Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	know_v	see_v	1,774	5	3.0076	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44305	A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people.	Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676.	1668 (1668)	Wing H2604; ESTC R7940	125,044	140

by themselves And may as they see fit resume what power he hath for he is but their Servant and Vassal as he saith What can Protestant Princes expect but destructive doctrine from this hand and pen that hath written up Page 178. John Marian the Jesuite lib. 1. de Rege for one of his approved Authors as he calls them a reprobate Author amongst all good men is the man and his book commending regicide by any means is infamous in all Christendom however this man count of him as an approved Author and his spirit may be no lesse seen in that while he approves this man he hath set this mark on famous Bishop Andrews known in his time to be most adverse to Papists P. 423. Bishop Andrews saith he his name is a curse on the earth his writings prove him to be a popish Apostate What of his writings this man hath seen who can tell but all that the world hath seen of his writings prove him a great Antipopist and sound Protestant But to our purpose This civil Covenant 'twixt King and People is pleaded as that which is essential and fundamental to the constitution of all politick Societies and whereupon peoples both resisting the Prince and revenging themselves upon him is mainly grounded Yea Naph will have it to be a sufficient ground not only for the Proceres or Body of the people to proceed vindicatively against the King but in application to the Rebellion he intends to justifie for any private persons whatsoever if they be in probable capacity to do mischief without drawing mischief upon themselves and so out-stripes his master who gives not much to any private persons upon this account but to the States of the Land and inferior Magistrates with the Body of the people But as to the Covenant betwixt King and People both L. R. and Naph urge it as the ground for not only resisting but punishing Kings and all Magistrates when they account them Tyrants and will have a tacite virtual Covenant as valid for their ends as where it is express avowing it to be essentially fundamental in the constitution of all political Societies This brings to mind the folly of the man that would have all to be tyed in a Band that he had made aswell these who subscribed not as these who subscribed it But to be serious as to this matter we say 1. it is easily conceded that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects to mutual duties which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politick Body but this obligation arises not from any tacite or express Covenant betwixt them but from the Ordinance and Will of God enjoining them these duties in such relations in that Society wherein they are combined 2. That obligation though it be mutual in the relations they are in yet it is not conditional there is a mutual obligation to mutual duties betwixt Parents and Children but it is not conditional nor is there such a Contract or Covenant that if Parents be undutiful Children should be loosed from their duty or upon the contrary but Children are bound to be subject to their Parents without any condition or p●ction on their part only in point of obedience active Gods will is to be preferred to theirs and nothing is to be done contrary to Gods Will for their pleasure otherwise the subjection is not conditional but absolute So also peoples obedience to Kings properly and truly so called is not conditional si meruerint nor is the duty of the King to them conditional si meruerint but each of them is absolutely bound to do duty in their own relations wherein they are one to another the obligation is absolute salva Deo obedientia Reverend Mr. Calvin speaks home to this purpose lib. 4. inst cap. 20. S. 29. preventing an objection against obeying wicked and tyrrannous Magistrates At mutuas inquies subditis suis vices debent praefecti Id jam confessus sum verum si ex eo statuis non nisi justis imperiis rependenda esse obsequia insulsus es rationator nam Viri Vxoribus Liberi Parentibus mutuis officiis astringuntur c. He sayes that albeit Parents discedant ab officio c. depart from their duty and exceedingly provoke their Children to wrath and Husbands use their Wives reproachfully whom they ought to entertain kindly yet improbis inofficiosis subjiciuntur Vxores Liberi And he adds there gravely that inferiors should not so much inquire into the duties of their superiors as every one should search what is their own duty and no think themselves disoblieged from their duty because the other bound to do duty to them is therein deficient this is Christian divinity indeed As the Magistrate is not to think the performance of his duty is dependent upon the condition of the Subjects doing their duty So neither are the Subjects of a lawful King to account themselves bound only conditionally to him if he do his duty 3. The fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People as they use to call it equivalent to all ends that an explicite and express Covenant can have overthrows the distinction that all sound Protestant Divines and Polititians make betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince or one who is integrae Majestatis who takes not his Kingdom upon conditions prescribed to him so as in case of failing he be subject to their censure or punishment Est alius principatus absolutus saith Rivet Ps 68. p. 420. Est etiam alius sub conditione pacti conventi temperatus to that same purpose Gerhard de Magistrat p. 935. wherein they agree with Calvin lib. 4 inst cap. 20. art 31. But now this man is bold to say There is no absolute King that such a King is contrary to the Word of God L. R. p. 107. and herein he deserting our Protestant Divines sides with Bellarm. recognit lib. de laicis where he saith Inter principem subditos est reciproca obligatio si non expressa tamen tacita ut Magistratus potest subditos ad obedientiam vi illius obligationis cogere ita subditi possunt à Magistratu deficere si capita illius foederis transgrediatur Whereupon and the like speeches Gerhard in the foresaid place speaking asserts Totam horum similium argumentorum structuram uno impetu dejicit Apostolus Omnis anima Rom. 13. c. and sayes that Barclay Cunerus Albericus Gentilis Arnisaeus solide refutarunt have refuted solidly the arguments of the Antimonarchists as they have done indeed But as to an absolute Prince albeit this Statist sayes he is contrary to the word of God it is most untrue For as our Laws which this man cares not to contradict allows our Kings to be absolute in express termes Jam. 1. Par. 18. an 1606. Act. 2. So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince as our Laws and we understand him qui non sumit aut

cast up though it should be cut off to hold off a deadly stroke from the Head Ames Cas Consc lib. 5. cap. 7. Thes 14. In bonis temporalibus tenetur quisque personam publicam sibi ipsi praeferre bonum enim totius pluris faciendum est quam bonum alicujus partis And Lex Rex amongst many things wrong hath this which is right Page 335. I think saith he that a private man should rather suffer the King to kill him then that he should kill the King because he is not to prefer the life of a private man to the life of a publick man Thus he rightly however inconsonantly to his other Doctrines If the case come to be that the King is in manifest hazard of his life and that I a private man must either lose my life or he his life my self-preservation must cease for the publick good and I am to prefer his preservation to mine own But this man sayes Self-defence the question now is about violent self-defence as to the temporal life is a principal rule of righteousness whereunto the great command of love to our neighbour by Gods Law is resolved and whereby it is interpreted P. 14. therefore it is to be preferred to all duties to men according to this mans mind True it is there is a due order of our charity and love to men and our neighbours and true love to our selves is indeed the rule and measure of love to our neighbour we are first to love our selves and then our neighbour as our selves not as much but as truly and sincerely for it is not the quantity but the quality of love not equality but sisimilitude of love to our neighbour in proportion of that to our selves that is required But it is untrue that in the exercise of this love of our selves in self-defence or preservation of our bodies stands the principal rule of righteousness For there may be cases whereof some are pointed at wherein a man is bound to prefer the preservation of others to the preservation or defence of his own natural life and yet in so doing a man doth truly love himself more then others in doing his duty to others although with the loss of his own life and surceasing the defence of it se magis diligit ad finem suum ultimum as the School speaks In following his duty toward others and therein not defending his own life he loves himself best in regard of keeping the way to the enjoying of the universal and eternal good Ames lib. 5. Consc cap. 7. saith well Quamvis vita mea sit mihi magis conservanda quam alterius vita per se non tamen quam alterius vita mea virtus A man is rather bound to preserve another mans life in doing his own duty then his own life simply and in following his duty he preserves his best life though he lose the worst But too many are so much upon self-defence and preservation of the natural life by any means that in preserving their bodies they destroy their souls and so do not indeed love themselves so much and so orderly as they ought to do But the great knot of the question anent self defence is this whether meer private persons one or moe separatly or joyntly when they are or think themselves unjustly afflicted and extremly injuriously handled by the Magistrate or Supreme Power proceeding according to Laws agreed to betwixt himself and the body of the Community whither or not upon supposition that these Laws are not just and right may private persons defend themselves against the violence of the Magistrate thus proceeding even by violent re-offending yea in order to their own defence cut off the Prince or Magistrate whatsoever or their Ministers and Officers standing in their way or when they are punishing them and afflicting them according to Law This is the true state of the Controversie at this time and needless it were to run out upon what the two Martyrs as Napth calls them Page 27. Lex Rex the Book might have been better termed Exlex Exrex and the Apology hath set down tediously touching Scotlands defensive Arms as they call them What sense the people of Scotland when they have come to liberty have of these arms their late representative hath declared and it were to be wished that the memory of such ways might be so buried that the poster●ty might never look upon them as exemplary their progenitors have so deeply drunk of the bitter fruits of the same the result of them having been so much sin shame and sorrow vastation confusion and destruction to Princes and People This only shall be said that these Disputes of defensive Arms in both these Martyrs proceed as upon their main foundation upon most untrue and malitious misrepresentations of matters of fact all or most of the Arguments run upon false Hypotheses and bitter untrue refl●ctions on the late King As if 1. he had been the first invader of the Nation whereas it is known his Authority was first invaded his Laws troden upon his Proclamations openly despised his Castles violently seised illegal Tables and Courts set up his Subjects walking according to his Laws persecuted his Arms he took were not invasive against the Nation but defensive of his own Authority of his Laws and the persons of orderly walking Subjects and for reducing these who had strayed from their duty 2. They represent him in their virulent writings as Nerone ipso neronior a great persecutor of Religion intending the total ruine and destruction of the Protestant Profession and the total ruine and destruction of the whole people of the Land In a word as the immanest and most consummate Tyrant in the World upon such suggestions doth the plea for defensive Arms go But the World knows that that King lived and died a Protestant and not one either ignorant or formal or profane as too many alas are but having great knowledge of the truth ardent zeal for it and being exemplarly devote and to the great confusion of his enemies he laid down his life as a glorious Martyr for the true Religion of God and laws and Liberties of the people If there was any thing that could not have a favourable Interpretation in that unhappy Book that gave the rise to the troubles how timely was it retired and great satisfaction and security given for Religion If through default of Ministers of State any thing had creeped in that could not abide the test of Law how willingly was it reformed Yet all could not sist the begun course of violence till through Gods dreadful indignation against sinful people his fatal end might be brought on not because he had been a Tyrant but because he had not been such But I am sensible of a digression The case now to be noticed is much different from what then was Then the Primores Regn● upon mistakes which since they have had opportunity to resent were unhappily engaged in opposition