Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	power_n	supreme_a	2,768	5	8.6947	4	true

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

Princes and States by their aides 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 judgment 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 down the Bishops to take away Pluralites Non-residents c. And a Parliament seeking to maintain them the world would hear another Divinitie from many of them who now cry out that all our defence is damnable But lest I might be thought not to have vveighed the Scripture and reasons of both sides equally I vvill give you a further account vvhat my thoughts vvere 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. vvhere vve 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 Kingdomes to be alike that although as I touched before there are hardly two Kingdomes in the world but do differ in Lavves Customes and Constitutions bounding the Kings authority and the Subjects obedience yet if any of these would change the bounds of his authoritie for instance If the King of Denmarke or Sweden or Polonia vvould invade the libertie 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 Turke this argument tyes all their Subjects from resisting let any man shew an out-gate for the Subjects of the one vvhich vvill not let out others and for my part I vvill yeeld the cause If they say these Kings took their Crowns upon those termes and the Subjects indented to have liberty of resistance in such cases then they grant that vvhere the Laws of the Kingdome allovv a liberty of resistance resistance may be used notvvithstanding these texts which is as much as vve 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 himself or run 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 go 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 buta 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 vvhere they live is the highest or supreme power Object But Nero was a Tyrant Answ. Not in his five first years nor secondly vvas 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 vvere 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 hee which is accused have the accusers face to face and have leave to answer for himself and vvould accordingly dismisse them if they had done nothing worthie of death or of bonds Object 2. But doth not the thirteenth Chapter of the Romanes plainly binde up 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 Laws 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 War 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 Romane government there is the highest power which every soul 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 Seat 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 War and command both the Bodies and Purses of men unto the service is the highest Court of Judicature to which all my appeal and from which none may

that the people give no power to the Magistrate yet we will suppose it to be true what then will follow more then this That although they may not take from the Magistrate that power which God hath given him yet they may defend themselves against such unjust violences as God never gave the Magistrate power to commit A woman hath power to designe the person of her husband to her self but the authoritie of a husband is from God now though the wife may not take away the husbands just authority she may defend her self against oppression and injury Object Some alledge Gods judgement upon the two hundred and fifty Princes Numb. 16. Answ. They were Rebels against their lawfull Governours ruling exactly according to the expresse will of God And may all those perish with them who will plead for such as they are Object Others alledge 1 Sam. 8. 11. where the people are let to understand how they shal be oppressed by their Kings yet for all that have no just cause of resistance for they shall have no other remedy left them but preces lachrimae crying to the Lord Vers. 8. Answ. But saith the Text so Let us read the words a little and you shall cry out in that day Because of the King which you have chosen and the Lord shall not hear in that day Is this to say they have no just cause of resistance nor no remedy left but complaining Indeed if the Holy Ghost had said You shal not resist nor fight for your liberties c. there had been some shew of reason for such a deduction as some would extort from them but yet even then Why might not the words have been a prediction of the curse of God upon the people giving them up to such a base degenerate ignoble spirit that they shall have no heart to stand up in the defence of their liberties and lives rather then a prohibition of such resistance The Lord foretels the people Ezek. 24. 21. of calamitous times in which he tels them Verse 24. That they should not mourn or weep Will any man interpret this as if God made it unlawful for them to mourn or to weep or was it not rather a prediction of their stupidity of spirit when they should pine away under these calamities so Jere. 27. God said they should put their necks under the yoke of the Kings of Babylon Will any man thence gather That other People are bound to put their necks under the yoke of a forraign enemy invading them In one vvord the plain meaning is That this People should dearly rue it for casting off the form of Government which God had chosen for them and vvhen they should mourn under their ovvn choice God vvould not take the yoke from off their necks and so it is a threatning of a judgement not an imposition of a duty Object But David durst not lift up his hand against the Lords Anointed though he did tyrannically persecute him yea though it vvere sometimes in his povver to have killed him Answ. No man pleads that any David should kill the Lords Anointed yet he may defend himself against his unjust violence as David here did Object But if they may not kill him vvho can be secured That in a battell as at Keynton field his bullet may not hit the Lords Anointed Answ. Is this their fault vvho have so often petitioned his Majestie to vvithdraw himself from such dangerous vvayes as both the Parliament and his Excellencie hath done if their petitions vvould have been received or rather theirs who the vvorse Subjects they and the more accursed they have led Him into these unnaturall Warres and do in a manner inforce His presence in them Did they bear that affection to His Majestie as they pretend They vvould vvith Davids men Swear Thou shalt no more go out with us to battell lest thou quench the light of Israel 2. Sam. 21. 17. We have heard much of the Cavaliers svvearing but I never yet heard that one of them had the honestie to swear this Nay they are vvronged in reports if some of them have not sworn the contrarie Object But David vvould not fight against him Answ. Indeed he never did fight against him because his numbers never vvere considerable till tovvards the last but he vvould have fortified the Citie of Keilah against him And it had been a strange madnesse to have had 600. men vvith him if his conscience would have suffered him to have done nothing but flee sure one might more easily be hid then 600. But there is a plain text assuring us that David and his men vvoud have done more then run up and dovvn if occasion had served 1 Chron. 12. 16. and so forvvard When divers of the children of Judah and Benjamin came to joyne with him David vvent out to meet them and said If ye be come to help me c. But if ye come to betray me to my enemies I being innocent the God of our fathers look upon it and rebuke it Now mark their answer the spirit came upon Amasa the chief Captain and he said Thine are we David and of thy side peace be to thee and peace to thy helpers then David received them and made them Captains of the band Can any man imagine their meaning vvas to run up and dovvn the Countries vvith him if they vvere able to cope vvith any number that Saul should bring or send against them especially adding this to it That they fell to him from the severall Tribes day by day till his host was like an host of God Now by these mens argument if Davids host had been fourtie thousand and Saul come against him but with five or six hundred they must all have fled from him and not have put it to a battell Credat Judaeus Appella non ego Object But the Fathers of the Primitive times knew no defence but preces lachrymae in all their unjust sufferings Answ. 1. It follows not because they knew it not therefore we cannot know it there might be speciall reasons of Gods dispensations towards them 2. Their Liberties and Religion were not established by Law and this was the cause saith Abbot Bishop of Salisbury why the Christians in the Primitive times before their Religion was established by Law caedebantur non caedebant would rather be killed then kill But after the times of Constantine when Religion was established they shook off the yoke of persecution from the Church caedebant non caedebantur they did kill rather then be killed 3. Where did any of the Fathers ever oppose this opinion and condemn this practice that is declaring it unlawfull especially for a representative body to defend themselves against the unjust violence of their mis-led Princes I beleeve if any such testimonies were to be found the Parliament should have heard of them before this time 4. We want not examples of such defence in the Primitive times when once Religion was establisht