Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	king_n	law_n	supremacy_n	3,288	5	10.6148	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49524	The reformed Presbyterian, humbly offering to the consideration of all pious and peaceable spirits several arguments for obedience to the act for unifromity, as the way to vnity and endeavouring to demonstrate by clear inferences from the sacred scriptures, the writings of some of the ancients, or several old pastors of the reformed churches abroad, and of the most eminent old non-conformists amongst ourselves : as Mr. Josias Nichols, Mr. Paul Baines, and other learned divines : as for Mr. Perkins, Mr. Iohn Randal, and Mr. Rob. Bolton, that there is nothing required by the act for vniformity that is forbidden by the law of God / by Rich. Lytler ...	Lytler, Richard.	1662 (1662)	Wing L3573; ESTC R1525	139,662	290

unlawful for when it becometh impossible then we must safely think that God from Heaven freeth a man from his Oath which I think also is considerable in this case And saith he when it doth begin to be unlawful then it ceaseth to bind because the binding virtue is onely from the Word of God which bindeth not to any thing forbidden in the holy Scripture or that is unlawful either from the Word of God or the Law of the Land I beseech you consider that if when an Oath whose institution by God is to be the end of all strife shall have a natural tendency to the maintaining of strife division and contention to be the occasion of wars and commotions in the Land of our Nativity to administer matter and occasion of jealousie in our Superiours that while we judge our selves bound in conscience by an Oath that we have taken to endeavour to alter and change the Government whether he will or no there can be no safety Sect. 30. Consider I pray whether in this case an Oath which we have apprended lawful at one time may not now begin to grow unlawful because that the word doth forbid resistance of the powers that are over us and doth require obedience of us for conscience sake the contrary whereunto we do exert in our endeavours to change the Government though we should never be able to effect the same Sect. 31. And therefore upon all these considerations which I now offer to all peaceable spirits to you especially which should be the Embassadours of Peace and should with John the Baptist be Instrument by your Ministry to turn the hearts of children towards their Parents Let what I have offered as the judgment of that Orthodox and Reverend Mr. Perkins who being dead and so above all interest yet speaketh that as to the not binding power of an Oath which I hope may prevail with you to declare That you hold that there lyeth no obligation upon you or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government of Church or State especially considering that if I be not in a very great errour I have made it appear by the Law of God and of the Land that it is an unlawful oath and that it was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom Both which are to be declared also and doubtlesse may very well be without sin Sect. 32. There is also another thing particularly to be declared against required by the said Act which I do hold needful to speak a word unto though I hope but very little if not at all scrupled by Presbyterian Ministers or People and that is to declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are commissionated by him But of this in the next Chapter briefly CHAP. VII That to declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that we do abhor that trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person c. is very warrantable by the Law of God and of the Land Section 1. THat this Declaration may be chearfully made by all His Majesties subjects and especially the most zealous haters of Rome and Popery and also may be lawfully made without sin one would think there were no need to speak a word in that behalf But considering how much the Reformed Protestant Religion hath been dishonoured how much the. * Bilson the differences between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion Edit 1536. lib. 3. pag. 92. Jesuites Doctrine of the lawfulness of the Subjects taking up arms against their Prince hath of late years been too much justified I shall write a little more then I intended referring the Reader to more of this subject in Bilsons Answer to this Jesuitical doctrine Bilsons subjection lib. 3. pag. 97. and so on Sect. 2. That this therefore may lawfully be declared that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King c. I argue thus That which is unlawful by Gods Law and of the Land for me to do I may without sin declare to be unlawful But for subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King is unlawful and therefore I may declare according to the Act. Now that for subjects upon any pretence to take arms against the King is unlawful Rom. 13.1 may serve for a Scripture-proof instead of many Let every soul be subject to the Higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God ver 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation It is you see a most dangerous sin to offend this Gospel-precept by our disobedience which commands and requires subjection of every soul No persons of what order or degree soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil but are to be subject to the Higher powers thereof him as the Apostle Peter doth acknowledge to be the supreme the King whom the Laws of the Land doth invest with Supremacy of Jurisdiction in all Cases and over all persons in his own Dominions Sect. 3. But to resist the power this is to resist the Ordinance of God and therefore the punishment is expressed to be so dreadful to deter us from it For they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation instead of getting dominion over others they shall receive damnation to themselves Whoever therefore taketh up Arms upon any pretence whatsoever be the cause never so good against the supreme and higher powers must have his commission for it out of Gods Word otherwise you see it is a very great sin How contrary it is to Gods Law you may read more in Bilsons Christian Subjection I having I hope said enough to perswade to the lawfulness of making this Declaration from the unlawfulness of taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever it being so expresly forbidden to resist Rom. 13.2 now he that taketh up Arms against his King resisteth him Sect. 4. But further I may declare it is not lawful upon any pretence to take up Arms against the King because the Law of the Land forbids it and maketh it to be high Treason so to do Mr. St. John's speech pag. 6. the words of the Statute are 25 Edward 3. If any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm this is declared to be Treason And so also is the arising to alter the Religion by Law est ablished 4 of Philip and Mary not repealed if I mistake not These being the known Laws of the Land such Ordinances of men to which we are to yield obedience for

the sin to be the greater Sect. 20. And therefore I am very much mistaken if I or any other may not without sin declare what the Act for Uniformity requireth That I hold there lyeth no obligation upon me or any other from the highest to the lowest as having no lawful power to endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State As to the obligation that lyeth on us by the covenant to alter the government of the State I do not remember that there is any clause therein that giveth any ground for such thoughts and therefore I shall pass that over But for the further evidencing of the lawfulness of declaring the non-obliging power of the covenant according to the Act Sect. 21. I shall humbly offer further the judgment of the reverend Mr. Perkins who in his cases of conscience and other where doth resolve this doubt concerning the obliging power of an Oath both when it bindeth and when it bindeth not pag. 107. When an Oath bindeth not he resolveth in six cases Some of them I shall produce desiring that we may faithfully without prejudice apply to our case in hand Sect. 22. First an Oath bindeth not when it is against the Word of God and hath a tendency to sin I desire it may be considered whether this Oath in question being imposed by part of the two Houses be not as contrary to the Word as the Law of the Land and being an Vsurpation of the supreme Magistrates office as to publick Reformation hath not a tendency to sin whether it hath not a tendency to Injustice taking away without Law the liberties of such as are confirm'd so often by Magna charta whether also it doth not tend to the strengthning us in our disobedience as to the commands of our Superiours about Church-government and to the maintenance of the sin of discord and division about matters of this nature I am apt to think that when an Oath pleaded for produceth these effects it bindeth not for an Oath as Mr. Perkins saith is not to be a bond of iniquity Sect. 23 Secondly Mr. Perkins saith an Oath bindeth not when it is made against the wholsome Laws of the common-wealth because as he saith every soul is to be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. Now whether to swear to change the Government either in Church or State be not against the wholsome Laws of the common-wealth I have shewed at large by the statute of the 25. of Edward 1. The great charter is declared to be the common Law of the Land and this as I have said secureth the liberties of the Church And if the Text that Mr. Perkins quoteth Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers doth not condemn the practice of all inferiours that shall impose a new Oath without a new Law especially to alter the old and ancient Government of Church and State I am much mistaken and desire to be better inform'd Sect. 24. Thirdly he saith further if the Oath be made by those who are under the Tuition of their superiours and have no power to bind themselves then the Oath bindeth not Now that the two Houses are under the Tuition of their superiour the King is very evident 1 Eliz. in Cawdryes case part 5. fol. 5. Every Member of the House of Commons and of the Lords too if I mistake not at every Parliament take their corporal Oaths that the King is the supreme and onely governor in all cases and over all persons and the said Statute of Eliz. is but declarative of the ancient Laws And in the first of Edward 6. all Authority and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived from the King therefore all his subjects are under his Tuition and Jurisdiction Sect. 25. I desire this may be a little thought on for if the Imposers of the Covenant be as our Law teacheth and as their Oaths declare under the Kings Jurisdiction and so have no power by Law to bind themselves by an Oath without a new Law and this Law cannot be made without the Kings consent as Mr. Prin doth acknowledge in his soveraign power of Parliaments pag. 46 47. That the Kings assent is necessary to make Laws and ratifie the King being the Head of the Kingdom and of the Parliament And this Solemn League and Covenant being never enjoyned by any such Law but by such who had no power to bind themselves I humbly conceive that we may safely without sin declare that it bindeth not me or any other for that which inse in it self hath no binding power bindeth not any person whatsoever Sect. 26. Especially considering what Mr. Perkins saith surther That an Oath bindeth not page 527. of Conscience when persons are not Sui Juris but are under the power of another proving it out of Number 30.3 If a Woman vow unto the Lord and bind her self by a bond being in her Fathers house c. verse 5. If her Father disalloweth her the same day that he heareth all her vows and bonds they shall be of no value and the Lord will forgive her The case is also the same when a Wife voneth ver 7 9. Now I humbly conceive this was the case as to the Covenant when it was Imposed by part of the two Houses the Father of our Country so far disallowed the same that in the day that he heard thereof he Issued out his Proclamation against it from Oxford and in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after his discourse upon the Covenant in which are so many passages which laid together must needs conclude that he in no wise consented to it Sect. 27. That you may observe the deep sense that he had of his subjects sinning against God by taking it after that he had I say given his Judgment in the general of it that he reckoned it to be the pawning of his peoples souls to his subjects of Scotland he doth conclude with this prayer for us To thee O Lord do I address my prayer beseeching thee to pardon the rashness of my subjects swearing and to quicken their sense and observation of those Just Moral and Indispensable bonds which thy word and the Law of the Kingdom hath laid upon their consciences c. make them at length to consider that nothing violent and injurious can be religious Sect. 28. There is a fifth case pag. 525. and that is this an Oath bindeth not if it be made of a thing that is out of our power As if a man swear to his friend to give him another mans goods this I conceive may be applyed to the case in hand to alter the Government of Church or State is not in our power neither by the Law of God or the Land we cannot do it without very great injury to others as you have learn'd and therefore to endeavour after it is a sin Sect. 29. And sixthly saith he If at first it were lawful and after by some means becometh either impossible or

means to correborate and rectifie your judgements as to matter of Vniformity and obedience to our Superiors therein and to prevent your scandalizing observe this Rule in your hearing and re●ding and be very carefull to decline what ever may evidence to others as well as to your selves that ye are willing to be deceived And let me perswade you not to rest in a loose and confused knowledge of your liberty and of the liberty of others as to these things I have somewhere read that a little loose knowledge in natural Philosophy is very apt to make a man an Atheist whereas a deep and through knowledge of the secrets of nature may be a great conviction of a Deity Even so a loose confused knowledge of these things in controversie is apt to make a person very scrupulous if not schismatical whereas a distinct and well grounded knowledge from Scripture Antiquity and the Writings of Learned men will deliver a man not only from scrupling himselfe but from censuring and condemning others about these indifferent things Now that knowledge which delivereth from the committing of such unchristian sins is well worthy of the labour of digging for it as for silver and of the seeking for it as for hidden treasure Which having obtained through Gods blessing upon your endeavours even but such a measure as may keep you from scrupling your selves and being scandalized at the obedience of others I beseech you then be perswaded in the next place as a great means to heal our present divisions about modes of Worship and Government to moderate and proportion your Zeal accordingly And here let me commend unto your practice a most rare Rule of Mr. Paul Baines one that is reckoned in the Petition for Peaee for one of those Worthies that did take Non-Conformity to be a sin Now saith he in his Commentary upon the Ephesians Mr. Hildersham in his 25. Lecture on 51. Psalm hath much there to this purpose Chapter 2. Verse 15. fol. 297. Whatsoever lyeth not in us to reform it shall be our zeal and piety to tolerate and with patience to forbear This excellent Rule he saith holds especially In such things that concern not so much what is essential to our outward communion with God or men as the due carrying on of every businesse in the said communion wherein there may be many superfluities and defects Salvâ tamen Ecclesiâ Yea he adds that in such a Church the best and truest Members may have more cause to rejoyce then to grieve Oh Sirs give me leave to tell you we do too frequently feed one another with that which increaseth our fears dislikes and discontents whereas this holy man tells us That even in such a Church wherein there may be many superfluities and defects the best and truest member may have more cause to rejoyce then to grieve I hope we all desire to be the best and truest members of Christ visible Church let us shew our selves to be such in provoking and encouraging one another to rejoyce more in that effectual reformation of the Doctrine of our Church which Mr. Baxter doth acknowledge as you will find in this following Discourse then in being grieved and discontented at those superstuities and defects which we may suppose are yet in our Worship and Discipline Were but this rule aforesaid well digested in our hearts and reduced to practice by us it would hugely tend to the rectifying of our zeal and the stilling of our discomposed mind I fear many of us are apt to think that what we may judge to be amiss in the modes of Worship c. our zeal and piety is not to tolerate but to endeavour the extirpation thereof But this holy man was of another mind That whatsoever was not in our power to reform it shall be our zeal and piety to tolerate And that we may be all of his mind for the future whatever we have been for the time past and take heed of this dangerous Doctrine viz. That the Church needeth not to stay for the Prince in reforming any abuse but may reform it though the Prince say no. Which Dr. Somes that wrote against it in Anno 1589. calleth one of the execrable fancies of Henry Barrow and John Greenwood I shall give you one of his arguments as a preservative saith he pag. 9. Gods Religion was greatly decayed in King Sauls time the holy Tabernacle was broken Gods Ark was in a private mans house the Israelites had private Chappels in Hills and Groves David and other holy men in those dayes did onely mourn for these corruptions but it being not in their power to reform they waited till after the death of Saul the Reformation being put into Davids hand with the Government This being therefore a great Error that the Church needeth not to stay for the Prince in reforming abuses but may reform them whether the Prince will or no I desire it may be well considered of that for Subjects to swear that they will reform what they judge amiss whether the Prince will or no is a greater Errour then the former and for Subjects to think themselves bound by their Oaths so taken for to endeavour so to do is the greatest Error of all three This I hope I have proved more fully in the following Discourse to which I refer you And therefore beseeching you to lay aside all such disturbing principles of confusion let us consider what this holy Mr. Baines and other good men have said which I have quoted in another place That whatsoever is not in our power to reform it shall be our zeal and piety to tolerate and patiently to forbear It is not in our power to be publick Reformers but if our zeal towards that which is not in our power to reform were turned into a zealous resolution and endeavour of reforming our selves and those that are under our power and charge in our families we should soon see such a publick Reformation as might better deserve the name then what we have seen unto this day Let us not therefore seek the reforming of others so much as our selves let us not mind so much the failings of others as our own Above all let us take heed that our zeal mislead us not even in the performance of a very necessary duty for these times even that of mourning for the sins of others It is doubtlesse a great evidence of our zeal and demonstration of our love to God and the souls of others to mourn for the pride prophanenesse and wickedness of others But yet as we may miscarry in works of great piety and charity as our ●aviour doth instance in those of prayer and giving alms for want of a pu●e intention in the performance of the same so also may we in this very duty I remember the Prophet Jeremiah that wished his head to be a fountain of tears saith Jer. 13.17 My soul shall mourn in secret for your pride So that except we are called publickly

find that judicious and learned King of Divines as Mr. Ford of Northampton styleth King Charles the First Prognosticating this Covenant would be very dangerous because the ma ter doubtful Sect. 13. There being therefore no remedy now but to be more wise and careful for the time to come taking heed of being too dogmatical in what we hold as to matters of modes of Worship and Discipline because that other holy and good men are of that mind For likewise one of our opinion as to the binding power of the Covenant let us not Juraere in verba magistri any more neither lean too much to our understanding but consult with the Laws of God and of the Land especially in this case Sect. 14. The Act you know that requireth that we should declare that in this particular the Solemne League and Covenant layeth no tye or obligation upon me or any other to endeavour to change the Government of Church or State On the other side many are of this opinion that though it be the judgment of the major part of the Judges that are learned in the Laws of many great and learned Divines some that have written De Juramento and therefore well know the binding power of an Oath and of the major part of the representative body of the Kingdom yet notwithstanding are perswaded the Covenant that they have taken bindeth them to endeavour the alteration of the Government of Church or State Sect. 15. In this case therefore as I said before the Laws of the Land are to be consulted with for there being no other judge in this case but the known Laws of the Land we must stand to their determination as to the satisfying the conscience about the binding power of the Covenant For if by the Law of the Land it appeareth that the matter of the said Covenant as to this particular be by the Law unlawful and the Imposers thereof without a power by Law invested in them we may safely and with a good conscience declare That we hold that there lyeth no obligaaion upon me or any other person from the same I do verily believe that as to the Government of the State the altering it from a Monarchical to a Democratical Government could never be subscribed to by the Engagement even by such persons who do yet believe that the Covenant bindeth them to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church Now be pleased to consider whether the reason be not the same They would have altered the Government of the State without Law and others the Government of the Church without Law And that you may be the better perswaded of this give me leave to impart that little smattering that I have of the Law as I have learned from the Learned in that Science Sect. 16. Concerning therefore the Laws of the Land you may please to observe this in the general That the Law hath three fulcimenta or grounds and they are these First Custom or Usage Secondly Judicial Records Thirdly Acts of Parliament Now Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament they are but Declarations of the common Law and customs of the Kingdom Law is is not known but by usage and custom and usage proves the Law 10 Eliz. Plowden 316. Now if this be so and it being evident that the Government in this Kingdom as to Church and State as now it is established having been of so long continuance as the Histories of this Kingdom do tell us This custom and usage of Government so long exercised maketh it to be a Fundamental Law Plowdens Commentary 195. Sect. 17. To alter therefore a Fundamental Law as to the Government of Church and State can never be done lawfully but by those persons whom Use and custom Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament have invested with Authority so to do Now who these are the Law must tell us not the two Houses alone not the King alone but both together make up the Body politick that make Laws for the Government of Church and State Dier 38. fol. 59 60. The King is the head of the Parliament the Lords the principal members of the body the Commons the inferiour Members of the same 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. All Authority and Jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is derived from the King And every Member that sits in Parliament taketh a corporal Oath that the King is supreme over all persons the King therefore must needs be above the two Houses of Barliament which is evidenced further thus That as the power of their Assembling is by virtue of his Writ so the time of their staying is determined by his Royal will and pleasure according to the usage and custom of the Land The two Houses therefore are not above the King and there being no Law to be made without the King and both Houses neither alone according to the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Land can alter or endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State So that the altering of the Government except by such persons who have Authority by Law is an unlawful act in it self and the imposing of it upon others by an Oath makes it still more unlawful if the Imposers have not Authority by the Law of the Land so to do Sect. 18. Now I beseech you consider but as to matter of fact who did impose this Covenant and by the Law of the Land you will soon be resolved whether either the matter were lawful or the power lawful That the matter was unlawful thus appeareth not onely by what is already alledged but by what followeth That matter of an Oath is unlawful that is contrary to the Law of the Land The Government of the Church as it now stands being in the general secured by Magna Charta which great Charter is confirmed by 32. Acts of Parliament as I have read the first Article whereof runneth thus Salvae sint Episcopis omnes libertates suae Sect. 19. Now these general Laws of the great Charter of our Liberties and the Petition of Right there being no particular Laws against what is there contained such I say as are not repealed by a lawful power it is not the first Article of the Covenant as to the extirpation of that Church-government maketh the great charter void as to that particular I am apt to think in this case that an Oath imposed by persons that by their Oaths acknowledge the King supreme and above them that can make no Law therefore without the King and consequently can impose no lawful Oath by their Authority an Oath also as to the matter of it being unlawful as you have heard cannot make void a known Law or bind the conscience of the taker to endeavour the same But these Laws being in force do relatively bind the conscience to observe them and to endeavour by any power but those that made them to change and alter them I humbly conceive is above the sin of Disobedience and to swear to it maketh