Selected quad for the lemma: enemy_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
enemy_n	arm_n	day_n	great_a	989	5	2.8177	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85229	Conscience satisfied. That there is no warrant for the armes now taken up by subjects. By way of reply unto severall answers made to a treatise formerly published for the resolving of conscience upon the case. Especially unto that which is entituled A fuller answer. By H. Ferne, D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F791; Thomason E97_7; ESTC R212790	78,496	95

Concretely as in the subject or the Magistrate that bears it therefore presently it follows in the Apostles reasons against resistance for he is the Minister he beares the sword so St. Peter tells us what he meanes by the Ordinance the King as supream or they that are sent by him for though the will and command be illegall yet because he that bears the power lawfully uses that power though illegally to compasse that will and execute that command the power it self is resisted in resisting him that so uses it as Saul had lawfully the power and command of Arms but that power he uses unlawfuly in pursuing his unjust wil against David And I aske when these Emperours took away lives and goods at pleasure was that a pwoer ordained by God no but an illegall will a Tyranny therefore according to M. Burrows they might have been resisted in doing so No for that power and soveraignty they imployed to compasse those illegal commands was a power ordained and settled in them When Pilate condemned our Saviour it was an illegal will yet our Saviour acknowledges in it Pilates power that was given him from above Again this answerer of theirs makes void that distinction of private men and of publick states in the point of resistance it voids also their other distinction of absolute Monarchs limited For according to this answerer it shal be lawfull for private men to resist their Princes though absolute if they command illegally and to say as M. Burrows teaches them We resist no power no authority at all but the illegall will and pleasure of man and so might the Christians have resisted and so replyed if then answer be good The truth is the lawfull power is resisted when armes are taken against Princes abusing that power to the compassing of unlawfull commands which also I insinuated often in the other treatise that from the Apostles reasons in this place against resistance drawn from that order that good for which the power is ordain'd though then the execution of the power in those Emperours was nothing answerable to that end That which the fuller Answerer presently adds pag. 22 There are two kinds of tyranny Regiminis and Usurpationis that of Government must be endured though never so heavy Not only to the good but to the froward also 1. Pet. 2.18 That other of Vsurpation hath no right at all I know not what it means if it be not a plain confirmation of what I have sayd against resistance and a direct confutation of what himselfe and Mr Burrows has answered for it M. Burrowes also tels us pag. 113. VVe professe against resisting power and authority though abused A man would think he came home to us and so he must if he will speak reason but his device is If those who have power to make lawes shall make wicked lawes and force obedience to them there is nothing left us but flying or passive obedience In this hole he often lurks to defend himselfe against the prohibition of resistance by making us believe the abused power that must not be resisted is only seen when sinfull lawes are made and imposed but I ask have they power to make such Laws No for it is not of God they have power from Him to make Laws but such Laws and Commands are their illegall wills then may they that resist say in M. Burrowes words we resist no power no authority but the illegall wills of men Pilate had power from above to judge the accused brought before him not to condemne the innocent that was the abuse of the Legislative power and the power it selfe is resisted by resisting the abuse of the one as of the other Now all this has bin said against resistance in case His Majesties Commands in the use of that power which is in Him were unlawfull but Conscience that knows He ha's by Law a power to command assistance for the defence of Himselfe and protection of His Subjects will easily conclude it a Legall power and command not only not to be resisted but also to be actively obeyed as all Legall ordained powers ought to be Notwithstanding these Scriptures so plain against Resistance or Arms taken up by Subjects M. Burrowes professeth his Conscience is not one whit scrupled I hope he will better consider it ere he come to dye and give an account of those poor souls he ha's seduced Finally we must subjoyn M. Bridge his replyes upon this 13 to the Romans he as if his conscience were as little scrupled with the Apostles prohibiting as M. Burrowes his was thus begins The Dr. indeavours to sear the tender Conscience with the word Damnation but it is rather to be translated judgement by it is meant the punishment of the Magistrate in this life pag. 14. M. Bridge might have had respect to our translation which renders it damnation with good reason for resistance is a breach of the 5 Commandement it is a resisting of the ordinance of God as in this chapter and M. Bridge knows it is no vain scaring of Conscience to tell it the breach of Gods Commandement ordinance makes it guilty of damnation And if we consider the condition of the Christians in those times what great matter had the Apostle told them in assuring them they should be punished by those Emperors if they resisted when as they were sure of that whether they resisted or resisted not but he gives them to understand however those Emperors were enemies to christianity the resisting of them was an offence against the ordinance of God or if we consider the principles of these daies which teach people to take the sword out of the Princes hand seize the Arms of the Kingdom in order to their own preservation what great matter would the Apostle threaten to such in telling them they should be punished by the Mag strate when as they have provided for their indemnity by taking the sword from their Prince or causing Him to bear it in vain therefore there is the stroke of a higher hand also to be expected and those that have been lately taken in actuall resistance and through His Majesties mercy escaped the deserved punishment of this life must if they continue not in obedience look for a greater condemnation Again M. Bridge answers That only active obedience to lawfull Commands is there enjoyned not passive under unlawfull Commands pag. 23. Both say we as appears by the injunction of subjection prohibition of resistance for if the Apostle had enjoyned onely obedience to just commands he had given the Romans that lived under such unjust Emperors but a lame instruction the refore in ease they had unjust commands imposed on them he tels them how to behave themselves that is not to resist what then remains but passive obedience But he would prove it thus The power they were to be subject to and not resist is the ordinance of God and the minister of God for good but

Law the same ever living Reason of the State that first advised the Government and must still advise the way of applying it pag. 9. His Majesty did not barely refuse but gave his Reasons for it and if they had their dangers and fears moving them to gain the Militia so had he his to withhold it as he had amply testified to the world But here 's a Reason of State to which his Majesties Reason must give way and that surely is Law Certainly the Militia is to be applyed by the Reason of State but we must not make the King no part of the State as he does and as he saith the Law does but we would fain see that Law we are sure it is declared 25 H. 8.21 Your Royall Majesty and Your Lords and Commons represent the whole Realm This restraining of the whole Reason of State to the two Houses is but the same device with that which made the first constitutiō of this government to be the contrivement of the people when they made the first King and was above confuted So this necessity that is here laid upon the King alwaies to follow the advice of the two Houses is but a strain of that device which places a finall and Arbitrary resolution in them and shall be handled anon His Majesty will apply the Militia but by the advice of them against whom it is to be secured whom the Parliament has Voted enemies to the State against whom especially it was called pag. 10. This is shooting at Rovers if he should tell who those voted ones were and who those enemies against whom this Parliament was called I do not think he would find any of them about his Majesty when he refused to passe the Bill for the Militia but he tells us a little after pag. 10. The King gathers these voted enemies into an Army against the Parliament that had voted them such and a little after What shall the two other States do but use that power of Arms which the government in such case of the Kings refusall has entrusted them with to its own preservation that 's alwayes supposed never proved especially when 't is but for the apprehending of such enemies to it as beside that voted delinquencie are sufficiently convinced by their own flight Now we know who those voted delinquents are against whom the Militia was by bill to be secured some five or six that fled beyond sea But these though beyond sea are gathered together into an Army here by the King to passe by this let us see what is more materiall The Kings Army is raised against the Parliament Their army against those delinquents to bring them to justice But can any man in conscience bee perswaded that was the Kings design was that a time to provoke them that were so powerfull with the people or was the King in a condition then fit to enterprize against them that were so furnished with all the Arms of the Kingdom he not knowing where to have sufficient for a small guard Nay let his offers sent them from Nottingham many moneths after speak to Posterity by whose refusall it was that we are not now in safety when as it pleased God within a few weeks after to raise him such an assistance that he was able to appear against those forces that pretended they were sent from the Parliament And now that it comes to blows why should it be interpreted that the King intends to overthrow the Parliament because he fights against those pretended Parliamentary forces more than that the Parliament intends to overthrow the Kingly power because their force fight against those that assist him certainly as they desire the continuance of his Kingly power so does he the continuance of free Parliaments knowing he cannot suffer by such And for the apprehension of those Delinquents which fled being here pretended as the cause of their seizing the Militia and taking Arms Can we think them so considerable or that they would have been with-held when as those that were greater and neerer to His Majesty had been delivered up to the justice of the Parliament certainly this would not have made the Breach if first a great Delinquent on that side had not been denied to be delivered up to tryall if the Militia had not been seized and some further design thereby threatned according to His Majesties apprehension Having done with these pretences we come to his argument for this supply Co-ordinata invicem supplent if the King refuse His Coordinates the two Houses must supply We answer Co-ordinates doe supply each others failings not alwayes and to all purposes but then and so far forth as is appointed by that constitution that makes them so there are two parts of this Answer First they do then supply when it is expressed so in the constitution that has co-ordinated them and not els he gave us as an instance of this co-ordination the example of a father and son entrusted with lands to certain uses pag. 5. Now put case the father refuses to expend any thing upon such uses as his son presents to him because he apprehends them not such as were intended may then his sonne supply and do it himselfe unlesse it be so expressed in the deed of Enfeoffment which is improbable it should for then the whole power would be placed in the son So if this power of supplying may bee challenged by the two co-ordinate parts upon the refusall of the third it must be as expresse in the constitution of the Kingdome as the co-ordination and power of the three is We see such reservations expresse in meerly conventionall Kingdoms where the Prince is chosen and admitted on such conditions He tells us indeed it is fundamentall and of the first constitution but proves it not we see it not expressed in the Enfeoffment as I may say wherein we find three Estates entrusted If any would know what are those fundamentall Laws so much jeered at in this and other Pamphlets It is that originall frame of this Co-ordinate Government contrived by the people in its first constitution and since in every severall Raign confirmed by mutuall oaths between King and people and in the Parliament summons of Ed. 1. this Law is called Lex stabilitata notissima pag. 8. If any man would know what jeering is he may read the premonition before this fuller Answer and the first leafe of the answer but if he would know what these Fundamentals be indeed he must not expect to know them truly by this Answerer that layes the foundations of this Government in the airy conceptions of his own phancie such are a contrivement of the people when they made the first King A reservation of power to upply upon the Kings refusall and the like such fundamentals as these were reasoned against which is not jeering from the analogie and proportion that must be betweene the foundation and the building the fundamental constitutions and the Written Laws in my former

the Parliamentary power I doubt hee will not say the King and Lords have then the full power of Parliament but where then is this Supply will he say in the House of Commons we must call him now to his reckoning Pag. 3. where he tels us Of three Estates one is lesse then two and also to his rule he gives us Pag. 4. Coordinates supply each others failings and Pag. 11. The refusall of one part exempts not the other from their duty So that if this man hold to his own conceit hee must grant the King and Lords may Supply if the Commons refuse But if in that case he will not stand to his own reckoning and his owne Rule then must he quit his vain conceit of Supply by the two Houses in case the King refuse After this he seekes a reason of this Supply in the necessity of providing for the safety of the whole which else would be frustrated of its safety However this Resolver sleight the Observators Argument drawn from the highest end of Government the peoples safety he cannot deny but the Rule holds always finis quò ultimatior eò in fluxu potentier to that end all other subordinate stand but in the office of meanes and this is evinced by the text the higher power is a Minister for thy good Pag. 11. The Observators argument deserved to bee sleighted by the Resolver as inconsequent but it was confuted at large by shewing such meanes make not for that end the safety of the State but are remedies worse then the disease Nor hath this full Answerer strengthned the consequence one whit We grant the safety of the Common-wealth is the highest end and unto that end all other are as meanes and that the higher power ought to minister unto that end But doth it follow therefore such a Supply by divesting the Kingof His power by turning the highest Minister out of His office is the means to that end The joynt agreement of the three Estates is the meanes for new provision for that end but in case they agree not about that provision which may happen by the refusall of the Lords or the Commons or the King then that the two agreeing parts what ere they be should supply the defect of the third had beene far more reasonable then that the supply should be made onely by the two Houses i.e. by the body only without the Head For this is not only to the notorious prejudice of the Supream Head with whom the Kingdome is immediately and chiefly entrusted but also it is alame provision and argues the first Contrivement as this man fancies it very inconsiderate in not providing in case the King and Lords or the King and Commons should joyne Now as the not providing in such Cases and the power of dissolving which resides in the King doe plainly shew that such a Supply is not the Contrivement of the first Constitution but a phansie of late popular Statesmen from whom this Answerer hath borrowed it so in very deed this way of Supply would not be a meanes of safety but of more inconveniency as at this day experience teacheth us and at large was shewed in the former Treatise Therefore if the three Estates cannot joyntly agree which is the reasonable meanes of making new provision for safety There is in the King by the same Constitution power to dissolve and protect His Subjects in their Religion and properties and Liberties according to the former Lawes established And although His Majesty hath bound Himself from dissolving them without their consent for this time of which this Answerer does vainly endeavour to make advantage in many places yet have not they thereby any more power then what they should have had without that Grant and so they have acknowledged themselves To conclude Conscience cannot be truly perswaded this power of Supply is in the two Houses by the Constitution of this Government But must needs see it is inconsistent with it and with that power the known established Law declares to be in the King and therfore Conscience cannot yeeld obedience to that power in making resistance against the King The Answerer immediately after the text above cited by him The higher power is a minister for thy good hath these words Pag. 12. Yes a fine way you 'l say of preserving the King by fighting against Him So starting from the safety of the people which was there spoken of as the highest end to the Consideration of the Kings safety as if he had been struck on a suddain with the terrour of that Battle that was made against the King or else because Truth it selfe upon the mention of the higher Power wrung from him a thought and acknowledgment of His Majesty in it Well let us see how he will have the King preserved by their fighting against Him No such matter saith he the King hath a double Capacity Politique and Naturall in fighting for the preservation of the Kingdom they fight for Him in His Politique Capacity as King in that He cannot be divided from His Kingdom or Parliament They fight to disingage His Person from that unsafe and unworthy imployment those Enemies to Him and His Kingdome put it to however he be perswaded by them it is His cause that hath ingaged them it is their own guilt and danger Pag. 12. So we are usually answered when we tell them of their Hands so many times lifted up in Battle against the Lords Annointed and of Davids resolution upon it who can lift up and be guiltlesse 1 Sam. 26. They reply it is but against the Cavaleir's and that unworthy Company that is about Him and have thus engaged Him and in so doing they fight for the Kingdome and for the King too in His Politique Capacity A shift that will no more save them from the Guilt then it will doe Him from their violence If He had been taken away in His naturall Capacity at Keinton Battle had there been any such thing as a King at Westminster had it not divided Him in His Politique Capacity from the Parliament there take away the Body and the shadow too destroy Him in His Person or Naturall Capacity and you destroy Him in His Politique and the Parliament too which ceases upon it Nor is that distinction of His double Capacity altogether vain but only in this point of Armes and resistance by force As just sentences of Iudges against His Personall Commands are for Him in His Politique Capacity so all denyalls of active obedience to unjust personall commands why here 's all this while no power taken from Him or usurped against Him No danger to His Person to His Naturall Capacity but in resistance by force of Armes especially in a Battle against Him which not onely takes the sword out of His Hand and usurpes the power but may also take Him away in His Naturall Capacity the distinction is most vaine For the Enemies that are said here to enthrall His Person and perswade