Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n bishop_n council_n rome_n 10,036 5 7.5247 4 true
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
A77374 The vvounded conscience cured, the weak one strengthned, [sic] and the doubting satisfied By way of answer to Doctor Fearne. Where the main point is rightly stated, and objections throughly answered for the good of those who are willing not to be deceived. By William Bridge, preacher of Gods Word. It is ordered this 30. day of January, 1642. by the committee of the House of Commons in Parliament, concerning printing, that this answer to Dr. Fearnes book be printed. John White. The second edition, correced and amended. Whereunto are added three sermons of the same author; 1. Of courage, preached to the voluntiers. 2. Of stoppage in Gods mercies to England, with their [sic] remedies. 3. A preparation for suffering in these plundering times. Bridge, William, 1600?-1670. 1643 (1643) Wing B4476A; ESTC R223954 47,440 52

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

their ancient and acoustomed liberties regiments and lawes they may not well be accounted rebells And the title of that page is the Law sometimes permits resistance and the margent is in some cases the Nobles and Commons may stand for their publicke regiment and laws of their Kingdome All which judgements of severall Divines I doe not bring forth as if I were of their mindes for deposing or punishing of Princes by the people which we plead not for in Hereditary Princes but to shew how the Doctors Dr. Willet Co. on Ro. 13. Q. 17. judgement is different from the judgement of the Divines of all Protestant Countries notwithstanding he would insinuate that our Divines of England are of his judgement and that our judgement is no Bilsons true difference between Christ●an subjection and unchristian rebellion p. 5. 251. new upstart opinion you see what was the judgement of the Divines in the Counsell of Basil where one of them saith thus That in every well ordered Kingdome it ought specially to be desired that the whole Realme ought to be of more authority then the King which if it happened contrary it is not to be called a Kingdome but tyranny so likewise doth he thinke of the Church c. And presently another of the Divines of the s●me Co●●●●ll saith thus For the Pope is in the Church as the King is in his Kingdome and for a King to be of more authority then his Kingdome this were too absurd ergo neither ought the Pope to be above the Church for like as oftentimes Kings which doe wickedly rule the Common-weale and exercise cruelty are deprived of their Kingdomes even so it is not to he doubted but that the Bishops of Rome may be dep●sed by the Church that is to say by the generall Councell neither doe I herein allow them which attribute so large and ample authority unto Kings that they will not have them bound under any Lawes for such as doe so say are but flatterers who do talke otherwise then they think For albeit that they doe say that the moderation of the law is alwaies in the Princes power● that do I thus understand that when as reason shall perswade hee ought to digresse from the rigour of the law for he is called a King who careth and provideth for the Common-weale taketh pleasure in the profit and commodity of the subjects and in all his doings hath respect to the commodity of those over whom he ruleth which if he doe not he is not to be accounted a King● but a Tyrant whose property it is only to suck his owne profit For in this point a King differeth from a Tyrant that the one seeketh the cōmodity profit of them whom he ruleth the other only his owne The which to make more manifest the cause is also to be alledged wherefore Kings were ordained At the beginning as Cicero in his Offices saith It is certaine that there was a certaine time when the people lived without Kings but afterward when ●and and possessions began to be divided according to the custome of every Nation then were Kings ordained for no other cause but only to execute Justice For when as at the beginning the common people were oppressed by rich and mighty men they ran by and by to some good and vertuous man who should defend the poore from injury and ordaine Lawes whereby the rich and poore should dwell together But when as yet under the rule of Kings the poore were oft oppressed lawes were ordained and instituted the which should judge neither for hatred nor favour and give like care unto the poore as unto the rich whereby we doe understand not only the people but the King to be subject unto the Lawes Then the Doctor tells us that he is against the Arbitrary way of government For saith he we may and ought to deny obedience to such commands of the Prince as are unlawfull by the Law of God yea by the established Lawes of the Kingdome Ans This reason doth no way destroy Arbitrary government but rather erect it For government is not said to be Arbitrary because the subjects may deny in word and so left to suffer For then the Tur●ish government is not arbitrary For when the great Turke commands his subjects to doe any thing if they will deny and suffer for their deniall they may and doe sometimes deny their obedience If there be lawes whereby a King is to rule which he shall command his subjects to breake and his subjects are neither bound to obey him nor suffer by him then his government is not arbitrary but if there be lawes made and he may inforce his subjects either to keepe them or breake them and punish them at his pleasure that shall refuse and the whole kingdome bound in conscience to suffer whatsoever he shall inflict for not breaking those Lawes then is his government arbitrary for arbitrary government is that whereby a Prince doth rule ex arbitrio which he doth when either there is no law to rule by but his owne will or when hee hath a power to breake those lawes at his will and to punish the subject at his pleasure for not breaking them and in truth this latter is rather an arbitrary government then the former as it shewes more liberty in the will that it hath a power to act when reason perswades to the contrary then if there were no reason disswading and else there should be no arbitrary government in the world For no State but hath some lawes whereby they rule and are ruled even the very Indians onely here lyes the arbitrarinesse of a government that notwithstanding the law the Ruler may pro arbitrio force his subjects according to his owne pleasure Then the Doctor saith We must consider that they which plead for resistance in such a case as is supposed doe grant that it must be concluded upon Omnibus ordinibus regni consentientibus that is with the generall and unanimous consent of the two houses Ans 1. First these words are ill translated for omnes ordines regni may consentire and yet there may not be an unanimous and generall consent of the Members of the two houses as of one man 2. If so that the Doctor grant this to be our Sentence why then doth he object against us that the Christians in the primitive times did not take up armes for the defence of themselves against the Emperors seeing they had not the consent of all the orders of the Empire and therefore their case is nothing to ours as hee pretends afterward But if they had the whole Senate of Rome with them the representative body of the Empire then their case had beene more like unto ours and then no question but they would have taken up armes for the defence of themselves Then the Doctor saith We suppose that the Prince must be so and so disposed bent to overthrow Religion Liberties Lawes c. Ans Here he takes that