Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	liberty_n	parliament_n	4,708	5	6.3048	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88565	Illumination to Sion Colledge. Wherein, their calling to the Ministery (the foundation whereof not being built upon Christ) is dissipated, their arrogancy hereupon manifested, the extent of magistrates power in generall defined; the execution of the late King, and the seculusion of the late members of Parliament farther justified; the former declarations of Parliament and Scriptures which they cite, explained; their objections from the Covenant, removed in the grammaticall sense thereof; and the Parliament and Army from their aspersions in all vindicated. Being for answer, to the representation of their judgments, in a letter to the Generall, January 18. last: serves also to their vindication: and in part to a pamphlet intituled, Essex Watchmens watch-word: likewise in effect to a later libell (supposed Mr. Loves, intituled, A vindication of the ministers from the aspersions (alias the Etymologies) of Mr. Price, in his Clerico Classicum, &c. To which latter pamphlet, is annexed a briefe answer to what is not so fully hinted in that to the Ministers. / By J.L. as cordiall and fervent a thirster after the nations prosperity, as any.	J. L.	1649 (1649)	Wing L31; Thomason E558_4; ESTC R205842	44,054	37

obligation is void since he hath violated the conditions of his Kingly Office to us as Subjects which Junius Brutus effectually proves in the 192. pag. of Mr. Prinnes precedent book where he saith There is every where between the Prince and People a mutuall and reciprocall obligation be promiseth that he will be a just Prince They that they will obey him if be shall be such a one therefore the people are obliged to the Prince under a condition the Prince purely to the People therefore if the condition be not fulfilled the People are unbound the contrast void the obligation null in law is selfe therefore the King is perfidious if be Raigns unjustly the People perfideous if they obey not him who Raigns justly To which I add that the Magistrate being but a servant in duty cannot call them to account for their perfidiousnes God properly being the avenger of that in them but they him since the wrong and hurt is cheifly done unto themselves not unto him who dischargeth his duty in gentle perswasion and admonition But the People are free from all crime of perfidiousnesse if they publikely renounce him who raigne unjustly or if they endeavour to evict him with Armes who desires to retaine the kingdome unlawfully Again as to the defence of his Person the Army is clear as to that time the Oath being then the same since he was out of their power and in the possession of others and might if he would have destroyed himself there is this limitation to it likewise to justifie the Army in their late proceedings against him that our defence to his Person must needs be understood to be in just waies else such would be partakers in his sin and become liable to the same punishment as the justly executed * Hamll●ton Lords were Holland and Capell And then as to the latter particular in that Oath viz. The defence of the power and Priviledges of the Parliament the Armies refining their House cannot be reputed a breach of that Priviledges no more then the rectifying of one crooked line to the Center may be esteemed the disordering of the circumference since likewise that the convening or assembling of the Parliament is not but their representing the People not onely in their Persons but in their qualifications which doth distinguish them from Slaves is the originall of their power and Priviledges the which therefore can be no longer reputed theirs then they are the peoples and the endeavours of the Armie to repossesse them of their own can be no breach of Covenant Again concerning the Vow and Covenant taken to unite us against those conspiracies and designes that were practised against the Parliament you are likewise guilty of a breach though herein you have acted yet now it appears it hath been for ends of your own by disjunction of what tended to unity and wherein you were as greatly tied to us in every respect as we to you notwithstanding your labour hath been spent to hale others to Conformity to your way In which laying aside their endeavours to free themselves from your oppression they are clear towards you But now your last and greatest seeming prop upon which you build all your arguments as to your sense upon it will prove as invalid as all the rest and those scriptures you cite for proofe thereof misapplied You cite the Covenant thus That you will sircerely really and constantly in your severall Vocations endeavour to preserve the Rights and Priviledges of the Parliaments and preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdomes Concerning the two former particulars in this Covenant I shall not here farther inlarge because before insisted upon and proved that they have though you exempt conditions understood as limits and bounds to our defence and preservation of them Therefore I shall onely commemorate you a little of the conclusion The Independent part as to temporals of this Covenant which when first instituted was intended for a generall good therefore that party that hath sought to over reach any other thereby and designe it only for their own good must needs be guilty as of fraud so of a breach thereof but I leave this to your own Consciences if not dead to apply and proceed to recite the ingagement viz. We will c. indeacour to preserve and defend the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament and the Kings Person c. But how In the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms that is so far as the two former doth concur and incur to the preservation of this latter so far as the maintenance of the Rights Privileges of the Parliament do and as the Person Honor and safety of the late King did Center in the safety preservation defence and propagation of the true Religion and the liberties of the Kingdome but now should the Parliament as your party therein the late King did usurp Privileges and Pr●●ogat●ves as to establish themselves in the government so likewise forcibly what form thereof they please upon others and turn enemies to the liberties the very spring of all their most as and actings as lawfull Magistrates of the Kingdoms By this Covenant we are not only disobliged from obedience to them but also ingaged to oppose them as enemies to the true Religion it being free and to the Liberties of the Kingdomes Furthermore we are the more firmly obliged hereunto by that relation union this oath hath with the former wherein both you and we supposing my self had I been through age capable to have taken the Covenant equivalently did ingage against those conspitacies that were after should be contrived against the Parliament but now was not our conjunction colligation against such confederacies more with respect unto or for that they were designed against the publike good of the Kingdoms then meerly or principally for the defence preservation of the Parliament therein who were onely as an assembly of men without qualifications accordingly Now then this being granted as necessarily it must unless you will be unnaturall and irrationall to prefer so few singly before the safety of the Kingdom wherein your selves likewise are interested I say this being granted it undeniably follows that if the Parliament as is sufficiently proved your party thereof did should turn enemies to the good of the Kingdomes which primarily by our Oaths we are to advance and them no otherwise then they shall concur herewith we are bound by those precited Covenants as to oppose them so to inflict without respect of persons the same if not greater because their trust aggravates their fault punishment upon them as upon others in the like offences provided that right take place But now I shall proceed to speak a little to these two particulars in the end of the Covenant We swore to defend the Person of the King and the Priviledges of

the constitution of what government you mean was conditionall not upon yours but our own light and so not binding to us But whereas in the same page you say you apprehend your selves obliged thus to appeare for the maintenance of your Religion Lawes c. as against those that would introduce an arbitraty tyrannicall power in the King so on the other hand against the irregular proceedings of private persons as you terme them though I have shewed they are publick to introduce anarchy irreligion c. the former of which justifies the Army in that opposition they made against your major party then in the Parliament introducing by tolerating if not tyranny yet such a power in the King whereby at any time he might contradict and obstruct the welfare of the people and the cause of your obligation to the latter is taken away since you may enjoy under the government to be set led laying aside your principles of oppression as much benefit in the exercise of your Religion or otherwise as any whereunder likewise as may be because the best way continued love and amity so in stead of irreligion a free religion most sutable to the Gospel not compulsive or constrictive may be introduced But now that your former matter might seem infallible you reinforce it with a Covenant though never intended for such an abuse you include the Army making them ●nparaleld Covenant-breakers as liable to those judgements which God inflicted upon such as you instance from Scripture who violated an absolute pure simple Covenant whereas ours was limited conditional only the bond or rye of both being alike the breach whereof was the cause that God powred down his judgements upon them In this therefore your hold-fast will prove as infirm as in the rest and according to the literali sense of it not to mention here your omission of the end your selves will be found more guilty of perjury then any and so your texts are misapplied You say then page 7. That you are the more strongly ingaged to adhere to your former just principles ●y reason of the severall oathes and covenants generally taken throughout the Kingdome and therefore you instance that protestation of May 5. 1641 wherein as your words are We do in the presence of Almighty God promise vow protest according to the duty of our Allegeance to maintain and defend with our lives powers and estates his Majesties Royall person honour and estate and the power and priviledges of Parliament To this I answer first That your first ingagement upon these precedent principles as if they were independent and the peoples sole happinesse did consist in them as you positively cite was unjust and without understanding For mark you how the former particular in the oath doth depend upon the latter you did not sweare give me leave a little to inlighten lighten you it being a sin to take an oath in ignorance but a greater to continue ignorant of it to maintain and defend the late Kings Majesties person c. in case he should with his person make use of his honour and estate to infringe the power and priviledges of Parliament which unlesse you be turned malignants obstinate you cannot but confesse is a limitation to the former clause in that oath and indeed with which you complied against the late King and never violated the oath as to that particular because otherwise when the one is set in opposition to the other as experience hath witnessed by cleaving to one and forsaking the other we break the oath unlesse we make one conditionall and dependent upon the other which was the late Kings case the Parliament being more intrusted and so more supream then himselfe This your selves have granted herein therefore the Army may well be vindicated from the breach of Covenant Again as to that latter clause to defend and maintain the power and priviledges of Parliament I answer that this likewise doth relye and depend upon something which though you insert not and if neither exprest in the oath yet is consequently and necessarily understood to be the top and end of both For in what you did ingage against an unquestionable and tyrannicall power in the King to set it up in a major vote of Parliament you did it voyd of understanding and a great deale of blood was shed to no purpose which upon such an ingagement for ought I know may as soon lie upon your account as elsewhere But to be short because before insisted on the Parliaments power and priviledges continue in such force above a Kings whilst they act for the good of those for whom both were constituted and from whom the same end both did and doe receive their power which Mr. Prynne proves at large in his Book of the Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdome particularly these words Iunius Brutus p. 154. A King exists by and for the people and cannot consist without the people and that all Officers are chosen by the people Severall other Authors to the same purpose he quotes but desirous to hasten to a conclusion I wave and proceed to discover how palpably your selves are guilty of the breach of this oath First as to that particular which you did sweare to defend the late Kings person c. you are guilty of perjuty for that you never ventured your lives persons and estates to preserve his person many times perhaps not intentionally yet accidentally in jeopardy from the Parliaments Forces against whom according to this clause in your oath with your temporall All you should have defended him Secondly as to the maintenance of his Honour you faile likewise since you have complied with the Parliament a● least by silence to detract from his honour by intending to dimini●h that Authority which formerly though unlawfully he had in the Kingdome I hirdly to be briefe by your sileatiall complying with the Parliament in depriving him of his because possest of it though it were and is the peoples former estate M. Prynne proves this at large in the 162. page of his Soveraigne power of Parliaments and Kingdomes in his seventh Observation his words are That Emperours Kings Princes are not the true proprietary Lords or owners of Lands Revenues Forts Castles Ships Iewels Ammunition Treasure of their Empires Kingdomes to alienate or dispose of them at their pleasures but onely the Guardians Trustees Stewards or Supervisors of them for their Kingdoms use and benefit from whom they cannot alien them nor may without their consents or privities lawfully dispose of them or any of them to the publick prejudice which if they doc their Grants are void and revocable Now as to this first clause in that oath in which I have shewed you are guilty of a breach the Army is clear in what they have adherd to the end of the Covenant the peoples safety which they are principally to endeavour though against other subordinate inclusions that prove prejudiciall thereto as to the Oaths of Allegiance the

Parliament c. in the defence of the true Religion c. because this is one of your main accusations against the Army that you say they have not endeavoured to preserve Religion in as much likewise as that it is distinct from the Peoples civill liberties and the first thing necessary could it infallibly be determined I shall propound some things to your consideration as to clear the Army from your aspersions herein so likewise to illuminate your selves and stop if reason will your invectives And The first is this did we in covenanting to preserve and defend the true Religion swear to maintain your Religion Especially when we were not convinced of the truth of it and then though it were so if we knew it not how could we keep the Covenant in maintaining it as true And therefore I answer in the negative we did not weare to defend your way of Government because this were sinfully to depend upon your judgements for the nuth of it which your selves cannot make out to be Iure Divino so infallible and therefore not to be imposed upon others Again suppose we had ingag'd to have maintained your Government of Uniformity as being to our light the truest way then extant yet could this ingagement firmly extend to times of greater light not sinfully suppresse the truth As for instance Had you in the dayes of Episcopacy taken an Oath without any limitations exprest to maintain and defend it yet could you think your selves obliged to have kept it when convinced of the way that you are now in and not forget that a greater light alwayes extinguisheth a lesser as the light of a Torch that of a Candle Now then what I would inferre herefrom is That seeing it cannot infallibly be cleared which is the true in that we expect and doe or should patiently wait according to Gods promises for a more perfect Religion which needs no bodily defence from the power of Man the best way to preserve this Covenant unviolated is to tolerate many opinions or if you will religions For by this meanes there will be a doore opened for the truest to have free passage which through the power of the Spirit will at length triumph but otherwise constrain'd conformity to one way not the perfectest is to limit and consine the Spit of God to a generall illumination which limitation how sinfull and dispensation if at all how seldome let any reasonable men judge Therefore such a predicted toleration endevoured by any cannot be reputed a breach of covenant Now then the other particular viz. the peoples liberties in the end of our Covenant the first viz. true Religion being yet in obscurity doth appeare to be the sole and visible end of our engagement and therefore the Master-wheele upon which the motion of the power and priviledges of Parliament and the person of the King though by this Oath waving his Office being the cause of his greatnesse we are no more tied to his then a private mans person as being under and lesser wheeles doth depend Now therefore those that have complied with the two former which indeed are but instruments and as men cannot build without tools so a people cannot rule without some elected and compendious form yet as the instrument cannot ascribe any thing to it self in the work it is appointed unto being made guided and acted by man even to the Parliament or any others 〈◊〉 whom the people shall contract themselves to govern and prescribe them Rules accordingly cannot ascribe the good discharge of their trust according to those rules unto themselves so much as to the people that instituted them since likewise that the burthen of the ill managing of their power if not redressed by would most of all be laid upon the people I say these that have complied with the two former that are but as instruments in the peoples hands and herein have preferred the shell before the kinnell the effect before the cause their motion before the suggestion and this against the liberties of the people the very end of their and our Covenant those are the onely persons that have violated their oath For in all Obligations as well temporall in which the liberties of the people as in this of ours is principally aimed at as in spirituall in which the glory of God is or should be chiefly intended the end the thing aimed at the cause of the obligation is above the bond or tye thereof because not endeavouring or neglecting to attain the end doth occasion the breach of the bond and tye of a Covenant And therefore the use of an oath in this case is onely to incite in that there is an ingagement lies upon the spirit of those that sweare firmly and undauntedly to prosecute their end which they cannot doe as that Oath against Conspiracies testifieth but in opposition to all the enemies thereof therefore if Parliament as your faction therein did and the King not onely desist from endeavouring that end of the Covenant viz. The peoples liberties upon which condition they were included in preservation but also turn enemies though intended for the former end to the good of the same the covenanted ones cannot be free from the infamy of connivance and perjury unlesse they couragiously in prosecution of their cathes end notwithstanding all other literall conditionall and subordinate inclosions therein oppose them as enemies thereunto But now unto this effect the Army in their late transactions hath manifested their opposition unto the two former therefore they have performed the Covenants insomuch that the world may beare witnesse with their consciences that they had no th●ughts the premises considered to diminish his Majesties just power and greatnesse Now then your grand objections from the Covenant being fully answered and the Army from your aspersions hereupon vindicated as I hope all reasonable men will clearly discern it were an easie thing to reply all your subsequent quotations of examples of Gods judgements upon Covenant-breakers upon your selves since you have neglected the end and so are guilty of the breach of the bond and tye of your Covenant but I wave this and shall with more brevity and lesser pains prove the said quotations misapplied and impertinent And therefore to the first of them viz that oath of Zedekiah Ezek. 17.14 15 16 19 King of Jerusalem of obedience to the King of Babylon I answer that his oath was absolute and without any conditions to be performed on the King of Babylons part so is not ours as hath been amply proved Againe the end of his Covenant was perfect obedience as to civill affaires ours limited to the peoples liberties his attempt of the peoples freedome or perhaps his own rather then theirs being against the will of God in that his oath was inconditionall and he had no such superiour relation and power above the King of Babylon and so exposed the people more unto his tyrannicall will and power then before ours being agreeable to the will

much hurtfull to the commonwealth to what effect was their convening and sitting what profit would insue therefrom or how could they discharge their trust to the Kingdome since also the laws if rightly constituted are usually prescribed by them Now then upon these considerations the Parliament had power to erect the Court of Justice which in answer to your first of those objections when constituted and invested with p●wer had the King pleaded oathes were ready to be administred But I cannot but observe how punctuall you would be in every tittle of the law of the Land that serves your turn and yet so partiall in the law of God and our law likewise For can the law be justly administred when a King is known to break such and such points thereof and yet be exempted the penalty because a King Would not this make his Authority or Office which simply is just and good become a protection to the vice of his person Can you not as soon make good to have communion and fellowship with evill Again do you not hereby frustrate all the force that lies upon the example of a King to induce his subjects likewise to yeeld obedience to his law And is it not a meanes to make him live more carelesly and licentiously without so weighty an argument against the appearance of evill when he is tolerated to live uncontrollably And doe you not make partiall the law of God when thereby you will take liberty to restrain and oppose yet leave unpunished when you may as lawfully punish the ill manners of a King But rather may not the law take hold of a King if murderer adulterer or offender in any other poynt thereof according to the penalty of it and yet be no attempt or prejudice to his authority or Office when indeed it appeares purest when impartially executed opon his owne person Of this le●●easonable men judge But not to leave it altogether upon my self I shall confirm it with the opinion of others and therefore take what Mr. Prinne cites of Mariana in the 59 p. of his Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdomes viz. That all Kings and Princes among others the Kings of Spaine are and ought to be bound by laws and are not exempted from them that this doctrine out to be inculcated into the mindes of Princes from their infancy and to be believed yea oft considered of them that they are more strictly obliged to observe their laws thou Subjects because they are sworn to do it they are the conservators of the laws the avengers of those that infringe them and their example are the best means to draw Subjects to obey them When he likewise affirms that the whole Kingdome is above the King and may not onely binde him by laws but question him for the breach of them Again the same Author likewise argues there against succession if any wayes defective f●r the Office but more particularly in the 55. pag. lin 5. he saith thus much That if the King degeuerate into a tyrant by subverting Religion Laws ●iberties oppressing murthering ●r d●●●ouring his Subjects the whole kingdome may not onely question admonish and reprehend him but in case he prove incorrigible after admonition deprive him and substitute another in his place which saith he hath been done more then once in Spaine and there instenceth many Kings that have been thus dealt with and for a conclusion he adds That such a tyrannicall King continuing incorrigible after publick admonitions of the whole state if there be no hopes of amendement may not onely be deposed but put to death and m●rthered by the whole State or any particular persons by their appointment yea without it if be be declared a publisk enemy by the whole State he proceeds likewise to justifie the act in a private person which I need not cite seeing this serves my purpose now that the lawfullest part of this Nations authority though Junius Br●●us extends this power to one single person in●usted in a Kingdom against both King and the rest of the Nobles deserting it commanded what hath been executed upon the late King hath been sufficiently proved and not so much to be their command as Gods therefore I shall proceed to cite what Mr. Prinne himself saith upon this point in his So●●raign power of Parliaments and Kingdomes pag. 130.3 Position viz. That the Kings of Judah and Israel were no absolute overaign Princes ●●●●●●ke their Crown with and upon such divine conditions For breach whereof they and their posterities were often times by Gods command just judgement and speciall approbation deposed de inberited destroyed and the Crown translated to other familyes For this he quotes Iunius Brutus though you would so much vilifie the same as from a Jesuit being quoted by Mr. Price as likewise divers scriptures and Iosephus upon one text to the same ●slect but especially in the conclusion of this his Position he cites that Swinglius with B. Dilson expressely resolves that the People were bound to refist question and depose their Kings for Idolatry and breach of those conditions as before demonstrated and that God himselfe jusily punished them viz. the People for Manassahs sins and wickednesse because they re●i●●ed and punished him not for them as they were obliged to doe where he affirms likewise pag. 136. that the children of Israel their Rulers Kings and People did joymly make a Covenant frequently to serve the Lord and the violators thereof to dye the death where he saith the King and the Queen not excepted in six or seven of those pages he treat● of the same subject but I know this is sufficient testimony to this truth and therefore shall for bear to insert more of his authors hereupon Therefore lastly to your objection which I sinde thrice asserted litterally and oftner to the same effect viz. That it the Murderer should be put to death which you grant is a known precept why then were not Goring Owen say you with the rest of the Kings party that in a military way have shed blood put to death To this I answer that as the killing of one Zimri Cozbi heads of their Families appeased the wrath and Law of God though doubtlesse had Moses proceeded to the condemnation and execution of some of the rest guilty of the same fact it would have been just as neither his omission thereof through mercy could be no neglect of the Lawes injunction so likewise may the execution of such persons as are found principall causes and most of all the chiefest of blood-shed in a military way satisfie the Law though themselves might not actually shed blood when such that as we say hab nab might act therein through the others seductions may justly mercifully be remitted even as the seducers are usually punished when the seduced though both in the same fact are through the mercy of justice absolved Many instances of this might be produced but finding the scope of your matter fully answered I shall wind up all in this advice to you viz. That if you be Mr. Love or of his profession you would according to your calling meddle more in your study and lesse in the State more in tuition and lesse in sedition then shall the Nation be lesse disturbed Authority more obeyed and your Parishioners better instructed FINIS