Selected quad for the lemma: city_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
city_n	abel_n	ask_v	revolt_n	42	3	12.8896	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57975	Lex, rex The law and the prince : a dispute for the just prerogative of king and people : containing the reasons and causes of the most necessary defensive wars of the kingdom of Scotland and of their expedition for the ayd and help of their dear brethren of England : in which their innocency is asserted and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet intituled Sacro-sancta regum majestas, or, The sacred and royall prerogative of Christian kings, under the name of J. A. but penned by Jo. Maxwell the excommunicate P. Prelat. : with a scripturall confutation of the ruinous grounds of W. Barclay, H. Grotius, H. Arnisœus, Ant. de Domi P. Bishop of Spalata, and of other late anti-magistratical royalists, as the author of Ossorianum, D. Fern, E. Symmons, the doctors of Aberdeen, &c. : in XLIV questions.	Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1644 (1644)	Wing R2386; ESTC R12731	451,072	480

the prayers of the Church King Saul might easily be intreated to break a rash vow to save the life of his eldest son Ans. 1. I say not the common people did it but the people including proceres regni the Princes of the land and captaines of thousands 2. The text hath not one word or syllable of either prayers supplications or teares but by the contrary They bound themselves by an oath contrary to the oath of Saul 1 Sam. 14.44 and swear ver 45. God forbid as the Lord liveth there shal not one hair of his head fall to the ground so the people rescued Ionathan The Church prayed not to God for Peters deliverance with an oath that they must have Peter saved whether God will or no. 2. Though we read of no violence used by the people yet an oath upon so reasonable a ground 1. without the Kings consent 2. contrary to a standing law that they had agreed unto ver 24. 3. contradictory to the Kings sentence and unjust oath 4. spoken to the King in his face all these prove that the people meaned and that the oath ex conditione operis tended to a violent resisting of the King in a manifestly unjust sentence Chrysostom hom 14. ad Pop. Antioch accuseth Saul as a murtherer in this sentence and praiseth the people So Iunius Peter Martyr whom Royalists impudently cite so Cor. à lap Zanch. Lyra and Hug. Cardinalis say it was Tyranny in Saul and laudable that the people resisted Saul and the same is asserted by Iosephus l. 6. antiquit c. 7. so Althus Polyt c. 38. n. 109. We see also 2 Chron. 21.10 That Libnah revolted from under Iehoram because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers It hath no ground in the text that Royalists say that the defection of Lybnah is not justified in th●●ex● but the cause is from the demerit of wicked Iehoram because he made defection from God Libnah made defection from him as the ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam for Solomons idolatry which before the Lord procured this defection yet the ten tribes make defection for oppression I answer where the literall meaning is simple and obvious we are not to go from it The text sheweth what cause moved Libnah to revolt it was a town of the Levites and we know they were longer sound in the truth then the ten tribes 2. Chron. 13.8 9 10. Hos. 11.12 Lavater saith Iehoram hath pressed them to idolatry and therefore they revolted Zanch. Cor. à Lap. saith this was the cause that moved them to revolt and it is cleare ver 13. he caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring from God and no doubt tempted Libnah to the like Yea the city of Abel 2 Sam. 20. did well to resist Ioab Davids Generall for he came to destroy a whole city for a traitors sake for Sheba they resisted and defended themselves the wise woman calleth the city a mother in Israel and the inheritance of the Lord. ver 19. and Ioab professeth ver 20. far be it from him to swallow up and destroy Abel The woman saith ver 18. They said of old they shall surely ask counsell at Abel and so they ended the matter that is the city of Abel was a place of Prophets and Oracles of old where they asked responses of their doubts and therefore peace should be first offered to the City before Ioab should destroy it as the law saith Deut. 20.10 from all which it is evident that the city in defending it self did nothing against peace so they should deliver Sheba the traitour to Ioabs hand which accordingly they did and Ioab pursued them not as traitors for keeping the city against the King but professeth in that they did no wrong QUEST XXXIII Whether or no the place Rom. 13.1 prove that in no case it is lawfull to resist the King THe speciall ground of Royalists from Rom. 13. against the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars is to make Paul Rom. 13. speake onely of Kings Hugo Grotius de jure belli pac l. 1. c. 4. num 6. Barclay cont Monarch l. 3. c. 9. saith Though Ambrose expound the place Rom. 13. de solis Regibus of Kings onely this is false of Kings onely he doth not but of Kings principally Yea it followeth not that all Magistrates by this place are freed from all lawes because saith he there is no Iudge above a King on earth and therefore he cannot be punished but there is a Iudge above all inferiour Iudges and therefore they must be subject to Lawes So D. Ferne followeth him sect 2. pag. 10. and our poore Prelate must be an accident to them Sacr. San. Maj. cap. 2. pag. 29. for his learning cannot subsist per se. 1. Assert In a free Monarchie such as Scotland is known to be by the higher power Rom. 13. is the King principally in respect of dignity understood but not solely and onely as if inferiour Judges were not higher powers 1. I say in a free Monarchie For no man can say that where there is not a King but onely Aristocracie and government by States as in Holland that there the people are obliged to obey the King and yet this Text I hope can reach the consciences of all Holland that there every soul● must be subject to the higher powers and yet not a subject in Holland is to be subject to any King for non entis nulla sunt accidentia 2. I said the King in a free Monarchie is here principally understood in regard of dignity but not in regard of the essence of a magistrate because the essence of a Magistrate doth equally belong to all inferiour Magistrates as to the King as is already proved let the Prelate answer if he can for though some Judges be sent by the King and have from him authority to judge yet this doth no more prove that inferiour Judges are unproperly Judges and onely such by analogie not essentially Then it will prove a Citizen is not essentially a Citizen nor a Church-officer essentially a Church-officer nor a sonne not essentially a living creature because the former have authority from the Incorporation of Citizens and of Church-officers and the latter hath his life by generation from his father as Gods instrument For though the Citizen and the Church-officers may be judged by their severall Incorporations that made them yet are they also essentially Citizens and Church-officers as those who made them such 2. Assert There is no reason to restrain the higher powers to Monarchs onely or yet principally as if they onely were essentially powers ordained of God 1. Because he calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 higher powers Now this will include all higher powers as Piscator observeth on the place And certainly Rome had never two or three Kings to which every soule should be subject if Paul had intended that they should have given obedience to one Nero as the onely

Interpreter p. 254. Nor is his will the sense of the Law p. 252 253. Nor is he the sole and onely judiciall Interpreter of the Law p. 253 254 255 seq QUEST XXVIII Whether or no Wars raised by the Estates and Subjects for their owne just defence against the Kings bloody Emissaries be lawfull Affir p. 257. The state of the question P. 257 258 If Kings be absolute a superiour Iudge may punish an inferiour Iudge not as a Iudge but an erring man ibid. By Divine institution all Covenants to restraine their power must be unlawfull p. 258 259. Resistance in some cases lawfull p. 260 261 262. Six Arguments for the lawfulnesse of defensive Wars in this Quest. 260. seq Many others follow Quest. 29. and 30. seq QUEST XXIX Whether in the case of defensive War the distinction of the Person of the King as a man who may and can commit hostile acts of tyranny against his subjects and of the Office and Royall Power that he hath from God and the people can have place Affirmatur p. 265. The Kings Person in concreto and his Office in abstracto or which is all one the King using his Power lawfully to be distinguished Rom. 13 p. 265. To command unjustly maketh not a higher power p. 265.266 The person may be resisted and yet the Office cannot be resisted prooved by fourteene Arguments p. 265 266. seq Contrary Objections of Royalists and of the P. Prelate answered p. 270 271. seq What we meane by the person and Office in abstracto in this dispute we doe not exclude the person in concreto altogether but only the person as abusing his power we may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne father wife according to Scripture p. 272 273 274. We obey the King for the Law and not the Law for the King p. 275 276. The loosing of habituall and actuall Royalty different p. 276. Ioh. 19.10 Pilates power of crucifying Christ no Law-power given to him of God it s proved against Royalists by six Arguments p. 280. QVEST. XXX Whether or no passive obedience be a meane to which we are subjected in conscience by vertue of a Divine Commandement Neg. What a meane resistance is that flying is resistance p. 313. The place 1 Pet. 2.18 discussed ibid. Patient bearing of injuries and resistance of injuries compatible in one and the same subject ibid. Christs non-resistance hath many things rare and extraordinary and so is no leading rule to us p. 315. Suffering is either commanded to us comparatively only that we rather choose to suffer then deny the truth or the manner only is commanded that we suffer with patience p. 317 318. sequent The Physicall act of taking avvay the life or of offending vvhen commanded by the Lavv of self defence is no murther p. 321. We have a greater dominion over our goods and members except in case of mutilation vvhich is a little death then over our life p. 321. To kill is not of the nature of self defence but accidentall thereunto ibid. Defensive vvar cannot be vvithout offending p. 323. The nature of defensive and offensiue Warr● p. 324 325. Flying is resistance p. 325 326. QUEST XXXI Whether selfe-defence by opposing violence to unjust violence be lawfull by the Law of God and Nature Affirm p. 326 327. Self-defence in man naturall but Modus the way must be rationall and just p. 327. The method of selfe-defence ibid. Violent re-offending in selfe-defence the last remedy p. 328. It s Physically unpossible for a Nation to fly in the case of persecution for Religion and so they may resist in their owne self-defence p. 328. Tutela vitae proxima and remota p. 329. In a remote posture of selfe-defence we are not to take us to re-offending as David was not to kill Saul when he was sleeping or in the Cave for the same cause ibid. David would not kill Saul because he was the Lords Anoynted p. 330. The King not Lord of chastity name conscience and so may be resisted p. 331. By universall and particular nature selfe-defence lawfull proved by divers Arguments p. 330. And made good by the testimony of Iurists p. 331. The love of our selves the measure of the love of our neighbour and inforceth selfe-defence p. 332. Nature maketh a private man his owne Iudge and Magistrate when the Magistrate is absent and violence is offered to his life as the Law saith p. 334 335. Selfe-defence how lawfull it is p. 333 334 335. What presumption is from the Kings carriage to the two Kingdomes are in Law sufficient grounds of defensive warrs p. 336 337. Offensive and defensive warrs differ in the event and intentions of men but not in nature and spece nor Physically p. 336 337 338. Davids case in not killing Saul nor his men no rule to us not in our lawfull defence to kill the Kings Emissaries the cases farre different p. 338 339. QUEST XXXII Whether or no the lawfulnesse of defensive warrrs can be proved from the Scripture from the examples of David the peoples rescuing Ionathan Elisha and the 80. valiant Priests who resisted Vzziah Affirm p. 340. David warrantably raised an Army of men to defend himselfe against the unjust violence of his Prince Saul p. 340 341 342. Davids not invading Saul and his men who did not aime at Arbitrary Government at subversion of Lawes Religion and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel and opposed Idolatry but only pursuing one single person farre unlike to our case in Scotland and England now p. 342.343 Davids example not extraordinary p. 343 344. Elisha's resistance proveth defensive warrs to be warrantable p. 344 345 Resistance made to King Vzziah by eighty valiant Priests proveth the same p. 346 347 348. The peoples rescuing Ionathan proveth the same p. 348 349. Libnah's revolt proveth this p. 349. The City of Abel defended themselves against Ioab King Davids Generall when he came to destroy a City for one wicked conspirator Sheba his sake p. 349 350. QUEST XXXIII Whether or no Rom. 13.1 make any thing against the lawfulnesse of defensive warrs Neg. p. 350. The King not only understood Rom. 13. p. 351.352 And the place Rom. 13. discussed p. 352 353 354. QUEST XXXIV Whether Royalists prove by cogent reasons the unlawfulnesse of defensive warrs p. 355. Objections of Royalists answered p. 355 356 357. seq The place Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods c. answered p. 357. And Eccles. 10.20 p. 358. The place Eccles. 8.3 4. Where the word of a King is c. answered p. 357 358. The place Iob 34.18 answered p. 359. And Act. 23.3 God shall smite thee thou whited wall c. p. 359 360 361. The Emperours in Pauls time not absolute by their Law p. 361. That objection that we have no practise for defensive resistance and that the Prophets never complaine of the omission of the duty of resistance of Princes answered p. 163 164 165. The Prophets

King not the sole interpreter of the Law The Kings conscience no rule of judging to the inferiour Iudge The King not the authentick peremtory and Lordly interpreter of the Law Argum. 1. Argum. 2. The Will of the King is not the sense of the Law The King is King according to the Law but not King of the Law Argum. 3. Arg. 5. There can be no written Law if the King only be the authentick expositor of the Law Imperator 〈…〉 condere dicit i. omnium C. de testam Arg 6. Arnisaus de authori Princ. c. 1. n. 2. The state of the question concerning resistance Arnisae 16. n. 4. If Kings be absolute by divine Institution then all Covenants restraining them must be unlawfull spoiling of Kings of that which God hath given them Resistance in some c●ses lawfull according to D. Fern. De author Princ. c. 2. n. 10. Royalists hold it lawfull to resist an inferiour Iudge The Exactors of unjust tribute not easily to be resisted Arguments for the lawfulnesse of resisting unjust violence Argum. 1. Argum. 2. Argum. 3. Argum. 4. Arg. 5. Arg. 6. The Kings person as a man in concret● and as a King and his office in abstracto are very different in this dispute S●cr sanc Reg. Mai. c. 1. pag. 2. Arnisae de authoritat Princip c. 4. n. n. pag. 96. Every one that commandeth obedience active or passive unjustly is ●●●enus no higher power Arnisaeus 16. Laertius l. 3. in Plato The person or the man who is the Magistrate may lawfully be resisted and the man as using the power lawfully or the office can not be resisted Arg. 5. Pag. 141. Sac. sarc mac 2 pag 28. pag. 30.31 Arnis●n de potest prin c. 2.11.17 pag. 3. sec. 5. pag. 30. Royalists reasons th●t to resist the man or person is to resist the King office or ordinance of God Grot. de iur belli pacis l. 1. c. 4. n. 7. Winzetus V●l●tat ad●er Buchanan Barclay adv Monarchom l. 3. c. 8. We may kill a person as a man and love him as a sonne a father a wife according to Gods Word How the person and office ●f the Ruler are both the object of our subiection The question of subjection toucheth the persons as abusing their power De Authorit princ c. 2. n. 18. Loyall Subiects beliefe pag. 49. 〈…〉 pag. 9. Pilates power to crucifie Christ was no Law-power given by God to Pilate as a Iudge Patient bearing of ill and resistance are compatible in one and the same person Resistance not forbidden 1 Pet. 2.18 but patient suffering onely recommended D. Fern● part 3. § 2. p. 1● Suffering and non-resistance passive f●ll under 〈◊〉 law Christs non-resisting of Pilate no plea against resistance of unjust violence Many things not imitable by us in Christs non-resistance D. Ferne part 3. §. 2. p. 10. Confes. Remonstrant Suffering not commanded of God formally We are compa●atively rather to suffer 〈◊〉 to deny the truth but we are not commanded formally to 〈◊〉 Patience in suffering is commanded not suffering it self formally Re-offending in ended is contrary to patient ●ubj●ct●on The physicall act of taking away of the life maketh not homicide We have a greater dominion over our goods and members mutilation excepted then over our life Populo quidem hoc casu resislendi actuendi se ab inju●ia potestas competi●●●ed tuendis● tantum non autem Principem in ●adendi resis●endi in●u●iae illatae n●n recedendi a debita reverent●● non ●im 〈…〉 jus habet Defensive warres cannot be without offending D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent resisting to be lawfull but not defensive warres Defensive wars are ●ff●nsive only by 〈◊〉 There 〈◊〉 holding of an a 〈…〉 es hands 〈◊〉 warding of stroakes but by offensive wars conjoyned by accident with defensive wars Flying is resistance Self-defence naturall D. Ferne alloweth the resistance of denying of Tribute to a tyranous Prince Apologies Supplication● Flight taking of A●mes lawfull in self-defence Violent re-offending in self-def●nce the last 〈◊〉 〈…〉 a Church or nation not 〈◊〉 mean of sel●●defence alway possible and so not required of God A self defence remote and a self-defence neere-hand When David had Saul in his hand he was in a c●se of actuall self-defence Saul being in a habituall unjust pursuit 〈…〉 was in when he came arm●e upon King Saul sleeping 〈◊〉 D. Fe●ne The law of universall and particular nature warranteth s●lf-defence This or that King not the adequat head of the community Exod 32. Rom 9. The love of our selfe the rule and measure of our love to our neighbour We are to 〈◊〉 our brethrens salvation aobve our l●fe not their life a●ove our owne How many wayes a man may preferre the safety of his owne life to the safety of his brother 〈…〉 common to man wi●h beast Takeing 〈◊〉 armes in the law is a sov●raigne ground o● a difensive postu●e Off●nsive and defe●sive wars differ in the event and intentions of men but not physically A whore may not sell her own body for hire Covar 10.1 par 2. §. 1. de ●urti rapi restituti §. 2. n. 1. The lawfulness of violent resistance of Kings cleare from Scripture proofes Symmons Loyall subject 5.10 pag. 31. David● not ●nvading Saul and his men a case far contrary to the condition of England and Scotland now It is not lawfull to kill the King as Jesuits teach D. Ferne his resolving of consc●ence Sect. ● Arnisaeus de authorit princ c. 2. n. 15. Davids example not extraord●nary Elisha's fact proveth the lawful●esse of defensive wars 〈◊〉 by no ex●●aordinary spirit resisted Jo●am Loyall subjects beliefe Resist●nce made to King Vzziah proveth the same Vat●b Deturba●unt eum ex illo l●●o compulsusque ut egrede●etur in not Festinanter egredi eum coegerunt hoc est extruserunt eum 1 Sam. 14. The peoples resisting of Saul in rescuing ●onathan unjustly condemned to die saith that th● Esta●es of the two Kingdomes may swear and covenant to rescue thousands of innocents from the unjust sword of ●●●throats of I●eland Papists in England Chald. Par. Manifestum est quod Jonathan peccavit perignorantiam P. Ma●t saith with a doubt Si● ista seditiose fecerunt nullo modo excusari possunt Yea he saith they might suss●agiis with their suffrages free him Jun. The people opposed a just oath to Sauls hypocriticall oath Osiander and Borhaius justifie the people P. Mar. Com. in 2 Reg. c. 8. saith Lib●ah revolt●d Quia subditos nit●batur cogere ad Idololatriam quod ipsi libnenses pati noluerunt merito principibus ●nim parendum est verum usque ad aras The King would compell them to Idolatry and they justly revolted Vatab. in no● Impulit Judaeos ad Idololatriam alioqui ●am pronos ad cultum Idololorum The Citie of Abels revolting a proof for the lawfulnesse of resistance The place Rom. 13. discuss●d The King onely is not understood in the Text. Th● King is principally understood in