Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	custom_n	king_n	tribute_n	1,660	5	11.1891	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85233	A reply unto severall treatises pleading for the armes now taken up by subjects in the pretended defence of religion and liberty. By name, unto the reverend and learned divines which pleaded Scripture and reason for defensive arms. The author of the Treatise of monarchy. The author of the Fuller answer his reply. By H. Fern D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F799; Thomason E74_9	75,846	101

against misimployed agents and from the taking of those armes to make this resistance they conceive they are not debarred by His being Supreaeme Head and Governour but are enabled to it by a supposed reservation of the people and by the necessity of the States preservation requiring such a power of resistance in Subjects upon which grounds their Reasons for resistance doe mainly proceed I shall therefore so frame this tryall of Reason to which we are now come as it may best meet with the force of their Reasons and Exceptions I. It was the wisdome of God to put his people still under Kings without power of resistance as we found it in the two former Sections and that wisdome of God should be to us in stead of the most forcible Reason and silence all gainsaying pretences II. If this power of Resistance in Subjects were so necessary for the preserving of Religion and Justice as is pretended certainly the word of God would have given direction for it but as in the Old Testament we no where finde the Prophets calling upon the Elders of the people sin th●● supposed d●●y of resistance so in the New Testament we every where finde patience in suffering for well doing no mended to 〈◊〉 This Author of the Treat of Monarchy doth often admire the wisedome of the Architects of this Government that so provided for the safety of it by placing such power of Armes and resistance in the two Houses but we doe not find such a provision within that wisdome and care which it pleased God to shew in the Government he put his people under nor would we indeed finde such a power of forcible resistance provided in the constitution of this monarchy when we examined it above III. From the Institution and Ordinance of God which gives the power according to the Apostles argument who drawes his reason against resistance not from any Compact of the people but from the Ordinance of God which cannot be E●uded by any reservation of the people the pretended ground of resistance but shewes the power given by it must be borne with though abused as then it was when the Apostle gave his reasons against resistance IIII. To be Supream and next to God over the people or to have the power of the sword implyes a security from resistance It is the Ius Regis which Calvin and most Authors acknowledge upon 1 Sam. 8.11 and is expressed Prov. 30.31 A King against whom there is no rising up It is generally acknowledged that Princes which be supreame are free from the Coactive power of the Law It is apparent that resistance cannot be made by Subjects but by taking the power of the Sword which belongs to him that is supream Lastly it is evident in reason that if the two Houses be enabled to resist and constraine the Prince by force to his duty then have they the power of the Lacedaemonian Ephori which as this Author of the Treatise of Monarchy acknowledges does overthrow the Soveraignity of the Monarch The generall exception which the Adversaries make to these two last Reasons is that they resist not the Soveraigne power but only misimployed instruments and fellow Subjects executing his illegall commands Answ As if the Soveraignes could by himselfe execute his Commands without under Ministers of power so that the resisting of them acting by the power which he has committed to them is a resisting of him And such a resistance as is supposed in the Question necessarily proceeds to an opposing of Him personally in giving of Him Battell and forcing of Him from His Right and Power to new grants of Security In particular This Author of the Treat of Monarchie thus reasons from the Ordinance of God To Resist such misimployed Instruments is no resisting of the Ordinance of God for it neither resists the Person of the Soveraigne for we spake of resisting his Agents nor His Power for the measure of that in our Government is the Law therefore He cannot confer Authoritie to any beyond the Law page 52. Answ I would desire this Author to looke againe upon the two Assertions of the Reverend Divines which he rejects page 63. They run thus Those Govern urs whether Supream or others who under pretence of Authoritie from Gods Ordinance disturb the quiet peaceable life in Godlinesse and honesty are far from being Gods Ordinance in so doing also This Tyranny not being Gods Ordinance they which resist it even with Armes resist not the Ordinance of GOD and then to consider whether those D●vines might not in desence of those Assertions answer as he has done here that to resist the misimployed Agents of Tyrants commanding against Law is not to resist the Ordinance of God for they cannot confer Authoritie to any against the Law for my part I cannot conceive how he can retaine his own Assertion and reject theirs But to Answer him more particularly He that beares the Sword i. e has the supreame power gives power and Commission to under Ministers for executing of Justice and to other Officers for the Militia If those therefore though abusing the Power be resisted by them who are under them it is a resisting of the Power and if these in time of Warre and insurrection being drawn together by the Soveraigne and acting His Commands under Him be opposed by contrary force and armes of Subjects it is a resisting of the power lawfully placed in such persons though illegally used and imployed it is a taking and using of the sword to the shedding of blood with u Warrant The defence which this Author makes pag. 62 of their taking the sword without the Soveraign● and against his Comman● is grounded upon that former groundlesse suppos●ll of their being joyned with the King in the Soveraign power it selfe of which a●undantly in the 4th and 5th Sections above V. Because Obedience Honour and Su●j●ction ●ue to a Ponce are enjoyned and th Contrary forbidd●n without any ●●stincti●n o● a Good or Bad P●ince S● Paul shewes that h●ill must n●t he spoken of the worst Rulers Act. 23. What is ●aesars ●u● Saviour bids give unto Caesar when he was as bad as m●ght be and for this Cause pay you Tribute and Honour saith S. Paul when the higher powers were extreme●y evnd This cannot consist with taking Armes against a Prince for they that doe so must speake evill of H●m make Him appeare O 〈◊〉 to His people and will not cannot let Caesar have what is His His Revenues Customes Tribute Armes but w●ll tell Him they are not His but the King fomes to use as the State shall thinke sit when he abuseth them And as the Scripture doth not so not her doth our Law make any d●stinction of good ●●d bad Princes in this poynt It enjoynes Honour Subjection Allegiance Customes without any such distinction and determin●s Insurrection and Levying of Warre to be Treason not onely against a good King but indefinitely against any VI. It is good reason that