Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	england_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,428	5	6.3449	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44305	A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people.	Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676.	1668 (1668)	Wing H2604; ESTC R7940	125,044	140

discretion of the sufferers of prejudice by it were they never so few in comparison of the whole body of the people they may pronounce upon the same and according to their discretive judgement of the injurious perverting of Government determine their actions for renouncing or revolting from the society in which and Government under which they are and nothing should hinder them from this but want of probable capacity to through their work as he often speaks So wise and cautious must his followers be though not conscientious that in working a mischief they light not upon a mischief Good God! to what times are we reserved wherein the unmeasurable audaciousness of men dare present such poyson to a Christian People and to attempt the breaking them in pieces by such Doctrines which both Religion and sound Reason abhorres Dare this Libeller say that this is a fundamental constitution of political Societies that at the arbitrement and lust of any minor part of private persons pretending a perversion of the ends of Government a pretence that will never be wanting to malecontents and malapert wicked ones even katherines and highlandish theeves and it is real to them if they themselves be admitted Judges they may make secession from the Society in which they are embodied and renounce their obligation to the Government thereof Is not such a principle rather contra-fundamental to all humane combined Societies and were it at first entring of the Society expresly proposed that when ever any minor party should account the ends of Government perverted they should be at their primaeve liberty again to break off from all the magistratical Order and from society with the major party of these with whom they are combined Would not the overture of such a condition be rejected with indignation and upon just reason for that were to open a gap to continual seditions divisions and fractions And all rational men would judge it were better not to joyn in society with such men then to joyn in such termes Again suppose there be a breaking off from a magistratical Power and major part of a society upon pretension which will never be wanting to cover sedition and confusion such is the corruption of men of a perversion of the ends of Government the party making secession may haply meet with that same measure they gave to the Community wherewith they were formerly joyned For when they have combined and embodied themselves in a Society if a minor party arise amongst themselves with the same accusations against them which they had against the body they did separate from Must not that same party have the same priviledge of Primaeve liberty to combine and erect a corporation by themselves which they claimed before will not they plead that the obligation to the Government and Society ceaseth and they are free to erect a new one And where shall there be a stand till humane Societies be miserably broken in pieces which seems to be Satans design by this Mans Doctrine Further can this assertion subsist that neither alledgiance or fidelity nor obedience is to be given unto any created power but in defence of Religion and Liberty That obedience is not to be given unto any Creature on earth against Religion or the Revealed Will of God shall be easily granted we abhorre the very thought of so doing Again it shall not be said that obedience is to be given to Powers against the Liberty competent to us as Subjects and consistent with Soveraignty yet so that the measure of that Liberty must not be made by every private mans will but by the Declarature of the Parliament representative of the Subjects which best knows what thereunto belongs But to say that all not only obedience but alledgiance and fidelity due to any created power is indispensibly restricted to this qualification in Defence of Religion and Liberty viz. of the subject is a most false assertion It is known that a restriction excludes all other cases which are not in the restrictve proposition included now it is certain there may be cases wherein we ought to obey the Magistrate and yet the act of obedience cannot be properly and directly said to be either in defence of Religion or the Liberty of the Subject there may be some causes that properly concern his own honour wherein defence of Religion is not concerned the Magistrate perhaps not being of our Religion and far less defence of the Liberty of the Subject unless by a very remote and unnecessary consequence yet am I bound to him in causes concerning his honour this made the Ministers that disputed with the Doctors of Aberdeen decline to acknowledge that clause of the first Covenant in defence of Religion c. to be limitative or restrictive of duty to the King affirming it onely to be specificativen aming duties to him in some respects or in respect to some things not excluding others Yea the General Assembly 1639. will not have that clause in the Covenant restrictive for in their supplication to the Commissioner and Council they speak thus We have solemly sworn and do swear not only our mutual concurrence and assistance for the cause of Religion and to the utmost of our power with our Means and Lives to stand to the defence of our Dread Soveraign His Person and Authority in the preservation of true Religion Liberties and Laws of this Kirk and Kingdom but also n. b. in every cause that may concern His Majesties Honour shall concur with our friends and followers as we shall be required c. So Duty and Obedience to the King is there extended beyond what is expresly mentioned in the Covenant in defence of Religion and Liberties But further as to the point of Alledgiance or Fidelity that is another matter then Obedience Alledgiance to a King imports owning him as Lawful and Rightful King and that none others have power over him together with fidelity to his Person Crown and Dignity against all conspiracies and treason Obedience is the result of this acknowledged Soveraignty where commands appear lawful A man may keep Alledgiance and Fidelity to the King albeit sometimes there may be commands given which cannot be obeyed because of Gods countermand many learned Priests and Papists in England took the Oath of Alledgiance when first it was emitted and injoyn'd albeit they thought they could not give obedience to the King as to matters of Religion But this man is plain in his assertion that no Alledgiance is due to the King except with this restriction in defence of Religion And as he said a main part of his Religion is to erect Presbytery and root out Prelacy So that if Presbytery be not defended people are taught to renounce Alledgiance to the King How contrary is this to the Confession of Faith cap. 23. S. 4. Difference in Religion doth not saith the Confession make void the Magistrates just and legal Authority nor free the people from their due obedience to him But this

the heads or rulers and famous men amongst them called the congregation or the renouned of the congregation Numb 1.16.16.2 who did in that dismal time wherein so much sin did break forth and so much wrath from the Lord attending sin meet with Moses the chief Magistrate Numb 25.6 to lament the abominable idolatry and bodily filthiness committed at that time and to consult and advise about the authoritative restraining of this wickedness In the mean time when the great Council are humbled before the Lord for the common wickedness and for the wrath that was upon them Zimri a Prince of Simeon with his Midianitish woman are in their very sight going into the Prince of Israels tent and Josephus tells us that before Moses and the Council he justified the fact and pleaded frowardly to have and retain her In this case of so effronted wickedness Phineas then one of the congregation or great Council 7. ver Rose from amongst the congregation or great Council which shews he was sitting amongst them and under the eye and knowledge and approbation of Moses the supreme Magistrate pursued them both to the tent executing judgment on them and thrusting them through The words of Diodat on ver 8. are That this was an act of extraordinary zeal and motion of Gods Spirit in a cruel and fierce delict which was approved in Phineas by God after the act was done And n. b. by Moses the supreme Magistrate the execution being done under his eyes and known of him Thus Diodat To this purpose Aquinas 2● 2ae quest 60. Art 6. where he disputes Vtrum Judicium reddator perversum per usurpationem Resolves That judgement cannot be execute upon any without publick Authority more then a Law can be made without publick Authority and speaking of the fact of Phineas he sayes He did this by divine inspiration being moved with the zeal of God and adds Albeit he was not the high Priest yet he was the Son of the high Priest and the executing of judgement belonged to him as to other Judges to whom that was commanded of God Gerhard de Magistratu P. 841. Phineas non fuit omnino privata persona he was one of the chief Priests who as Aarons rod tells us lib. 1. cap. 1. had equal power with all other members both in decrees and executions of judgments So that he in all probability being no meer private person and doing what he did with approbation of the Soveraign Magistrate it is a very weak argument that is brought from him to enstate any private persons in a power of executing judgement 2. Suppose Phineas to have been a meer private person yet seing he did this act under the eye and presence with the approbation and good-liking of Moses as Diodat rationally saith and of the great Council there assembled and he is to be looked upon as the executor of their unaninimous sentence against effronted villany As at another time Exod. 32.27 28. Moses as Gods Vice-gerent set the Levits and others on work to execute judgment by the sword upon an idolatrous people in which case they were satellites Magistratus and had his Commission and why might not Phineas have here the like warrand from Moses If any say it is not written it may be answered In rebus facti à non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia all things done are not written We have heard famous Authors accouning him to have had warrand whether as a Judge or Executor of the will of the great Council and of Moses who did well approve his deed But how absurd is it to bring an argument from this instance to warrand any private man to do justice when he thinks there is need not only without the Magistrates consent but even upon all Magistrates supreme and subordinate which is the scope this mans writing drives at 3. The case wherein Phineas executed judgement was when horrible idolatry and villanous whoredom was avowedly and with an high hand committed in the sight of the Sun and in way of open doing despite to God and to all Magistrates and the supreme Council then assembled to mourn before God and to take course for remedying by their Authority the horrible looseness broken forth at that time But dare this man say that there is now such horrid wickedness although he is bold to call all the Magistrates supreme and subordinate Patrons of abominations and men acting in the meer spirit of wickedness while the true Protestant Religion according to the Scriptures and the Laws at our first Reformation and Confession of Faith recorded in Parliament is sincerely and constantly held There is a change and regulation of the exterior form of Church-government anent which godly men differ and the change that is made will be maintained against this man to contain nothing contrary to Gods Word Yet forsooth this is the great abomination and so gross that it may licence every private person to rise up against all Magistrates supreme and subordinate to depose them or cut their throats and this must be called executing judgement for the Lord and a Phineas-like fact 4. Let it be so that Phineas was a meer private man and had no warrand from the supreme Magistrate to do what he did which yet cannot be proved his fact can be no warrand for private men to attempt the doing of such acts unless they can shew as good warrand and approbation from God as he could God who is the Lord of all Magistrates and of all mens lives can when it pleaseth him cross ordinary rules and can appoint some to execute his judgements extraordinarily wherein they are not to be followed by such as have not the same spirit the same warrand and command or commission He may send Moses to kill the Egyptian Eglon to kill Ehud Elias to destroy companies of men with fire from Heaven or to kill Baals Priests an instance which it is strange the Libeller omitted seing it is the ordinary dialect of the Faction as may be seen in the Apology and elsewhere to call most wickedly all Church-men dissenting from their way Baals Priests God may command Abraham to kill his Son Isaac he may excite David to a bloody duel and Samson to murther himself with others so also might he stir up Phineas though a private man to execute judgement but 1. he had the motion and direction of Gods Spirit setting him on to that work such motions were loco specialis mandati as Divines speak and Calvin Ps 106. speaking of this same fact saith he had singularis extraordinarius motus qui ad communem regulam exigi non debet And when he hath compared Moses killing the Egyptian with this fact of Phineas he saith Talis fuit impulsus in Phinea nam et si nemo putabat gladio Dei esse armatum ipse tamen potestatis divinitus concessae probe sibi conscius fuit Augustin speaking of Samson lib. 2. de civit Dei c. 21.