Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	government_n	king_n	law_n	3,463	5	4.4667	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75357	Anglia liberata, or, The rights of the people of England, maintained against the pretences of the Scotish King, as they are set forth in an Answer to the Lords Ambassadors propositions of England. Which ansvver was delivered into the Great Assembly of the United Provinces at the Hague, by one Mac-Donnel, who entitles himself Resident for his Majesty, &c. June 28/18 1651: and is here published according to the Dutch copy. Whereto is added a translation of certain animadversions upon the answer of Mac-Donnel. Written by an ingenious Dutch-man. As also an additional reply to all the pretended arguments, insinuations and slanders, set forth in the said Scotish answer written a while since by a private pen, and now presented to the publick.	MacDonnell, William, Sir.; Ingenious Dutch-man.	1651 (1651)	Wing A3178; Thomason E643_7; ESTC R18922	48,537	72

shine forth under the Kingly Government How comes this Answerer to praise the Kings Religion when as himself as well as the rest of his Scots Countreymen have not onely made the first insurrection against the Kings Religion but entred into a Covenant and raised war and at last sold the King for money according to the Kings own published profession Principally against the Kings Religion or against the innovation thereof at least And what the King said further of the Scots Religion and consequently of the Answerers Religion you may read at large in the 14 and 16 Chapters of his printed Book It is well known what harsh and bitter Sermons and Books were made but lately at Breda and the Hague against the Reformed Religon whom they still hatefully termed Calvinists Are there in England divers Sects there are here also not a few God mend it and even as the Governors here would gladly see it otherwise so likewise those in England in the mean time we are assured that in England divers books are forbidden and were burnt by the Hangman which here passe up and downe yet every where The Ambassadors have in the Name and behalf of the whole English Government declared the Conformity of their Religion with ours They tolerate some others and so do we onely we allow more and greater toleration then they Neither we nor they approve of a Spanish Inquisition They do not allow the Church an absolute power of Excommunication no more do we and the Scottish Kirk also was fain to remit it now themselves So that the Presbyterians rage and roaring against Sects and Sectaries is groundless for between themselves and the Independents so named there is not difference in the main of Religion or profession besides Discipline but it should seem the Presbyterian Boutefeus aim at a Papall Power to administer the Jus Clavium at pleasure as the Scots have But their young King hath already taught them another Lesson disapproving thereby also the English Presbyterians It were much to be wished indeed that all men were of one minde that there were but one Religion Our Answerer I believe knows as little how to advise or compass it as others Nay he himself refusing to go to the same Church where the King went during his abode here and the Queen of Bohemia and the Princess Royal and all the Royalists doth thereby sufficiently evidence that there are sects and divisions as well between his party and the Kings as there is between the English and the Presbyterians That which he mentioneth of the good life of his Royal Christians I profess I understand not If by a good life he means a merry joviall life dum vixit vixit bene I yeild that at Court they live more merrie and frollick then elsewhere and thence it is that at London they have put down all the Play-Houses and such like places and practises of profane and scandalous recreation That otherwise the life and fruitfull Conversation of the Royalists should be more holy and exemplary then that of the English Independents as they call them I never heard of before Were they not the Kings evil Councellors his flatterers and seducers whom I return to the Answerer for his Albii Cassii Nigri that made as well the Presbyterians as the rest complaine so much against him from time to time And I pray were not the Presbyterians the first and the onely men that took the King to task The Answerer himself was one of them and of those Covenanters that supplanted the King for his maintaining the Episcopal Hierarchie And when the Presbyterians afterwards went about to introduce the Presbyterian Hierarchie changing onely the Name and maintaining the Substance then said the others whom he calls Independents Soft my Masters we have freed our selves from the Bishops Yoke shall we put our necks under the Presbyterians The Answerer alledgeth some other books which make for him How many other blew books might easily be produced against the same and to his prejudice The King himself complains in his book ch 15. and 21. how much hurt these books did him so that I know not why the Answerer so highly esteems these blew books and that publickly in print too now as well as in the Generall Assembly odiously checking the Soveraign Government here for having begun to treat with the English and presumptuously spreading the same abroad among the Commons as though the Magistrates were regardless of their Office and as if he intended to incense and raise the Commons against the Governors contemning the publick O●dinances in this behalf As for the Successes the Answerer knows well enough that several other Kings Republicks Princes and Potentates had beforehand acknowledged the Republick of England and honored the same with their Ambassies and Credentials And England also sent first unto this State before this State sent to England We have not looked upon the successes but upon the Example of others The Answerer saith that the English th●mselves do disavow the great Turk Again the Gentleman throwes it beyond my reach or he knows not what he avers himself I never heard of any such Disavowing but this I know well on the contrary that all Christian Potentates acknowledge the Turk for what He is and accordingly honor him with their Ambassies The Answerer's King himself scrupled not to send to the Turk no more doth the English Republick Men Laws Governments must every where be taken and used as they are As long as the Answerer and his King are forced to let the Government remain as it is so they must give us leave to do the same The Answerer saith that there is as much difference between the English Government and Liberty and that of ours as there is between Milk and Ink according to the saying of one Salmasius calling him a great Personage Sure the Answerer knows well that Salmasius his Book where he had this crotchet is publickly declared a Libell and scandalous here Do great Personages use to write Libells Furthermore He saith That the Batavians or Hollanders have been a Free Nation from all ages and under the subjection of none Certainly he is a dreaming or else he hath the art to make white black and black white at pleasure or Milk and Ink is all one to him What hath not Holland been under Earls above eight hundred years And lastly under the House of Burgundy Austria and Spain Indeed the Earls were tied to Laws and so were the Kings of England if he say an Earl is no King I answer England is divided in more then fifty Counties or Earldomes so France is divided into many principalities and Counties He that gets the command over them soon gets a Title King Prince Earl or Lord it comes all to one if they have no Superiours But all of them are bound to their Oaths and the Laws Neither in France nor in Spain nor anywhere else are Kings allowed an unlimited power The Examples in France are too fresh

to rehearse them The Kings of Spain have been Earls of Holland and acknowledged no superiors now being freed from Spain there is none appearing that pretend any right to Holland Neverthelesse he was bound to the laws by an oath So that King of England was Earle of Essexshire Sussex Yorkshire and of all the rest compendiously called King of England Scotland Ireland but bound to the Lawes They of Holland perceiving their King had infringed the Laws thereupon they opposed him and fought themselves free Bene feliciter saith the King of Spains Embassador Count Pigneranda pro libertate pugnastis ea vobis debetur The English in like manner perceived their King had trespassed against the laws and falsified his oath whereupon they opposed him til they fought themselves into the same condition of Freedom I could say somewhat more here That the King of England out-did Spain He of Spain had sworn to the Roman Religion and conceived himself bound to protect it according to his Oath but the King of England being sworn to the Protestant Religion is charged to have acted against it innovated it and had he gotten the mastery would have changed it That this Assertion owned as well by the Scots as the English is most true appeares by the Covenant first made by the Scots and afterwards embraced also by the English Look upon Chapt. 14. of the Kings Book see what he saith there himselfe of the Covenant Again the Covenant very expresly shewed that the King had an intent to alter Religion and Laws The Answerer himselfe was a Covenanter and Parliamenteer and blew as fiercely and zealously as any against the Kings designe of Innovation as they termed it The second and third Article of the Covenant speaks very plain And there have been a thousand books written both by the Scots English Presbyterians on that subject Nay the Scots themselves have even since the late Kings death excommunicated all that had and did adhere to the King calling them Engagers and declared them Given over to the Devill And for this cause they put poore Montrosse to death and refused him Absolution And what afterwards the King himself and Hamilton Middleton Lauderdale others of this party have suffered is notorious to all the world Also how this King was fain to do penance and to confess the bloud guiltiness of his Father's House How ever all the difference betwixt the Kings of England and Spain was only this that He of England did more and He of Spain less against the Religion that each of them was sworn to It is well known that the Scots were the first that made a Covenant and thereupon took up arms even as the Nobility heretofore in the Netherlands made a League or Union and took up arms to defend it The Scots having cleared their own Land of all the Royall designs and adherents were not content therewith but proceeded to assist the English who were as eager to be rid of the same incumbrances Which being effected and the King brought to this pass that he saw no remedy left him then he betook himself to the Scots at last his own Country men as confiding more in them Why did not the Scots then take him home along with them They said it was not expedient the King might easily put Scotland into new broils as the English found afterwards among themselves for then broke first out those differences betwixt Presbyterians and Independents the former would have a new Hierarchy introduced like that of the Scots the later would have the Reformed Religion maintained as it now stands among them only they would bear with tender consciences and some others as wee doe likewise here The King of Spain hath given up his Right and acknowledged this a Free State had the King of England done the like or would this King content himself yet with the Scottish Crown as his Fore-fathers did the war would soon be at an end And herein Philip shewed himself more reasonable and righteous then Charls whom nevertheless hee styles that Blessed Martyr so highly wronged and persecuted not remembring at least concealing that they were the Scots who began this violent dealing with him But none of this concerns us not can we help it If the Scots vvill begin troubles and war and the Neighbour Kings and Potentates will wink at it vvhat is that to us What is farther said by the Answerer about the Kings death concerns not us of Holland at all If a King wageth war with his subjects he must needs resolve to run the hazard Kings and Princes are flesh and bloud and mortal as well as others As much might have been done in a Charge by the Sword of a private soldier as was afterwards by the hand of the Executioner The Quality or Majesty of a King or Prince is of no consideration to the steel or lead of the meanest soldier nostro sequitur de vulnere sanguis Majestate nihil contemtius nec infirmius si sint qui contemnant A living Dog is better then a dead Lion A Pesant owner of some Land is better then a King vvithout Land He that vvill not submit himself to the Discretion of a Conquerour should not runne the hazard of being conquered The Conquering party saw no other Expedient no farther trust given even during the Kings restraint there was faction upon faction division upon division insurrection upon insurrection raised The meanest creature the poorest worm seeks for self-preservation How much more a Man If there had been any means left under Heaven whereby a firm confidence could have been recovered it is very probable the Prevailing party would have yeilded to it But to put all their Fortunes Reputation Freedom Life and Being upon a new hazard again no Reason could advise them Now as to the matter of deposing and destroying of Kings it is so common both in England and Scotland that I admire why the Answerer makes it so strange and prodigious But all these things are so largely set forth in printed Boooks and Pamphlets that the Answerer hath little reason to make a wonder of it Omnia jam vulgata To make an alliance with England were unnecessary if our Commerce and Liberties were not in danger We are bound to look to their preservation The Depredations are unsupportable We do not afflict the afflicted but those whom he calls the afflicted afflict us As for the affliction of Joseph we know not what it means unless he make Joseph a Cavalier and under that notion the Scots themselves were the first that persecuted him And that party in Scotland which the Answerer himself doth esteem the honester viz. the kirk party they abhor the Royalists calling them Malignants The English Ambassadors have declared here in their first Proposition they came not out of necessity but to shew they were willing to choose this State for their best friends They have not desired to ingage us against the Scots But it is well known

them by a solemn Iudiciall Proceeding as it is set forth by Buchanan their own Historian who affirms it to be More Majorum according to the custome of their Ancestors So that of all other men in the world this Scot Resident hath the least reason to wonder at our Capital Proceeding against a Tyrant as a thing never heard of before in the world since it hath been from all Antiquity the common practice of his own Country Whereas he farther alledgeth the Parliment's manifold reiterated Oaths and their Covenants with above an hundred Parlimentary Declarations and Protestations to protect the King's Person and Posterity c. This must be understood with that tacit Supposition which is naturally included in all those Oaths and Protestations viz. That he do not by any enormous crimes and continued Acts of Tyranny devest himself of his Kingly capacity And in the Covenant it self as much as this comes to is implied by undeniable consequence the whole scope of it being qualified with this special clause In the preservation of Religion and Liberty to shew that if the King should proceed so far as to render himself an irreconcileable enemy to both the Covenant did no longer oblige the Covenanters in any relation to him or his Posterity But he saith The Laws of England favour Kings above the Laws of all other Nations and for this he alledges the parasiticall maxims used by Courtiers Rex non moritur Rex nulli facit injuriam Whereto let us oppose others out of our old Laws more rationall and sound Non debet esse rege major quisquam in exhibitione Juris minimus autem esse debet in judicio suscipiendo si peccat Rex habet superiores Legem per quam factus est Rex Curiam suam c. Nihil aliud potest Rex nisi id solum quod de Jure potest say Bracton and Fleta and whereas he is up again with his pious Divines in and about London whose Declaration he much boasts of in the behalf of the late Tyrant and his Cause In Answer to this he must give us leave to reply in such a sence as out own experiences have taught us that those whom he calls Divines were the greatest Carnalists Formalists and Fanaticks that ever appeared in any Nation Court parasites Trumpets of Tyranny the onely Patrons and Promoters of Slavery both Spirituall and Tempporall They were such as most of the same Tribe ever have been and are men ignorant in the more necessary and solid parts of Learning both Sacred and Civill who make a Trade and Traffique of certain Set-forms and maxims of Divinity wherein being Travell'd as in a Road they cannot out of their old way but immediately they lose themselves and their sences If a Truth though never so bright and glorious come to clash with any of those trading notions which they call Orthodox then immediately like the men of Ephesus they grow stark mad and can sing no other Tune to all the world but Great is their Diana Therefore In those high and weighty Controversies which arise concerning the Rights and Concernments of Commonweals and Kingdoms where their motions are eccentricall little regard is to be had to their frigid Conceptions where in they are wont even in Luce meridianâ toto coelo err are and in this particular it might be made good contrary to their Affirmations and Invectives even as clear as the Sun According to the holy word of God the Instinct of Nature Right Reason The Laws of all Nations and particularly of England That Parliaments or other Supream Assemblies have a Power of Jurisdiction both coercive and punitive over their Kings and of altering Forms of Government according to the Publique exigents and Conveniences of their respective Nations In the meantime this Scot may do well since he often quotes William Prynn to consult that great Scotiser in his Book entitled The Soveraign power of Parliaments as also his own Countriman Rutherford in his Lex Rex who will give him another Account than the raw Pulpiteers of London Next he affirms that the saying of our Saviour which commands the paying of Tribute to Caesar confirmeth and establisheth Lawfull Power Herein we agree with him For though the means whereby that Power of the Caesars was gained were unlawfull and the manner of its Acquisition unjust yet it being once established beyond the controll of any Publique Power and having all Authority seated within it self it immediately became lawfull by way of dispensation having a right to the dispensing of Justice and to the exercise of all Acts of Jurisdiction concerning privat and particular Persons But then saith he should David have acquiessed in the usurped power of Absolom and Solomon in the power of Adonijah Jehoiada in Athalia's and the Machabees in the power of Antiochus Epiphanes Alas the case of these is far different for neither Absolom nor Adonijah were ever seated in a plenary possession nor had they been acknowledged Supream as were the Caesars nor had the Jews made any recognition of Antiochus his Authority nor did he ever bring them under a totall Subjugation as afterwards did the Roman power to whom they then paid a finall submission though they refused it before to Antiochus As for that of Athaliah we finde she had a submission paid for no less than 6 years though her power were usurped and one main reason why the people denied it afterward was becaus she had agrieved the whole Nation with her practises of Idolatry and Tyranny for which cause she was lawfully deposed and put to death in a full Assembly of the Princes and People 2. Kings 11. after which they reduced the Government into its former course of succession Thus much we thought fit to answer as to this particular But what hath this Scottish Resident to do to introduce these Instances of Absolom Adonijah and Athaliah as Arguments against us in England They touch not the matter at all there being as vast a disproportion betwixt them and us as betwixt light and darkness for they were single Usurpers over the People but here in England the People have recovered their own Rights by ridding away an old Tyrannical Usurpation He compares also the Religion that was under Kings in England with the present and saith that in the Kings time it shone as a Lamp more clear then in any other Nation But that now it is nothing like the religion professed in Holland nor indeed Religion it self What the state or religion was in the Kings time I suppose we need not now dispute it having been long since condemned not only by our Presbyterians themselves but in the Iudgement also of Forain reformed Churches as a profane medley of superstitious Innovations And as to the present though we glory not in an external pretended National Vniformity the great Diana of the Clergy and wherein they place all religion because it makes for their profit yet it bears a proportionable conformity to the mind of