Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	due_a	due_n	tribute_n	1,735	5	10.7337	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35998	The vnlavvfulnesse of subjects taking up armes against their soveraigne in what case soever together with an answer to all objections scattered in their severall bookes : and a proofe that, notwithstanding such resistance as they plead for, were not damnable, yet the present warre made upon the king is so, because those cases in which onely some men have dared to excuse it, are evidently not now, His Majesty fighting onely to preserve himselfe and the rights of the subjects.	Diggs, Dudley, 1613-1643.	1643 (1643)	Wing D1462; ESTC R10317	134,092	174

as unto them that are sent by him Deodate expresses it very fully in his Italian translation Siate adunque suggetti ad ogni Podestà criata dagli huomini per l'amor del signore al Rè come al sourano ed a governadori come a persone mandate da lui That wee may not mistake he tells us that by Power or Ordinance is meant Persons endued with power ad ogni Podestà is sayes he in his glosse upon the place a Principi Magistrati Rettori created by or amongst men dagli huomini o fra gli huomini per la conservatione e condotta della società humana Jude when he condemnes despisers of dominion and such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speake evill of dignities v. 8. meanes to commend to us the same duty which Paul taught us out of the law which is free from all ambiguity and concludes for the persons When Ananias the high Priest whose duty was to judge after the law commanded him to be smitten contrary to the law he as was supposed by them in passion returnes ill language and being justly rebuked by the by-standers he confesses he ought not to revile the Priest though he did evidently abuse his authority much lesse ought he to strike againe with pretence of honouring his authority but not being bound to submit to his personall commands contrary to the law I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest for it is written thou shalt not speake evill of the Ruler of thy people Act. 23. 5. St Paul was unacquainted with this subtility which allowes to speake evill nay to make hostile resistance against men in authority so they professe to honour the authority of those men It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Master Burroughs his personall strength not any legall power which is resisted if he doe any thing against law and this sayes he is not forbidden we may resist men though not powers wee must not be subject to will but to law p. 113. His mistake lyes in this that he thinkes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power signifies the right and honest use of authority whereas it signifies the right to use his authority whether well or ill 't is all one to us for matter of submission to it either by obedience or patience because no resistance can be lawfull for want of a superior jurisdiction by which onely wee can be enabled to call him to an accompt for his actions The truth of this is made evident in Joh. 19. 10 11. Pilate faith unto him knowest thou not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have power to crucifie thee and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have power to release thee Jesus grants it and answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. thou couldest have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore are meant persons invested with authority The reason which made Paul call Magistrates by the Abstracts Powers was this he wrote to Christians living in the Roman Empire and it was the custome of the Latine Language to call persons endued with power potestates by the name of powers You may observe it in Vlpian l. quid sit D. de Aedil edict § 19. and in Augustine epist 48. who saith sive potestas veritati favens aliquem corrigat laudem habet ex illa qui fuerit emendatus sive inimica veritati in aliquem saeviat laudem habet ex illà qui fuerit coronatus Mark that potestas inimica veritati this must needs signifie a man abusing his authority And in Juvenal An Fidenarum Gabiorumque esse potestas and in Suetonius Jurisdictionem de fidei commissis quotannis tantum in urbe delegari magistratibus solitam in perpetuum atque etiam per provincias potestatibus delegavit The moderne languages Italian and French which were bred out of the Latine retaine the ancient use of speaking for potestat in French and podestà in Italian expresse not the function onely but the person which manages it Thus anciently the Latine word for a Justice of peace who now is called justitiarius was justitia as you may find in Glanv lib. 2. cap. 6. and Roger Hovedens Annals so our King is called in the abstract Majesty as the Grecian Emperours 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many ridiculous consequences flow from hence but I list not to make sport with that unhappy distinction which hath almost ruined as flourishing and strongly temperd a Kingdome as any in the Christian world It exposes Magistrates and all in authority to the contempt and injuries of the baser sort of people For when discontented it is very obvious for them to tell them a reverence is indeed due to their function therfore that they setting their office aside will take liberty only to kick their persons and that the Magistrate is not at all affronted though the man be soundly beaten It is against common sense to put such a difference betweene the person and the authority of the King for if it were reall neither God nor the Lawes of the Land have made any provision for the Kings safety for His authority is not capable of receiving any benefit and therefore it must be acknowledged by all sober and reasonable men that His authority doth but convey such and such priviledges upon the person who onely can be sensible of them and consequently whatever is attempted against his person is attempted against his authority likewise Another cavill is taken from these words in Rom. 13. For Rulers are not a terror to good workes but to the evill wilt thou then not be afrayd of the power doe that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same For he is the minister of God to thee for good Their Argument is framed thus A Magistrate is the Minister of God for our good therefore he which is not a Minister for our good is no Magistrate and to resist him is not to resist the ordinance of God which instituted Rulers for the peoples happinesse but the faults and exorbitances of men which endeavour to rob them of the blessings of divine providence orderly government and to make them bow downe under the heavy burdens of an arbitrary sway Their conclusion contradictory in it selfe is plainly this A bad Magistrate is no Magistrate as being a terror to good works and giving praise to the evill contrary to Saint Pauls definition of Rulers and therefore no honour is due to him no resistance is forbidden Answ The example of Christ commanding them to pay tribute to Caesar as his due the end of which was that he should mind their good though he neglected that duty and his acknowledgment of Pilates power or right to judge though he exercised it to the condemnation of the innocent and Saint Pauls confession that notwithstanding the high Priest commanded him to be smitten illegally which in their language was abuse of will not power yet hee

the observations pag. 17. and again pag. 18. in answer to the 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. The King is supreme head unto whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of people are bounden and owe next to God a naturall humble obedience wee must not understand this that the body politique doth owe obedience but that the severall sorts and degrees of people of which this body is compacted and made that they doe owe obedience for to take it otherwise were to make an absurd and impossible construction c. If every particular man performe his duty of alleagiance as he stands obliged by oath let him oppose his met a phisicall body to the King even as he pleases If the body politique have not sworne allegiance or supremacy because it is a body only in consideration of law that hath neither life or motion like other invidualls p. 17. and for the same reason doth not owe homage and obedience p. 18. How is it capable of rebelling against the Head for it cannot fight but by the hands of particular men and all these are tyed up by divine law and their owne oathes 3. They acknowledge themselves his subjects as united in Parliament and if they should deny it they could not challenge any benefit from his royall protection 4. The lawes intrust him not the Houses to protect us 5. The Houses represent only subjects opposed to the King who is their superiour by humane and consequently divine law both as their naturall King and as Gods anoynted his representative 6. There is a great difference between the reall and representative all for though it were true as it is not that he were lesse then the whole people yet this would not bring the conclusion home to the Houses Who are the people only to such purposes as the law nominates viz. for consenting to Lawes or Taxes upon the Subject To all other purposes wherein Regall power is not expresly limited the King is the whole people and what he doth is legally their Act. Aristotle tells us of some Kings that had as full right over their whole realme as a popular state can have over it selfe and all things belonging thereto 3. pol. 14. To such an one that of the Tragaedian is truely and properly applyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are the whole City the whole Common-wealth and therefore not responsable for any actions This shewes the falsehood of their principles Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale and constituens est major constituto c. for though they meane to make advantage of them only in this Kingdome yet they conclude against the possibility of making any King absolute which reason and experience have clearely confused For a people if conquered their lives and all they have being then in the hand of the victor or if in feare to be swallowed up by a more potent enemy they may and often have very prudently consented to place all the legall power of the Kingdome in one man that he may thereby be enabled to protect them and where the legislative power is unrestrained there the rule is absolute To apply this doctrine In those things wherein the King of England is not absolute as in the exercise of his legislative power and raising money without consent The Houses together with him represent the people but in such matters wherein he is absolute that is wherein he is not restrained by lawes which are but limitations of Regall power there he is Populus Anglicanus legally the English Nation For example sake I will instance in the power of making Warre and Peace if any take up Armes by vertue of any other then his Commission they oppose not the King alone but the King and People as People is to be understood in law for their hands are tyed up and all their legall strength is in the Kings disposall Let us examine their Argument The whole people are above their King therefore the Houses because they represent them The Antecedent I have shewed false because the whole people are but such a number of Subjects who can have no colour of pretence to be above him whom God and the law hath placed over them The consequence is as infirme and the reason of it fallacious for if representatives might challenge all rights appertaining to the persons by them represented then a Jury shall be concluded as honourable as the House of Commons and then too because the Emperour of Germany may challenge of the King of France or England not superiority for they are as supreame and independent Princes as he is but praecedence an honour due to the antiquity of the Empire for nations as well as persons injoy the benefit of primo geniture his ambassadours also might sit above those Kings which the Court of honour guided by the law of nations and reason would pronounce very absurd Againe they represent the people only to some purposes to make warre is none of them The King alone can declare the peoples mind in this case they have no legall way of expressing themselves but in his Commissions and therefore the warre is not betweene King and People but so many particular persons exceeding the trust committed to them against the duty of allegiance oppose both King and People It is very remarkeable that in the begining of these unhappy contrivances some multitudes appearing in tumultuous wayes what ever they desired or did was called the Act of the People providing for their own safety But after the sense of miseries had bettered their understandings to make them discerne this unnaturall warre was not like to improve the meanes of preservation many of them make a Covenant to live peaceably and honestly amongst themselves so in Yorkeshire long since and lately between Cornwall and Devonshire and now the Houses interpose and will not permit the people who were stirred up and encouraged to raise a warre against law to make a peace according to law let them trouble the waters as much as they please they shall be borne out in it but they must not thinke of setling them till they have done fishing This would be a breach of Priviledge The People are now forced to defend themselves and their goods violently taken from them for their security who might soone be happy againe if their friends would be lesse carefull of their safety It is well knowne who began to appeale to the People withall my heart if law must be suspended let them arbitrate the differences The certaine way to know their judgement and whom they apprehend to be a reall defender of what both pretend our lawes and propertie and liberty and the established religion is to cease plundering of both sides and leave them to their naturall inclination That side which confesses it cannot subsist without using violence and oppression and forcing their estates from them acknowledges that the people whom they pretend to fight for is clearly against them and they