Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	france_n	king_n	kingdom_n	14,965	5	6.1241	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30577	The glorious name of God, The Lord of Hosts opened in two sermons, at Michaels Cornhill, London, vindicating the Commission from this Lord of Hosts, to subjects, in some case, to take up arms : with a post-script, briefly answering a late treatise by Henry Ferne, D.D. / by Jer. Burroughes.	Burroughs, Jeremiah, 1599-1646.	1643 (1643)	Wing B6074; ESTC R4315	105,730	154

1. In a defensive way they were resisted as appears by what was said before in the case of David gathering up 600. men to defend himselfe against Saul 2. Yea when Saul would have killed Jonathan the people resisted him and would not suffer him 3. We reade 2 King 6. 32. when the King of Israel sent a messenger to kill the Prophet the Prophet being amongst the Elders of the people calls the King the son of a murtherer and bade that they should shut the door against the messenger and hold him fast at the door The former Translation hath it Handle him roughly though sent by the King Yea the King himself was following yet his messenger comming with his command must be handled roughly The Hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall oppresse him so Arias Montanus translates it opprimet is you shall use great rigour to him It is a vaine conceit in people to think that the command of the King is enough to bear out an Officer in illegall and unjust acts as if every one were bound to obey if he comes by the command of the King there is no such thing if any man doth any thing illegal although the King bids him he must answer for it as if it were his own act therefore it is that the Acts of Authority that come from the King they come by Officers because the Subject may have some to call to account in case of injury not being fit to molest the Kings own Person for every dammage the Subject suffers These three examples are out of question justifiable And if we would goe to bare example we shall finde that ten Tribes brake off from Rehoboam because he would follow the counsel of his young Cavaliers to make their yoaks heavie to make his little finger heavier then his fathers loynes yea and God sayes it was of him vvhat was done But further this is no certain rule that just what power the Kings of Judah had that and no more should all Kings have If in some things they may have more then it cannot follow because they had this or that power therefore all Kings must have the same If their examples be the rule for all Kings power then their examples must as well be to limit the power of Kings as enlarge it but Kings would think it much to be limited by their power therefore they must not urge the enlargement from their power too hard I will instance in one thing wherein the Kings of England vvould not vvillingly be limited by their example namely The confining of their succession to the heire male The daughters of the Kings of Judah did not inherit onely the males but the daughters of our Kings do If this Question be asked Why in some countreyes onely the Male inherits as in France in others the females likewise as in England why in some Countries the King is elective as in Denmark and others in others it is hereditary as with us The Answer will be given This is from the diversity of the Laws of Kingdoms So then it follows not because some Kings in Scripture were thus and thus therefore all Kings must needs be so but according to the diversity of the Laws of Kingdoms so is the diversity of the power of Kings Every Countrey in the first constitution of the Government hath power to divide the Government so much to the King so much to the Nobles so much to the Commons as they shall see best sutable to the condition of their Countrey so that we are not to goe by such a rule what power such and such Kings have had but what power every King hath in the Countrey where he is King Civil Government is left to the wisdome and justice of every Country in the constitution of it They may confer power upon severall Magistrates by severall portions as shal be most for the good of that Countrey That there should be Civil Government God hath appointed but that it should be thus or thus all in one or divided into many that is left to humane prudence going according to rules of Justice for the publique good If the kinds of Civil government were of Divine institution it must be all the same in every compleat Common-wealth which no man that I know wil affirm Ecclesiastical Government because it is spirituall and hath a spirituall efficacie in it must therefore of necessity be of Divine institution so the same in all places in the world where Churches are cōpleat But what shal wee say to the example of the Christians in the Primitive times who suffered so much wrong under Tyrants and would never resist The Civil Government under which they lived was such as it gave power to those Emperors to doe such things as they did the laws of those Countries being against them they could not help themselves but it is not so with us The Laws of our Countrey are for us and we seek nothing but to maintain those liberties we have by Law We have legall wayes to help our selves which they had not But above all Objections this sticks most with us Doth not the Scripture straitly charge us not to touch Gods Anointed First This doth nothing concerne this raising of Armes for it is for defence of our selves not offence against Gods Anointed But further that I may satisfie fully I wil say three things to this Objection First we will examine the Scripture out of which this Objection is raised and see whether there be any such sense in it as is ordinarily taken for granted Secondly I shall shew that Anointing is not proper to Kings but belongs to others as well as Kings Thirdly I will shew the difference betweene that anointing that Kings had in time of the Law from that they have now For the first This Scripture is 1 Chron. 26. 22. and Psal 105. 15. it is the same in both places 1. They both speak of times before ever there had been any Kings of Israel 2. The Anointing here is apparently meant of the people of God of the Church of the Saints God gives here a charge that none no not Kings should touch them to doe them any hurt It is not here meant that people should not touch Kings that are anointed but that Kings should not touch people that are Gods Anointed The Church of God being separated from the world to God being consecrated to God Gods sanctified ones are here called Gods anointed and that it is meant of people it is plain if you consider this Scripture from the 12. ver to this 15. ver When they were but few in number and strangers in the Land when they went from one Nation to another from one Kingdom to another people he suffered no man to doe them wrong yea he reproved Kings for their sakes saying Touch not mine Anointed To whom did he say it he said it even to Kings Whom should they not touch Not them

that shew that Princes may make use of other help So there is for Subjects to make use of other helps against the oppression of their Princes many Scriptures have been mentioned formerly and cleered Further besides this we answer that the power of all Kings is not alike it is no argument because one King hath such and such power therefore all must needs have The power of Kings is limited or enlarged by the severall Laws of severall Countries Let us see what the third Scripture sayes for yet our consciences are not scrupled it is Numb 10. That the people might not go to war but by order from him that had the power of the Trumpet Because there was a positive order there that Moses must make trumpets and thus use them Doth it follow that this must be so every where you may by as true a consequence urge the necessity of silver trumpets and that the Priests should blow them as well as the former The consequence would be full as good No King can use Trumpets in war but by the blowing of the Priests for it is commanded there as that no people can go to war till the Magistrates use the Trumpets because it is so ordered there we know the Law is judiciall and for those judiciall Laws the equity binds no further then according to rules of prudence and justice every countrey shall see behoofefull for their conditions Besides if this did binde then it were a sinne for an Act to passe to put the Militia for any time into any other hands for certainly it might not then be done no not with Moses and Aarons consent The next Scripture is 1 Sam. 26. 9. who can stretch out his hand against the Lords Anointed and be guiltlesse Why doth the D. speake of stretching forth the hand against the Lords Anointed who endeavours it doth not the Parliament professe the defence of the Kings Persons 2. Doctor willet upon this place gives you this Answer That indeed it is not lawfull for a private man to lay hands no not upon a tyrant for it is not lawfull for a private man to kill a thiefe of a murderer much lesse a Magistrate a Prince But secondly he tels us of some that have laid hands upon a King and yet have been guiltlesse as Ehud upon Eglon King of Moab therefore from that Scripture there cannot be a generall Proposition drawn that no man in any case may stretch forth his hand against a King Yea Doctor willet answers in the third place that yet Tyrants and wicked Governours may be removed by the whole State He indeed limits this and sayes it must be understood of such Kingdomes as goe by election as in Polonia and gives this reason From whom Kings receive their authority by them may they be constrained to keep within bounds This it seems was good Divinity in those dayes This distinction he used to deliver the opinion from opposition in England but if the distinction be examined there will appeare little strength in it We doe not find that D. willet was ever reproved or his writings censured for this thing Concerning that restriction of his to Kingdomes by election we shall when wee come to shew from whence all Kings have their power see that if it proves true of them it will prove true of others for the foundation of all power that such and such men have over others will be found either from election or covenant which will come to all one D. Ferne proceeds thus If the King had come into the battel his person might have been hurt as well as any This had been but accidentally If a father should voluntarily goe into the Army of the common enemy against whom the childe is in service and the child in discharging upon the enemy should slay his father being there especially he being desired beseeched by any meanes not to be there but to withdraw himselfe doth the child contract guilt in such a case His next Argument from Scripture is That the Prophet reprechending the Kings of Israel and Judah for Idolatry and oppression none ever called upon the people for this duty of resistance First There is much difference betweene Kings now and those Kings The people then did neither give them their power nor limit their power They doe both now when first they are set up Secondly if this be a good argument that because when Kings oppressed the prophet did not cal upon people for resistance therefore all resistance in any case is unlawful then if when people have resisted cast oft the Government of their King the Prophets have not reproved them for it then it is lawfull for people in some case to resist He that will harken to his own reason must acknowledge there is par ratio If the Prophets exhorted not to resistance then there may be no resistance sayes the Doctor Then if when there is resistance the Prophets rebuke not that resistance then there may with as good reason be resistance say I. When the ten Tribes cast off the Government of Rehoboam for his oppression and hearkning to his young Cavalliers about him rather then to his ancient grave counsel the Prophets did not rebuke the ten Tribes for what they did but rather seemed to take their parts 1 Kings 12. 24. ●eturn every man to his house for this thing is from mee Now the D. comes to his great place again Rom. 13. which he sayes be will free from all exceptions Nay bare me an Ace of that The truth is he vever so much as mentions nor thinks of the great exception which duly considered will clear the Text to be nothing to his purpose First he supposes that the King is the supream as Peter calls him or the higher power as here 1. It is true Peter cals the King Supreame but in the same place he is made an ordinance of man and therefore to be limited by man He may be the chiefe man in authority and yet limited in that authority he is supreame but not absolute We grant that the Houses of Parliament and we all are his Subjects but not Subjects to his will but to that power of his that Law gives him 2. He takes for granted the King is the higher power Here observe his mistake Let it be granted that the King hath the highest power yet what propriety of speech is it to say that he is the highest power It is proper to God to say that he is Power in the abstract Well The King hath the highest power and we must be subject to this power of his and not resist it Who denies all this When all this is granted the D. hath got nothing at all for if we resist not that power which Law hath given him we do not resist the higher power although we do not do nor suffer what hee would have us to do or suffer Then he reasons from the person whosoever

in authority may command what authority does not command But may we go against the command of the King It is not against his authorative command Many if not most men mistake in this they think the authorative commands of the King chiefly consist in his personall verbal commands but the truth is his authority is in his commands by his officers Seals and Courts of Justice we may appeale from his personal verball command to his command in his Courts of Justice whatsoever is his command in one Court of Justice may be appealed from to a superior Court and so to the highest and there we must rest But the King sayes That this which is done is done against Law If when the most inferior Court of Justice determines any thing to be Law it is not the Kings personall dissent and saying it is not Law that disanuls it but the judgement of some superior Court then if the highest Court in the Land which is the Parliament shall judge a thing to be Law surely the personall dissent of the King and saying it is not Law cannot disanul it But although the Parliament tels us that what they doe is Law yet they doe not shew where that Law is where shall we finde it extant We are to know that our Common-wealth is governed not onely by Statute Law but by the Common Law now this Common Law is nothing else but recta ratio right reason so adjudged by Judges appointed thereunto by Law and this is various according as cases doe occur so that although some presidents some generall maximes of this Law be extant yet if new cases arise then there must bee determination according to the nature of such a new case which determination by such as are appointed Judges is now Law although it were no where written before And certainly we have now such things faln out as no former time can shew presidents of As That a King should goe from his Parliament so as ours doth That a King should take up Arms as now he doth with many other things of consequence of a high nature which our Houses of Parl. in their Declarations publish which our eares tingle to hear of and our hearts tremble at the mention of These things were never heard of since England was a Kingdom therefore we can expect no presidents of what determinations there can be in these cases and some determinations of necessity we must have or else wee shall run to confusion The determination then of the highest Court of Justice in the Kingdome wee must account Law in this case This is the way of determining Cases that fall out in the Common Law First the determination must not be against any Statute Law and so is the determination of Parliament now there is no Statute Law against it Secondly it must be according to some generall Maximes of that Law Now this is one great maxime of it Salus populi suprema Lex The safety of the people is the supreame Law and according to this their determination is Thirdly when any inferior Judge makes this determination against any party that thinks himselfe wronged he makes his Appeale to the Kings Bench If at the Kings Bench that be judged Law against a man which he thinks is not right then he hath a Writ of Appeale ad proximum Parliamentum to the next Parliament so that it is apparent by the frame of Government in our Kingdom that the Parliament is supreame Judge of what is Recta ratio Right reason in cases of difficulty and controversie and this not being against any former Statute Law agreeable to the received Maximes of Common Law it is to be accounted Law although we finde not that Case or that Determination written in any Book before This is needefull for the satisfying mens consciences that things are carried according to the constitution of the Government of our Kingdom therefore in this we do not sin against Authority If mens consciences be not satisfied in these things what shal they do Now therefore because that which is urged upon mens consciences is the authority of man that we must obey we can never satisfie our consciences untill we know what this authority of man is that we cannot know but by the Law of the Kingdom It is necessary therefore that men understand what kind of government they live under that they may know when they offend against Authority and when not that they may not be deluded and brought into snares and things of dangerous consequence meerly by the name of Authority But yet it may further be said Grant the Parliament to be the Judge how can it judge without the King For the Parliament consists of three Estates the House of Commons the House of Lords and the King How can that then be said to be the determination of the Parliament which is not the determination of the King It is true for the making any Statute the passing any thing by way of Bill all the three Estates of the Kingdome are required to joyne but for the determination of what is Law that may be done by both the Houses in the absence of or without the knowledge of the King as usually it is In cases that are brought before them in the punishment of Delinquents they doe not send to the King for his assent to joyne with them in their determinations but in those proceed as a Court of Justice themselves But what if authority be abused may we resist Is not passive obedience required if active cannot be given There is a great deale of difference between the commands that are from abused authority and the commands that are from the wils of men in authority but not from the authority of those men That is abused authority when those to whom power of making Laws belongs shall make evill Laws in this case there is no help but passive obedience or flying untill some way may be taken for rectifying that Authority that is abused But when men that are in authority command any thing out of their owne wils which is no Law it is not Authority that doth command it in this case there is no resisting of Authority at all although the thing be denyed that is commanded in such a case if we neither yeeld active nor passive obedience we cannot be said therefore to resist authority For as Samson said in another case If you doe thus and thus unto me I shall be but as another man so if these men who are in place of authority do such things as the Laws and Government of the Countrey will not bear them out in they are but as other men yet some reverence ought to be shewed to their persons both in words and actions in regard of their place What say you to the Kings of Judah Many of them did otherwise then they ought and yet we doe not reade they were resisted but obeyed