Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	wise_a	work_n	worthy_a	17	3	5.5143	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59963	A hind let loose, or, An historical representation of the testimonies of the Church of Scotland for the interest of Christ with the true state thereof in all its periods : together with a vindication of the present testimonie, against the Popish, prelatical, & malignant enemies of that church ... : wherein several controversies of greatest consequence are enquired into, and in some measure cleared, concerning hearing of the curats, owning of the present tyrannie, taking of ensnaring oaths & bonds, frequenting of field meetings, defensive resistence of tyrannical violence ... / by a lover of true liberty.	Shields, Alexander, 1660?-1700.	1687 (1687)	Wing S3431; ESTC R24531	567,672	774

was not an Usurper over Iudea which not obscurely is insinuated by Paul himself who asserts that both his person his Cause Criminal of which he was accused it was not an Ecclesiastical Cause so no advantage hence for the Supremacy appertained to Cesars Tribunal and that not only in fact but of right Act. 25. 10. I stand at Cesars judgment seat where I ought to be judged We cannot say this of any tribunal senced in the name of them that Tyrannize over us 5. I will not stand neither upon the Names Titles of Kings c. to be given to Tyrants Usurpers in speaking to them or of them by way of appellation or compellation for we find even Tyrants are called by these names in Scripture being Kings de fact● though not dejure and indeed not impertinently Kings Tyrants for the most part are reciprocal termes But in no case can we give them any Names or Titles which may signify our love to them whom the Lord hates or 〈◊〉 hate the Lord 2 Chron. 19. 2. or which may flatter them which Elihu durst not give for fear his Maker should take him away Iob. 32. 22. or which may be taken for honouring of them for that is not due to the vile● of men when exalted never so high Psal. 12. ult a vile person must be contemned in our eyes Psal. 15. 4. Nor which may any way import or infer an ouning of a Magistratical relation between them us or any Covenant transaction or Confederacy with them which in no termes with them as such we will say or oune Isa. 8. 12. Hence many sufferers upon this head so bear to give them their Titles 8. It will be yeelded very readily by us that a Magistrate is not to be disouned meerly for his differing in Religion from us yea though he were a Heathen We do not disoune our pretended Rulers meerly upon that account but chearfully do grant subscribe to that Truth in our Confession of faith chap. 23. § 4. That Infidelity or difference in Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just Legal Authority nor free the people from their due obedience to him On which our Adversaries have insulted as if our Principles Practices were therby disproved But it is easy to answer 1. let the words be considered and we are confident that no sober man will think the acknowledgment of just legal Authority due obedience a rational ground to infer that Tyranny is thereby either allowed or priviledged Napth Pag. 60. Prior Edition 2. Though Infidelity or difference of Religion does not make void Authority where it is Lawfully invested yet it may incapacitate a person and Lawfully seclude him from Authority both by the word of God which expressly forbids to set a Stranger over us who is not our brother Deut. 17. 15. Which includes as well a stranger of a strange Religion as one of a strange Countrey and by the Lawes of the Land which do incapitate a Papist of all Authority Supreme or subordinate And so if this Iames the 7 2 had been King before he was a Roman Catholick if we had no more to object we should not have quarrelled his succession 3. We both give grant all that is in the Confession viz. Dominium non fundari in gratia that Dominion is not founded on Grace Yet this remains evident that a Prince who not only is of another religion but an avowed enemy to overturner of the Religion established by Law and intending endeavouring to introduce a false heretical blasphemous Idolatrous religion can claim no just legal Authority but in this case the people may very Lawfully decline his pretended Authority Nay they are betrayers of their Countrey Posterity if they give not a timeous effectual Check to his Usurpings and make him sensible that he hath no such Authority Can we imagine that men in the whole of that blessed work so remarkably led of God being convocate by a Parliament of the wisest worthyest men that ever was in England whom they did encourage by writing preaching every way to stand fast in their opposition to the then King displaying a banner for his prerogative a court dream against Religion Liberty should be so far left as to drop that as a principle part of our Religion which would sacrifice Religion it self to the lust of a raging Tyrant Must we beleeve that a Religion-destroying Tyrant is a righteous Ruler And must we onne him to be a Nursing father to the Church Shall we conclude that the common bounds Limits whereby the Almighty hath bounded Limited Mankind are removed by an Article of our confession of faith which hereby is turned into a Court creed Then welcome Hobs de Cive with all the rest of Pluto's train who would bable us into a belief that the world is to be governed according to the pleasure of wicked Tyrants I would fain hope at length the world would be awakened out of such ridiculous dreams be ashamed any more to oune such fooleries And it may be our two Royal Brothers have contributed more to cure men of this Moral madness than any who went before them And this is the only advantage I know that the Nations hath reaped by their reign 9. Though we deny that Conquest can give a just Title to a Croun yet we grant in some cases though in the begining it was unjust yet by the peoples after consent it may be turned into a just Title It is undenyable when there is just ground of the war if a Prince subdue a whole Land who have justly forfeited their Liberties when by his grace he preserves them he may make use of their right now forefeited and they may resign their Liberty to the Conqueror and consent that he be their King upon fair Legal not Tyrannical conditions And even when the war is not just but successful on the invading Conquerours side this may be an inducement to the Conquered if they be indeed free and uningaged to any other to a submission dedition delivery up of themselves to be the subjects of the victor and to take him for their Soveraign as it is like the case was with the Jewes in Cesars time whose Government was translated by dedition to the Roman power in the translation when a doing there was a fault but after it was done it ceased though the begining was wrong there was a post-fact which made it right and could not be dissolved without an unjust disturbance of publick order Whence besides what is said above in answer to that much insisted Instance of Christs paying tribute and Commanding it to be paid to Cesar the difficulty of that instance may be clearly solved That Tribute which he paid Math. 17. 24. c. and that about the payment whereof He was questioned Math. 22. 21. seem to be two different Tributes Many think very probably they were

6. pag. 195. in vita Kennethi 3. This continued until the dayes of Kenneth the 3. who to cover his villanous Murder of his Brothers Son Malcolm and prevent his and secure his oun sons succession procured this Charter for Tyranny the settlement of the succession of the next in line from the Parliament which as it pretended the prevention of many inconveniences arising from Contentions Competions about the succession So it was limited by Lawes Precluding the succession of Fools or Monsters and preserving the peoples liberty to shake off the yoke when Tyranny should thereby be introduced Otherwise it would have been not only an irrational surrender of all their oune Rights enslaving the posterity but an irreligious contempt of Providence refusing anticipating its Determination in such a case However it is clear before this time that as none but the fittest were admitted to the Government So if any did usurpe upon it or afterwards did degenerate into Tyranny they took such order with him as if he had not been admitted at all as is clear in the instances of the first Period and would never oune every pretender to hereditary succession 2 As before Kenneths dayes it is hard to reckon the numerous Instances of Kings that were dethroned or imprisoned or slain upon no other account than that of their oppression Tyranny So afterwards they maintained the same power priviledge of repressing them when ever they began to encroach And although no Nation hath been more patient towards bad Kings as well as Loyal towards good ones yet in all former times they understood so well their Right they had and the duty they owed to their oun preservation as that they seldom failed of calling the exorbitantly flagitious to an account And albeit in stead of condoling or avenging the death of the Tyrannous they have often both excused justified it yet no Kingdom hath inflicted severer Punishments upon the Murderers of just righteous Princes And therefore though they did neither enquire after nor animadvert upon those that slew Iames the 3. a flagitious Tyrant yet they did by most exquisite Torments put them to death who slew Iames the 1. a vertuous Monarch Hence because these other instances I mind to adduce of deposing Tyrants may be excepted against as not pertinent to my purpose who am not pleading for exauctoration deposition of Tyrants being impracticable in our case I shall once for all remove that and desire it may be considered 1 That though we cannot formally exauctorate a Tyrant yet he may ipso jure fall from his right and may exauctorate himself by His Law by whom Kings reign and this is all we plead for as a foundation of not ouning him 2 Though we have not the same power yet we have the same grounds and as great good if not greater better reasons to reject disoune our Tyrant as they whose example is here adduced had to depose some of their Tyrannizing Princes 3 If they had power ground to depose them then a fortiori they had power ground to disoune them for that is less inculded in the other and this we have 4 Though it should be granted that they did not disoune them before they were deposed yet it cannot be said that they did disoune them only because they were deposed for it is not deposition that makes a Tyrant it only declares him to be justly punished for what he was before As the sentance of a Judge does not make a man a murderer or Thief only declares him convict of these Crimes punishable for them it s his oun committing them that makes him Criminal And as before the sentance having certain knowledge of the fact we might disoune the Mans innocency or honesty So a Rulers Acts of Tyranny Usurpation make him a Tyrant Usurper and give ground to disoune his just legal Authority which he can have no more than a Murtherer or Thief can have innocency or honesty 3 We find also examples of their disouning Kings undeposed as King Baliol was disouned with his whole race for attempting to enslave the Kingdoms Liberties to forreign power And if this may be done for such an attempt as the greatest Court parasites Sycophants consent what then shall be done for such as attempt to subject the people to Domestick or Intestine Slaverie Shall we refuse to be slaves to one without and be oune our selves contented Slaves to one with in the Kingdom It is known also that King Iames the 1. his Authority was refused by his subjects in France so long as he was a Prisoner to the English there though he charged them upon their Allegiance not to fight against the party who had his person Prisoner They answered they ouned no Prisoner for their King nor owed no Allegiance to a Prisoner Hence Princes may learn though people submit to their Government yet their resignation of themselves to their obedience is not so full as that they are obliged to oune Allegiance to them when either Morally or Physically they are incapacitate to exerce Authority over them They that cannot rule themselves cannot be ouned as Rulers over a people 2. Neither hath there been any Nation but what at one time or other hath furnished examples of this Nature The English History gives account how some of their Kings have been dealt with by their Subjects for impieties against the Law Light of Nature and encroachments upon the Lawes of the Land. Vortigernu● was dethroned for incestously marying his oun Sister Neither did ever Blasphemies Adulteries Murders Plotting against the lives of Innocents and taking them away by Poison or Razor use to escape the animadversion of men before they were Priest-ridden unto a belief that Princes persons were sacred And if men had that generosity now this man that now reigns might expect some such animadversion And we find also King Edward Richard the 2. were deposed for Usurpation upon Lawes Liberties in doing whereof the people avowed They would not suffer the Lawes of England to be changed Surely the people of England must now be far degenerate who having such Lawes transmitted to them from their worthy Ancestors and they themselves being born to the possession of them without a Change do now suffer them to be so encroached upon and mancipate themselves leave their Children vassals to Poperie slaves to Tyranny 3. The Dutch also who have the best way of guiding of Kings of any that ever had to do with them witness their having so many of them in Chains now in Batavia in the East Indies are not wanting for their part to furnish us with examples When the King of Spain would not condescend to govern them according to their Ancient Lawes and rule for the good of the people they declared him to be fallen from the Seigniorie of the Netherlands and so erected themselves into a flourishing Common-wealth It will not