Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	punish_v	punishment_n	sin_n	4,188	5	5.7311	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79833	The golden rule, or, Justice advanced. Wherein is shewed, that the representative kingdom, or Commons assembled in Parliament, have a lawfull power to arraign, and adjudge to death the King, for tyranny, treason, murder, and other high misdemeanors: and whatsoever is objected to the contrary from Scripture, law, reason, or inconveniences, is satisfactorily answered and refuted. Being, a cleer and full satisfaction to the whole nation, in justification of the legal proceeding of the High Court of Justice, against Charls Steward, late King of England. The first part. / By John Canne.	Canne, John, d. 1667?	1649 (1649)	Wing C440; Thomason E543_6; ESTC R204183	32,291	40

us our sins as we forgive them that sin against us For there is no reason from the nature of sin and the nature of Gods Law why we can say more the subjects and sons sin against the King and Father then to say the Father and King sin against the sonnes and subjects 3. The King killing his Father Jesse should sin only against God but not break the fift commandment nor sin against his Father 2. As all Emperors Kings and Princes are subject to the Lawes of God of nature and Nations so are they bound in conscience to give satisfaction and recompence to their subjects against whom they sin in this nature and David himself determines so much in his own cause And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man the man was himself 1 Sam. 12.7 thou art the man and he said to Nathan as the Lord liveth the man that hath don this shall surely die 3. For the reason of Davids speech in saying against thee thee only have I sinned Expositors are diversly minded some say he meaneth none durst judge or punish him but God onely Lorinus the Jesuit observeth eleven interpretations of Ancient writers all to this sence It is true Beda Euthymius Ambrose Chrysostome Basil Theodoret do acknowledge from the place de facto there was none above David to judge him so Augustine Basil Gregory Arnobius Dydimus Hieronim But the simple meaning is Against thee only 1. As my eye witnesse and immediate beholder for he conceal'd his sin from men but could not from God 2 Sam. 12.12 2. Because as the cause stood God only could remit the punishment of his sin 3. By only he means comparatively as if he should say principally and especially against thee Isa 43 5 Psal 41.3 and the word a 1 King 15.7 Josh 1.7.18 1 Sam. 18.17 only is often so taken 4. The Sanedrim did not punish David Ergo it was not lawful for them nor is it lawfull for a State to punish a King for any act of injustice is logick which we may resist 5. Had the adultery and murder been publickly known and complained of to the Great Councel of the Kingdom I do affirm and will stand to it that they might judicially have proceeded against him for it And because some wil be ready to brand this under the scornful terme of a new light or think I am singular herein I shall here set down the judgment of a judicious and learned professor of Divinity Mr. Sam. Rutherfurd a Scotchman Preem of Elect of King qu 26 p 241 The Prelate saith he draweth me to speak of the case of the Kings unjust murder confessed Psal 51. To which I answer He taketh it for confessed that it had been treason in the Sanedrin and States of Israel to have taken on them to judge and punish David for his adultery and murder but he giveth no reason for this nor any word of God and truly though I will not presume to go before others in this Gods law Gen. 9.6 compared with Numb 35.30,31 seemeth to say against them Nor can I think that Gods law Deut 1,17 2 Chr. 19 6,7 or his deputy the Judges are to accept the persons of the great because they are great and we say we cannot distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not The Lord speaks to under-Judges Levit. 19.15 Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor the honor of the person of the mighty or of the PRINCE for we know what these names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth I grant it is not Gods meaning that the King should draw the sword against himself but yet it follows not that if we speak of the demerit of blood that the Law of God accepteth any Judge great or small and if the STATE BE ABOVE THE KING as I conceive they are though it be a humane politick constitution that the King is free from all coaction of law because it conduceth for the peace of the Common-wealth yet if we make a matter of conscience FOR MY PART I SEE NO EXCEPTION THAT GOD MAKES OF IT if men make I crave leave to say A facto ad jus non sequitur Thus that Reverend Author Lastly This sin against Vrijah was personal and a private injury into which David fell by occasion and out of humane frailty it was the first and only sin that he committed in this kind that ever we reade of he made no trade of it he repented for it and never relapsed after into it Whereas Charles Steuart in a hostile and publick way hath murdered many thousands of his best subjects by giving Warrants and Commissions under his own hand to Atheists and Papists personally appeared in many battles to destroy the people caused sundry villages towns and cities to be ruinated by fire plunder rapine authorised villanous Pirates of other nations not to mention his own Son nor Rupert that monster of mankind to rob and kill his own subjects at sea gave Ormond commission and the bloody Irish to kill and massacre not so few as two hundred thousand men women and children of the Protestant religion in Ireland not to speak of fifteen hundred widowes which he made in one morning as Mr. Henderson told him nor the losse of Rochel in France by his lending ships to the French King and this was his trade and constant practice many yeers together and doubtlesse would have continued so to this day had not the Lord of Hosts by a powerfull hand using our Army as instrumental means supprest him and for all this his heart never smote him as it could be perceived but remain'd impenitent and incorrigeble in his sins 9. obiect It is likewise objected Jer. 29,7 That the children of Israel were commanded by God himself to pour out supplications prayers for the peace and prosperous estate of Nebuchadnezer a most cruel tyrant and that it was not lawfull for the Jewes to withdraw themselves from the subjection which they did owe unto his Empire Neither would the Lord authorize the people to deliver themselves from under Pharaoh but made Moses a Prince to bring them out of Egypt with a stretched out arm Nor did the Lord deliver his People by the wisdom of Moses or strength of the People or any act that way of theirs but by his own immediate hand and Power Hence conclude that subjects may not punish their Kings for any misdemeanour Answ 1. The Jews were not only subjects and of a private condition but likewise most of them servants and bond-men under the power and Empire of the Caldeans and therefore for private men to rise up against the Magistrates or to resist them with force of arms had been unlawfull 2. And let it be observed that the Jews came by the immediate appointment of the Lord under the power of the Caldeans of which thing they were often preadmonished and fore-told by the Prophets so that it was not only

change upon their persons neither set them at any distance touching subjection to the Law either active or passive more then they were before their personal estate was the same still as before neither are they exempted from corporall punishment if they break the Law more then any other men 2. objec It is further objected Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Again Ecc. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thoughts and curse not the rich in thy bed-chamber If Kings may not be curs'd much less put to death by their Subjects Answ 1. The first text is not properly meant of Kings but pertains rather to Judges and other sort of Rulers and so the Jew Doctors understand the place 2. Solomon well explains the place Prov. 17.26 It is not good to strike Princes for equity that is evil speaking of Magistrates for well doing is a wicked and vile thing Hier. in hunc ver ● 3. The other text by some is applyed unto Christ the King of his Church But take it literally because Kings may not be curs'd which is prohibited under pain of condemnation will it therefore follow that Kings may be theeves murderers traytors tyrants and commit any wickednesse and not be cal'd to an account by such who are above them and have a lawfull Power in their hands to punish them 4. The place comprehends Rich-men as well as Kings and therefore it may be as well concluded from it that no man if rich may be punished for any crime or fault whatsoever 5. Both these if rightly applyed are altogether for us for whosoever whether King or Prince shall curse and revile the Supream and Soveraign State of the Land and that for well doing as call them Rebels and Traytors and violently seek to destroy them he absolutely violateth this Law Thou shalt not revile the gods It is true there is here no punishment set down for him that should thus rail But seeing as one writes on the place Willet Qu. 57. he that railed on his father and mother was to die for it Exod. 21.17 much more worthy of death was he which should curse the fathers of the Countrey 3. objec I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him What dost thou Ecc. 8.2,3,4 Hence the Royallists argue If the word of a King must stand and his power not to be resisted how can his Subjects lawfully touch his Person Answ 1. To keep the Kings commandment must be understood of things just and lawfull otherwise as the Apostle saith We must obey God rather than man It is well laid down by Philo Philo de vita Mosis Regis officium est jubere quae oportet fieri vetare a quibus abstinere debet caeterum jussie faciendorum interdictio cavendoru m proprie ad Legem pertinet Atque ita consequitur ut Rex animata sit Lex vero sit Rex justissimus The office of a King is to command those things which ought to be don and to forbid those things which ought to be avoyded But the command of things to be don and the forbidding of things not to be don properly belongeth to the Law And so it followeth that a King is a living Law and the Law is a most just King 2. The oath of God here is the oath which is taken in the name of God and whereof God is made a witnesse The meaning is the King is so to be obeyed as that God is not to be disobeyed and that the oath made to the King is so to be kept as that the oath made to God be not broken Hence Tremellius reads it sed pro ratione juramenti Dei but with regard to the oath of God shewing that Subjects are by their Allegeance and Covenant no further obliged to observe the Laws of earthly Princes then are agreeable to Gods commandments 3. Whereas it is said He doth whatsoever pleaseth him this must be understood only of a good King and just cōmands as if it were supplyed with whatsoever pleaseth God not licet si libet as if all were lawfull whatsoever a King should do but the genuine sence of the place is stand not in an evill matter for the King hath power to do whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in evil courses to forgive thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon of him for the same 4. Who may say to him what dost thou that is reprove or censure him for doing justly as Job expounds it Chap. 34 18. and so must the place be understood to wit that no man may presume to question the Kings just actions warranted by the Law of God and men but otherwise Kings may and are to be reprehended as we have sundry examples for it in Elias reproving Ahab Elisha Jehoram Nathan David John Baptist Herod 1 Sam. 13.13 2 King 3.14 Jer. 1● 28. chap. 22.3 Ho. 5.1.2 Yea not only so but to be resisted withstood and opposed in their unrighteous courses Hence Augustine and Ambrose do affirm Augu. in Psal 82. Amb. in Offic. when Herod and Pilate condemned Christ and caused him to be put to death howsoever the people lamented it were sorry for him and sorely bewail'd his death yet were they all punished and why so because when they were able and might have taken him out of the hands of unjust and wicked Magistrates and so preserv'd his life they did it not in this regard they wrapt themselvs in the same guilt of blood and became murderers of him But lastly This text intends only private men not a Parliament the supreamest Judicatory and Soveraign power in the Kingdom for in this High Court the Kings Person is no other than another subject I say it again to this Court He personally stands as a single man to be questioned censured punished as the Crime and Cause shall be And in truth here lies the stone at which many have stumbled much like to that long controversie between us and the Church of Rome about Petros and Petra Peter and the Rock We distinguish them taking the person of Peter to be one thing his faith or Christ another Whereas the Papists will allow of no such distinction So the Title and Office of a King is one thing the Person another and howsoever the former comes not into question yet the latter may But many by mixing and confounding things together which should be severed and distinguished apprehend not how the Person of the King and not the Title and Office of a King can be questioned censured and punished Hugo Grotius putting down seven cases in which the people may have most real action against the

unlawfull for Zedekiah and the rest of the Jews in the time of their captivity to resist the tyranny of the Caldeans but likewise before the captivity they could not with a good conscience have resisted or maintain'd the city against them when they had besieged it forasmuch as the Lord commanded them by Jeremy that they should deliver up the city into the hands of the Caldeans and without resistance yeeld themselves to be their servants Chap. 21.2,3,4 27,1,12,13,14 ch 36 ch 37 3. Touching Pharaoh 1. He had not his crown from Israel 2. Pharaoh had not sworn to defend Israel nor became their King upon condition and oath to maintain their Laws Liberties and Rights 3. Israel had their land in Egypt by the meer gift of the King 4. The Israelites were not his native subjects but strangers and sojourners who by the Laws of the King and Princes by the means of Joseph had gotten the land of Goshen for their dwelling and liberty to serve the God of Abraham to whom they prayed in their bondage Exod. 2,23,24 The Kings of England as Kings have stood to England in a four-fold contrary relation they have had their crown by the voluntary and free choise of the People and no otherwise but conditionally that is covenanting and taking their oath to do so and so for the publick good The English are natives not beholding to their Kings for their possessions nor ever held the same as gratis from them The Supream and Soveraign Power of the Kingdom is in their hand the which Israel in Egypt never had nor could lawfully challenge 10. obje Dr. Gouden speaking of putting the King to death saith Never did Christ or his Apostles by practice or precept give the lest intimation of the will of his Father as agreeing to what you declare to be your purpose Christ saith Maxwel Sac. San. Mai. c 5. n. 6. in the cradle taught by practice to flee from Herod and all Christs actions are full of mysteries and our instructions He might have had Legions of Angels to defend him but would rather work a miracle in curing of Malchu's ear as use the sword against Caesar He suffered under Pontius Pilate to commend patient suffering of ill condemn al resistance of superiors would have servants suffer buffets not only for ill doing of good masters but also undeservedly of these masters that are evill and that from his own example 1 Pet. 2.18.21.23 much more are we patiently to suffer of Kings without resistance The monuments of Babels ruin shew farre off to be high and great things but being neer they are very low and little too whatsoever is here if we come up close to it 't is impertinences non-consequences and nothing else And first in general we answer 1. Christ saying His Kingdom is not of the world and refusing to take the Magistracy upon him signifyed thereby that for civil politie he left it to the people to practice according to the humane Law and reason and as it might best serve for every nations safety peace and welfare 2. When the Dr. writes next I would have him set down where Christ and his Apostles by precept or practice taught that any man for murder treason rebellion c. might lawfully be put to death by the higher powers if he find this thing no where directly or by consequence in the New Testament then under favor of his Doctorship it is simply spoken But if he can find such a precept or practice thus far I do ingage and challenge any man to oppose that I will as clearly prove from the same place that the Commons of England may lawfully put their King to death for the like crimes 3. If Christ came not to destroy the Law as the Law of nature Nations then it is not contrary to any precept or practice of his for the Parliament of England to judge to death the King for treason and high misdemeanors against the law of nature and Nations But the first is true therefore the latter 2. For a more particular answer 1. Christ flying into Egypt what mystery soever it had sure I am it contained no prohibition against the lawfull execution of justice and judgment upon any man 2. That Christ might have defended himself with more then twelve legions of Angels but would not it was not because to cut off tyrants is unlawfull 〈…〉 no shadow for that in the Text but because it was Gods will that he should drink the cup his Father gave him 3. That Christ blamed Peter for speaking of drawing his sword Rivetus sheweth the reasons Rivet in dec in mand 6. pag 234. 1. Because it had a kind of revenge in it for so few could not repel such an Army as came to take Christ 2. He waited not on Christs answer 3. He could have defended himself another way 4. It was contrary to Gods will revealed to Peter Mat. 16,21,22,24 4. To the place in Peter I answer 1. Patient bearing of wrong and punishing wrong doers are compatible in one and the same person One act of grace is not contrary to another Not to respect persons in judgment is as commendable a vertue as patient suffering for a good cause 2. The scope of the place is not to forbid all violent resisting but only forbiddeth revenging resisting as not to repair one wrong with another from the example of Christ who when he was reviled reviled not again and therfore the Argument is a fallacie Ab eo quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad illud quod dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a master attempt to kill an innocent servant and invade him with a weapon of death in that case the servant is free from guiltiness if there being no other way to save his life he slay the master than be kild himself because I am neerer by the law of nature and dearer to my self and mine own life then to my brother 3. No Prince hath a mastery or dominion over his subjects but only a free paternal and tutorly over-sight for the good of the people The masters in the Apostles time had a dominion over servants as over their proper goods Ro. 13.4 11. obje But the special Objection of Royallists is Rom. 13.1,2 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God Hence therefore they conclude Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 Barc con mon. l. 3. c 9 Maxwel S●c San. Mai. c. 2 p. 29. 1. That the King is the supreamest or highest power here intended There is no Judge above a King on earth 2. Howsoever in those dayes there was a standing and continual Senate which not long before had the Supream power in the Roman State yet now the Emperour was Supream and therefore no power of resistance left to the people 3. The prohibition