to that poor Man although in Want So here a Conqueror gains as I have said a Right to all of the Conquered that he gets possession of but yet it is a Point of Humanity and which is more of Christianity not to make use of his Fortune rigorously in ordinary Cases but still there may be Circumstances that free him from these Obligations yea and that do so alter the Case that it becomes a Point both of Humanity and Christianity to do it And that must be if ever when the Publick Good requires it when to leave the Vanquished the Possession of his Dominions would be to their apparent great Hurt and much more when it would also be to the Detriment of a considerable part of the World and to the Interest of the true Religion In such a Case the Conqueror not only may but ought to stand upon his rigorous Right against the Conquered yea although he be obliged to him in the strictest Bonds of Nature to speak plainly although the Vanquished be the Victor's Father For whatever Women or Children may think I hope no wise Man will say that a Man's Obligations to his Father are such as that for his single Interest he ought to do an Act highly prejudicial in its Consequences to the Good of a Kingdom to the Civil Rights and Liberties of Europe and which ought to weigh most to the Interest of the true Religion It is true I may not for all these put together do an Act in point of strict Right injurious to my Father or to any Man else For I may not do Evil that Good may come of it But I may go as far for the sake of these as strict Right will allow of and ought not to shew Favour or Kindness to any particular Man no not to my Father when the doing of it would be Cruelty to so many Millions Natural Affection is an indispensable Duty and is owing in an especial manner to a Father but it must not be indulged in this Instance for that would be against Reason that is against Nature I add that to ease a Man of the Cares that attend a Crown and reduce him to a private Life when at the same time you take from him the Power of oppressing and the Temptation to it is no such great Harm to a Man if he has but Philosophy enough to conquer his own Temper But some may say We grant the Prince and Princess had a just Quarrel against King James and conquered him And we also grant that Conquest would have been in this Case a good Title had it been stood upon But they have lost that Right for want of claiming and by leaving the Matter to the Determination of the Convention They did not as they should have done ascend the Throne as Conquerors but suffered themselves to be elected and made Soveraigns by the People So that they have now no Right of Conquest because they have receded from it 1. Although they should not formally insist upon that Title with the Subject yet it is not therefore destroyed When a Prince gains a Crown by Conquest and has other concurring Titles that I like not I think I may swear

out as appears by his many gracious Concessions at that time and especially to name no more by his passing the Bill for the Continuance of the Parliament not to be Prorogued or Adjourned but by Act of Parliament 3. If he would make any use of his Success it should have been to the Good of the Nation as settled under her lawful Prince But what had he and his Creatures to do to dissolve the Government especially to usurp the Supreme Power himself since he got it not either by the Consent of the King or of the Nation both which had been in his Case necessary A great deal more might be said to shew the Disparity between that and our present Settlement but I refer the Reader to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers where he will find the Prejudices raised from the Rump Parliament the Protector and the Committee of Safety removed Nor doth my asserting their Majesties Right acquired by Conquest at all thwart the Determination of the Convention viz. That the late King James Abdicated the Government and left the Throne Vacant For that the late King was Conquered and that he Abdicated the Government are not inconsistent It was by his own fault that he fell into such a Condition as that he thought it unsafe to stay in England yea and even to the last if he would have consented that the Ends of the Prince's Declaration might have been gained he needed not to have left us And since he rather chose to go away than to do Right either to Us or the Prince and did so without deputing a Vice-Roy what was this but to Abdicate us For certainly if a Prince rather chooseth to desert his People than to do what is just and reasonable when that and no more is made the Condition of his continuing with them he may be truly said to throw up the Government and to leave them to shift for themselves But of this enough That Vote of the Convention and the Methods of settling the Government thereupon taken have been justified by other Pens and the doing of it is not now my Province But then since it was the Success of the Prince's Arms that made him go away or rather since he would not have gone away had it not been for that Success it might be a Conquest too and I think I have proved it to have been so in the Sense I have explained my self that is it had attending it the principal Reasons that make Conquest a good Title and that is enough for our Satisfaction SECT IV. Concluding with some necessary Consequences of the three foregoing Propositions I Must now draw towards a Conclusion I hope I have proved my three Propositions 1. That King William and Queen Mary had a just Quarrel against King James 2. That they conquered him And 3. That Conquest is in this case a good Title I am sure I have offered nothing but what I thought to be Reason Nor have I baulk'd any Objection because it was too hard to be answered I will conclude with some Inserences from what I have written And 1. It follows That our most gracious Soveraigns King William and Queen Mary in order to gain these Kingdoms and in ascending the Throne have done nothing but what is consistent with Justice and Honour For if they had a just Cause of War with King James and have conquered him in the Sense I have said and Conquest be in this Case a good Title and it were absolutely necessary not only for the Interest of these Kingdoms but also for that of Europe and the Protestant Religion that they should make use of their Success then have they in so doing acted nothing but what became them And the asserting of this since it is true is a necessary piece of Gratitude to our glorious Deliverers And I the rather do it because I observe that many of the Tracts that have been written on the behalf of the Oath of Allegiance are rather in desence of the Subjects Submission and taking of it than of their Majesties Title So that the Authors seem rather concerned for their own than their Majesties Vindication and however glad they are of the unexpected Deliverance that hath been wrought for them yet are they over-regardless of the Honour of those blessed Princes who have been in God's Hands the Instruments of it 2. The Subject is justified in swearing and paying Allegiance to them and that as to Princes de jure For they have on their side all the Right of Conquest consequent to a just War and at a time when it was absolutely necessary to insist upon it 3. Those that refuse to swear Allegiance to their Majesties thereby doing what in them lies to weaken their Hands and so to hinder their good Purposes are guilty of a very great Sin And I the rather say this because I am apt to think a great many honest Men who are not very confident of the Unlawfulness of the Oath do judg it however best to refuse it because they believe they cannot sin in so doing but may in taking it Whereas whoever well considers our present Circumstances and the Matters depending must grant that if it be lawful to swear not-swearing is a Sin attended with much more dangerous Consequences than is Swearing supposing it to be unlawful And a Man's erring in the Negative has greater Aggravations than in the Affirmative 4. That King James hath totally lost his Right to these Kingdoms and therefore if he comes again with an Army he is to be looked upon by the Subjects with no other Eyes than any other Invader but is to be resisted by them Our Fleets and Armies without any scruple of Conscience to weaken their Hands may and ought to fight as becomes valiant Men in the defence of their present Soveraigns and their Countrey and that not only against the French King but likewise against the late King James if he should come along with a Fleet or head an Army against us 5. No Man need trouble himself with any Scruple as touching any Right of the Prince of Wales supposing him to be Genuine or of whatever other Issue the late King may since his Birth have had or may hereafter have For as to the pretended Prince his Birth being doubtful his Father declined the Arbitrement of a Parliament and put it to the Decision of the Sword and the Sword hath determined against him and therefore if he hath any Wrong done him he hath no body to blame but his Father And here I cannot but take notice of the Folly of some People who after King James was conquered and gone expected the Parliament should have examined the Birth of the Child as if when Princes fall out and the Injurer is utterly vanquished the injured Victor is still obliged to accept of the same Satisfaction that would have contented him before he drew his Sword Or as if when a Doubt about the Succession is