Selected quad for the lemma: law_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56078
|
The Protestant admirer, or, An answer to the vindication of a popish successor
|
|
1681
(1681)
|
Wing P3819; ESTC R2851
|
6,555
|
4
|
Englands Eyes that he may see his Danger and remember that the first Murther that ever was in the World was by the hands of a Brother viz. Cain killed Abel yet I would fain hope that the Royal Brother of our King hath Learned to abhor such Wickedness however it is good to consider what bad Principles with Worldly Glory wicked Counsellors and Satans Temptations especially if he may be safe in it may lead frail Man unto But let us consider a little further Cook upon Littleton and inquire first whether these words be Law or his Notion as a Lawyer Secondly if it should appear they are Law whether it will agree with the Wisdom and Safety of any King whether Protestant or Papist to let such a Law be unrepealed seeing a Successor may be a Traytor and yet must have the Crown Pray Sir consider it is no breach of Law to Repeal a bad Law and make a better 8. I Admire among many of your Follies you should call the Parliament Omnipotent in a way of Mockery and apply these words to the Protestants O Foolish and Timerous Country-men who hath bewitched you Pray Sir let me return them to you O Foolish and Impudent Country-man who hath bewitched you That you should use such words as doth proclaim you to be very near of Kin to one of the Grand Traytors viz. Mr. Coleman for these be his words in which he Mocked the Parliament in his Letter to the French Kings Confessor viz. Omnipotent Parliament Sir how dare you upbraid our Worthy Protestant Parliament to our English Protestant King as a Traytor did to the Confessor of a Popish French King What were you brought up in the Traytors School Truly Sir I do not like your Learning 9. I Admire that you should say a King of England though the most Zealous Papist cannot Subvert the Government and Protestant Religion as it is Established and you Rebuke the Protestants for having so little Faith as not to believe this to be true What Sir do you mean to wheadle the Protestants out of their Reason and Memory of things upon Record Truly we have been too much thus abused already and though our Eye-sight hath been much dimm'd we are not yet stark Blind thanks be to God and the two last Parliaments for some Eye-salve whereby we see our present and future Danger and besides this we have heard of a Popish Successor that hath Subverted the Government and Protestant Religion viz. Queen Mary pray do not think to Quibble with us and say you mentioned a King that could not do thus for if a Woman hath done such Mischief we think a Man may do as much if not more and whereas you perswade the Protestants to Embrace a Popish Successor because the Popish party did suffer Queen Elizabeth to come to the Crown What Sir have you forgot or do you not believe that Endeavours were used by the Papists to prevent that good Ladys coming to the Crown witness her Imprisonment in the Tower and at Woodstock and a Warrant privately Sealed for her Execution without any publick Tryal witness a party of Men with Coats of Mail to Assault her at Woodstock but God strangely prevented them Witness Queen Maries pretending to be with Child when it was not so thereby striving to bring in a false Heir to the Crown and so put by the good Lady Elizabeth I pray you Read the Chronicles of England and Foxes Acts and Monuments And you are pleased to Reprove the Protestants for being more mistrustful of Gods providence than the Papists were at Queen Elizabeths coming to the Crown surely you cannot think the Papists had any great Faith in the flourishing of their Religion under a Protestant Successor However we Protestants think it will be Foolishness and Presumption rather than Faith in God to expect the Flourishing of the Protestant Religion under a Popish Successor Truly we think we have cause to improve the Old Proverb The Burnt Child dreads the Fire And whereas you say the Successor is bounded and limited by Laws and therefore cannot hurt the Protestants We think it is not impossible nor improbable for a Popish Successor to have a Popish Parliament or Rule without a Parliament and then farewell all the Happiness of Protestants viz. Estates Liberties Religion and Lives 10. I Admire you should so much plead the breach of Law in dis-inheriting an Heir whereas it is a common thing for the Father to dis-inherit the Son and one Brother to dis-inherit another and not break the Law but do it by Law I suppose if you were possessed of ten thousand pound per an and should fore-see that your Son or Brother would destroy the Estate and Ruine the Family after your Decease you would not think it an Act of Folly or Dishonesty to dispose of the Estate for the well-fare of your Posterity And besides this we must consider there is a vast difference between being Heir to an Estate of Houses and Land which are senseless things and Heir to the Government over a people who have Rational Souls whose Consent is concerned in this Matter and who are capable of Rejoycing and praysing God in a state of Happiness or of groaning and lamenting under a state of Misery And if it should be the Mercy of England to be thus provided for by the King who is the Father of the Kingdom and by Parliament who is the King and Kingdoms great Council then the Oath of Allegiance will not be violated because the people are thereby bound to him that is Successor according to Law and such an one cannot be counted an Usurper because he doth not force himself upon the Kingdom but is Established before-hand by King and Parliament And whereas in the beginning of your paper you seemed to Glory in the words of Cook upon Littleton concerning the Crown descending to the Heir though Attainted with Treason yet afterwards when you take notice of Cook upon Littleton in these words None is Heir before the Death of his Ancestors but onely the Heir Apparent here you slight and reproach Cook upon Littleton saying by Cooks leave this his Observation is fallacious and Impertinent What Sir I perceive you cannot believe all that Cook saith to be Law except it be that the Heir Attainted with Treason must have the Crown 11. I Admire you should so bitterly Reflect on persons and things in time past when as His Majesty hath been pleased to Bury them in the Grave of Oblivion and hath received some persons formerly Offending into favour and crowned them with great Dignity being well satisfied in their Loyalty and the very people you Reproach with the Name of Infamy have behaved themselves with peaceable subjection to Authority though many times under very hard usage for Conscience sake But pray Sir where is your Obedience to the Commands of the King viz. to lay aside all Names of Infamy and Distinction And besides this you do not spare the Parliament calling the House
of Commons Fiery Zealots Turbulent Zealots and Robbers of those they should Honour and Obey By this His Majesty may perceive how you would let fly your Reflections at him also if he should not please you What Sir have you a mind to set King and people at variance who are now at peace And do you think to scare His Majesty from agreeing with his Parliament in providing for the future welfare of the Kingdom in this Matter I will say to you as the Angel of God said to Satan Zech. 3.2 The Lord Rebuke thee the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem Rebuke thee 12. I Admire you should account it such a Wickedness and sin against God to dis-inherit a Successor as if the whole Law of God were violated surely you have not considered that Scripture Sin is the Transgression of the Law Now God did never make a Law either for his own people Israel or for the Nations of the World that the next of Blood to the Crown must always wear it Truly Sir I cannot find any such Law of God in our Protestant Bible And if there is no such Law that doth always command such a Succession it cannot be a sin against God sometimes to let such a Succession be laid aside for it 's written in another place Where there 's no Law there is no Transgression And besides this we find in the Holy Scriptures that those who were not next of blood to the Crown did wear it by Gods Approbation David succeeded Saul in the Government and not any of Saul's Children Solomon succeeded David and not David's Eldest son and I hope these Successors may be well called the best of Princes But suppose it could be proved that God had Established such a Succession of Princes in Israel as you plead for that will not prove that England is bound to such a Model of Government as Israel had for the Nations of the World who were in Being at the same time of the Government of Israel were not bound to have such a Government as they had and if any venture to affirm they were bound in this case then mark what may be concluded from it viz. That when the Government of Israel was by Judges then should the other Nations have changed their Kings into Judges also Indeed Sir I do think you will not be in hast to charge those Nations with sin as you do charge your own Nation though they did not Conform to Israel's Government Furthermore consider by the same Reason that Israel's Princely Government must be England's Rule so must the Priestly Government be a Rule also and this is a ready way to destroy the Church of England as it is now Established for which you will have no thanks from our Protestant Clergy Therefore Sir for the time to come Learn to be wiser than to Charge either King Parliament or people with sin against God when no Law of God is broken SIR I Beseech you Consider what a strange work you have undertaken in perswading the Protestants to Embrace and accept of a Popish Successor 1. First In thus doing you put all the Protestants in England to venture all their Happiness in the hands and under the power of one that is taught by the See of Rome not to keep Faith with Hereticks and will be required by the Authority of Rome to make his people Turn or Burn. How then can England as it is now a Protestant Kingdom be safe under such a Prince Truly Sir we Protestants had rather for the present let you call us O ye of little Faith than that you should cry out of us hereafter O ye of great Folly 2. Secondly you put the Popish Successor upon wronging of his Conscience to obtain a Crown for he must Solemnly swear at his Coronation before God and the Kingdom That he will Maintain and Defend the Protestant Religion and all other the Rights and Priviledges of the People according to the Laws of the Kingdom and we have sufficient cause to believe thus to swear is contrary to his principles and Conscience and Authority of Rome And should he be true to his Oath after taking it the Authority of the See of Rome would soon Excommunicate him Depose and Murther him Now therefore that all true Protestants in England may be free from all the Dangers that attend them in this Case and that a Popish Successor may be free from all the Dangers that attend him in this Case Let all true Protestants cry to God that the King and Parliament may agree together to Establish a good Protestant Successor And let all the People Say Amen Amen FINIS