Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A47913
|
A reply to the second part of The character of a popish successor by Roger L'Estrange.
|
L'Estrange, Roger, Sir, 1616-1704.
|
1681
(1681)
|
Wing L1298; ESTC R7146
|
29,660
|
38
|
facto dissolv'd in this very Position Those Laws that have made us the Envy of the Christian world and the Glory and Bulwark of the Reformation And again if the People may be Judges in This Case they may upon the same pretense be Judges in any Other and as well exterminate a Prince for any other Reason as for his Religion 'T is but for Mr. Deputy to tell the People that the King himself is not fit to Govern and what has his Majesty to expect but to march after his Brother Grant but this Point that the Multitude who are in effect Hands without Heads shall over-rule the Laws where are we then but in a state of Horrour and Confusion and Effectually in the Possession of One Hell upon Earth as the Earnest of Another without any Religion at all and every ones Knife at the throat of his Brother But am I a Subject to the Kings Religion or his Title Or where shall I find the Rules and Bounds of my Civil Duty In the Law Or in the Character The Law makes my Allegeance Absolute the Character makes it Conditional The Law binds me to be True to his Majesty his Lawfull Heirs and Successors without any regard to This or That Religion the Character discharges me in case any of them should happen to be Papists Magno Iudice se quisque tuetur King Lords and Commons are of One Opinion and Mr. Deputy of Another The Law obliges me upon pain of Life and Estate and the Gospel upon pain of Damnation But then comes the Author of the Character with the Serpents Dispensation in his Mouth and supersedes all Hath God sayd ye shall not eat of every Tree of the Garden And the Woman said unto the Serpent We may eat of the Fruit of the Trees of the Garden but of the Tree which is in the midst of the Garden God hath said ye shall not eat of it neither shall ye Touch it least ye Dy. And the Serpent sayd unto the Woman ye shall not surely Dy for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof Then Your Eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as Gods knowing Good and Evill Gen. 3. There 's no great Disproportion either in the Appetite or Temptation There 's the Voice of God in both cases on the One hand and the Voice of the Serpent on the Other I cannot find he says by this Text By Me Kings reign c. But that By Me Subjects possess their Lawfull Inheritance might Claim the same Right P. 32. The Question is not the Kings Dispossessing Subjects of their Lawfull Inheritance but the Subjects Disspossessing a Prince of his Lawfull Birthright And by his Argument Popish Subjects may be Dispossess'd as well as a Popish Successor and Phanatical Subjects too as well as Popish If a point of Occasional or Preventional Prudence shall over-rule a Positive Law And according to his Descant By me Kings are DEPOSED that a House of Commons may Reign is as good Divinity as By me King REIGN though the One is a matter of Divine Institution for the Comfort of mankind in General and the other only a Divine permission for the Punishment of some Particular Princes or People And see now how Extravagant an Instance he has brought in for his support Nor can I perceive says he Ibid. that there lyes so much Stresse in Gods giving the Government of the Earth Man and Beast unto whom it seemed meet unto him as to Nebuchadnezzer in the Text but that a MENE MENE TEKEL VPHARZIN written by the Almighties own hand against his Impious Heir the Sacrilegious Idolatrous Belshazzar was as much the word of God and had as much Divine Institution in it as By me Kings reign His Application here is not only Rude and Impertinent to the Highest Degree but the Argument flyes directly in the face of him unless he can shew such another Hand-writing upon the Wall against his R. Highness as is here produc'd against Balshazzar Beside that the Intervening of an Almighty Power in the Case does as good as tell us that the Disinheriting of Princes is a priviledge Reserved by God Peculiarly to Himself He proceeds P 33. to Invalidate as he pretends the Chief Argument of all my Discourse and the Fundamental Design of my whole Pamphlet viz. The Un-alterable Right of Succession And advances Confounding Extraordinary with Common Cases Now so far am I from laying the Stress of my Discourse upon that Text that I have Industriously Declin'd the Question as the last Article to be handled in this Controversy And then he spoils the Cause with the very eagerness of defending it by drawing Conclusions from God's Unaccountable Actings upon Immediate Revelation or Direction to the Practices of men that are under certain Common and Indispensable Rules and Methods of Obedience and Government So Timely a Care says he p. 34. did the Great Founder of Empires the Divine Omnipotence take to shew that the Dispensations of Majesty for his Peoples good and his own Glory were to be preferr'd before the Soveraignty of Birth that Blinder Gift of Chance This does only prove that God Reserves to himself a Freedom of Dispensing with his own Laws but not the least shaddow of any such Power Delegated to the People to Dispense with Gods Laws and let any man Consider whether is the more Competent Provision for the Glory of God and the Good of his People that men should be Ty'd up though with some Inconvenience under God's Appointment to the Orders of Government where the Publick Peace is preserv'd and the Harmony of Humane Society maintain'd or to leave the Multitude the Judges of those matters which only belong to the Supreme Magistrate and at liberty to change Governments and Governours as often as they please which must Inevitably run into Consequences of Bloud and Confusion And if this be not the thing he would be at what 's the meaning of his recommending the Precedent of the Late King of Portugal to the English as a Practicable Example Have we not had says he Ibid. a Late King of Portugal Depofed as Delirious and Frantick and Consequently renderd by Law Vncapable of Reigning and All this done by HIS OWN SUBJECTS and those of HIS OWN Religion without the least Reflection of Treason or Rebellion or the Aspersion of lifting a hand against the Lords Anointed As who should say what a stir is here made about the Duke of York As if it were such a matter to Exclude a Popish Successor I 'le shew ye a way to get quit of the King himself though a Protestant and in the Legal Exercise of his Authority But then you 'l say there must be Delirium or Frenzy in the case Just so much as was found in the Late King will be enough to do the Business Do but possess the People once that the King is a Papist and that single Charge of Popery Includes all Inabilityes For says our Author Ibid. There must go