Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
state_n great_a king_n monarch_n 1,055 5 9.5526 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

of the Catholick cause as they call it attempt any thing however unjust even to the destruction of Kings that are set over them this blindnesse is Popish and practice Jesuiticall Lastly examine your hearts if you be not confirmed in your way by the number of your Professour like as they are by the Universality of their Church resting upon the person of men not trying the Cause it selfe by the touchstone of divine Scripture and rectified Reason I know it prevails with many thousands of you because you see as you thinke and use to say All good people that have sense of Religion and Conscience of their wayes do go along with you and you cannot beleive that God would suffer them to be so generally deluded let me tell you you do hereby very uncharitably conclude upon all those that run not with you to the like excesse and I may say without breach of Charitie they that appear with you in the Cause would not all be found such as you conceive them to be if they were examined by the true marks of Christian profession that is by the true doctrine of faith by their charitie honestie obedience meeknesse of Spirit and the like without which your Religion is vain whatever your exercises or performances of duties be the Pharisees righteousnesse will exceed yours and his frequency and length of prayer will be as sure a mark as yours nay the Anabaptist at this day will out-do you in any of your forms of godlinesse I do not speake this against the frequent and sincere performance of holy duties God forbid I should Nor do I speak it of you all I know there are many good and Conscientious men that go your way in the simplicitie of their hearts as those did that followed Absolom whom the just God suffers hitherto to be deceived that even by their example this power of Resistance may gather strength to the just punishment of this sinfull land and that they themselves when their eyes shall be opened which I hope will be ere long may see their own weaknesse and be so much more humbled for it In the meane time you are according to the blindnesse of a Popish way in all the former respects carried on against all rule of Conscience for you have neither certain knowledge of your Princes heart to resolve for resistance upon a supposall of such intentions in him nor have you any certain rule to warrant the lawfulnesse of resisting upon such supposall and to secure you against the Apostles prohibition and damnation laid upon it nor have you any judgement of Charity in concluding such intentions in your Prince against His deepest Protestations made in such times of His distresse and without that all is nothing though you lay down as you think your life for Religion How much safer would it be for you to be guided by the sure Rules of Conscience and if it should please God to bring upon you what you fear to suffer unjustly then in the unwarrantable prevention of it to do unjustly To this purpose shall you have this Treatise speaking to you for the direction of your Consciences If you think it strikes too boldly upon any thing concerning the Parliament I desire yours and their favourable interpretation fain would I silence every thought and word that may seem to reflect upon that high Court but what is necessary I must speak for truth and conscience sake from which neither King nor Parliament should make us swerve We are taught that Kings must not be flattered and the people ought to learn that Parliamens must not be Idolized that has been often charged as a fault upon the Clergy and This I fear is that sinne of the People which together with the licentiousnesse indulged back again to them ha's moved God to blow upon that wish'd for fruit we might have reaped by this so desired a Parliament For when I see Man is more sensible of every breach of his own rights and priviledges then of those unparallel'd breaches so frequently made upon Gods publike Worship I cannot but think the Lord will require it of this Land and when I see right and just subverted property and liberty exposed to the will and power of every one that is pleased to conceive his Neighbour a Malignant and able to make him so by commanding his Goods and Person I cannot but complain with the Psalmist The foundations of the Earth are out of course and appeal to Heaven Arise O God judge thou the Earth And I trust that albeit this Spirit of seduction may prevaile a while and this way of resistance prosper for the great but just punishment of this sinfull Land the Lord will look downe from Heaven and make Truth and Peace again to flourish out of the Earth will look upon the Face of His Anointed and by this Affliction as by a loving correction make him great Great to the maintenance of Gods true Religion and to the restoring of the Peace and prosperity of this Kingdom And Let all the People say Amen The Contents Sect. I. THe explication of the Question and generall Resolution of it Sect. II. The Principle or Ground on which they goe for Resistance examined by Scripture Their chief Examples to which should have been added Libnah's revolt answered now in the last Sect. Scriptures against them especially that of the 13. to the Rom. urged and cleared where shewed The King is that higher Power That all are forbidden to resist even the Senate which by the fundamentalls of that State might challenge as much as our great Councell can That prohibition concerns all times and was good not onely in that State because they were absolute Monarches but in all States because of the preservation of Order which should be in all and was good not onely against the Christians because their Religion was enected against by Law but also against the Senate and People though they were enslaved Sect. III. Their principle examined by reason Of Fundamentalls their ground-work according to the pleaders for resistance is the originall of Power from the People and their re-assuming it when the Prince will not discharge his trust The Power it selfe distinguished from the designing of the Person and the Qualification of it in severall forms of Government is from God as an ordinance or constitution under that providence whereby God rules the whole World Creatures reasonable as well as unreasonable Sect. IV. That Power cannot be forfeited to the People or re-assumed by them They cannot prove it by vertue of the first election or by any capitulations or covenant or the Oath between Prince and People Sect. V. Nor can it be proved by that necessity of means of safety which should be in every State to provide for it self but greater dangers and inconveniences would follow by such means of safety as are pretended to by resuming the Power Sect. VI The Examination of the Resistance now made Where shewen that it is
now enough it seems to make people not onely say to their Prince You take too much upon you but therfore to rise in arms also which I hope will appeare to be without cause too in the end of this Treatise Secondly see for the cause of Resistance 1. Sam. 8. 11. there the people are let to understand how they should be oppressed under Kings yet all that violence and injustice that should be done unto them is no just cause of resistance for they have no remedy left them but crying to the Lord v. 18. Thirdly we have not onely Example but Resolution and Conclusion our of Scripture The people might not be gathered together either for Civill assemblies or for war but by his command that had the power of the Trumpet that is the supreme as Moses was Numb. 10. Also when David had Saul and his army in his power he resolves the matter thus Who can stretch out his hand against the Lords annointed and be guiltlesse 1. Sam. 26 9. If replyed now they intend not hurt to the Kings person yet might nor they as well have hurt his person in the day of battell as any of them that were swept away from about him by the furie of the Ordinance which puts no difference 'twixt Kings and common souldiers This also I must observe concerning this point of Resistance out of the Old Testament for from thence have they all their seeming instances That it is a marvellous thing that among so many Prophets reprehending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatrie cruelty oppression none should call upon the Elders of the people for this duty of Resistance But lastly that place of the Apostle Rom. 13. at first mentioned does above all give us a cleare resolution upon the point which now I shall free from all exceptions First I may suppose that the King is the Supreme as S. Peter calls him or the higher power as S. Paul here though it be by some now put to the question as one absurdity commonly begets another to defend it but I prove it S. Peters distinction comprehends all that are in authoritie The King as supreme and those that are sent by him 1. Pet. 2. 12 in which latter rank are the two Houses of Parliament being sent by him or sent for by him and by his Writ sitting there Also by the Oath of Supremacy it is acknowledged That there is no power above him without or within this Realm and that he is in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme Also acknowledged by the Petitions of the two Houses addressed unto his Majestie wherein they stile themselves His loyall Subjects But enough of this Secondly in the text of the Apostle All persons under the higher Power are expressely forbidden to resist For whosoever in the second verse must be as large as the every soul in the first and the resistance forbidden here concerns all upon whom the subjection is injoyned there or else we could not m●ke these Universals good against the Papists exempting the Pope and Clergy from the subjection Thirdly in those dayes there was a standing and continuall great Senate which not long before had the supreme power in the Romane State and might challenge more by the Fundamentalls of that State then our great Counsell I think will or can But now the Emperour being Supreme as S. Peter calls him or the higher power as S. Paul here there is no power of resistance left to any that are under him by the Apostle This for the persons that should resist all are forbidden Now consider the Cause Fourthly was there ever more cause of resistence then in those dayes were not the Kings then not onely conceived to be inclined so and so but even actually were enemies to Religion had overthrown Laws and Liberties and therefore if any should from the Apostles reasons that he gives against Resistence in the 3 4 5 verses For rulers are not a terrour to good works but evil and he is the minister of God to thee for good reply That Rulers so long as they are not a terrour to the good but minister for our good are not to be resisted the consideration of those times leaves no place for such exception because the Powers then which the Apostle forbids to resist were nothing so but subverters of that which was good and just If it be replyed that prohibition was temporary and fit for those times as it is said by some I answer 1. This is a new exception never heard of I think but in these times 2. It is groundlesse and against the Text for the reasons of the prohibition in the 3 4 5 6 verses are perpetuall from that order that good for which the Powers are ordained of God which will be of force as long as there is government and will alwayes be reasons against resistence because resistence though it be made against abused Powers as then they were doth tend to the dissolution of that order for which the power it selfe is set up of God By which also that other distinction of theirs is made void when as they reply as they think acutely That they resist not the power but the abuse of the power It is also answered by some that the Emperours then were absolute Monarchs and therefore not to be resisted I answer They did indeed rule absolutely and arbitrarily which should have according to the principles of these dayes been a stronger motive to resist But how did they make themselves of Subjects such absolute Monarchs was it not by force and change of the government and was not the right of the people and Senate according to the Principles of these dayes good against them with as much or more reason then the right of the people of this Land is against the succession of this Crown descending by three Conquests And this I speak not to win an Arbitrary power or such as Conquerours use unto this Crown but onely to shew that resistence can be no more made against the Kings of England then it could against those Emperours Nay with lesse reason against them then these Lastly it is replyed That Christian Religion was then enacted against by Law but the Religion contended for is established by Law I answer But is the Religion established denied to any that now fight for it Shall the Apostles prohibition be good against Christians in the behalfe of actuall Tyrants persecuting that Religion and not against Subjects freely enjoying the Religion established Or may Protestants upon a jealousie resist a Protestant King professing the same Religion and promising to conserve it entire to them 2. The prohibition does not onely concern Christians but all the people under those Emperours and not onely Religion was persecuted but Liberties also lost the people and Senate were enslaved by Edicts and Laws then inforced upon them and they according to the principles of these dayes might resist notwithstanding the Apostles prohibition and the Laws then forced
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
two of them without the third which as it is for the securitie of the Commonwealth for what might follow if the King and Lords without the Commons or these and the Lords without the King might determine the evills of these dayes do shew so is this power of denying for the security of each State against other of the Commons against the King and Lords of the Lords against them and must the King trust onely and not be trusted Must not he also have his securitie against the other which he cannot have but by Power of denying This is that Temper of the three Estates in Parliament the due observing whereof in the moderate use of this power of denying is the reasonable means of this States safety but now not onely the name of Parliament which implyes the three Estates is restrained usually to the two Houses but also that Temper is dissolved I need not speak it the distractions and convulsions of the whole Commonwealth as the distempers in a naturall body do sufficiently shew such a dissolution and what 's the cause of it If it be replyed as it is for the reasonablenesse of these meanes of safety through that Power of resisttence and the final trust reposed in the representative body of the people That many see more then one and more safety in the judgement of many then of one Answ. True But 1. Conscience might here demand for its satisfaction Why shovld an hundred in the House of Commons see more then three hundred or twenty in the Lords House more then sixty that are of indiffereent judgement and withdrawn 2. Reason doth suppose That the Prince though one sees with the eyes of many yea with their eyes who are of different judgement from him for which his Houses of Parliament are his great Councell to present to his eyes the differences of things with the reasons of them and albeit he sometimes dissents from the Major or Prevailing part because he is convinced in his own judgement they seek themselves nor his or the Publike good or for other reasons that may perswade him against their Vote yet have all times thought good to have Kings and to reduce the judgement of many unto one The Government which God made choice of to set up among his people was Monarchicall still first in Moses then in the Judges then in the Kings yea generally all Authors yeild and experience ha's taught it That Monarchy is a better government then Aristocracy because the Tyranny and Miscarriage of one sometime happening in a Monarchy is nothing so dangerous as Oligarchy Faction and Division usually incident to Aristocracy or the Government by many equalls Again as all times have thought it reasonable to have Monarchy which settles the chief power and finall judgement in One so will there be alwayes sufficient reason to withhold the King from a wilfull deniall of his Consent to the free and unanimous Vote of his Houses he cannot but see there will alwayes be some necessary good accrewing to him by his Parliament that will keep him in all reason from doing so and no cases can be put or inconveniences feared upon his Power of denying but greater and more eminent will appeare upon his not having it as ha's been insinuated and now do follow Fourthly therefore and lastly we answer Such power of resistence would be no fit means of safety to a State but prove a remedy worse then the disease This is very plain by the drift of the Apostles reason which he gave against resistence in the 3 4 5 6. v. of the 13. to the Rom. in which we may consider that although the Powers then were altogether unjust tyrannicall subverters of true Religion nothing answerable to the end for which the Governing Power is ordained yet doth the Apostle draw his reasons against the resisting of them from that good that justice that order for which God hath set up the higher Powers to insinuate that the resisting of the higher Powers even when they are so does tend to the overthrow of that order which is the life of a Commonwealth and this not onely because there is still order under tyranny but chiefly because if it were good and lawfull to resist the power when abused it would open a way to the people upon the like pretences to resist and overthrow even Powers duely administred for the executing of wrath upon them that do evill I enter this dicourse not to cast the least blemish upon Parliaments which are an onely remedy for distempers of the Kingdome not to reflect upon the intentions of those that are yet resident in that high Court unto God the judge of all they stand or fall not to raise jealousies but to settle Conscience and in the way of reasoning to shew according to the Apostles reasons what dangers and evills may ensue upon this power of resistence For first of all This power of resistence if admitted and pursued may proceed to a change of Government the Principles that now are gone upon and have carried it so farre as we see at this day may also lead it on to that greatest of evils And I have heard and seen it defended by the example of the Low-countreys how they excuse it throughly I examine not but this I am sure they can say That their Prince succeeding in the right of the Duke of Burgundie was admitted upon other conditions then the Kings of England are also that a contrary religion was enforced upon them by a terrible Inquisition whereas they that do resist the higher Powers here do freely enjoy their religion and have the Princes promise and protestation for it Secondly This Power of resistence when used and pursued is accompanied with the evils of Civil warre Former times shew it and how little was gained by it beside the expence of bloud as when all was referred to the rule and disposing of the 12 Peeres how long lasted it what security had the State by it and at this day we feel and groan under the evils brought upon us through this power of resistence the Law silenced the Property and Libertie of the subject every where invaded and the Lord knows when or how we shall be restored to them or better secured in them by this way Thirdly We see the danger if as it is now said for the justifying of this power of resistence The King will not discharge his trust and therefore it fals to the representative body of the people to see to it so the People being discontented and having gotten power shall say The Members of the two Houses do not discharge the trust committed to them they do not that for which they were chosen and sent for then may the multitude by this rule and principle now taught them take the Power to themselves it being claimed by them and say to them as Numb. 16. Ye take too much upon you or as Cade and Tylar boast themselves Reformers of the Common-wealth overthrow King