Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n according_a justice_n law_n 1,616 5 4.3920 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A19328 The ungirding of the Scottish armour: or, An ansvver to the informations for defensive armes against the Kings Majestie which were drawn up at Edenburgh, by the common help and industrie of the three tables of the rigid covenanters of the nobility, barons, ministry, and burgesses, and ordained to be read out of pulpit by each minister, and pressed upon the people, to draw them to take up armes, to resist the Lords anointed, throughout the vvhole kingdome of Scotland. By Iohn Corbet, minister of Bonyl, one of the collegiate churches of the provostrie of Dunbartan. Nicanor, Lysimachus, 1603-1641. 1639 (1639) STC 5753; ESTC S119005 43,296 68

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

ought to feare the King for he is set over us to doe Justice Neither is the question whether Honour should be given to evill Superiours for as our Adversaries by moving of such questions at this time under pretext of dutie doe wrong and dishonour to the Kings gracious Majestie so we professe in the generall that the wickednesse of man cannot avoid Gods Ordinance and therefore although we had froward and wicked Superiours yet obedience and honour is to be given unto them as being set up by God as it were in his wrath Hos 13.11 Neither is the question whether we ought absolute obedience to an evill Magistrate for our adversaries whatsoever be their judgement and practice doe not affirme that malo in malo or ad malum est obediendum but that Kings are to be obeyed so farre as their Commandements are not contrary to Gods and if God command one thing and they the contrary in this case it 's better to obey God than man Neither is the question about the invasion of the King or any of his Kingdomes which is the despitefull and divellish calumnie of the disnatured enemies of this Kirk and Kingdome But the question is meerly and simply about our owne defence And in this also wee would put difference betweene the King resident in this Kingdome and by opening his eares to both parties rightly informed and the King farre from us in another Kingdome hearing the parties and misinformed by our adversaries Between the King as King proceeding Royally according to the lawes of the Kingdome against rebells and the King comming downe from his Throne at the feet whereof the humble supplication of his subjects yet lyeth ananswered furiously to invade his loyall and well-meaning people Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and tyed no further but according to his owne pleasure to the professors of Religion within his Dominion and our King professing with us the same Religion and obliged by his fathers deed and his owne oath to defend us his owne Subjects our lives religion liberties and lawes Again difference would be put betwixt some private persons taking armes for resistance and inferiour Magistrates Counsellors Iudges Nobles and Peeres of the Land Parliament-men and Barons Burgesses and the whole body of the Kingdome except some few Courtiers States-men papists or popishly affected Betweene subjects rising or standing out against law and reason that they may be free from the yoake of obedience and a people holding fast their alleageance to their Soveraigne and in all humilitie supplicating for Religion and Iustice. Betweene a people labouring by Armes to introduce innovations in religion contrary to Gods Word and a people seeking nothing so much as against all novations to have the same Religion ratified which hath beene professed since the reformation and hath not onely beene sworne to solemnly long since by the Kings Majestie and the whole Kingdome both of old and of late but also commanded by the Kings Majestie to be sworne by his Councellors and all people as it was professed at first Betweene a people pleading for their owne fancies follies and inventions and a people suspending their judgement and practice about things controverted till they should be determined in a Nationall assemblie the only proper and competent jurisdiction and after determination receiving and standing for the Acts of the Assemblie The question then is whether in this case matters thus standing betwixt the King and this kingdome defensive warre be lawfull or whether the people ought to defend themselves against extreame violence and oppression bringing utter ruine and desolation upon the Kirk and Kingdome upon themselves and their posteritie That it is lawfull for us to take up Armes for our defence against such unjust violence it is manifest by these reasons following Anticovenanter I Many Tautologies are here used in stating the Controversie and you remove that which is the question and makes that the question which I am perswaded you know to be not the question 2. You multiply words to affect the ignorant the question is not say you whether we ought to honour obey or feare the King or whether we ought to give Caesar that which is Caesars Know you not that the last question comprehends all these is not honour feare and obedience Caesars due 3. You are very charitable that you say whatever be out judgement and practice yet we affirme in word that absolute obedience in evill is not to be given to wicked men 4. You make many differences about defensive armes to no effect The first difference betweene the King resident in the Kingdome hearing impartially the complaint of both parties c. I pray you tell me if the King were here resident and did impartially heare you and gave sentence against you would you not then resist Would you not even then be judges in your owne cause and take up defensive armes Whether the King be at home with you or abroad he shall still be one partiall and unequall judge so long as he goeth not with you Your second difference is of the like stuffe Between the King proceeding by lawes and the King comming furiously against his Subjects His Majestie was still well pleased and so remaineth to proceed according to the Laws but you will not stand to his judgement but must be judges in your owne cause and now if his Majestie after so long contempt of him and his Lawes bee forced to draw the sword of Iustice you cry out hee commeth furiously against you Your third difference is of the same nature Betweene a King who is a stranger to religion and a King who is of the same with us What make you the difference herein Will you not resist a stranger to religion if he invade you by armes The stranger to religion by the Law of God and his calling is bound to defend the Religion within his Dominions aswell as our King onely this our King is more obliged by his generall calling of Christianitie and by his owne fact and deed and blessed be God he will ever do it Your fourth difference is of no purpose also Betweene a private man and the whole bodie of a Kingdome for the most part c. Tell me then doe you grant that one private man ought not to defend himselfe against the Supreme Magistrate by armes albeit it bee true that he may not and you doe here deny it yet you must be forced to acknowledge the lawfulnes of it for afterward your reason shall make it good that you maintain the lawfulnesse of a private mans taking up of armes against the Lords anointed You doe no small in jurie to our Nation to affirme that the whole bodie of the Kingdome except a few c. 1. For it 's notorious that the whole body of the Kingdome for the most part did never dreame of such a thing as to take up armes against the Lords anointed but were most deceitfully parswaded that their covenant did not carry
a Reall and Royall answer from the most gratious and most learned King Iames of Blessed memory in his Booke intituled Ius Liber a Monarchiae pa. 193. Nego ego tempore Coronationis inter regem subditos pactum ini●i c. I deny sayes he that in the time of the Coronation there is any such covenant betweene the King and his Subjects But this is manifest that at that time or at the beginning of his raigne sponte suá of his owne accord the King promiseth to discharge honestly and faithfully that charge which God hath committed and entrusted him with 2 Though it were granted that there were such a mutuall contract yet his Majesty demonstrates most clearely that it cannot helpe this cause If the King sayes hee shall not keepe his part of the Covenant who shall be judge between these parties there is none who hath but attained to a smal taste of the civill Law who knoweth not that the contract cannot be esteemed violated by the one partie nor the other absolved of his part of the contract before that it be made manifest by the cognition and Tryall of the ordinarie judge which of the parties hath departed from the Contract For this is the caution of every civill and municipiall Law otherwise what could hinder but that every man in his owne cause may be both Judge and partie then the which there can bee nothing thought more absurd Now in that contract between the King and his Subjects without all controuersie onely God is Iudge to whom alone the King is bound to give acount of his administration because in that oath at the Kings inauguration both the judgement and vengeance of his perfidious dealing is given onely to God Therefore since God alone is the judge between the parties and since the try all and vengeance onely doth belong to him it must necessarily follow that God must first pronouce the sentence against the King before the people can be thought free of their part of the Covenant of obedience and subjection And so there is no man so blind but he may see how unjustly you make your selfe judge in your owne cause and usurpe the place of God 3. From this your mutuall contract you must shew that his Majesty not only obligeth himselfe to performe his Kingly office but also giveth power to the people when they judge that he failes in his part to resist him by force of armes or else you are idle to alleadge such contract And if you will produce this I have no more to say but that the King hath denuded himselfe of Royall authority and devolved it into the peoples hands he onely in name and the people in effect being King and supreme judge in their owne cause and so the King must stand Vt magna nominis umbra But you would doe well to produce such a contract out of the Vtopia of your owne braine Covenanter From Acts of Parliament ratifying the three Estates Authority 10. Argument and from our owne ecclesiasticall and civill Historie Anticovenanter 1 There can be no Acts of Parliament but those the King sets downe with advice of his Estates 2 And can you shew any Act of Parliament for the lawfulnes of resisting Princes or can you shew that there is any Act of Parliament giving authority to the Estates to resist His Majesty to execute Iustice 4 Doe you attribute any authoritie to these which ye cal the three Estates without the King You must know that the King is the onely Law-giver the Parliament is but his extraordinarie Councell and the Estates thereof are his extraordinarie Counsellours by whose advice hee enacts Lawes Consider also there was no Law in the Kingdome of Scotland before the Kings of it for before Fergusius his dayes we were but like Salusticus Aborigenes Genus hominum agreste liberum atque solutum sine legibus sine imperio But when the first King did conquer this Land he and his Successours gave Lawes divided the whole Land which was their owne and distinguished the orders of men and did establish a politicall government This is clear by our Chronicles and Ex archivis regijs in quibus antiquum primaevum jus asservatur satis constat Regem esse Dominum omnium bonorum directum omnes subditos esse ejus vassallos qui latifundia sua ipsi dōino referant accepta sui nempé obsequij servitij praemia 4 If you attribute such incompatible power to these Estates Why did not you by vertue thereof conclude this warre You ought first to hold a Parliament and then conclude warre But pardon me you have done so Your three Tables is for Your three Estates which hath ordained this warre 5. Which are these three Estates now Episcopacie is thrust from you and over-ruling Elders are in their place who are busie Bishops in another mans Diocesse and have been too busie in my parish And shall they supply their place in Parilament As for your Ecclesiasticall and civill Historie if that be Knox Buchanans regni jus expresly condemned by Act of Parliament you may be ashamed to name them and ought to have covered their nakednesse if you had respected them You have published in print to the great disgrace of Knooe that he called kneeling at the Communion An Invention of the Divell and will you here make him a Doctor of Treason Covenanter From our Covenant lately sworne and subscribed 1. Argument binding us to defend the Kings Majesties person in defence of the true Religion and to defend the true Religion against all persons whatsoever Anticovenanter This is indeed Ilias malorum your Covenant binds you to it and to much more even to whatsoever shall seem good to the most part of you by cōmon consent were it never so hainous For that clause of your Covenant wherein you are obliged to whatsoever shall seeme meete by common consent is a great Ocean a blanke to be filled up with what you please it seemeth good to you already for the keeping of the first Table to break the second in working the works of unrighteousnesse As to with-hold from Ministers their Stipend as conducible for your ends to threaten them with big words to lay violent hands on them in the discharge of their calling in pulpit 〈◊〉 which I have suffered and which is more to contemne and disobey Supreme Authoritie yea to take up armes against it and if you by common consent shall thinke meete to remove that blocke of authoritie out of your way you are obliged to it by your Covenant for certainely this is very conducible to your ends For if your Calder wood be true Kings are enemies to Religion in his Altare Damascenum he affirmeth that Natura insitum est omnibus regibus odium in Christum And so King James of Blessed memorie is called by him Infestissimus ecclesiae hostis And your Master-man Cartwright layeth down a ground for this overthrow of Kings as you may reade in the