Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	london_n	parliament_n	print_v	3,116	5	9.0916	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59898	A vindication of a passage in Dr. Sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable House of Commons, May 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the Church of England, to both Houses of Parliament.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing S3369; ESTC R202693	19,865	30

A Vindication OF A PASSAGE IN Dr. Sherlock's SERMON PREACHED Before the Honourable House of Commons May 29. 1685. FROM THE Remarks of a late pretended Remonstrance By way of Address from the Church of England To both Houses of Parliament Imprimatur C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. a sacris Domesticis Julii 6. 1685. LONDON Printed for I. Amery at the Peacock in Fleetstreet and A. Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. A VINDICATION OF A Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Sermon c. WHen I first saw that Pamphlet which bears the Title of A Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament with some Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Sermon I was not so curious to examine the Contents of that Paper as to see what he had to say against that Sermon which received so great an Approbation from the House of Commons and turning over the Page I was soon directed by the Margin to the place where I find these words prickt out for the subject of his Remarks I deny not but some who are Papists in some junctures of affairs may and have been very Loyal but I am sure the Popish Religion is not the English-man may be Loyal but not the Papist and yet there can be no security of those mens Loyalty whose Religion in any case teaches them to Rebel Now this being an Address from the Church of England which is so well acquainted with Popish Loyalty any one would in reason have expected that the Doctor should have received a Reprimand for touching that Cause so gently and in my Conscience had any one attacked him there he would have found more trouble and been put to more shifts in vindicating the Personal Loyalty of Papists than in proving that the Popish Religion does not teach Loyalty which is the Accusation brought against him by the Author of this Remonstrance that he charges the Popish Religion with being Disloyal though some who are Papists may be Loyal And I should have wondered at the discretion of this Writer had he given any Specimen of Wit or Understanding in any thing else that he would engage in so baffled a Cause The better way had been to have thanked the Doctor for his Complement and to have left the Doctrine of their Church to have shifted for itself But I confess I have so great a kindness for the Doctor that I am unwilling he should continue under so scandalous an Imputation of having charged the Church of Rome with any Doctrines which she dishowns which had at all times been very wicked but at this time had been folly and madness and therefore not to enter into the Merits of the Cause which this Writer has given no just occasion for I shall onely very briefly consider what he urges in vindication of the Popish Loyalty The first Argument he uses to prove that their Religion does not teach them to Rebel is because they themselves though they are very zealous for their Religion deny that it does Do both in their publick Writings and private Discourses declare and maintain that their Religion teaches no such Doctrine and that they are ready to maintain and practise true Loyalty with the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes As for their practising true Loyalty I shall civilly wave that because the Doctor has thought fit to do so and therefore it is no Argument against him for it is no new thing for men to act contrary to the Principles of their Religion and sometimes to be better than their Religion in its just consequences teaches them to be as I charitably hope many Roman Catholicks are But who are these men and what is their Authority who teach that the Deposing Heretical Kings or those who are Favourers of Hereticks is no Doctrine of the Church of Rome I say the Deposing Doctrine for I grant they do not teach Rebellion by that name for when a Prince is deposed by the Authority of their Church they absolve their Subjects from their Fealty and then it is no Rebellion to Rebel And I wish our Author had not some such reserve in those doubtful terms Rebelling and True Loyalty for to resist and dethrown a deposed Prince is not Rebellion according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome nor to defend him True Loyalty But does this Gentleman think we have no other way of knowing the Doctrine of their Church but by what they say is the Doctrine of their Church Suppose some of these Sayers be so ignorant that they know not what is the Doctrine of their Church some so crafty as to conceal it some so heretical as to deny it and to be censured and excommunicated for it at Rome what does their saying so or so signifie to us who have the authentick Decrees of their Popes and Councils They are very angry with us when we alleadge the Testimonies of their private Doctors though of the greatest Note and Eminency among them whose Writings have been published with the greatest Authority and received with the greatest Applause and yet they have the modesty to send us to an Irish Remonstrance and the Writings of P. W. or to the renowned Author of the Roman Catholick Principles to learn the Doctrine of the Church of Rome admirable Vouchers for the Church of Rome some of whom at least are no better than Apostates themselves and are condemned for such at Rome Suppose we should be perswaded by the Authority and Rhetorick of this Author that the Church of Rome does not teach the Deposing Doctrine and should assert it against all the Jesuits in the World and one of them should answer in the very words of this Remonstrance What reason has any man to say that our Religion does not teach us to Rebel that is to Depose and Murder Heretical Princes when we who are so jealous of our Religion that we voluntarily suffer the loss of our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce the least tittle of it do both in our publick Writings and private Discourses declare and maintain that our Religion does teach the Deposing Doctrine and that we are ready to maintain and practise it with the hazard of our Lives and Fortunes What a fine case are we in now when the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits proves that the Deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Doctrine and Practice says our Author of some other nameless Party proves that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and yet I see no reason why the Jesuits may not pass for as good Catholicks as any other Order amongst them nor why Baronius and Bellarmine and Suarez c. may not be thought as good Catholick Doctors as some few late Writers This Argument then will prove nothing because it proves both parts of a contradiction to be true that the Deposing Doctrine is and is not the Doctrine of the Church