Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	right_n	scotland_n	2,799	5	8.4912	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43662	A letter to the author of a late paper, entituled, A vindication of the divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience.	Hickes, George, 1642-1715.; Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714. A vindication of the divines of the Church of England.	1689 (1689)	Wing H1856; ESTC R34460	10,899	22

and of Queen Mary in England You canot deny but the greater number were Apostates then and therefore the greatness of the number cannot secure you but that they may be so now But you say the Author of the History hath blackned those of the Clergy who have taken the Oaths and some of them by name with deserting that Principle which they have formerly published to the World. But Sir it seems-to me he hath blackned none of them unless they have blackned themselves He hath only produced a Cloud of Witnesses for Passive Obedience whereof many have and some have not taken the Oath and if there is a repugnance between that doctrine and taking of it as your Vindication makes men suspect then the Blackning and Apostacy about which you have made so much pother ought not to be imputed to the History or its Author but to the nature of the things The great endeavours the Clergy and their Friends used to prevent the imposing of the Oath the great joy they expressed at the alteration of the Bill in the House of Lords and the visible reluctance with which many good and learned Men have since taken it are sufficient proofs that there is at least a great seeming disagreement between the doctrin and the Oath and yet for all that it doth not follow that they who have taken the Oath have deserted the doctrine which as I hinted before is your own rash invidious consequence but that they have either deserted it or found a way of taking the Oath which they judge consistent with it and that this latter is the case of most that have taken it I will now shew First Then some learned men who stood out very long at last took it because they were perswaded that the Government allow'd them to take it in such a limited and qualified sense as was not inconsistent with the doctrine or their former Oaths and these men are no deserters Some of these again for the greater ease of their Consciences and preventing scandal as they think have taken the Oath with declarations which abundantly secures them from all suspicion of leaving their former Principles But others who have taken the Oath in the highest and most unlimited sense as I perceive you have done have generally taken it upon such Principles as leave the doctrine of Passive Obedience and all its concomitant doctrines secure Those Principles are chiefly three Possession Abdication and Conquest tho' the two last seem plainly inconsistent to some Mens understandings for if the King as you assert was conquered then he had good reason to fly and by consequence did not abdicate his Kingdom Some I confess make a mixt Hypothesis of two or all these together but whatever these mens Hypotheses be simple or mixt if they be true they will reconcile the taking of the new Oath with the old doctrines and so they are secure from the scandal of Apostacy whihc your Vindication more than the History hath fixed upon them There are others again who justify the taking of the Oath upon such Principles as seem indeed to overthrow the Doctine of Non-resistance and the Author of the History I confess is very angry at them for embracing the doctrine of Hobbs Milton and Parsons and if he blackens any in his Book with the imputation of Apostacy it is only these few men They assert that power is originally in the people that the foundation of all Government is in compact that the Crown of England is as conditional as that of Poland that a King falls from the Government when he endeavours to subvert the Constitution of it and these are the sanguine Casuists which boldly cut the Knot which others of you find so difficult to unloose It seems they find enough in the Monastick Historians to satisfy their Consciences and to absolve them from the Laws of the Kingdom and the doctrine of the Church for they make King John's reign the standard of our Government and that which hath always been accounted the Popery of the Kingdom the very constitution of it and tho' these mens Principles if they be true will bravely acquit them of Perjury yet Inconfess I cannot acquit them from revolting from that doctrine which some of them with a witness have preached and published to the World. Conquest of the Kings without a Conquest of the Kindom is the bottom upon which you have undertaken to reconcile that doctrine with taking the Oath This is a nice subject for me to discuss but however I hope I may ask you two or three Questions upon it without danger or offence I. Whether in all the Casuistical Writers about Conquest you have ever read that such a Revolution as ours was brought as an instance of Conquest It is nothing like the usual Examples of Alexander's Conquest over the Persians the Conquest of the Israelites over the Canaanites and that of the Romans over their Provinces II. Whether they allow a King to be conquered when his Kingdom is not conquered and if they do whether they allow a King so conquered can loose his rights to the Crown and the allegiance of his People King John of France did not loose his right to the Crown and his Peoples allegiance when he was so conquered by the black Prince and brought captive into England nor Francis when he was conquered so by Charles the Fifth III. Whether they allow subjects voluntarily to give away their allegiance when they are not conquered for what subjects give up to a foreign Prince without Conquest is freely Given IV. Whether they determine a King to be conquered as long as he is in a condition to prosecute his Right by War for Conscience will be apt to think that he is not yet conquered enough who is in a Condition to resist V. Whether allegiance can be due to a foreign Prince by vertue of Conquest who never pretended to be a Conqueror but disclaims the Rights of Conquest VI. How far they extend the right of Conquest and allow the Conqueror to make use of it These and some other Questions which I could ask you must be clearly discussed and stated before you can pin the taking of the new Oath upon the Highest Peg of Non-resistance according to your Hypothesis of Conquest From the several accounts which I have here set down of Mens taking the new Oath and particularly from the insufficiency of your own you may see it is not so easie a task as you would make it to reconcile the taking of it with the old doctrine of the rights of soveraign Princes and the duties of Non-resistance If it were so very easie those who take the Oath could not take it in so many senses and upon so many different Principles and since you are not satisfied with one anothers senses and Principles you ought to have a great tenderness for those who cannot take it in any of your disagreeing senses nor upon any principle at all You do not seem to have

A LETTER TO THE AUTHOR Of a late Paper Entituled A Vindication of the DIVINES of the Church of ENGLAND c. In DEFENCE of the HISTORY OF Passive Obedience Printed in the Year 1689. Books Printed for Jos Hindmarsh in Cornhill A Memorial to his Highness the Prince of Orange in Relation to the Affairs of Scotland together with the Address of the Presbyterian Party in that Kingdom to his Highness and some observations on that Address by two Persons of Quality Prerogative of Primogeniture shewing that the Right of an Hereditary Crown depends not upon Grace Religion amp c. but only upon Birthright and Primogeniture by David Jenner A Discourse of Monarchy more particularly of the Imperial Crowns of England Scotland and Ireland Majestas Intermerata or the Immortality of the King. A LETTER To the Author of a late Paper Entituled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of Eng. c. In Defence of the History of PASSIVE OBEDIENCE SIR IT is the good fortuned of some Books to meet with such trivial Answers as mightily advance the esteem of them and I assure you Yours to the History of Passive Obedience is so very trifling that were it not for the real and it may be particular concern you shew in it on would think the Author of the History or some of his friends had written it on purpose to set off his Book You pass a severe Censure upon it in your first Paragraph but in the second you say you should not have so Censured it had it come abroad some considerable time before the first of August but since it came out so late you think it was the principal design of it to expose those Divines who have taken the Oath But Sir if it be so easie a Task as you make it in the third Paragraph to shew that the New Oath of Allegiance is no whit repugnant with the Doctrine of the most absolute Passive Obedience Why should you think so learned an Author should have so foolish a design I cannot believe he could be so silly as to think his History could make the world believe that the generality of our Divines are fallen under the guilt of Apostacy and Perjury if indeed it be so easie to prove that even those who have Skrew'd up the doctrine of Non-resistance to the very highest peg Page 5. Page 55. may lawfully take the Oath and transfer their Allegiance But to let that pass Sir how doth it appear that this was the Author's design It is hard to judge of mens Intentions beyond what they delare themselves and when the Author saith expresly he wrote the History for other reasons it was somewhat rash and uncharitable in a Divine to say that this was his apparent and principal design He tells you plainly enought in his Preface he wrote his History against four sorts of men First against those who ridiculed the doctrine of Passive Obedience Secondly against those who affirmed it was a doctrine no older than Archbishop Laud Thirdly against those who averr that the Church and her Divines have taught it for their own Interests and Fourthly against those who of late reject that Doctrine upon Popish Principles that Power is originally in the People and that the Foundation of all Government is laid in Compact c. To all which he opposes the authority of the Church and the concurrent judgment of her D●vines from the beginning of the Reformation hoping to perswade the world that so many pious and learned Men could not so unanimously agree in a Error or Preach and Write in so many Reigns meerly to flatter their Princes and gratifie their own Ambition This is the apparent design of that work and I hope it might become a Christian Page 4. and Protestant and member of our Church and to make you believe that it was as piously and charitably intended as you say you would have hoped had it come out before first of August I assure you that it was designed by the Author to come out long before and that the difficulty of getting of it Printed was the cause why it came abroad so late As such a Book cannot be written in a day so you must needs know it cannot be Printed when and where the Author pleases and you did very ill to put that conceit of Exposing c. in peoples heads who had it not been for you Vindication would more generally have concluded from the History not that you were guilty of Apostacy or Perjury Page 4. but that you had taken the New Oath in some Sense or upon some Principles which in your own Consciences you did believe consistent with the doctrine of Non-resistance and your former Oaths This Inference will more naturally occur to the thoughts of those who read the History than the other and if you had well thought of it you might have spared the pains of your Vindication Or if you had thought fit to give the world an account upon what Principle you had taken the Oath you ought to have forborn such unjustifiable reflections as you have made upon that Author in the Plural Number and not have set forth him and I know not how many more as ment that were content to Sacrifice the names of all but an inconsiderable number of their Brethren to their own reputation Page 4. that they may be thought the stanch men and steddy to their Principles I think the writing of the History doth no more tend to the Sacrificing your names to their reputation than the writing of many Books for the taking the Oath doth Sacrifice them to yours Your Books tempt some men to think they stand off out of Pride and sullenness and this it may be makes some think that you have acted contrary to your Principles but these opinions of men which cannot be prevented ought not to make you fall our and treat one another as you do But as to those Principles to which you tauntingly say they would be thought stanch they are Church of England Principles or they are not if you could have proved they were not then you had Written to purpose against the History but if they are then I know not why this inconsiderable number may not have a very good Title to the honourable character of stanch and steddy Men who chuse to suffer rather than take an Oath which after reading all that you have published to perswade Men to take it they yet think repugoant to that doctrine which you would not be thought to have deserted But good Sir why inconsiderable number may not the men be considerable tho' the number is not or are we to judge of the cause by the number or of the number by the cause you forget that your Metropolitan is one of this inconsiderable number you forget the men of parts learning and probity that are in it also nay you forget who was the inconsiderable number in the reigns of Constantius and Valens in the Empire