Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n great_a king_n sister_n 2,482 5 8.3398 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A25327 The Anatomy of a Jacobite-Tory in a dialogue between Whig and Tory : occasioned by the Act for recognizing King William and Queen Mary. 1690 (1690) Wing A3053; ESTC R22595 20,621 38

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

to England to be prov'd at large T. Does not Bishop Bilson expresly condemn the Papists for saying the People may punish the Prince Farther yet does he not say that God has reserv'd the Magistrate to be punished by himself W. Very true and yet says that which justifies resisting a King of England in some cases T. If you may resist him you punish him but he says God has reserv'd the punishment to himself W. What is done for necessary defence of the Constitution tho in consequence it may be a punishment is not so directly and I am sure Bishop Bilson says Bilson of Christian Subjection Ed. 1586. p. 279. If a Prince shall go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or change the form of the Commonwealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws establisht by common consent of Prince and People to execute his own pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be accounted Rebels T. However he speaks not a word of a Compact here in England W. He supposes that in all Governments the People have a power for preserving the foundation P. 280. freedom and form of their Commonwealth which says he they fore-prized when they first consented to have a King T. Bishop Bilson I find did not understand the consequence of admitting that Princes can have their Crowns from any consent or election of the People W. Is not that better than to have no Title at all but pray what is the consequence of supposing an Election T. The late Bishop of Winchester Hist of Passive Obedience ad part p. 147. in his Sermon at the Coronation of King Charles the Second says As Monarchy by Usurpation is res fine titulo so Monarchy by Election is titulus fine re W. Admirable chime but how does he prove it T. For says he Elective Kings are but Conditional Kings and Conditional Kings are no Kings W. I must confess I did not apprehend that Conditional Kings should be no Kings even while they performed the Conditions T. But what say you to the late Historian's Proofs That the Doctrine of the Church of England is absolutely against resisting Princes in any case whatsoever W. I am of the same mind that no King while such or till he ceases to be King is to be resisted But I must confess I am to seek what he means by the Church of England what by a King of England T. By the Church of England he means the Church-men W. I hope though he contracts the Church in this he does not take in Romish Churchmen to make up the number T. Yes but he does and with very good grounds for as Infallibility attends St. Peter's Chair in relation to the Government of the Church whoever comes into it so they that come into the Preferments of the Church of England succeed to their Doctrines in Government though as to other matters they have a latitude of dissenting Thus the bloody Romish Bishop Bonner though at one time he retracted what he had declar'd at another is an Authority when he spake right because says our Historian P. 4. he spake not his own sense but the sense of the whole Church of England W. I thank you for explaining his Notion of the Church of England but if we take in the Romish Clergy I should think that famous Bishop of Lincoln Grosthead who said Vid. Matth. Par. Hist that all who died on the side of the Barons in the War against H. 3. were Martyrs was as much of the Church of England and as great an ornament to it as Bishop Bonner But I am yet to learn what your Historian means by a King of England does he mean a King only with Title or in possession any way T. No he shews out of Bishop Sanderson P. 133. that we are no otherwise to comply with the Persons of a prevailing usurped Power than I may submit unto Comply with or make use of a High-way Thief or Robber when I am fallen into his hands and lie at his mercy W. Ye are a very wise sort of People to publish and cry up such Books now when at the same time while ye would be thought true and faithful to King William ye deny that he is King by Right But I must needs say I do not well know of any Foundation of Right setled by your Historian but what is in the Clouds or in Obeyance till the right Heir from Adam start up with his Pedigree about his Heels T. He had no occasion to prove wherein a Princes Right consists 't is enough that he shews Instances of Passive-Obedience in all Reigns W. Yes indeed he brings Instances of it where himself owns that the Law had damn'd the Title but does not consider that he carries it further than your Passive-Obedience-Men would have him and brings a Confessor Bishop Coverdale to shew that Bodies Goods and Lives are to be at the Commandment of the Prince who is not Rightful by the Law of England T. You mistake him I am sure for he speaks that in Queen Mary's Reign W. I grant it P. 22. but then he tells us That Queen Mary had been Disinherited by Act of Parliament a Bill of Exclusion pass'd into the formality of a Law and that for Illegitimacy as it is there declared T. What is that to the purpose She had a Divine Right of Succession which no Law could alter W. By what Law did She succeed to E. 6. T. By the Divine Law and that contrary to the Law of England P. 26. for the Historian shews that both the Sisters were declared illegitimate and that by Act of Parliament and were they not so yet being but of the Half-blood to the King by the Law they could not succeed W. As he admits their Title contrary to Law I fear he leaves nothing but the Consent or Choice of the People for the late King joyn'd with his being of the Blood Royal. T. I cannot apprehend your consequence W. Indeed few Tories can see three consequences off but if James I. had no Title by Law what had James II. in the third Descent from him T. The Historian I am sure says nothing against the Title of James I. W. But he shews that by the same Law of England no Foreigner could succeed and James I. was a Foreigner T. You still drive at your Commonwealth-Principle as if Kings could have any right from the Choice of the People W. You I am sure are either against all Right by Law or for placing it where it is by Law determined T. I 'll warrant it you will go about to prove that King James by laying aside his Political Power to exercise his Imperial Law ceas'd to be King of England when in this he did but put on his Royal Robes W. Tho I know of