Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	bishop_n	king_n	time_n	2,414	5	3.4073	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66600	God, the King, and the countrey, united in the justification of this present revolution containing also animadversions on Dr. William Sherlock's book intituled, The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, stated and resolved, according to scripture and reason, and the principles of the Church and England / by Tim. Wilson ...	Wilson, Timothy, 1642-1705.	1691 (1691)	Wing W2950; ESTC R8407	46,572	49

it is of Logick Astronomy or any part of Philosophy which are Arts and Sciences of themselves And so Policy hath Rules and Methods of its own and depends upon the Sense and Reason of all Mankind being not proper to Christians but common to Jews Turks or Heathens And besides the English Policy is not the same with other Christian Nations Now as to our present Government and Revolution English-men may be divided into these three Ranks First Such as joyned with the Prince of Orange before or at his Landing according to his Declaration Expectation Desire and Invitation of them Secondly Such as did not joyn with the Prince of Orange but did oppose him either with their Prayers or with their Strength or with both but since have taken the Oaths of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary Thirdly Such as did neither joyn with the Prince of Orange nor since have taken the Oaths The Reverend Dr. is among the Moderate men of the second Rank And est quiddam prodire tenus It is something to come thus far we have the shorter way to our Journeys end as one saith For he writes thus Many things are said for the justifying the Legality of the late Revolution which may make men much more moderate in the point than some are § 1. p. 2. And his endeavour is to perswade those of the third Rank to take the Oaths a very honest charitable and pious endeavour for he saith well in his Preface There are others who are still dissatisfied about the Oaths and are desirous to try whether they can find that satisfaction which he hath done This I confess is a good Reason which may in charity oblige me To proceed All Learned men know what it is to suppose or put a Case and I will not be a quarrelsom Antagonist but will be as civil to the Dr. as he can be to me and therefore for his supposition I will not charge him with reflecting upon this present Government which he saith and I believe he speaks his conscience and heart he is very sure he is far from intending to do in the latter end of his Preface The Dr. seems to make a contradistinction between Right and Government in these words § 1. p. 1. Allegiance is due only to Right not to Government tho' it can be paid only to Government Now I think there can be no Government where there is no Right For who should command and who should obey where there is no Right to command Otherwise how could there be such a thing as Anarchy or Confusion when every man doth what is good in his own Eyes as when there was no King or Governour in Israel Judg. 19.1 And again p. 2. If then Allegiance be due not for the sake of Legal Right but Government But I say there is no Allegiance due where there is no Legal Right either Natural or Positive for I suppose all Obligatory Laws founded upon Natural Principles Again the Dr. asserts That God placeth and setteth some Princes on the Throne tho' they have no Legal or Humane Right p. 3. Now this seems to me a Riddle I am of Opinion that every Prince who hath Gods Authority hath a Legal and Humane Right unless God immediately from Heaven by an Angel or the like extraordinary way gives him Authority But no Prince ordinarily hath Gods Authority but by Legal and Humane Right as will appear hereafter As for what the Dr. saith about the Disposal of Providence it seems to me pure Enthusiasm and the very Dregs of Quakerism which I shall consider in due place Animadversions on § 2. As for what the Dr. saith in this Section and quotes out of Bishop Overals convocation-Convocation-Book I admit and approve sano sensu and I reverence their Authority And I suppose that at that time there were some Divines perhaps Bishops in that Convocation who did think Defensive Arms lawful in some cases and founded Government in Agreement as the ever-renowned Mr. Hooker and Dr. Bilson certainly did And when the Dr. proves the contrary I will believe him and before I suppose he doth not desire that I should But let us see the Dr's Inferences from the Doctrine of the Convocation Men may dispute any thing but I know not how it was possible for the Convocation to express their sense plainer That all Vsurped Powers when throughly setled have Gods Authority and must be obeyed So that here are two great Points determined whereupon this whole Controversie turns 1. That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have Gods Authority But surely the Convocation meant that they had a Legal Right and were no longer Usurpers when they had Gods Authority as the King of Egypt and Babylon and King Alexander and the Emperors of Rome Let him prove the contrary if he can And I am fully of this Opinion which I think is the Dr's That there is Momentum quod sic as the Schools call it a Time when all Usurpers or Invading Powers have Gods Authority and must be obeyed and that is when they are throughly setled But the Question is When they are throughly setled A. It is hard to determine and fix a time but there is a time when Invaders and Conquerors have a Right and Title to the Crown And I am of Opinion this is When such a Prince and People have made a Covenant Compact or Agreement explicite or implicite When having with a good Conscience defended their King Laws and Countrey as long as they could they yield being taken Prisoners or subdued And let this consent be supposed to be over-awed yet consent it is especially when they have made a Solemn Promise or Oath to such a Prince And he that breaks such a Promise or Oath is wicked David describes a Citizen of Zion thus He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not Psal 15.4 This is grounded upon this Natural Principle That what Promise I make if lawful however inconvenient to me I must perform By the way I call an Explicite Covenant when there is the Publick Consent and Profession of such an Ingagement made by a National Assembly I call an Implicite Covenant when the Members of a Society in their Practice do all such Acts as are required by the Rules agreed among them and submit themselves thereunto Tho' they make no verbal Promise or Profession thereof I need not illustrate this in our Case for all Men have seen with their Eyes and heard with their Ears what hath been done among us Or in the Drs words § 2. p. 9. The Government is throughly settled when the whole Administration of the Government and the whole Power of the Nation is in the Hands of the Prince when every thing is done in his Name and by his Authority when the Estates of the Realm and the great Body of the Nation have submitted to him and those who will not submit can be crushed by him whenever he pleaseth If this

to Hard. A. Art 2. Divis 6. justifies Luther as a godly man and accuseth Harding of Slander And Divis 7 he calls Melancthon and Bucer godly learned men And he calls Peter Martyr a most worthy and learned Father A. to Hardings Preface And Harding commends his Modesty And surely if Passive Obedience had been the Doctrine of those days and esteemed as it hath been of late Rebellion to oppose it the ever Renowned Hooker Preface to Eccl. Pol. would not have honoured Calvin with this Elogium For my own part I think him that is Calvin incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy since the hour it enjoyed him The Divines of the Church of England are not wont thus to commend Authors guilty of Heresie or Schism or Sedition or Rebellion And Dr. Bilson True difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion p. 3. pag. 264. saith Calvin is so well known to those that be Learned or Wise for his great pains and labours in the Church of God that a few snarling Fryars cannot impeach his Name And Dr. Whitgift against the Puritan T. C. every where honours Bullinger Castius and more especially Zuinglius And yet all these justified Defensive Arms in some case Now who are the Innovators they that follow the first Doctors of our Church or they that have embraced other new and unheard of Principles in Government I leave the works of our Forefathers to be Judges But here it is objected by some weak and factious spirits that our Convention or Parliament have done as bad to the late King as the Rump Parliament so called O. C. and the Army of Sectaries did to King Charles the First And therefore if we are justifiable they are justifiable and consequently Jan. 30. ought not to be kept as a day of Humiliation and Fasting For this let the Reader consider what the Dr. saith p. 46 47 c. Or let him take this Answer Our Cause and theirs differ as far as Heaven and Hell or Good and Bad Murder and Self-defence I will not say that there were no Corruptions in Government nor no Innovations brought into the Church Neither will I dispute the Reasonableness of the War between the King and Parliament in the beginning But supposing that the Parliament had sufficient Cause to defend themselves Yet 1. King Charles the First had given full satisfaction to the Two Houses of Parliament and the Bishops and the Common Prayer were Established by Law And all know that it was the National Worship as it is now and cannot be abrogated or altered but by King Lords and Commons But O. C. destroyed the House of Lords and the Book of Common Prayer by force and by the Sword 2. King Charles the First was a professed Protestant and all his Officers and Ministers in Church and State were such as the Law allowed But the Late King was a professed Papist and put Papists in Places of Trust against Law and turned out all the best Protestants for no reason but only because they opposed the Jesuits and Arbitrary Power 3. King Charles the First and the Parliament had concluded upon a Settlement to the satisfaction of all sober and wise Men in the Kingdom but O. C. and his Army of Sectaries with force turned about a hundred Members out of Parliament and kept them Prisoners against Law and Justice 4. O. C. and the Sectaries Ruled the Nation by the Sword in time of Peace contrary to all Law and Executed many of the most Zealous Protestants But King William defends all Protestants according to Law 5. They like Cruel Tyrants and Usurpers destroyed the whole Frame of Government Murdered the King and Banished all the Royal Family As there are some at this day who are so vain and sottish as to desire a Common-wealth and to Root out the Bishops and Common Prayer and so bring confusion into Church and State As if there were no difference between the Reformation of Abuses and destroying that which is good and excellent We say that this Faction in a Nation is to be opposed as well as the Tyranny and Illegal Proceedings of the Papists For both are destructive of our Laws and Established Religion It is true our present Business is against the Abominations of the Church of Rome and the Usurpations of Popish Priests and Jesuits But we also abhor all those who would Murder a Protestant King and destroy our Liberties and the Religion by Law Established and force us contrary to our Consciences But King William opposeth none but Papists who would have destroyed us and he continues our Parliament and our Laws Liberties and Religion with all the Incouragements thereof 6. King William was invited over by divers of the Nobility and Gentry to save us from Popery and Slavery and was received with the universal Joy of Protestants But O.C. and his Sectaries who Barbarously and Impudently Murdered King Charles the First were cryed out against by all sound Protestants who adhered to the Laws of the Nation So that that Rebellion and King William's Actions and those that joined with him differ as much as Destroying a Nation and Saving a Nation as the greatest Sin and the greatest Good Lastly Our Royal Martyr King Charles the First died in the Defence of the Laws and Established Religion But the Late King Abdicated or Deserted or at least went out of the Kingdom rather than he would Rule according to Law And when he was gone to France the Chief of the Nobility and Gentry desired the P. of O. to take the Government upon him and to Summon a Convention which Convention Elected him King and the Princess Queen The Late King fled and Banished himself rather than he would do the Nation Justice and when he was gone the Convention or Parliament resolved to keep him out The P. of O. tho' a Soveraign Prince and no way Subject to the Late King did not Murder him when he had him in his Power But O.C. and the Sectaries of the Army Beheaded King Charles the First tho' he was Innocent and a Prince of most Excellent Virtues and of Ever Blessed Memory Ob. Solomon saith Prov. 24.21 22. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change For their calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth the ruin of them both A. This Text doth not forbid the Change of Government in Absolute necessity when the Safety of the whole Kingdom requires it and it is done Regularly and for the Publick Good But commands Obedience and Fear to the present Lawful King and never to join with Changelings who are restless under Government and Lightly Wantonly Factiously or Seditiously oppose what is present It is not to be understood Morally as if it were Absolutely evil and a Sin to change when the whole Frame of Government is corrupt But you must take it prudentially that a wise Man who fears God ought not to Change that Form of

they believe that a King who hath no Right to the Throne is not set up by God and invested with his Authority they will find That it must ultimately resolve it self into the Authority of the People to make Kings which it is unjust for God himself to over-rule and alter pace tanti viri by the Dr's leave I should say it is not Gods usual Method and ordinary Providence to over-rule and alter for a Legal Entail is nothing more than the Authority of the People And if the People have such an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings hold a little the People cannot do this when they have Covenanted ordinarily but in extream necessity I doubt they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them to But perhaps the Dr. will say This is Argumentum ad homines and I would not willingly misrepresent him As for his Answer to the Objection which I find p. 26. I know not what to make of it it is pure Enthusiasm I think I cannot measure it by any Rules of Reason 3. He grants very honestly p. 27. That when ever a People have a good King as surely say I King William and Queen Mary are a good King and Queen it is both their Duty and Interest to defend Him And if they be not misled by the Cunning and Artifice of ill Men they will certainly do so But if they have a very bad one that notoriously violates their Rights and breaks the Constitution upon which Himself stands and strikes at the dearest things they have their Religion Established by Law and their Properties I doubt the Case may be altered And tho' every Body will not speak it out yet most may say in their Hearts Let him go if he cannot defend Himself It is enough in Conscience patiently to bear so bad a Prince but a little too much to venture their Lives and Fortunes to keep him in the Throne to oppress them This is against Reason and Nature and I know no Law of God which requires it c. I wish with all my heart that this Consideration and other Arguments of the Dr's may prevail with the most Reverend Father in God the late Arch-Bishop and the Right Reverend the Bishops who have not taken the Oaths to their present Majesties I believe out of pure Conscience tho' erroneous and full of prejudice And I have often wondered that so many of the Clergy who but a little before did so violently oppose the Prince of Orange's proceedings out of the like conscientious prejudice as I believe did on a sudden take the Oaths This seems to me to shew that our Case wanted but a little consideration and men might easily lay aside their prejudices in so blessed and desirable a Change 4. The Dr. grants p. 28. That the Laws of God and Nature must take place of all Humane Positive Laws and Oaths Hence I infer that the Dr. cannot deny Self-preservation 5. He grants p. 29. That it is unreasonable to expound the Oath to such a sense as no man would have taken it in had it been expressed No no man in his wits would take it for the best Prince that ever swayed the Scepter Then such an Oath or Promise or Declaration could not intend to dedestroy Self-preservation Liberty and Property 6. The Dr. grants p. 30. We are not bound to defend the King against Law or when he subverts the Laws und Liberties and the Legal Established Religion of the Kingdom by Illegal Methods Or as he saith presently after by the exercise of an Illegal and Arbitrary Power 7. He saith p. 32. Certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath to fight for their King against their Countrey For an Oath to fight for the King doth not oblige us to fight against our Countrey which is as unnatural as to fight against our King 8. He owns the preservation of the whole Kingdom is before the Prince p. 33. in these words Tho' I have as great a Reverence for Princes as any man I do not think the Right and Interest of any Prince so considerable as the Safety and Preservation of the Nation and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects I am sure we who are for Defensive Arms cannot say more than this 9. I leave the Teachers of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance to answer his Arguments p. 36. or else I hope they will take the Oaths I have spoken my thoughts of this matter As for Bishop Overals convocation-Convocation-Book I do not love many words I have spoken my mind 10. This seems very hard that when God hath actually delivered us we must refuse our deliverance p. 38. And I add it seems very hard that the Clergy who receive most benefit by this deliverance if in heart they love the Protestant Religion should not honour the Deliverers 11. The Dr. agrees to what Bishop Sanderson tells us That the End of Civil Government and of that Obedience which is due to it is the Safety and Tranquillity of Humane Societies and therefore whatever is necessary and useful to this End becomes our Duty for the End prescribes the Means Hence I infer the lawfulness of Defensive Arms in some case because Humane Societies under a Tyrannical Prince who Rules Arbitrarily cannot be safe I beseech the Dr. seriously to consider this and examine throughly whether it doth not necessarily follow And before I end this Section I must desire the Dr. to reconcile some of his Assertions He saith p. 4. The Church of England hath been very careful to instruct her Children in their duty to Princes to obey their Laws and submit to their Power and not to resist tho' very injuriously oppressed and those who renounce these Principles renounce the Doctrine of the Church of England But she hath withal taught That all Sovereign Princes receive their Power and Authority from God and therefore every Prince who is setled in the Throne is to be obeyed and reverenced as Gods Minister and not to be resisted c. And here I observe that the Dr. chargeth the Non-swearing Bishops as well as those who joyned with the Prince of Orange as rejecting the Doctrine of the Church of England Well let the Dr. and his Party be the only true Church of England-men if he can disprove what I have now and elsewhere said He grants That whosoever is setled in the Throne hath Gods Authority and must not be resisted But p. 25 26. in answering an Objection That this makes the Prince lose his Right by being notoriously injured c. he tells us The Providence of God removes Kings and sets up Kings but alters no Legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them to recover their Right when they can c. and doth not divest the dispossessed Prince of his Legal Right and Claim nor forbid him to endeavour to recover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no Obligation to the Prince in Possession to assist the dispossessed Prince to recover his