Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	government_n	king_n	monarchy_n	2,757	5	9.5091	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41762	The Grand problem briefly discussed, or, Considerations on the true mature and limits of obedience and submission to governours with respect to the different forms of an absolute and limited monarchy / by a divine of the Church of England.	Divine of the Church of England.	1690 (1690)	Wing G1506; ESTC R28666	8,624	14

kill his Persecutors tho' lawful Governours than suffer himself to be put to death by them These are the principal Arguments for Obedience or at least submission and Non-Resistance to Governours in all Cases which we allow to be very good and cogent in debitis circumstantiis where the Covernour is absolute But that they do not affect the Subjects of our English Monarchy will I presume be granted by them that seriously and impartially weigh the following Considerations II. In a mixed Government or limited Monarchy the Obedience due from the Subject is supposed Conditional or limited whose Rule and Measure is the Laws of the Land where we live in conjunction with the Laws of God And then Obedience is Either 1. Active to all Lawful Commands i. e. in things enjoyned or at least not forbidden by the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land Or 2. Passive or Submission to the Kings pleasure in suffering patiently instead of performing such his commands as are contrary to the Laws of God but not contrary to the Laws of the Land and consequently 't is the suffering Legal Penalties though undeserved VVith this Restriction must all those Texts be interpreted which in Scripture require Obedience or Submission For If the King goes about to oppress or destroy his people without authority from God and against the plain Laws of the Land it seems reasonable that He may be opposed at least to some degree by his People or Subjects For though a Prince is Gods Vice-gerent and ought not to be Murdered or Deposed by his Subjects his person being Sacred and reserved only to the Divine vengeance yet that He may when other means prove ineffectual be by force compelled to keep within the limits of the Law seems reasonable Because otherwise the Laws are mere trifles and insignificant Formalities To what purpose are Acts of Parliament made to confirm our Liberties and Properties if after such confirmation we are no more sure of enjoying them than we were before Why are great Revenues settled on the Crown by the peoples gift for the grant of some new privilege or confirmation of former Grants if notwithstanding this the Prince at pleasure may trample upon all without the least controul Certainly had Parliaments known such a power inherent in the King uncapable of Restriction they would have saved their own and the Nations Money and not have parted with it to facilitate as it may happen their own destruction That Government in general is of Divine Institution there can be no Question St. Paul saith Rom. 13.1 There is no Power but of God but the specification of this power or the different forms of Government may depend on the pleasure of Men. As the Husbands power over the Wife is from God yet that this man in particular rather than another should exercise that power was at first from the designation consent and choice of the VVoman her self so the Magistrates power is from God yet the exercise of it by few or many hands by one absolute or by one limited by certain Laws and Rules depended originally on the consent and approbation of the people for certainly the Scripture hath not determined which of these should be done VVe read indeed the words of God Himself Prov. 8.15 By me Kings Reign and St. Paul spake of absolute Emperors when he said Rom. 13.1 The powers that be are ordained of God But it doth not follow from thence that no other form of Government hath Divine Authority For 1. As to the former Text the verse next following will prove Aristocracy to be jure Divino as certainly as that proves Monarchy to be so Prov. 8.16 By me Princes Rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth And 2. As to the latter place if St. Paul had lived when Rome was a Common-wealth what should hinder but that he might have preacht the same Doctrine might he not have said of the Consuls Senate Tribunes c. The powers that be are ordained of God If Monarchy then be said to be jure Divino it must not be understood exclusive of all other Forms of Government but either in a general sense as it must be acknowledged the best and subject to fewer inconveniences than any other Form and as being the most agreeable to right Reason and the voice of Nature being the first of Governments And that which is still every where found among such people as have only the light of nature to direct them Or Finally as it best represents the supreme authority of God on Earth Earthly Magistrates being Gods Representatives do best appear to be so in a Monarchical State But that Monarchy is strictly and properly of Divine institution cannot be defended 1. Because then all other Forms of Government are wicked Inventions under which it must be unlawful to live the which I think none will assert 2. Because then the Monarch sinneth against God if he parts with the least branch of his prerogative without express license from Heaven and then our English Government it self though Monarchical must also be condemned It seems therefore as I conceive very plain that though the Kings power be from God whose Vicegerent He is and not the peoples Creature yet He may be limited in the exercise of that Power by the Laws of the Realm made by the free consent and approbation of Himself and his people And this seems to have been the opinion of our Three last Kings The Blessed Martyr Charles the I. Declared from New-Marked That the Law was the measure of his power and at another time That his Prerogatives were built on the Law of the Land King Charles the II. in His Speeches to his Parliaments several times declared his Resolution To make the Law his Rule and to Govern according to Law And King James the Second in His Speech at His first sitting in Privy Council reciting a Calumny that had been reported of Him That he was a man for Arbitrary Power to assure us of the contrary he saith I know the Laws of England are sufficient to make the King as great a Monarch as I can wish By which it appears That as the Kings of England are not absolute So the Obedience which their Subjects owe them should be measure by the known Laws of the Land If therefore the King requires that which is not forbidden by the Law of God but yet is beyond that authority which the Constitutions of the Kingdom have assigned Him his Subjects may for the sake of peace avoiding of scandal or such like end for the publick good comply by a voluntary concession with his will but they are not in Conscience bound to obey And if He pursues such illegal practices extravagantly designing to subvert the peoples Civil or Religions Rights to introduce a false Religion and Arbitrary power and enslave not only the present but all future Generations His Subjects are so far from being obliged to assist Him in such illegal and

destructive Projects That on the contrary they ought according to their stations to resist such proceedings defending themselves and their own Rights not offending Him or retaliating injuries but refusing to put in execution such illegal designs And if they would unanimously resolve on this they might be safe since He can never destroy them but by their own hands Indeed there will never be wanting men of mean Fortunes and base Principles ready instruments to serve the worst designs of Tyrants and if such be put into Office to oppress the Subject contray to Law we know by our ancient Constitution their Commissions are illegal and they can have no more authority thereby than such as take purses on the High way and may be treatd accordingly This is so evident that it needs no argument to prove it and therefore I shall mention only what I before hinted viz. That unless this be granted the Laws fail of the end for which they were made and are no safe-guard to the people Object Now as to that Objection That the Nature of a Christians Obedience being stated and determined by the Laws of God in Scripture the subsequent Laws of man cannot alter it I Answer Answ It is so indeed supposing the Government remains the same But the whole weight of the Objection depends on a false supposition viz. That by the Laws of God every Government ought to be Monarchical and every Monarch absolute as the Roman Emperours were to whom the Primitive Christians were Subject But there can be no proof of this from Scripture and consequently if a Monarch may be under Legal limitations He can expect no other than Legal Obedience from his Subjects notwithstanding those Texts of Scripture Hence also the Examples of our Saviour Christ his Apostles and primitive Christians are improperly urged against us who live under a different Government to infer absolute submission to the will of the King though they may well be urged to infer such Submission to the Government i. e. To the King acting within the limits of Law For it may happen that by the Laws of the Land a King may have power to inflict sore penalties on his Subjects for refusing to do what they are restrained from doing by the superiour Laws of God and then they must needs submit how great power soever they had to resist for the Laws of Religion allowing no resistance nor the Laws of the Land according to which they are supposed to suffer they can have no pretence at all for resisting And here is the opportunity for passive Obedience and bearing the Cross And this was the condition of our pious Martyrs in Queen Maries Reign they were put to death unjustly but yet according to the Laws of the Land and by the authority with which the Laws armed their Sovereign against them For these Laws being interpreted their own Acts by their Representatives or of the major part of them by which the rest ought to be concluded when executed against them ought to be patiently submitted to without the least Resistance This also our Dissenters take to be their Case on whom penalties have been inflicted for Non-Conformity They pretend Conscience against Conformity as if it were forbidden by the Laws of God yet being upon that account adjudged Criminals by the Laws of the Land they ought to suffer patiently the effects of those Laws however innocent themselves or however grievous and unjust their penalties As to the for-cited Examples Our blessed Saviour submitted to the powers that then were and the sentence of Death was passed upon him by a Judg whom he acknowledged to have power given him from above And though the power was abused to the injury of the innocent yet a private person was not to avenge himself but commit his Case unto God Besides the great end for which our Lord came into the VVorld to do and suffer the will of Him that sent him for the Salvation of men obliged Him to acquiese and submit who otherwise might have commanded twelve Legions of Angels to his rescue Then as for the primitive Christians who when more numerous than their Enemies would not in the least resist their persecutors not when they had opportunity and capacity to resist as particularly the Thebean Legion Of which there are various opinions 1. Some say it was not lawful for them to resist because the Laws of the Empire were against them and their Religion But this I conceive is not satisfactory for it may justly be questioned how these Laws improperly so called could oblige the Christians to such strange submission and condescension when they seem destitute of Equity and just authority of Equity because condemning innocent persons and of authority because contrary to the Laws of God and Nature and not enacted by any consent of the people being only Edicts or Proclamations of the Emperour And the Emperours authority must be founded on one of these viz. The Laws of God and Nature or the consent of people And if his Edicts were contrary to these it seems strange that they should lay on Christians that great obligation of suffering death without Resistance 2. Others imagine these Christians not to have understood their duty aright and that they ought according to the Laws of Nature to have defended their lives against unjust violence but that they were under such a prejudicial mistake as the Jews were who refused to fight against there enemies on the Sabbath-day and consequently were rather to be pitied than imitated But 3. I conceive the best and truest account of these pious men submitting to their persecutors even to death is this not only that the Imperial Laws were against them much less that they were ignorant of their Duty or Liberty of self-defence But that they knew it was the positive VVill of God that they should glorifie Him when called to it by suffering death For as it was the will of God to make the Captain of our Salvation perfect through suffering Heb. 2.10 So it was his will also to bring his followers to glory the same way by Patience and sufferings unto which St. Peter saith of Christians 1 Pet. 2.21 Ye are called because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps i. e. as often as they were called to it by order of Divine Providence And this frequently happened while the supreme power was in the hands of Heathen Princes so long it was the method of God to establish confirm and propagate his Church by the blood of Martyrs voluntarily dying for that Religion which they could have defended with the Sword had not their Holy Faith restrained them from such means And hereby the Heathen Rulers might learn that the Kingdom of Christ was not of this world that as He intended not by admitting men into his Society to infringe any of their just and natural Rights so He wanted not the assistance of their power to Plant or support his Church and