Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	12,106	5	9.9774	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31183	The Case of the sheriffs for the year 1682, or, The third years paper in regard to the act for corporations being the case also of the dissenting ministers in regard to the act of Oxford : in a second and third sheet, together with the first revised, strengthened and reprinted ...		1682 (1682)	Wing C1164; ESTC R18154	25,181	37

then upon the Injunction as may be favourable to his Scruples and yield it his Submission Ex Libro Praedict p. 125. Believe this to be their meaning which is necessary to every one that takes it to determine for himself that he may act in Faith in what he does We must add That when we say the Parliament is the Lawgiver we understand by the Parliament the King Lords and Commons and consequently that the Sense of the Law and so of this Oath must be always that Sense wherein the House of Lords did concur with the House of Commons and the King with Both. If there be any Sense therefore of an Imposition which may be supposed to be the Meaning of the King and not of the Houses or of One of the Houses and not the Other or a lesser part of either Houses and not the majority of both that Sense must be still lookt on as too narrow and ought not to scruple the Conscience the true Sense obliging the Subject being the concurrent Sense of the King Lords and Commons who as assembled joyntly to this end of Legislation not One without the Other but all Three together as One Corporation and not otherwise are the Lawgiver Neither is this sense to be collected from the first floating Apprehensions of any one that moves a matter in the House but from the digested Thoughts of both Houses after a mature Debate and the thing hath thrice passed in them both so that no Sense of any Imposition but that which is agreable to Reason and more especially to the Fundamental Laws of the Constitution must be received as the * When the Scripture is said not to be of private Interpretation the Meaning is that we must not put any Sense of Man upon it let it be never so reasonable but we must still take the Sense of the Holy-Ghost that inspired it and if you ask What is or How shall we know what is the meaning of that Divine Author The way is to compare one Text with another and all with the Analogy of Faith and Oeconomy of the Gospel We must say the same of Laws The Law is not of Private Interpretation but the Meaning of the Lawgiver and if you ask how we shall know their meaning we say likewise by this as one way the comparing one Act with other Acts and all of them by their Universal Consent with the Fundamental Constitution See Ibid. 125. Meaning of a Parliament the Reason being because the nature of the Constitution is such as it cannot be infringed by an Act or Law for the Administration This is a Note to be laid in here that by and by will be needful And thus much therefore farther and no less being premised we proceed By taking Arms Let us suppose the Sheriffs believe the Parliament meant the raising an Army or War and by the King the King 's own Sacred Person as there is nothing else indeed can be meant And we can see no * The only Objections here which are of weight may be reduced to two Cases One is the Case of Private violence as suppose a Prince should go to Ravish a Virgin and she catches up the next Weapon or Instrument to defend her self In this Case or the like we answer this Defence is not to be accounted taking Arms in the sense of this Act. The other is a Case of Publick violence as suppose a Prince should go about to alienate his Kingdom or ruine his Country or the like We anwer we are not for all that to return violence upon his Person and as for his Officers Followers or Armies the Solution must be attended in the next Clause of the Oath Objection which may not be answer'd from this Little in the First Clause of the Oath I A. B. do swear That I hold These words I hold I believe or the like must doubtlesly be understood it is unlawful to Take up Arms against the King His Authority or Rightful Government upon any Pretence whatsoever If David's Heart smote him for cutting off but Saul's Skirt when he was actually in Arms to defend hemself against Saul's Forces only because he was the Lord's Anointed It is not in this first Clause any one may conjecture but in the ensuing where the chief Scruples against the Oath are to be removed In the Second Clause By those Commissionated by Him let us suppose they beleive the Parliament meant could mean no other than such as have a due Authority from HIm and exercise it only according to Law And so long as the King's Authority and such Commissions are one or the same we can see no more difficulty remaining in the Second Clause than in the former And I do abhor that is disown or disclaim that Trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against His Person or against any Commissionated by Him in the pursuit of such Commissions That is Legally Commissionated by Him in the Legal pursuit of such Commissions It is not to be imagined that the Parliament when they passed this Act that is the Major part of them should design the setting up an Arbitrary Government in the Nation But if the meaning of those Commissionated by Him be otherwise than thus they must design it An Arbitrary Power as soon as they passed this Clause in any Act must be accounted to Commence or be declared to be alwayes the Right of the King A thing most absurd to be believed and in the contrary Belief whereof the most scrupulous Man we thank God may resolvedly take this Oath In the Third Clause we distinguish an Endeavour to change or reform any thing in Church or State which we think conducive to the good of the Nation in a Parliamentary way only as is allowed by the Fundamental Law and Course of the Realm from an Endeavour in any other way that is not warranted by the same to wit in a seditious way or in such manner as they did in the late Times when they endeavoured the Extirpation of Frelacy by force against and without the King's Consent in Parliament which may be believed to be the assured Sense of the Majority in the Houses when they passed this Act and so long as to do so * It may be said the Parliament raised Armes before they declared Endeavours to Extirpate Prelacy and condemn the whole Parliament War when they would have us declare it unlawful to do that Now which they did Then or as of late hath been Practised to use the Words of the Militia Acts But let this be granted it follows then must their Meaning here indeed be that we are not to endeavour any Alteration of Government in the Way they did then which being out of doubt of the Sheriffs can Swear but nothing more we are sure is condemned in This Clause of the Oath whatsoever else be intended in the former Clauses of it and the Militia Acts in regard to the Beginning of the War as well as