Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	king_n	law_n	resist_v	2,184	5	9.6676	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89562	A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministry, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust, and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certaine malignants in the city, and lately printed at Oxford, in their Mendacium Aulicum, otherwise called Mercurius Aulicus, and sent abroad into other nations to his perpetuall infamy. In which letter the accusation is fully answered. And together with that, the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments taking up defensive arms is briefly and learnedly asserted and demonstrated, texts of Scripture cleared, all objections to the contrary answered, to the full satisfaction of all those that desire to have their consciences informed in this great controversie.; Plea for defensive arms.	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1643 (1643)	Wing M750; Thomason E102_10; ESTC R21572	25,726	33

Councell of Basil proved the Councell to be above the Pope and a Kingdom above the King and said they were but flatterers who taught otherwise And fourthly doth not right reason as much abhorre this that whereas Princes are the publike fathers and the people owe them the duty of children that these children should be prohibited from keeping their publike fathers from the greatest evils If our naturall father through ignorance or distemper should go into a pest-house his children might by force fetch him out or if in a raging passion go about to kill himself wife children or any others their children may disarme them yea we are tied not to suffer friend or foe to incurre the guilt of rapine or blood if it lie in our power to hinder it and speak to my reason what evill have Princes deserved that if they go about to murder themselves subjects and children not any of their people no not the whole body politick should have power to restrain them And if reason will allow this liberty of resistance to private persons as even Barclay and Grotius the two great propugners of the sacred and inviolable power of Kings grant how much more cleare honourable and safe must such a defence needs be when done by the representative body of a State who are Gods ordinance as well as Kings the ministers of God sent by him to be a terrour to evill and a praise to them that do well And in England are the highest Court of Judicature and in whom his Majesty confesses there is legally placed sufficient power to prevent Tyranny Upon such reasons as these not only Heathens have resisted their Princes when bent to subvert their laws and liberties but even most of the States of Christendome Papists and Protestants when they have been put to it have borne defensive Armes against the unlawfull violences of their misled Princes But now if notwithstanding all this faire shew of reason Gods word hath determined the contrary we must lay our hands upon our mouths and shall no longer deserve to be accounted the servants and subjects of Christ then while we turne our reason how specious soever out of doores when once it offers to oppose the least Iota of his revealed will But where is this Scripture to be found Certainly the good Subjects in the Old Testament knew it not Sauls Subjects who swore that Saul should not kill Ionathan nor pluck an haire from his head though Saul had sworne by God he should die knew no such Scripture and I believe that if the same men had been about him when he protested the Priests of the Lord should die they would not only have with-held their own but Doegs hands from doing execution David knew no such Scripture nor the 600 men with him that would have fortified Keilah against Saul Nor those many choice men of the severall Tribes of Israel among whom were some of Sauls brethren and kindred and chief officers that fell to David though Saul had proclaimed him traitor from day to day to help him till it was a great host like the host of God And all this while David was though an innocent yet but a private man And I think if Elias had took himselfe bound in conscience to render himselfe prisoner to the Captains which Ahaziah sent for him he would not have killed them with fire from heaven Neither would Elisha have taken such a rough course with the messengers sent to take his head Nor would the eighty valiant Priests have thrust Vzziah by force out of the Temple who was a King still though a Leper Neither can these examples be eluded with saying these were extraordinary persons for first they were not all so not the people that resisted Saul nor the people that fell to David nor the eighty Priests unlesse in the extraordinarinesse and valiancy of their spirits And for the extraordinary persons themselves I know nothing why their examples may not be pleaded for our Defensive Armes as well as Davids eating the shewbread was pleaded by our Saviour for his Disciples rubbing the ears of corn unlesse they can first shew that their practice was against a known law I mean unlesse there were some known law that Innocents might not defend themselves and one another against the unjust violence of their Princes Indeed we often read in the Old Testament of Fearing the King Honouring the King Obeying the King which their practice shewes they understood to bind them to yeeld Honour Loyalty Obedience and Subjection to their Magistrates according to law but not that they were bound to let them doe what mischeife they pleased Neither is there any more in the new Testament there indeed are full and frequent exhortations to submit our selves to Magistrates to be subject to the higher Powers which are ordained of God and not to resist the Ordinance of God but not one word that we may not resist the Tyrannie of men no colour for it unlesse any will say that Tyrannie is Gods Ordinance that Tyrants beare the sword for the punishment of evill doers are the Ministers of God c. full proof there is that we must be under the authoritie of Rulers that is under their Legall Commands not one word of being at the dispose of their illegall wills The word used there is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} derived ab {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} licet to shew as one observes that the Text bindes subjects to obey Superiours not ablibitum but ablicitum not to obey their lawlesse lusts and wills but their lawfull authority without resisting And surely it were strange that if God had laid this yoke of subjection to the illegall will of Rulers that neither the Jewes under their Kings nor under Antiochus nor the Churches of Christ nor the primitive Churches after once their religion and liberties were established by Laws nor any of the Reformed Churches have took themselves concluded under it which of all the Reformed Churches have not by their practice manifested that religion bindes them not to give their throats to be cut or their liberties and states to be spoiled at the meer will of their Princes and their Instruments contrary to their own Laws and Edicts Were not the Lutheran Churches put to it and defended themselves against the Emperour Charles the fifth when the Smalchaldian confederacie was entring Did not both the Divines and Lawyers being consulted with agree that the inferiour Magistrates might at some time resist the Superiour Have not the States and Churches of the Netherlands done the like constantly against the King of Spain the Protestants in France against their Kings How often and how lately have our brethren in Scotland done the same And although since the Reformation England was never put to it untill these unhappy differences yet how constantly have our most learned Divines Bishops as well as others defended by their Pens and our Princes and States

by their ayds of men and money their distressed and oppressed Brethren and Neighbours in the like case and now in our own sight both the King and States have acquitted the Scots as having done nothing in their late defence but what became good Subjects And what the judgement of this Nation was in the time of Popery is plain enough by their practice in their usuall taking of Armes and not leaving till they had compelled their Princes to ratifie their Priviledges and Charters which through ill Counsellors they had infringed And observeable it is that because the Bishops and Clergie of those times saw the Princes go about to take down their pride they were ever the most forward to justifie the proceeding of the State and I suspect in case the Tables were turned and we had a King endeavouring to take downe the Bishops to take away Pluralities Non-Residents c. and a Parliament seeking to maintain them the world would hear another Divinity from many of them who now crie out that all our defence is damnable But lest I might be thought not to have weighed the Scripture and reasons of both sides equally I will give you a further account what my thoughts were and are concerning the Scriptures usually pleaded against this resistance and the reasons deduced from them The strongest hold they pretend to is built upon Romans 13. 1. c. 1 Peter 2. 13 14. where we are enjoyned subjection to the Higher Powers especially to the King as Supreme and all know that Nero the then supreme Governour was no better then a Tyrant Answ. First it is observable that this objection and almost all the rest taken out of the Scripture make the case of all Subjects in all Kingdoms to be alike that although as I touched before there are hardly two Kingdoms in the world but do differ in Laws Customs and Constitutions bounding the Kings authority and the Subjects obedience yet if any of these would change the the bounds of his authority for instance If the King of Denmarke or Sweden or Polonia would invade the liberty of his Subjects and make himselfe as absolute not onely as the King of England but as the King of France or Spaine or the Great Turk this argument tyes all their Subjects from resisting let any man shew an outgate for the Subjects of the one which will not let out others and for my part I will yeeld the cause If they say these Kings tooke their Crowns upon those termes and the Subjects indented to have libertie of resistance in such cases then they grant that where the Laws of the Kingdom allow a liberty of resistance resistance may be used notwithstanding these texts which is as much as we plead for If any people have covenanted in no case to resist let them seek another answer in the mean time these Texts tie not those from resisting by their own answer who have not tyed themselves Secondly I appeal to their own judgements whether these Texts forbid all forcible resistance Suppose a Prince in his rage should go about to kill himselfe or runne some innocent man thorow with his sword might no man take the sword out of his hand and if it be lawfull for a private man to dis-arme him of the weapons wherewith he would kill one may not the State take such weapons out of his or the hands of his Instruments wherewith they goe about to destroy all Thirdly both Texts lay the same charge for subjection to inferiour Magistrates who likewise have their authoritie from God though under the Superiour As our Saviour said to Pilate who was but a Deputy thou couldst have no {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} no power at all against me if it were not given thee from above And may no resistance be made against the unjust violence of inferiour Officers if there may it is sufficient sure I am the Texts have not one word to allow the one and prohibite the other Fourthly what one syllable in either of these Texts so much as looks towards the forbidding of a people to resist Tyrannie but onely that we resist not the Magistrates in the rightfull exercise of their authority given them by God the Texts speak not of their persons but of their power not of their dictates but of their legall commands no more of Kings than of an higher Power in an Aristocracie or Democracie binding all persons to subject themselves to that Power and Authoritie which in the severall places where they live is the Highest or Supreme power Object But Nero was a Tyrant Answ. Not in his five first years nor secondly was he a Tyrant in all things he had authoritie to rule according to Law that was not his Tyrannie his Tyrannie was what he usurped contrary to the Law nor thirdly were all his under-Officers Tyrants many of them could say with Festus Acts 25. It is not the manner of the Romanes to deliver any man to die before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face and have leave to answer for himselfe and would accordingly dismisse them if they had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds Object 2. But doth not the thirteenth Chapter of the Romans plainely binde mens hands from resisting the Supreme Power Answ. By the Supreme power must be meant that power which by the originall and fundamentall Constitution of any People and Nation hath authoritie to make Lawes which shall binde the whole Nation to dispose of the estates and lives of any person or persons for the good of the Nation to judge every person and persons in the Nation determinatively and conclusively so as from that judgement there is no appealing that power it self being subject to the judgement and authoritie of none but God and Aristotle makes three distinct Branches of this power 1. The power of making and repealing Lawes a Legislative power 2. The power of making Warre and Peace of imposing Customes and Tributes 3. The power of judging Causes and Crimes ultimately and decisively where these three meet and make their residence whether in one person as in absolute Monarchs or in many as in mixed Monarchies or Aristocracies or in the body of the people as in the ancient Roman Government there is the highest power which every soule is forbidden to resist But now what ever be the higher power in England most certain it is that the Kings absolute or illegall will is not the highest power that hath neither power to make Laws nor repeale Laws that hath not power to acquit or condemne nor may men appeal from the Kings lawfull judgement Seate to the Kings absolute will but his legall will in the highest Court or the King and Parliament may make Lawes or repeal Lawes may engage the whole Nation in a Warre and command both the Bodies and Purses of men unto the service is the highest Court of Iudicature to which all may appeal and

from which none may appeal and consequently against which there is no resistance So that if men would read this Text of the thirteenth to the Romans in plaine English it amounts directly to thus much Let everie soul in England be subject to King and Parliament for they are the higher powers ordained unto you of God whosoever therefore resisteth King and Parliament resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation I would desire no other Text but this to confound the great Chaplains and Champions of the Antiparliamentary cause or to strike terrour into their Loynes if their long conversing with God-dammee's hath not drawn such a Kawl over their hearts that to them damnation is ridiculous Object 3. But doth not Saint Peter say expresly the King is Supreme 1 Pet. 2. 12. Answ 1. It may as well be translated Superiour as Supreme the same word in the 13 of the Romans is translated Superiour higher not highest 2. It is plain the Apostle is not there constituting Governments but giving direction to people to obey the Government they lived under and the Text hath as much strength to enforce subjection to Aristocracie as to Monarchy If the people of Pontus Asia Cappadocia Bithynia were under an absolute Monarchy as sometimes they were being petty Kingdoms crumbled out of the great Monarchy of Alexander and it may be did retain yet the same forme of Government if not of their own yet as lately received from the Romans all that can be enforced from thence is That the Apostle names the Kings of those particular Countries to be such as they were and commands subjection to them but no wayes tyes other Kingdoms to be like unto them Object 4. But we in England by our oaths do acknowledge the King to be Supreme Answ 1. We willingly grant Him to be Supreme to judge all persons in all causes according to His Laws and the established Orders of the Kingdom but not at or by His absolute will or pleasure 2. Whoever considers the title scope and words both of the Oath and the Act of Parliament that enjoynes it will easily see that both the Act and Oath were intended in opposition to that Supremacie which the Pope sometimes challenged and usurped in this Kingdom of England and no more And this to be the true intent and meaning of it appears more fully by that explication or limitation of the Oath made the next Parliament 5. Eliz. Wherein it is declared That that Oath made 1. Eliz. shall be taken and expounded in such form as it is set forth in an admonition added to the Queens Injunctions published Anno 1. of Her Raign viz. To confesse or acknowledge in Her Her Heirs and Successors no other Authority then that which was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth And by this time you may see how little offensive these two so much boasted Texts are to our defensive Arms Other places of Scriptures the adversaries seem not much to confide in therefore I will passe them over the more briefly yet let us a little consider of them Matth. 26. 52. They that take the sword shall perish with the sword Where Christ seems to rebuke Peter for using defensive Arms against the Officers that came with a pretext of authority to apprehend Christ Answ 1. This is not a reproof of the sword taken for just defence but of the sword taken for unjust oppression and a comfort to those that ●…re oppressed by it for Origen Theophylact Titus Euthimius interp●●● the meaning to be That Christ doth not rebuke Peter for using defensive Arms but to let Peter know that he need not snatch Gods Work out of his hand for God would in due time punish those with the sword that came thus with the sword against him and that these words are a Prophesie of the punishment which the Roman sword should enact of the bloudy Jewish Nation according with the like expression Revel. 13. 10. He that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword here is the patience and faith of the Saints that is This may comfort the Saints in their persecutions that God will take vengeance for them But Secondly Suppose it was a reproof of Peters using the sword then the plain meaning is to condemn Peters rashnesse who drew his sword and never staid to know his Masters minde whether he should strike or not and so reproves those who rashly unlawfully or doubtingly use the sword Adde this That now was the hour come of Christs suffering and not of his Apostles fighting wherein Christ would not be rescued no not by twelve Legions of Angels much lesse then by the sword of man Therefore he saith to Peter put up thy sword c. But intended not that it should alwayes be unlawfull for his people to use the sword in their just defence against unjust violence for then he would never have commanded them but a little before that he that hath two Coats let him sell one and buy a sword Eccles. 8. 2. c. I counsell thee to keep the Kings Commandment c. He doth whatever he pleaseth c. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him what dost thou Answ 1. No man can understand it literally in all things as if every Commandment of the King must be kept as if no actions of the King might be scanned nor reproved by any man as the Canonists say of the Pope That if he lead thousands to hell none may say why dost thou so Surely if Saul command to murder the Lords Priests that commandment need not be kept If David lie with his neighbors wife Nathan may say why dost thou so If Ahab murder Naboth and swallow his Inheritance worship Baal persecute and kill the Prophets of the Lord Elijah may reprove him notwithstanding this Text Who can say unto him what dost thou Secondly The Text plainly enough interprets it self Keep the Kings Commandment according to the Oath of God stand not in an evill thing against him he hath power to do what ever he will Siscelus patraveris effugere non poteris If you commit evill you cannot escape punishment where the word of a King is there is power viz. To punish them that do evill and none to call him to account for doing it and who can say unto him what dost thou Another Text is Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings raign c. Whence they plead That because Kings and Princes receive their authority only from God and the people at the utmost only designe the Person but give him none of his power therefore they may in no case take away his power from him Answ 1. It saith no more of Kings then of Nobles Senators and all other Judges of the earth for it follows By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the

want not examples of such defence in the Primitive times when once Religion was establisht by Edict of the Romane Empire and Licinius the Emperour of the East legum violator maximus contrary to Law and his Covenant would persecute the Christians they defended themselves by Arms and Constantine the great joyned with them And as Eusebius saith held it his dutie infinitum hominum genus paucis nefariis hominibus tanquam quibusdam corruptelis è medio sublatis in columes servare To deliver an infinite multitude of men by cutting off a few wicked ones as the pests and plagues of the time The Christians living under the Persian King and wronged by him sought for help from the Romane Emperour Theodosius and were assisted by him and when the King of Persia complained that Theodosius should meddle in a●fairs of his Kingdom Theodosius answered that he did not onely protect them because they were suppliants but was ready to defend them and no way to see them suffer for Religion it being the same with their own It seems they thought it as lawfull to help an innocent people against the oppressions of their own Prince as for one neighbour to succour another against theeves and robbers The Macedonians obtained of the Emperour Constantius four thousand armed men to help them drive out the Novatians from Paphlagonia the Orthodox assisted the Novatians against the unjust violence and were armed falcibus clavis securibus with sithes clubs and hatchets and cut off almost all the Souldiers and many of the Paphlagonians At Constantinople the Orthodox defended Paulus his Election against Macedonius and his abettors though assisted with the Militarie Forces and the Historian blames them onely for killing the Commander Hermogenes Justina Valentinianus mother infected with Arianisme commanded to banish Ambrose but the people resisted and for a while defeated the plot of them who would have sent Ambrose into banishment The inhabitants of Armenia the greater professing the Christian Faith were abused by the Persians among whom they lived especially for their Religion they entred into a league with the Romanes for their safetie You see here are some examples where the ancient Christians used defensive Arms and I doubt not but such as are well read in the stories of those times might produce many more But there is one Doctour who goes about to prove by reason that oppressed Subjects should not defend themselves against their Princes though bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties because forsooth such resistance tends to the dissolution of Order and Government that is to disable Princes from subverting Religion Law and Liberty which is the very dissolution of all Order and Government tends to the dissolution of all Order and Government as if hindring a man from pulling down his house were the pulling down the house As if the hindring the Pilot from dashing the Ship against the rock tended to dash the Ship against the rock If any man else see any colour of reason in this reason I desire them to make it appear for for my part I can see none And indeed the case is so cleer that most of them who cry down defensive Arms though they use such Scriptures and Arguments to work upon the consciences of people yet when they come to dispute it will hardly endure to have the Question rightly stated as being unwilling to dash against the rock of most learned Divines whether Protestants or Papists and I think of almost all Politicians but fall to discusse matters of fact charging the Parliament with invading the Kings just Prerogative usurping an exorbitant power and authority c. yea His Majestie in all his Declarations insists onely upon this never suggesting that in Conscience they are prohibited to defend themselves in case he should violently invade their Liberties yea expresly grants that there is power sufficient legally placed in the Parliament to prevent Tyrannie And therefore now I leave the case of Divinitie and shall more briefly give you an account what satisfied me in the second I mean matter of fact that His Majestie being seduced by wicked councell did leavie war against the Parliament My great evidence was the Parliament judged so the judgement of a Parliament of England was never questioned till now by a people of England all Patents Charters Commissions Grants Proclamations and Writs of the Kings of England receive their judgement and are often repealed and made null by a Parliament all controversies betwixt the King and Subject receive their finall determination in the Parliament the judgements of all other Courts are ratified or nullified by a Parliament I have heard some wise men say that a Parliament in England like Pauls spirituall man judgeth all and it self is judged of none and therefore if I should give you no other account of my entring upon my Office in the Armie which was not to fight nor meddle in the Councell of War but onely to teach them how to behave themselves according to the Word that God might be with them should I I say give no other account but the determination of that wise assembly I should be acquitted by indifferent men But although I had learned that no dishonourable thing should be imagined of that Honourable Assembly yet I held it my dutie not to yeeld blinde obedience or go by an implicite Faith but search whether the things were so and the rather because both sides have appealed to heaven to that God who no doubt in due time will clear the righteous cause And upon my search these things were quickly apparent It was very cleare that the persons too much prevailing with His Majesty had long before this Parliament a designe for overthrowing our Lawes enslaving our Liberties and altering our Religion and it had so far prevailed that we were tantùm non swallowed up and when through the good Providence of God this Parliament was called and many hopes conceived that now his Majesty seeing the mischiefe of adhering to such ill Counsellors would for the time to come be wholly guided by the great Councell of his Kingdome alas it soone appeared that the same kinde of Counsellors were still most prevayling insomuch that soone after the pacification with Scotland the Northerne Army should have beene brought up to London as appeares by the very Oaths of some who should have acted it a thing then thought so pernicious that not onely the chiefe actors fled beyond the Seas but many reall Courtiers earnestly solicited their friends in both Houses that this our in excusable error might be passed over and now to begin upon a new score But that which made me the more suspect their prevailing with his Majesty was that the horrid Rebellion broken out in Ireland the Rebels pretending His Majesties and the Queens Commission for their warrant it was at least three moneths after before they were proclaimed Traytors and when it was done no Copies of the Proclamations to be got