Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	catholic_n	church_n	visible_a	4,689	5	9.3932	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41219	The resolving of conscience upon this question whether upon such a supposition or case as is now usually made (the King will not discharge his trust, but is bent or seduced to subvert religion, laws, and liberties) subjects may take arms and resist, and whether that case be now ... / by H. Fern.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1642 (1642)	Wing F802; ESTC R25400	33,929	69

governed by such of whose prudence and moderation they had experience and then Arbitria Principum pro legibus erant the will and discretion of the Prince was Law unto the People but Men were Men though in Gods place and therefore for the restraint of that Power with consent of the Prince such Laws have been still procured by the People as might make for their security Now from a promise the King makes for doing Justice the duty of every Prince for the continuing those Priviledges immunities that have been granted or restored to the People and for the observing of those Laws that have been established with the Princes consent and from that oath by which for the greater security of the People he binds himself to the performance of the premises to infer a great obligation lyeth upon him is right but to gather thence a forfeiture of his power upon the not performance is a plain but dangerous inconsequent Argument And though such Argument may seem to have some force in States meerly elective and pactionall yet can it never be made to appear to any indifferent understanding that the like must obtain in this Kingdome And to this purpose Phil. Pareus excuseth what his Father had written more harshly upon the 13. to the Romans in the point of Resistence that it was to be understood of elective and pactionall government not to the prejudice of England or such Monarchies For where the King as it is said never dyes where he is King before oath or coronation where he is not admitted upon any such capitulation as gives any power to the People or their representative body as is pretended to Nay where that body cannot meet but by the will of the Prince and is dissoluble at his pleasure that there in such a State such a power should be pretended to and used against the Prince as at this day and that according to the fundamentalls of such a State can never appear reasonable to any indifferent judgement much lesse satisfie Conscience in the resistence that is now made by such a pretended power What then shall we say Is the King not bound to perform Yes by all means Or ha's he not a limited power according to the Lawes Yes What then if he will take to himself more power or not perform what he is bound to Suppose that though thanks be to God we are not come to that Then may the Subjects use all fair means as are fit to use cryes to God petitions to the Prince denials of obedience to his unlawfull commands denials of subsidie ayd c. But are they left without all means to compell by force and resistence This however it may at first sight seem unreasonable to the people and very impolitick to the Statesman yet ha's Scripture forbidden it as before was plainly shewed and so doth Reason too as will apeare in the examination of their last proofe they make for re-assuming this power and resisting from that necessity of means of safety which every State is to have within it self Of which now SECT. V. IN the last place it is thus reasoned Were it not so that the two Houses might take and use this power the State should not have means to provide for its own safety when the King shall please to desert His Parliament deny His consent to their Bills abuse His power c. So they When right and Just will not defend a thing then Necessity is usually pleaded as if because Salus Populi in a good sense is Suprema Lex every thing must be honest which is Spartae Vtile imagined to conduce to the proposed end We answer therefore First They have many weapons sharpened for this resistence at the Philistins forge arguments borrowed from the Romane schools among them this is one the very reason that is made for the Popes power of curbing or deposing Kings in case of Heresie For if there be not that power in the Church say they then in case the Civill Magistrate will not discharge his trust the Church ha's not means for the maintenance of the Catholick faith and its own safety Well as we reply to them the Church has means of preserving the faith such as God ha's appointed though not that of one Visible head which though at first seems plausible for preserving the Unity of faith yet ha's experience shown it to be indeed the meanes to bring much mischief upon the Church So to the other we say The State ha's meanes of preservation such as the Law ha's prescibed though not such as are here pretented to in this power of resistence which though seemingly plausible yet true Reason will conclude them dangerous and at this day God knows we see it Of this in the fourth answer more particularly Secondly If every State ha's such means to provide for its safety What means of safety had the Christian Religion under the Romane Emperours in and after the Apostles times or the people then enslaved what means had they for their Liberties had they this of resistence Tertullian in his Apol. sayes the Christians had number and force sufficient to withstand but they had no warrant and the Apostle expressely forbids them and all other under the higher power to resist If it be replyed as it was above touched That things being so enacted by Law it was not lawfull for them to resist I answer But it is known that not onely those Edicts which concerned Christian Religion but also all other that proceeded from those Emperours and enslaved the people were meerly arbitrary and enforced upon the Senate and that the Senate did not discharge their trust in consenting to them and therefore according to the former position the people might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition or else no means of safety left in that State So would it be in this State if at any time a King that would rule arbitrarily as those Emperours did should by some meanes or other work out of the two Houses the better affected and by the Consent of the Major part of them that remaine compasse his desires might the people then resist The Apostle forbids it to them as well as to the Romans in such a case if so where are these means of safety by this power of resistance Or are these means of safety extinct in the Consent of the Senate or the two Houses No the people will tell them they discharge not their trust they chose them not to betray them enslave them but according to the principles now taught them they might lay hold upon this power of resistence for their representative body claims it by them Thirdly we answer We cannot expect absolute means of safety and securitie in a State but such as are reasonable and such are provided especially in the fundamentalls of this Government by that excellent temper of the three estates in Parliament there being a power of denying in each of them and no power of enacting in one or