Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n england_n king_n lord_n 3,923 5 3.9670 3 true
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
A70333 Political aphorisms, or, The true maxims of government displayed wherein is likewise proved ... : by way of a challenge to Dr. William Sherlock and ten other new dissenters, and recommended as proper to be read by all Protestant Jacobites. Harrison, Thomas, fl. 1690. 1690 (1690) Wing H917C; ESTC R35445 27,370 42

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

own door By which it follows that Passive Obedience to unjust Violence is a Sin but resisting such Violence is no Sin but the Duty of every Man The first Duty that I owe is to God the second to my self in preserving my self c. the third to my Parent and Soveraign in obeying them in all things reasonable and lawful By all the Precepts in Scripture which require Obedience to Parents Homage and Obedience is as due to the one as to the other for 't is nowhere said Children obey your Father and no more the Mother is mentioned before the Father in Lev. 19. 3. Ye shall fear every Man his Mother and his Father Sure Solomon was not ignorant what belonged to him as a King or a Father when he said My Son hear the Instructions of thy Father and forsake not the Law of thy Mother And our Saviour says Matth. 15. 4. Honour thy Father and Mother And Ephes. 6. 1. Children obey your Parents c. If Paternal Authority be an absolute Authority I ask Whether it be in the eldest of the Family if so Whether a Grandfather can dispense with his Grand-Child's paying the Honour due to his Parents by the fifth Commandment 'T is evident in common Sense the Grandfather cannot discharge the Grand-Child from the Obedience due to his Parents neither can a Father dispense with his Child's Obedience due to the Laws of the Land therefore the Obedience required to Parents in Scripture is not to an absolute Authority for there can be no absolute Authority where there is an Authority above it With what Folly and Ignorance do some assert That the Kings of England are Absolute as proceeding from William the Conqueror To which I answer That a Conqueror has no right of Dominion much less any Absolute Authority over the Wife and Children of the Conquered or over those who assisted not against him Conquest may claim such a Right as Thieves use over those whom they can master which is a Right of Tenure but no Tenure of Right Conquest may restore a Right Forfeiture may lose a Right but 't is Consent only that can transact or give a Right There is no other Absolute Power than over Captives taken in a just War If the Possession of the whole Earth was in one Person yet he would have no Power over the Life or Liberty of another or over that which another gets by his own Industry for Propriety in Land gives no Man Authority over another William the Conqueror made a League or Compact with the Nobles and Lords of the Land to the performance of which he takes an Oath to observe the ancient Laws of the Realm established by his Predecessors the Kings of England and especially of Edward the Confessor as likewise did Henry the First with the Emendations his Father had made to them Stephen who succeeded Henry made a Compact and promiseth a Meloration of their Laws according to their Minds William Rufus Henry the First and Stephen get the Consent of the People by promising to grant them their usual Laws and ancient Customs Henry the First Richard the First King John and Richard the Second oblige themselves at their Coronations to grant them and then the People consented to own them as their King and Richard the First and King John were conjured by the Arch-bishops not to take upon them the Crown unless they intended to perform their Oaths If any King refused so to do the Nobles thought it their Concern to hinder his Coronation till he had either made or promised this Engagement What can be more absurd than to say That there is an absolute Subjection due to a Prince whom the Laws of God Nature and the Country have not given such Authority as if Men were made as so many Herds of Cattel only for the Use Service and Pleasure of their Princes But some do object That the anointing of Kings at their Coronations makes their Persons Sacred Unquestionable and Irresistable for any Tyrannical or Exorbitant Actions whatsoever To which I answer That every Christian's Baptism is a Sacrament of Christ's Institution a Spiritual Unction and Sanctification which makes a Person as sacred yea more holy than the Anointing of Kings can or doth of it self that being no Sacrament a Truth which no Christian can without Blasphemy deny And yet no Christian is exempted from Resistance Censure or Punishments according to the nature of his Crime and therefore the Anointing of Kings at their Coronations cannot do it it being a Ceremony of the Jews not instituted by Christ or any ways commanded to be continued by the Apostles or their Successors it signifying only the chusing or preserring one before another and so became the Ceremony of consecrating to any special Office and so was ordinarily used in the enstalling Men to Offices of any Eminency The Reign of a good King resembles that of Heaven over which there is but one God for he is no less beloved of the Vertuous than feared of the Bad and if human Frailty could admit a Succession of good Kings there were no comparison Power being ever more glorious in one than when it is divided 'T is not the Title of a King but the Power which is the Laws which is invested in him which makes the difference betwixt him and other Men in the executing of this Power his Person is sacred and not to be resisted he being above every Soul contained in the same Society and therefore cannot be resisted or deprived of his Office by any part or by the whole Community without the greatest Sin of Robbery and Injustice imaginable If a Government say some may be disturbed for any unlawful Proceedings of the Governour or his Ministers how can any Government be safe To which I answer That it is not lawful for every private Man to fly into the Bosom of his Prince for he is no competent Judg be he of never so great a Quality else a King was the most miserable Man living lying at the Mercy of every desperate Fellow's Censure It is impossible for one or a few oppressed Men to disturb the Government where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned in it and that the Consequences seem not to threaten all yea when it does yet the People are not very forward to disturb the Government as in King Charles the Second's time when the Charters were condemned and seized upon in order to make us Slaves and the Laws perverted to the loss of many innocent Lives and many other Oppressions too many to insert and yet no body offered to disturb the Government I say till the Mischief be grown general and the Designs of the Rulers become notorious then and then only will the People be for righting themselves Whosoever either Ruler or Subject by Force goes about to invade the Rights of either Prince or People and lays the Foundation for overturning the Constitution and Frame of any just Government he is guilty of the greatest Crime I think a Man is capable of being to answer for all those Mischiefs of Blood Rapine and Desolation which the breaking to pieces of Governments brings on a Country and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the Common Enemy and Pest of Mankind and is so to be treated accordingly and how far the late King James was guilty of this I leave the World to judg FINIS The Author's Advertisement JUST as I had finished this Book I received a Reply to my former Book which I thought to have Answered but finding the Arguments to be Frivolous and Weak and my necessary Avocations allowing me but little time therefore I forbore answering it ADVERTISEMENTS THe Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Jure Divino disproved Price 1 d. The Letter which was sent to the Author of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Jure Divino disproved c. Answered and Refuted Wherein is proved That Monarchy was not Originally from GOD. That Kings are not by Divine Appointment but that all Government proceeds from the People That the Obedience required in Scripture is to the Laws of the Land and no otherwise That Resisting of Arbitrary Power is Lawful That the Oath of Allegiance to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange our present King landed That upon the non-performance of an Oath on one side the other becomes void is plainly prov'd from several Examples in Scripture That Protection is the only Cause of Allegiance and that Obedience or Allegiance is due to the present Government is proved from Scripture Law and Reason And those Texts of Scripture which relate to Government or Monarchy are Explained Price stitch'd 6 d. Both written by the same Author and printed for Tho. Harrison