Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	church_n	civil_a	commonwealth_n	1,637	5	9.2456	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85229	Conscience satisfied. That there is no warrant for the armes now taken up by subjects. By way of reply unto severall answers made to a treatise formerly published for the resolving of conscience upon the case. Especially unto that which is entituled A fuller answer. By H. Ferne, D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F791; Thomason E97_7; ESTC R212790	78,496	95

is the safety of every State as deare and heare to it selfe as This and for any thing you have shewn for it any State may pretend such a Reservation as well as This for you have not proved such a Reservation and the generall argument your Party useth is from selfe preservation which is common to all Then to the Argument of the Churches safety under pretence of which the Pope challenges a power upon the failing of the Civill Magistate as the people now upon the refusall of their Prince you say The Church is not a State by it selfe so also M. Burrowes and M. Bridge It is not indeed the whole State comprehending the Civill State too yet is the good Estate thereof of as great consequence as any Concernment of the body Politique But the Church is not of its own Constitution but of Christs What then therefore it must be preserved by the laws instituted by Christ true so must the Civill State by its established lawes we desire no more yet will you not give Him leave to be as carefull for the good Estate of His Church in providing meanes of preservation for it in case the Civill Magistrate faile in his trust as you are to provide or reserve this power of resistance upon the Kings refusall But he did not provide such forceable meanes as are challenged by the Bishop of Rome under that pretence and these meanes of a reserved power for resistance are as unreasonable on your part if both of you should be put to prove your Traditions He for his Excommunicating or deposing of Kings in order to the Churches safety and you for your reserved power of resistance in order to the States preservation Conscience would find as little satisfaction in the one as in the other As for the matter of the Church we turn saith M. Bridge pag. 33. the Doctors argument upon himselfe thus If the Church cannot be preserved where the officer is an Heretick unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power to reject him neither can a Kingdome when the Officer is unfaithfull unlesse it has power either to depose Him or to looke to it selfe It was not my argument I did but shew how the Papists use the like argument for the Churches safety as you doe for the States and if you back again wil gather strength for your assertion from their reasons be as like as you will one to the other I cannot helpe it but I am forry for you at least for the Religion you professe that you are put to such shi●ts But the Church hath Excommunication granted to it by Christ for its own preservation from Evills and Errors and the Body Naturall hath power to deliver it selfe from its burden therefore the Common wealth also cannot preserve it self unlesse it have power to deliver it selfe from its burden ibid. Then has this Church a Power of Excommunication still so it should be indeed and the power cannot be taken away by any mortal authority but since the Act which tooke away the High Commission and as the party you plead for would have it interpreted all Ecclesiasticall Censure too where doth the Exercise of that power rest upon whom now is the Argument turned The Body Naturall has power to disburden it self so has the Common-wealth too but wil you have the naturall body disburden it self of the Head or worke without it and say I have no neede of thee Or will you use letting of blood for the disburdning of the Natural body when sweating or gentle purges may doe it So in the Body Politick when a calme Reformation may purge out noxious humors will you put the sword into the rough hand of the people which in stead of opening a veine will cut the Arteries and Sinewes of the Common-wealth Ye are too desperate Physitians and that is plainly seene by the Consumption and languishing Estate of this Kingdom It was urged in the former Treatise as a reason against these meanes of safety by this power of resistance If the representative body of the people upon the Kings sailing in His trust may take this power then may the multitude by the like rule upon the failing of their representatives in the discharge of the trust they were chosen for take the power to themselves for it is claimed by them the Fuller Answerer replies They cannot doe it for the people have not resorved any power to themselves from themselves in Parliament pag. 25. But it will be as hard for him to make them believe they have power no otherwise as to make it appeare to us there was any such power reserved at all for when the people come to be spoiled in their Estates and Liberties they will think it most unreasonable that they should entrust themselves and all they have to such Arbitrary disposing of their own Representatives especially having been taught by this rule so easily to disclaime the Trust of their Soveraigne He that wrote the book called Plain English saith expresly that if the Representative body cannot or will not discharge their trust to the satisfaction of reason in the people they may resume if ever yet they parted with a power to their manifest undoing and use their power so far as conduceth to their owne safety and M. Bridge though here he brings reasons against the peoples recalling their Trust given to their representative body yet by his argument of selfe preservation at the beginning of his book has taught them to say It is naturall for them to provide for themselves and the act of Trust given to their Representative body is but by positive Law and cannot destroy the Naturall But forgetting what he said of the Naturall Law of selfe preservation he gives us reasons why the people should not take the power in such a case 1. Because they cannot be so ready to think the Parliament that is the two Houses neglect their trust pag. 36. not think so but if by Ordinances thence issuing they be spoiled of their property and liberty which is supposed in the Case they will quickly feele it is so 2. Because there is not that actuall designing and election af the Prince to the present affairs of the Commonweal as there is of the Parliament men chosen for these particular businesses This is bold and sets aside both King and house of Lords putting all upon the Sentence of those that are chosen by the people for the present affaires of the Kingdom those are his words and unto their sentence the people bind themselves to stand as parties disagreeing to doe the sentence of an Vmpire or Arbitrator that is his similitude What can be said more to the dissolving of the temper of three Estates in Parliament and to the overthrow of this Government 3. Because if the people upon such surmises should call in their trust and their power they would leave themselves naked of all authority and be private

the Parliamentary power I doubt hee will not say the King and Lords have then the full power of Parliament but where then is this Supply will he say in the House of Commons we must call him now to his reckoning Pag. 3. where he tels us Of three Estates one is lesse then two and also to his rule he gives us Pag. 4. Coordinates supply each others failings and Pag. 11. The refusall of one part exempts not the other from their duty So that if this man hold to his own conceit hee must grant the King and Lords may Supply if the Commons refuse But if in that case he will not stand to his own reckoning and his owne Rule then must he quit his vain conceit of Supply by the two Houses in case the King refuse After this he seekes a reason of this Supply in the necessity of providing for the safety of the whole which else would be frustrated of its safety However this Resolver sleight the Observators Argument drawn from the highest end of Government the peoples safety he cannot deny but the Rule holds always finis quò ultimatior eò in fluxu potentier to that end all other subordinate stand but in the office of meanes and this is evinced by the text the higher power is a Minister for thy good Pag. 11. The Observators argument deserved to bee sleighted by the Resolver as inconsequent but it was confuted at large by shewing such meanes make not for that end the safety of the State but are remedies worse then the disease Nor hath this full Answerer strengthned the consequence one whit We grant the safety of the Common-wealth is the highest end and unto that end all other are as meanes and that the higher power ought to minister unto that end But doth it follow therefore such a Supply by divesting the Kingof His power by turning the highest Minister out of His office is the means to that end The joynt agreement of the three Estates is the meanes for new provision for that end but in case they agree not about that provision which may happen by the refusall of the Lords or the Commons or the King then that the two agreeing parts what ere they be should supply the defect of the third had beene far more reasonable then that the supply should be made onely by the two Houses i.e. by the body only without the Head For this is not only to the notorious prejudice of the Supream Head with whom the Kingdome is immediately and chiefly entrusted but also it is alame provision and argues the first Contrivement as this man fancies it very inconsiderate in not providing in case the King and Lords or the King and Commons should joyne Now as the not providing in such Cases and the power of dissolving which resides in the King doe plainly shew that such a Supply is not the Contrivement of the first Constitution but a phansie of late popular Statesmen from whom this Answerer hath borrowed it so in very deed this way of Supply would not be a meanes of safety but of more inconveniency as at this day experience teacheth us and at large was shewed in the former Treatise Therefore if the three Estates cannot joyntly agree which is the reasonable meanes of making new provision for safety There is in the King by the same Constitution power to dissolve and protect His Subjects in their Religion and properties and Liberties according to the former Lawes established And although His Majesty hath bound Himself from dissolving them without their consent for this time of which this Answerer does vainly endeavour to make advantage in many places yet have not they thereby any more power then what they should have had without that Grant and so they have acknowledged themselves To conclude Conscience cannot be truly perswaded this power of Supply is in the two Houses by the Constitution of this Government But must needs see it is inconsistent with it and with that power the known established Law declares to be in the King and therfore Conscience cannot yeeld obedience to that power in making resistance against the King The Answerer immediately after the text above cited by him The higher power is a minister for thy good hath these words Pag. 12. Yes a fine way you 'l say of preserving the King by fighting against Him So starting from the safety of the people which was there spoken of as the highest end to the Consideration of the Kings safety as if he had been struck on a suddain with the terrour of that Battle that was made against the King or else because Truth it selfe upon the mention of the higher Power wrung from him a thought and acknowledgment of His Majesty in it Well let us see how he will have the King preserved by their fighting against Him No such matter saith he the King hath a double Capacity Politique and Naturall in fighting for the preservation of the Kingdom they fight for Him in His Politique Capacity as King in that He cannot be divided from His Kingdom or Parliament They fight to disingage His Person from that unsafe and unworthy imployment those Enemies to Him and His Kingdome put it to however he be perswaded by them it is His cause that hath ingaged them it is their own guilt and danger Pag. 12. So we are usually answered when we tell them of their Hands so many times lifted up in Battle against the Lords Annointed and of Davids resolution upon it who can lift up and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26. They reply it is but against the Cavaleir's and that unworthy Company that is about Him and have thus engaged Him and in so doing they fight for the Kingdome and for the King too in His Politique Capacity A shift that will no more save them from the Guilt then it will doe Him from their violence If He had been taken away in His naturall Capacity at Keinton Battle had there been any such thing as a King at Westminster had it not divided Him in His Politique Capacity from the Parliament there take away the Body and the shadow too destroy Him in His Person or Naturall Capacity and you destroy Him in His Politique and the Parliament too which ceases upon it Nor is that distinction of His double Capacity altogether vain but only in this point of Armes and resistance by force As just sentences of Iudges against His Personall Commands are for Him in His Politique Capacity so all denyalls of active obedience to unjust personall commands why here 's all this while no power taken from Him or usurped against Him No danger to His Person to His Naturall Capacity but in resistance by force of Armes especially in a Battle against Him which not onely takes the sword out of His Hand and usurpes the power but may also take Him away in His Naturall Capacity the distinction is most vaine For the Enemies that are said here to enthrall His Person and perswade

come shall see it yea and Mr. Bridge too if his heart be right to their amazement Nor does Charity bind the Conscience to contradictions or to judge against sense or from condemning one part when it must Iudge between two as at this time between the King and Subjects in Armes against Him which rules of Charity were laid down and applyed towards the end of the former Treatise Whosees not how tender the Parliament hath beene of the Kings Honour therefore they charge all upon His Counsellors as David ●id upon those about Saul 1 Sam. c. 26. v. 19. If the Lord hath stirred the● up against me let him accept an assering but if they be the Children of men cursed be they before the Lord for they have driven me out this day And who sees not how tender His Majesty hath been of the reputation of Parliament charging the fault upon them that give the Counsell and are the contrivers of all that is done against Him Or who see● not how Davids words agree more properly to the King that ha's been driven out and hunted up and downe then to His adversaries that have had their abode at pleasure and Raigned without Him but if they will needs speake the word let them learn this lesson from them If such as have unlawfully engaged a King cannot otherwise be brought to Justice then by Subjects taking Armes and fighting against their King it must not be done that way but by referring the matter to God as David did here The King is no more bound by vertue of His Oath to maintaine the Government of the Church as by Law established then any other Law of the Kingdome which if the King and Parliament thinke fit to repeale They may without breach of the Kings Oath Suppose they should think fit to doe it is it no more to take away a Government which had the consent of the Catholike Church and has been received and continued in this Land ever since the planting of the Christian Faith here then to repeal any Law made but yesterday in comparison and in materia particulari of no such concernment A fundamentall of the Government of the State may not be stirred nor may the priviledges of some men be touched and may the government of the Church be so easily torn up by the root and foundation the Estates and Immunities of so many free Subjects taken away But the King doth not think fit to do it shall he then by Armes be forced from that which He is both by Oath and Judgement bound to maintain Upon those words of the former Treatise the Government of the Church by Bishops is simply the best the abolishing whereof is one of those many inconveniences which this Land is now threatned with and which the King hath reason by power of Arms to divert Mr. Bridge enters upon a loose discourse against Episcopall Government I refor him for his better instruction to a book intituled Episcopacy asserted lately published and learnedly written Then he breaks out Now the Dr. shewes himselfe be had rather the Kingdome be embrewed in a bloody Warre then Episcopacy should downe Iudge yee O all Englishmen whether it bee better for you to have this order taken away then for the whole Kingdome to lye embrewed in their owne gore Nay Mr. Bridge you and your party in Armes shew your selves hereby what spirit yee are of who will have this Land embroiled in a bloody Warre rather then Episcopacy and some other things by Law justly established shall not down for that is the case and so proposed in the former Treatise and then judge all yee English men whether it be better for you to embrew this Kingdome in its own Gore then to hold the ancient and primitive Government of the Church and hear O Heavens and judge upon whom the guilt will lye upon the King that will continue that Government according to Law and oath or upon them that by Armes would force Him from it To that of Sauls speare restored Master Bridge replies Though restored before demanded yet not before Saul had humbled himselfe to David saying I have sinned J will no more doe thee harm because my soule was precious in thy sight this day We know what you looke for If you blush not yet to have expected it His Majesty has not been ashamed to doe it with a great condescention He has even supplicated for Peace He has redressed former miscarriages of Government with new additionalls of Grace He has promised and protested for the future Oh that He could say My Soule has been precious in your eyes this day this whole yeere or that He could finde answerable humility in the hearts of Subjects whose Ambition has caused His troubles and our miseries The Doctor defends the Kings entertainment of Papists by Davids example but he must prove that Ziba or those that resorted to David in his distresse were of another Religion and by Law to be disarmed What needs that for the Doctor intended onely by those examples to shew that a Prince in His necessary defence may entertaine such men as otherwise He would not make use of and may give some countenance to such as have relieved Him in distresse though otherwise as ill deserving His Grace as a dissembling Ziba And though by Law Papists are not to have Armes at their disposing yet are they not quit of the duty and service of Subjects they may by just authority beare Armes to use them according to the direction of that authority and if a List of the Army against his Majesty were examined there would be found if not a confiderable number of Papists yet of such as they that imploy them would have cause to be ashamed of such as by Law are to abjure the Land as men not to be held in with any government Upon the former particulars the Fuller Answerer is more bitter and malicious interpreting every thing that had sharpnesse in it as spoken of the Parliament It was said That in such a case the State would be unreasonably exposed to the danger that every prevailing Faction might bring upon it This is according to this mans interpretation to call the Parliament a prevailing Faction It was said That the people are made to believe by their good teachers that the King was so and so affected to whom no more need be said then the Archangell did to he Arch-accuser The Lord rebuke thee also that their preachings were the doctrines of this giddy age and that many wicked Pamphlets and bookes written by Enemies to Peace were suffered to issue forth into every corner of this Land This is according to this mans apprehension to call the Parliament Declarations wi●ked Pamphlets and scandalous imputations of this giddy ag● and to liken them to the Devill the Arch-accuser I had need say again to this man the Lord rebuke thee Lastly it was said If the Papist will shew himselfe a good Subject it is just and reasonable that