Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	king_n	power_n	subject_a	2,513	5	7.6545	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66600	God, the King, and the countrey, united in the justification of this present revolution containing also animadversions on Dr. William Sherlock's book intituled, The case of allegiance due to soveraign powers, stated and resolved, according to scripture and reason, and the principles of the Church and England / by Tim. Wilson ...	Wilson, Timothy, 1642-1705.	1691 (1691)	Wing W2950; ESTC R8407	46,572	49

to Hard. A. Art 2. Divis 6. justifies Luther as a godly man and accuseth Harding of Slander And Divis 7 he calls Melancthon and Bucer godly learned men And he calls Peter Martyr a most worthy and learned Father A. to Hardings Preface And Harding commends his Modesty And surely if Passive Obedience had been the Doctrine of those days and esteemed as it hath been of late Rebellion to oppose it the ever Renowned Hooker Preface to Eccl. Pol. would not have honoured Calvin with this Elogium For my own part I think him that is Calvin incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy since the hour it enjoyed him The Divines of the Church of England are not wont thus to commend Authors guilty of Heresie or Schism or Sedition or Rebellion And Dr. Bilson True difference between Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion p. 3. pag. 264. saith Calvin is so well known to those that be Learned or Wise for his great pains and labours in the Church of God that a few snarling Fryars cannot impeach his Name And Dr. Whitgift against the Puritan T. C. every where honours Bullinger Castius and more especially Zuinglius And yet all these justified Defensive Arms in some case Now who are the Innovators they that follow the first Doctors of our Church or they that have embraced other new and unheard of Principles in Government I leave the works of our Forefathers to be Judges But here it is objected by some weak and factious spirits that our Convention or Parliament have done as bad to the late King as the Rump Parliament so called O. C. and the Army of Sectaries did to King Charles the First And therefore if we are justifiable they are justifiable and consequently Jan. 30. ought not to be kept as a day of Humiliation and Fasting For this let the Reader consider what the Dr. saith p. 46 47 c. Or let him take this Answer Our Cause and theirs differ as far as Heaven and Hell or Good and Bad Murder and Self-defence I will not say that there were no Corruptions in Government nor no Innovations brought into the Church Neither will I dispute the Reasonableness of the War between the King and Parliament in the beginning But supposing that the Parliament had sufficient Cause to defend themselves Yet 1. King Charles the First had given full satisfaction to the Two Houses of Parliament and the Bishops and the Common Prayer were Established by Law And all know that it was the National Worship as it is now and cannot be abrogated or altered but by King Lords and Commons But O. C. destroyed the House of Lords and the Book of Common Prayer by force and by the Sword 2. King Charles the First was a professed Protestant and all his Officers and Ministers in Church and State were such as the Law allowed But the Late King was a professed Papist and put Papists in Places of Trust against Law and turned out all the best Protestants for no reason but only because they opposed the Jesuits and Arbitrary Power 3. King Charles the First and the Parliament had concluded upon a Settlement to the satisfaction of all sober and wise Men in the Kingdom but O. C. and his Army of Sectaries with force turned about a hundred Members out of Parliament and kept them Prisoners against Law and Justice 4. O. C. and the Sectaries Ruled the Nation by the Sword in time of Peace contrary to all Law and Executed many of the most Zealous Protestants But King William defends all Protestants according to Law 5. They like Cruel Tyrants and Usurpers destroyed the whole Frame of Government Murdered the King and Banished all the Royal Family As there are some at this day who are so vain and sottish as to desire a Common-wealth and to Root out the Bishops and Common Prayer and so bring confusion into Church and State As if there were no difference between the Reformation of Abuses and destroying that which is good and excellent We say that this Faction in a Nation is to be opposed as well as the Tyranny and Illegal Proceedings of the Papists For both are destructive of our Laws and Established Religion It is true our present Business is against the Abominations of the Church of Rome and the Usurpations of Popish Priests and Jesuits But we also abhor all those who would Murder a Protestant King and destroy our Liberties and the Religion by Law Established and force us contrary to our Consciences But King William opposeth none but Papists who would have destroyed us and he continues our Parliament and our Laws Liberties and Religion with all the Incouragements thereof 6. King William was invited over by divers of the Nobility and Gentry to save us from Popery and Slavery and was received with the universal Joy of Protestants But O.C. and his Sectaries who Barbarously and Impudently Murdered King Charles the First were cryed out against by all sound Protestants who adhered to the Laws of the Nation So that that Rebellion and King William's Actions and those that joined with him differ as much as Destroying a Nation and Saving a Nation as the greatest Sin and the greatest Good Lastly Our Royal Martyr King Charles the First died in the Defence of the Laws and Established Religion But the Late King Abdicated or Deserted or at least went out of the Kingdom rather than he would Rule according to Law And when he was gone to France the Chief of the Nobility and Gentry desired the P. of O. to take the Government upon him and to Summon a Convention which Convention Elected him King and the Princess Queen The Late King fled and Banished himself rather than he would do the Nation Justice and when he was gone the Convention or Parliament resolved to keep him out The P. of O. tho' a Soveraign Prince and no way Subject to the Late King did not Murder him when he had him in his Power But O.C. and the Sectaries of the Army Beheaded King Charles the First tho' he was Innocent and a Prince of most Excellent Virtues and of Ever Blessed Memory Ob. Solomon saith Prov. 24.21 22. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change For their calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth the ruin of them both A. This Text doth not forbid the Change of Government in Absolute necessity when the Safety of the whole Kingdom requires it and it is done Regularly and for the Publick Good But commands Obedience and Fear to the present Lawful King and never to join with Changelings who are restless under Government and Lightly Wantonly Factiously or Seditiously oppose what is present It is not to be understood Morally as if it were Absolutely evil and a Sin to change when the whole Frame of Government is corrupt But you must take it prudentially that a wise Man who fears God ought not to Change that Form of

hundred years ago to chuse a King for me A. I am afraid the Dr. next time will say That the Laws of former Parliaments made some years ago do not bind us tho' not repealed And none but present Parliaments can make Laws for us We have nothing to do with our Forefathers we must personally consent to all Laws Phy for shame Dr. let us hear no more of this For I am confident you do not believe that our Ancestors had no Right to make Laws for us or to chuse a King for us A King is a King to Children Born of Parents who have chosen him or his Family and such Children are his Subjects without a personal and verbal Ingagement And former Laws bind us without a new Act of Parliament to confirm them 2. The Dr. asserts p. 36. If they that is Sovereign Princes receive their Authority from Men which they do as well as from God say we and Humane Laws which the Dr. confessed before I cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust of which they must give an account to those who have intrusted them with it according to those Laws by which they were intrusted to exercise that Power For whether there be any express Provision made in the Law to call them to an Account or no the Nature of the thing proves that if they receive their Power from Men they are accountable to them For those who give Power may take an Account of the use and abuse of it This with the Drs. Concessions hereafter mentioned proves the Lawfulness Reasonableness and Conscience of this present Revolution And p. 25. he saith A Legal Intail is nothing more than the Authority of the People So that the Authority of the People I mean either the Convention of Estates which is an extraordinary Assembly or the Parliament which is the ordinary Assembly gives Humane and Legal Right And such a Prince is set upon the Throne by God and is by the Disposal of Providence and is Gods Minister for the good of the People So that what the Dr. saith in the beginning of p. 25. is very weak To say that God sets up no Prince who ascends the Throne without Humane Right and Legal is to say that some Kings are removed and others set up but not by God which is directly contradictory to Scripture It is to say That the Four Monarchies were not set up by God because they all began by Violence and Usurpation It is say That God as well as Men is confined by Humane Laws in making Kings It is to say That the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People For if God cannot make Kings without the People or against their Consent declared by their Laws the Authority must be derived from the People not from God or at least if it be Gods Authority yet God cannot give it himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws A. If we speak of Gods Absolute Power he can send a Legion of Angels and set the Crown upon a Kings Head or by any like extraordinary Nomination and Means But we say and I hope the Dr. upon consideration will not deny it that Right Reason Natural Conscience Law and Scripture are the Rule of our Duty and by these means God cooperates and his Divine Providence concurs with men And when the Dr. is in his senses and argues like himself that is a Divine of his Reputation and Station in the Church he will tell you p. 65. That the King hath no Right but by Law and then the Law may determine how far his Right shall extend c. But this Revolution hath confounded the wisdom of the wise and brought to nothing the understanding of the prudent insomuch that a man may propound St. Pauls Question to these great Doctors of our Church Where is the Wise Where is the Scribe Where is the Disputer of this World Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World It is much easier to justifie the whole Revolution I will here add the Judgment of Tol. collected by the Author of the Synopsis on Rom. 13. Power that is Principality or Magistracy yea even of Infidels and Idolaters is not but of God that is from the Divine Ordination and Disposition that the wicked may be restrained the just honoured c. from God as the first Beginning and Cause and Author not indeed by himself but mediately by men in whom God hath put this instinct to set over them those that should Rule them And whoever reads the Lord Chan. Fortescue will find this true in England Animadversions on Sect. 3. In this Section I shall animadvert on some of his Propositions and then propose his Concessions scattered all over his Book As for the two first Propositions I admit them But I think that I may justly find fault with the third which is There are but three ways whereby God gives this Power and Authority to any person Either by Nature or by express Nomination or by the Disposals of Providence Here I say that this Division is Illogical and naughty Logicians say that the parts of a Division must be opposite but these are not For the Power and Authority that is given by Nature is the disposal of Providence and the Power and Authority that is given by express Nomination is the disposal of Providence also And I must confess that in my small Reading I never met with any that made such a sort of division I should have added 3. By Covenant or by the Election of the People I fear that the Dr's Enthusiastical notion of Providence here imposed upon his Learning Let no man say that I do not speak of Divine Providence with that awful regard and reverence that I ought for surely I justifie Gods Providence much more clearly than this abstruse and unaccountable notion The Dr. goes on By Nature Parents have a Natural Superiority over their Children and are their Lords and Governours too This was the first Government in the World and is the only Natural Authority For in propriety of speaking there is no Natural Prince but a Father c. Here observe that this destroys the Principles of Sir R. F's Book with which so many young Divines in the University of late have been possessed and about which they have been so very passionate that they would endure no modest opposition but invidiously declaimed against any man who did but call in question this Principle as if he could not be a Lover of Monarchy If there is no Natural Prince but a Father thens in propriety of speaking there can be no Natural Prince now in the World but every Prince must be by Institution or Agreement or the like For the Relation of King and Subject are not Natural as the Relation of Father and Child are But yet I say Monarchy approacheth nearest to the Government of Gods Throne And I approve of the

of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation This is Rebellion supposing a Kingdom not universally oppressed And this secures the Prince as well as the Providence of God in the Dr's unintelligible Notion But this is to say God as well as Man is confined to Humane Laws in making Kings p. 25. A. I suppose the Dr. living among such an Honourable Society of Lawyers hath heard of being tryed by God and the Countrey And so the King and Queen may be made by God and the Countrey God feeds us but we must put Meat in our Mouths God Clothes us but we must put on our Clothes God doth what we do when we use the Means appointed by God And when the Dr. is in a reasoning Humour he will tell us that there is no doubt but several Governments have been begun by and Originally derived from the Choice and Consent of the People p. 23. but still it is God who by his Providence advanceth Men to the Throne But of this before As for those who advance Conquest I have spoken my Mind formerly And I add that when the whole Community be it by the Sword is subdued as the Jews were by Caesar and have promised Subjection and own the Authority of the Conqueror and he promiseth them Protection I grant this gives the Conqueror Humane Right and Title as well as Gods Authority For he holds his Crown as some speak jure Gentium concessu Gentium But if the P. of O. did Conquer England against which he declared and acted nothing like a Conqueror in any part of the Nation where his Army Marched but every where like a Saviour and Deliverer I say if the P. of O. did Conquer the Nation the Princess of Orange did not And Queen Maries Title can be no other way God save Her Majesty for I am Her most Loyal Subject and Servant but by the Election of the People in Convention and now confirmed by Act of Parliament Which I desire all Conscientious Men to consider Finally As for Submission that is an Implicite Covenant as I have shewed and must be kept So that tho' the Dr. cannot yet with all or the most Judicious Philosophers Schoolmen and Reformed Divines I can see where to fix the Foundation of Government and that is in the Agreement of the People And this is the ordinary Disposal of Providence But let it be by the Election and Consent of the People Or by Conquest and so by After-Covenant Or by Submission which is an Implicite After-Covenant Or by continued Usurpation as the Dr. speaks which still is founded upon After-Covenant and Promise all these are the Disposals of Providence So that the Dr. very weakly for I do not believe he doth it craftily gives only the General Cause which no Man denies But we desire to know what is causa secunda proxima particularis the second next and particular Cause as the Schools speak of this Revolution and Government And the Reason is either we have done very well or very ill in joining with the P. of O. And we would gladly convince the Dr. or any Man else that we have hazarded all that is dear to Man Virtuously and Honourably to preserve Gods true Religion and Worship as by Law Established to save the English Monarchy from the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome and to continue the Liberties of our Native Countrey The Providence of God is no Rule or Reason or Measure of our Duty But the Law of God and Nature and the Laws of the Land when they contradict not these And the Dr. will tell us so when he thinks of it p. 32. The Divine Providence hath Ways and Methods of removing Kings and Setting up Kings which we are not aware of nor concern'd to know because it is no part of our Duty To sum up all this In this Revolution some talk of Desertion and Abdication Some of Conquest Some of Gods Providence as the Dr. and some of the Election of the People 1. As to Desertion and Abdication whether the Late King did in a proper and strict sense Abdicate the Kingdom is a matter that I need not dispute but surely the Convention did well to take this into Consideration that the Kingdom was left without any Order or Government in a very troublesom time But supposing that it was a proper and strict Abdication this doth not make the Prince and Princess of Orange King and Queen of England This must be some other way 2. As to Conquest And 3. As to Gods Providence I have said enough to satisfie any Consciencious and wise Man who will lay aside Prejudice and Prepossession And therefore 4. I am fully satisfied in my own Conscience and will dispute the Case with any Learned and Consciencious Divine that it can be justified no other way but by the Election of the People in Convention As for the Examples of Jehoiada and Joash and Athaliah and of Jeroboam and Jehu I think there may be a better Account given than the Dr. gives But this is nothing to the main Controversie between him and us That concerns the Non-Swearers I shall only give you a familiar Simile or Example out of Scripture of the Election of a King tho' it doth not quadrare in omnibus it is not nor needs be fitted in all Circumstances to the Kingdom of England In the first Book of Sam. chap. 8. The People of Israel desire a King Then it follows they had none before Whereupon Samuel told them his Message from God and at last yielded to the importunity of the People And he called all the People Chap. 10. that is All the Heads Elders and Princes of the People a great Convention Parliament or Assembly of the Nation And they chose Saul And all the People shouted and said God save the King And those whose Hearts God had touched went with him And they that despised him were called Children of Belial And I shall only add Samuel's Admonition and Counsel Chap. 12. ver 24 25. Only fear the Lord and serve him in truth with all your heart for consider how great things he hath done for you But if ye shall still do wickedly ye shall be consumed both ye and your King I know that there are two Prejudices as the Dr. speaks in like case rather than Objections against this Truth 1. This will not please the King and Royal Family 2. This occasions Subjects to Rebel when they think fit 1. This will not please the King and Royal Family A. We are confident that this is an Insinuation of weak Spirits and directly contrary to the Great and Heroick Designs of their Sacred Majesties and their Impartial Administrations of Justice and God forbid we should do any thing justly meriting the loss of Their Majesties Favour and their Hearts confiding in us I am sure that the pleading for our Liberties is no Prejudice to the Kings Crown or Prerogatives Why should not our Soveraign look