Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	absolute_a	according_a	act_n	80	3	5.7666	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52047	A plea for defensive armes, or, 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 ministerie, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certain 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 perpetual infamie 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 armes	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1643 (1643)	Wing M768; ESTC R15835	25,154	32

appeal and consequently against which there is no resistance So that if men would read this Text of the thirteenth to the Romans in plain English it amounts directly to thus much Let every 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 shal 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 Aristocracy 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 Lawes 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 Kingdome 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 Object Other places of Scriptures the adversaries seeme 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 are oppressed by it for Origen Theophylact Titus Euthimius interpret 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 Object 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 hel 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 neighbours 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 evil thing against him he hath power to do whatever he will Si scelus patraveris effugere non poteris If you commit evil you cannot escape punishment where the word of a King is there is power viz. to punish them that do evil and none to call him to account for doing it and who can say unto him What dost thou Object Another text is Proverb 8. 15. By me Kings reigne 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 Judges of the Earth Secondly Although no such thing is in the Text